Who are you -- Conclusion

Those amazing words “Your sins have been forgiven.” Not the evasive and evaporating forgiveness of self – or the rationalizing obscure feeling of trying forgiving each other.

The confusion and question of Simon and his friends echo through the centuries --“Who is this man who even forgives sins?” It would seem, sadly, that Simon never was able to answer that question. Why a sinful immoral woman could find the way, yet a learned man could not, are both great mystery, and a revealed truth. How can something so wonderful be hidden to one, yet revealed to another? – Shadow and fantasy to one – yet Truth and Life itself to another. The same Jesus is seen by the woman and the man, yet one sees Christ and the other a devil – One sees hope and salvation, the other sees only a man to be rejected and reviled.

The woman knew little about theology, philosophy and reason and yet was able to grasp the deepest and highest of knowledge – all she knew was that she had no where else to go – she was tired of the abyss and Jesus offered her a way out. Simon, was content with who he was, believed he had the system figured, and did not see himself in need of Jesus.

It would look as if it comes down one small word -- faith. Who do you have faith in? Simon and many other have their faith securely established in themselves or their systems of thought – even when it talked about God. The sinful woman – she had her faith in the person of Christ. I pray I come as simply as she– with as much abandonment, completely aware of my own un-re-payable debt. “And he said to the woman ‘Your faith has saved you; go in peace”’

To all who would come, fall at the feet of Christ, weep and hold on to him He would say “Your faith has saved you; go in peace”

We long for peace in our lives. We all want and long to hear those words that we are forgiven and have been given salvation – that peace is within our grasp. When Jesus made that freeing statement to the woman, Simon and guests thought Jesus was minimizing sin, letting the woman off and ignoring the law – He wasn’t. He knew that the cost of turning in compassion to the woman and speaking those words she so longed to hear. It would mean He himself would have to fulfill the law. Her forgiveness, Simon’s potential forgiveness, would be at the cost of His own life.

You see, Simon and Jesus agreed about one fact at the conclusion of that dinner. Simon was probably convinced, ‘this guy has got to die’ if I’m going to find peace – What Simon couldn’t know is that the very person he was convinced had to die – had come to do just that. Jesus knew He had to die.

You’ve probably heard it said that salvation and peace are both the simplest – and most difficult decision one will every make. We come full circle to the question we asked at the opening. Who are you? When all is stripped away what are you left with? The answer to that question can be – alone and wandering – but it can also be, that who I am when all is stripped away, is a Child of God and a friend of Jesus – and that is more than enough.

Anyway I was just thinking.

Neil

Who are you Part 4

It is probably accurate to assume our questionable woman had no remaining self-esteem. She wept on a man’s feet and wiped the dirt off with her hair. I want to take a slight rabbit trail. There is the inherent danger in the idea of self-esteem. It’s not that I don’t think self-esteem is important, I just believe it is a ‘second-best’ option. Self-esteem is your own personal value and is depended on being able to find something of worth and value from within – it depends on one’s ability to find it and to muster it up or on the skill of someone else to convince me it exists (a friend or paid professional). I don’t that my value is found in myself, or what I can prove to you. I don’t believe that we were created to have or find self-esteem. I believe that we were created to possess and be given something far greater --- God-esteem – A God gifted value. I am made in God’s image, not yours. You are made in God’s image, not mine. You are not obligated to live up or measured by anyone’s standard of value. Your value is not based on anything that you or anyone else can create – but on whom God has created and declared you to be – His son, His daughter. Whether you know – or able to ‘know’ it – it exists. All have value, because God says so. He seeks to enter into our being and close that Abyss bringing and offering His forgiveness so that we can realize that image.


That brings up another other issue for me. She does not come believing that she can and needs to find self- forgiveness. That just starts a cycle of self-justification. Self-esteem says, “I need to forgive myself. The only way I can find forgiveness for myself is by either denying the impact of what I’ve done, or what others have done to me. It is essentially setting me up as a god, even if only of myself (a very very small world). Somehow ‘I’ must possess the power, strength and authority to forgiveness, if only myself. I often ask ‘How is that working for you?’ Although I hear people say it all the time, it’s rarely with a conviction that I find convincing – it’s offered more in defiance than in the knowledge of true a peace and healing that comes with Christ’s forgiveness.

