Luke 7:36-50
Each of the gospel writers records an anointing. Luke has his early in Jesus’ ministry, in Galilee; the other three place the (an?) anointing at the end of Jesus’ life, in Bethany in Judea. John is the only writer who names the woman – Mary – presumably Lazarus’ and Martha’s sister. Matthew’s and Mark’s accounts are quite similar and differ in a number of respects from John’s. All three differ substantially from Luke’s account, the one we are reading today. Scholars differ as to whether there was only one anointing or whether there were two (or three). But if there is any “correct chronology”, with Luke as our resident research historian, I would argue for two anointings – today’s and the one recorded much later in the other three gospels.
I’m wondering about Simon the Pharisee. Was he a Nicodemus-type “true seeker” or was he part of the Pharisaic effort to dispel this Messianic pretender? Evidently he was not a gracious host, having failed to offer Jesus water for His feet or to anoint His head with oil or to give Him a greeting kiss. These failures argue for the latter interpretation – that he was not a true seeker. Possibly he was somewhere in between, a rude host who was somewhat intrigued by Jesus? Simon does say to himself, “If this man were a prophet…?”, so it may be that he had some premonition that Jesus was more than a pretender.
This is now the second time that we have seen Jesus forgive sins. Forgiving sins is not like our forgiving one another for wrongs done. We saw earlier the Pharisees asking, “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Luke 5:21) How does Jesus’ forgiving sins early in His Galilean ministry square with our theology that it is through His substitutionary death on the cross that our sins are forgiven? In forgiving sins early in His ministry, is Jesus appealing to His Father to grant this forgiveness, through Him? This issue is way too deep for my complete lack of theological training! Others of you care to weigh in…?
See also: March 31 / Luke 7:36-50
It appears to me that this Pharisee invited Jesus to dinner, to see what he was all about. This Pharisee was anything but a believer. When the woman tended to Jesus, he said to himself “IF this man were a prophet…”
Because, after Jesus presented his parable, there is no mention of how the Pharisee reacted, I’m thinking he was unimpressed by the meaning, and was centered on the fact that the woman was a sinner, and that who does this Jesus think he is – to be telling a sinner like her that her sins are forgiven?
It appears the Pharisees already had their minds made up about Jesus – a danger to the status quo, and nothing of what they expected the Messiah to be. Despite every miraculous thing that He did, it seems their resolve to discredit Him was further strengthened. I wonder what the conversation was over dinner, and upon parting, what this Pharisee said to Jesus…
Fred and Tom, you have brought out interesting points. Oh that I could have been a fly on the wall watching and listening. I see Jesus reclining too, sure changes the picture of The Last Supper too!
I was struck by Luke 7:47, one to whom little is forgiven, loves little. Hmm, when God forgives, He forgives everything, He isn’t stingy. So who is this with “little forgiven”? I don’t think it is anyone who sins less, because we are all sinners and God sets no hierarchy on sins. I read this verse as people who don’t see their need for forgiveness. There’s that pride sneaking in, thinking we are “holier than thou” and missing God’s true standards. Those Pharisees whose hearts were hard, ours when we are judgmental, when we refuse to forgive others. Ouch!
Note also in Luke 7:37, that the love follows the forgiveness, not the other way around. That is, she loved much because she was forgiven much; it was not that she was forgiven because she managed to “work up” a better level of love first. And that goes to say that the woman already knew/believed that she was forgiven, well before Jesus pronounced forgiveness on her specifically.
The Pharisee’s view of God, apparently, is that He is quick to condemn, and so he (the Pharisee) is himself also quick to condemn — yet he fails to recognize his own faults. The woman, on the other hand, aware of her own sin, knows that God is One who is eager to remove our transgressions from us as far as the east is from the west. (Ps. 103:12) May we likewise find God’s heart, accept His forgiveness, and readily forgive others.
I have been cogitating about Luke 7:47 where Jesus forgives the woman’s sins. It just seems to me that if Jesus could have forgiven mankind’s sins without his death and resurrection, the Father would not have put Him through that. So, perhaps Jesus is forgiving sins during His lifetime, but these acts are not perfected, so to speak, until his resurrection. Kind of like an Amazon pre-order – the woman’s name is on the list with delivery when available. Or something like that.
I think you are headed in the right direction, Lou, and that goes toward addressing the questions Fred raised in the last paragraph of today’s post. I think we sometimes get too hung up on some points of chronology (e.g., how Christ’s death and resurrection in the first century can have any effect on those who came before) and even on what constitutes “the Gospel”. And we forget that Christ was slain “from the foundation of the world” as many translations of Rev. 13:8 put it (though the ESV puts that qualifier on the writing of names in the book of life, rather than on the slaying of the Lamb) and that the Creator of time is not constrained by time.
Likewise, as I have said in other comments on RTB, our “modern Western Evangelical” condensation and packaging of “the Gospel” into things like “The Four Spiritual Laws” or “The Bridge Illustration” miss the mark. Those tools are useful and certainly present core truths, but I don’t think they quite match “the Gospel” that Jesus preached. Primary evidence for my position on that is that Jesus sent His disciples out to preach “the Gospel” on multiple occasions well before His death and resurrection, but they clearly did not understand much about that death and resurrection before it happened, and hence they must not have been preaching a message centered on His sacrificial death. I think, instead, that “the Gospel” they preached must have been more about the core character of God (i.e., His love for us) and the arrival/presence of His Kingdom.
John, thanks. I agree that the gospel that Jesus preached in words was that the kingdom is near, all around, in the present. And in actions He “preached” God’s character.
Wow, some really great thoughts and points about today’s reading. Likewise I’m drawn to Luke 7:47 because I saw myself there and Debbie, you summed it up well. There was a time I didn’t want to be forgiven or didn’t think I needed to be forgiven – hard heart and judgmental. “Ouch” Indeed!!