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
0 comments:
Post a Comment