No, she was seeking forgiveness and acceptance from Jesus. Maybe she has heard Jesus declare forgiveness and seen the change that comes with it to others. Perhaps she knew, or knew of, the paralytic man that Luke 5 tells us about “my son, your sins are forgiven – arise, take your mat and go home’. Or maybe she was friends with the Adulterous woman who was brought before Jesus to be stoned, and he intercedes and says to that woman “where are your accusers, neither do I accuse you, your sins are forgiven…” Perhaps she stood at the fringes of the crowd and listened to Jesus on the mountain side and proclaim “blessed are the poor in spirit for they will inherit the earth”. Maybe she had just recently attend another dinner party one which Levi the tax collector had invited the sinners. One in which the roles were reversed. It was the sinners that where the invited guests, while the Pharisee’s watched and grumbled. If she had been at Levi’s dinner, she would have heard these words which fuel her wildly abandoned act “It is not those who are well who need a physician, but those who are sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (Luke 5:29).

She did not reject, defend or justify that fact that she was a sinner. She knew who she was – and it was that fact that she knew that she was able to find Jesus. She’s miles ahead of Simon – for Simon does not yet know who he truly is. For her the label ‘sinner’ was no longer a grave stone of death, but a signpost to hope. Sinners, she discovered have hope, and are wanted by God. They do not need to be buried underneath the crushing burden and loneliness of the abyss – but are invited to find forgiveness of their sins and enter into the light, into the family of God-- all who once where sinners.

Simon doesn’t get it – he is as lost and as great a sinner as she – he needed Christ every bit as much – yet his pride, his self-esteem, his sensibilities, his own belief hold him as prisoner – a captive to the very thing he declares makes him worthy and in control. She has no such preconception.

So without thought, but driven by love, gratitude and hope, she falls to her knees breaks open that vial of perfume – already weeping she washes his feet with her tears and wipes his feet with her hair. She commits the ultimate act of humility, servant hood and intimacy – total surrender of her own self-esteem. She gladly exchanges it for God-esteem. We have already seen Simon’s inner response. Jesus sensing this or knowing it – answers him

“Simon, I have something to say to you” -- the whole scene falls silent – no one breaths in fear of missing what is about to be said. The air is filled with that aromatic perfume. Jesus then tells a bizarre little story. I can almost see the confusion and bewilderment on Simon’s and his guests face.

Jesus says, “A man loaned money to two people—500 pieces of silver to one and 50 pieces to the other. 42 But neither of them could repay him, so he kindly forgave them both, canceling their debts. Who do you suppose loved him more after that?”

Simon’s not following - he’s not seeing himself and the woman in this little play. He’s not seeing the deeper point has very little to do with the amount of debt, and everything to do with the fact that ‘neither could repay’ – Simon and the woman owe a debt that neither of them could repay, both are equally debtors. In the story both debts are cancelled. For a poor man 50 pieces of silver might as well be 500. Once source suggested that 50 pieces of silver could be equivalent to six months wages for a good job. Anyway, it’s not the amount here that is important, though Simon believes it is, as is revealed in his answer “I suppose the one for whom he canceled the larger debt” You got to love the non committal tone of Simon’s answer “Um, I suppose….” He leaves himself wiggle room. But see the answer is again, not in the “sum being 50 or 500” of the debt, but in the perception of the debtor of what he owes. This is the difference between Simon and the woman -- she is undone by her awareness of her debt and her inability to repay – Simon is oblivious and believed he has no need. She obviously owes the great debt because she is a sinner, and he is not. But why then does Jesus answer as he does “You have answered correctly”. I believe the answer to be in ‘awareness’. What was the woman’s awareness of her debt, and inversely what was Simon’s awareness of his debt? Simon compared himself against the sins of the woman, therefore I’m not as bad as her, opposed the Holy and pure Sinless presence of God. Perspective is everything.

This is what separates and explains the acts of both this sinful woman and the righteous Pharisee – of his neglect and her abandonment, of his pride and her sorrow, of his arrogance and her great love, of her finding freedom and healing in forgiveness and his still being in captivity – of her emergence from hold the abyss – and his continued lost-ness in it.


Neil

Who are you Part 3

Jesus was certainly on the gossip list. We don’t know much about Simon the Pharisee, other than he had invited Jesus to dinner. We can only guess at Simon’s motivation. Not all Pharisees where antagonistic toward Jesus – some like Nicodemus where in fact searchers, although did so in secret. Jesus had become a notable figure, a ‘who’s who’. That the invitation was socially, politically and religiously motivated is not surprising. My assumption therefore is that how Jesus was greeted, or as in this case, not greeted, was a calculated decision to communicate something to the observers. We discover in this text that expected and long standing traditions were over looked. No basin was provided for Jesus to wash his feet, his head was not anointed, nor was he greeted with a kiss on the check. You can be sure the important religious leaders and guest where properly attended to. Not would have been scandalous.


Simon the Pharisee was a man who embraced and wore his title and position with pride. He was a man of minute detail, trained in religious and philosophical rhetoric and logic. Custom, tradition and ritual was his world – the slightest nuances did not escape his attention.

The action of not providing Jesus with the basin, anointing his head, with the scented olive oil, and the gesture of cheek kissing among equals would not have gone unnoticed – but would have created a palatable tension. A tell tale little phrase of Simon’s dubious opinion of Jesus is found in vs. :39 “…he said to himself, “If this man where a prophet He would know who and what sort of person this woman is who is touching Him, that she is a sinner”. Was Simon the Pharisee seizing a fortuitous opportunity to set Jesus up, where he could put this upstart Jesus in His place? This could get the people’s focus back on him as the authority on faith and religion. I think it’s highly likely Simon’s motivations were not honourable in nature.

There can be no doubt that Simon the Pharisee was highly sensitive to the fact that Jesus was a threat to him and his fellow religious leaders. Jesus was swaying public opinion; he had openly challenged the Religious Leaders on their turf – religious law and authority. People where following Jesus around. They were talking about Jesus trying to figure out who and what he was. For Simon religious power and position was his identity.

Jesus arrives, it would seem, after the other guests have taken their places. The observing crowd had already assembled. In that crowd was a woman perhaps just trying to blend in. Nobody would want to admit knowing her. If they recognized her, she would be scorned and ridiculed and likely ejected. We don’t know her identity other than she was publicly known as ‘Immoral, a sinner’. Some believe that she could have been Mary Magdalene. Perhaps, but it seems strange then that Luke, knowing who this Mary was did not name her. She’s not identified as a beggar or widow, or as ill – but simply by the label ‘sinner’. It is the obvious distain Simon has for her that gives us our clue “if he was a prophet he would know what kind of woman she was…” of what she did. The most obvious overtone is that this woman is a known prostitute. In Simon’s world, guilty by association was sufficient cause for rejection and scorn.

A major question I have is did she come prepared to do this? Personally, I doubt it. Again, we have no way of knowing other than if Simon had provided the customary service of washing Jesus feet and had greeted him with the respectful kiss and head anointing it would have changed the scene dramatically. What makes this so powerful is she provides what he neglects. She sees the slight that Jesus’ had been given as he reclines at his place at the table.

I think had she planned for it, she would have brought a little basin of water and a towel. The phrase she brought a beautiful alabaster jar filled with expensive perfume is potentially misleading – the text here translates the Greek word as ‘jar’, but it could as easily be “box or vial” - We think jar, we think big – it was probably the much smaller typical vial size that could be wore around the neck. I think this was impulsive, reckless and potentially disastrous move on her part. She had just placed herself and Jesus in jeopardy.

What motivates it? Once more, we’re just not told. But what we can gather from the scene is the deep abandoning and desperate nature of the behaviour. It is not unusual that she could have that vial of perfume on her. It would have been on a necklace about her neck –A common practice in those days. It was her nest egg – her future – her RRSP. Without banks, people had little option but to keep what items of value they might have on their person. Therefore, it would just have been with her as she slides into the crowed. What is equally interesting to me is how she may have come by it – again speculation, but not totally unlikely. Some possibilities are:

1. It was to have been her dowry – which would mean if it was in her possession, her parent had died and there were no brothers to provide for her. She was essentially alone.

2. It had been her husband’s – again, being that it is in her possession means he had died. If he had simply abandoned her, he would have taken it with him – however she is not identified as ‘widow’ – but sinner, but still a possibility.

3. One and two could still apply – with no source of income and anyone to care for her she may have had no alternative but to turn to this trade. She may have been able to earn enough through her trade to purchase it. However, I believe this to be unlikely. To choose this life was subsistence living. It was a life of rejection, abuse and poverty – the only upside was you didn’t die of starvation.

Whatever the case, this is a desperate, alone woman whose actions are ‘foolish and costly’. It is not something that she would be able to replace – likely equal to a year’s salary. Something so overwhelms her she cannot restrain herself – but why? We just don’t know. Perhaps she had witnessed a healing? Heard him speak? Somehow at the simplest level she believed she had no other choice and nothing to lose. What did she hope to gain? This for me is the most fascinating aspect. As far as I can see – only forgiveness and the answer to Nouwen’s question “does anyone love me for who I really am’. Jesus could answer that question for her. Her life was that deep Abyss – it’s all she could see – there was no hope, no escape – she was at the edge of her life with nothing left to lose – nothing to gain from the world around her, nothing of worth she could find in herself. When one believes they have nothing to lose, they make desperate decisions.


Neil

Who are you? Part 2

Luke 7:36-50

36 One of the Pharisees asked Jesus to have dinner with him, so Jesus went to his home and sat down to eat 37 When a certain immoral woman from that city heard he was eating there, she brought a beautiful alabaster jar filled with expensive perfume. 38 Then she knelt behind him at his feet, weeping. Her tears fell on his feet, and she wiped them off with her hair. Then she kept kissing his feet and putting 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 what kind of woman is touching him. She’s a sinner!”

40 Then Jesus answered his thoughts. “Simon,” he said to the Pharisee, “I have something to say to you.”

“Go ahead, Teacher,” Simon replied.

41 Then Jesus told him this story: “A man loaned money to two people—500 pieces of silver to one and 50 pieces to the other. 42 But neither of them could repay him, so he kindly forgave them both, canceling their debts. Who do you suppose loved him more after that?”

43 Simon answered, “I suppose the one for whom he canceled the larger debt.”

“That’s right,” Jesus said. 44 Then he turned to the woman and said to Simon, “Look at this woman kneeling here. When I entered your home, you didn’t offer me water to wash the dust from my feet, but she has washed them with her tears and wiped them with her hair. 45 You didn’t greet me with a kiss, but from the time I first came in, she has not stopped kissing my feet. 46 You neglected the courtesy of olive oil to anoint my head, but she has anointed my feet with rare perfume.

47 “I tell you, her sins—and they are many—have been forgiven, so she has shown me much love. But a person who is forgiven little shows only little love.” 48 Then Jesus said to the woman, “Your sins are forgiven.”

49 The men at the table said among themselves, “Who is this man, that he goes around forgiving sins?”

50 And Jesus said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”

The story of Simon and woman is likely familiar. You’ve had Sunday school lessons, or sermons, or perhaps read it in your own devotional time. It is a story that comes with some modern scholarship controversy. The story is similar to ones found in Matthew and Mark, with a man known as Simon the Leper. The Gospel of John, Chapter 12 has an account as well, but in that story, we know the woman is Mary, sister of Martha and Lazarus. There are the same core elements of a dinner party, a host named Simon, a woman with costly alabaster perfume (potentially more than a years wages), and those watching became indignant at both the behaviour and expense. However, there are some notable differences. Here are a few of the important differences. It is hard to reconcile the titles of ‘Pharisee’ and ‘Leper’. It’s not impossible but Luke makes no mention of this important fact, and as a Physician this would have been of particular interest for him. Additionally, had the Pharisee been a leper and was healed by Jesus, Simon the Pharisee’s response would have been much different. Secondly, the women are different – Mary in John’s account, is from respected and notable family – and would not be identified as a ‘Sinner or Immoral’ – and this is an important element here in Luke’s account. The dinner audiences are different. Luke makes no mention that the disciples are in attendance; neither the main participants, nor that Judas makes an issue of the money as in the other versions. In Matthew and Mark account, Simon the Leper has invited Jesus and the disciples as well in ‘Jesus’ honour’, which is quite different than Luke’s account where Jesus is not honoured. Lastly, there is the motivation of the anointing itself. For Matthew and Mark, the focus of the anointing is on his upcoming death. In our Lukean dinner, the anointing is on His feet is not in the preparation of Jesus for death, but in the complete brokenness and awareness of the woman’s sinfulness. It is an act of total surrender, faith trust and hope in the person of Christ. Obviously, looking back more than 2,000 years it’s difficult for us to with absolute certainty these are indeed separate events, but the internal evidence would strongly indicate that are different. In modern scholarship there is this tendency to group similar activities and believe they are the one and the same with different authors’ variations of the same event to communicate their purpose. There is no reason why there could not have been three or more events of Jesus being anointed by different women. This was not an unknown practice of respect and honour. And yes, that does occur, however, the reality is that Jesus did and said far more than the gospels contain. There are many healings – similar healings, parables, variations of repeated parables, miracles, teachings, encounters with people – sinners and religious leaders alike – all equally astonishing and provocative.

John 21:25 “Jesus also did many other things. If they were all written down, I suppose the whole world could not contain the books that would be written” I love the implications of this verse.

2000 years ago, there are no movies or T.V. for entertainment. People did not isolate themselves in their homes, but mingled in community. So one of the major sources of ‘entertainment’ to was to gate crash a hosted dinner party. News would travel fast that “so and so” of importance was hosting ‘what’s his name’ for dinner – and it was expected – in fact desired, that you’d have a crowd standing around you while you and your guests reclined in your inner court yard eating a very public dinner. The buzz through the crowd would have been “who’s there, who isn’t, what are they eating, who’s sitting beside who – What did they say? What was the question? Who answered??? All this was a set up to communicate wealth, brilliance, power and dominance. From there every detail would travel out about the ‘celebrity gossip’. It would be talked about all over the town. This sets up an amazing encounter that leads us to the very questions, “Who am I?” and “Who care?”

Neil

Who are you? Part 1

Who are you? I mean - strip away the pretense you have so carefully constructed and wrapped yourself in. Take away the titles, director, coordinator, manager, staff, client, employed, unemployed, whatever -- young, old, male, female, married, singled, divorced, abled, disabled– strip away your social/political identity, your psychological/emotional identity – remove what you project to others, or hope to project . Once all the labels and identifying markers that you or others have so carefully constructed are gone, at the very naked soul of it – who are you? You, the alone, inner – deepest part of you? Who are you left with – Nothing? Something? Uncertainty? Despair? Desperation? – Peace? Hope?

That question, of who we are in our inward parts, is one that most of us wish to either run from – or at moments desperately seek to discover – who am I? The most common response to that level of exposure is fear. It is like a brilliant light being turned on when you believe that you have safety and protection of darkness and anonymity. Have you ever had the thought? ‘If they only knew – me – what really goes on in this heart of mine, in this mind?’ What if they saw my weakness, my fears – those things said and done ‘in the dark?’ – I think it confronts us with our greatest fears of – being alone, abandoned – believing that we are unlovable.

Henri Nouwen stated the most basic of human questions are these.

“Is there anybody who loves me?

Is there anybody who really cares?

Is there anybody who wants to stay home for me?

Is there anybody who wants to be with me when I am not in control?

When I feel like crying, is there anybody who can hold me and give a sense of belonging?

Nouwen was a conundrum. He was a Catholic Priest and Harvard Scholar –a highly successful and sought after theologian, writer and Spiritual guide. Yet he openly struggled with deep cycles of depression and insecurities – with loneliness he deeply long for intimacy. Much of Nouwen’s writings revolved around this inner struggle of identification and meaning of self. He kept a secret journal for a very dark year and in it he writes “that was a time of extreme anguish, during which I wondered whether I would be able to hold on to my life…” I had come face to face with my own nothingness,…I could see nothing but in front of me but a bottomless abyss”.

He writes revealingly in a poem called “Work around Your Abyss”

There is a deep hole in your being,

Like an abyss.

You never succeed in filling that hole,

Because your needs are inexhaustible.

You have to work around it,

So gradually the abyss closes

Since the hole is so enormous,

And your anguish so deep,

You will always be tempted to flee from it.

There are two extremes to avoid:

Being completely absorbed in your pain

And being so distracted by so many things

that you stay far away

from the wound you want to heal.

I want us to leave those questions here for a moment, but keep them in the back of our mind. In the next blog, I want us turn our attention to a scene over 2,000 years ago, that I think speaks to the core of our being. In this scene I hope to uncover some answers to these deeply plaguing questions.

Neil