One staple of American culture that seems to be lost on the current generation is that of gathering together for a meal. While many are attempting to bring us back to this cultural norm, it is still considered the exception rather than the rule. With soccer practice, band practice, gymnastics, etc. the American household has become a race to see who can be in the most places at once.
I never appreciated it as a kid, and I especially didn’t appreciate it as a teenager, but my mom regularly tried to get us to gather together for family meals. As we sat around the table, there was a bonding experience that took place while eating a meal together. It didn’t matter who was at the house, neighbors, cousins, or strangers, everyone was welcome to join us as we ate together.
As special as those times were, not every meal turned out to be a sitcom family dinner. I remember one time in particular when my cousin was staying the night. We were pretty close. He’d stayed on numerous occasions, and when he was at our house he was treated just like one of the kids. He had been there enough that my mom no longer showed special treatment just because he was a guest.
This particular evening I couldn’t tell you what we were having to eat, but I do know that it included mashed potatoes. In my household you ate what was on your plate or you went hungry. We weren’t expected to eat all of our food, but we at least had to try a little bit of everything. As the plates were set and the food was being passed around, my cousin tried to pass on the mashed potatoes. When questioned by my mother, he informed her that he didn’t like them. As most mothers would do, she pressed him to try some.
The conversation went back and forth for a while with him saying he didn’t like them and her telling him to try them anyway. Finally, after some form of ultimatum, she persuaded him to take a bite. He scooped a small bit onto his fork. The fork no sooner entered his mouth and everything from the previous meal came back up and onto his plate. Dinner was over.
The nice family meals are great, but there are some things that will ruin any meal. This was likely the feeling of Simon the Pharisee when he invited Jesus to dinner at his house. We find the story in Luke 7:36-50.
There are other passages of scripture that closely resemble this passage in Luke. These other passage, found in Matthew 26, Mark 14, and John 12, tell of a time when Jesus entered the house of Simon the Leper in the town of Bethany. Much debate has surrounded these four passages trying to piece together the fully narrative. However, this account in Luke seems to throw a curveball at the whole thing. This has led many to determine that the account given here in Luke is a completely separate event that took place much earlier in his ministry.
First, note that the attitudes towards the woman were different. In the other three accounts the disciples are indignant about the waste of the perfume while in Luke the Pharisee questions Jesus’ authority because he fails to see the woman’s sin. The two women were different between these accounts. We are given no indication that Mary from Bethany had any sort of sinful stigma about her, yet in Luke’s account the woman’s sin is central to her identity.
by Peter Paul Rubens
The timeframe in which the two events take place are different. The other accounts take place near the end of Jesus’ ministry. We know this because he makes direct reference to the woman preparing him for burial. Luke’s account, however, takes place early in Jesus’ ministry. This is evidenced by the Pharisee’s interactions with him. If you’ve read much of the scriptures, you know that late in Jesus’ ministry the Pharisees were plotting to kill him, but this Pharisee invites him to dinner. You might say he was trying to set up a trap, but he goes on to give him a level of respect by calling him teacher. However, he also doesn’t give Jesus some of the basic courtesies offered to dinner guests. This leads us to conclude that it likely took place after Jesus had gained some credibility as a teacher but before the Pharisees decided that he needed to die.
Finally, the locations between the two events are different. Luke’s account takes place in Galilee while the others are said to be in Bethany which is in Judea. Many of us have grown up hearing these stories intertwined together, but looking at what the scriptures say, it seems clear that these are two distinct events that share only a handful of similarities.
Turning our attention specifically to Luke’s passage, we find Jesus, as was the custom in the day, reclining at the table in the house of Simon the Pharisee. If you’ve watched Passion of the Christ you likely saw how Jesus invented the chair, but the truth is that it was customary to recline at the time with one hand free and your feet behind you. Also, due to Jesus’ status, as was the custom, this event would be open to the community. The door would remain open, and those that wished to hear the rabbi teach were permitted to enter and sit at the edge of the room.
Among the crowd that had gathered sat a woman whom many considered to have led a sinful lifestyle. Many have speculated that he sin was that of an adulterous nature, but the scripture doesn’t go into any more detail than to call it sinful.
Taking advantage of this open door meal, the woman proceeds to wash Jesus’ feet with her tears. As touching and sweet as this action is, it was viewed by those gathered as inappropriate intimacy. It’d be the equivalent to someone walking into the room and repeatedly kissing the neck of the person sitting next to you.
Given the social inappropriateness of the woman’s actions, it is no surprise that Simon the Pharisee reacted as he did. This woman, while also a guest in his house, had ignored the social norms refusing to sit quietly along the walls. Given her actions as well as her colored history, I’d say many of us would have shown disdain for her just as Simon did.
It is at this point, seeing the reaction of Simon the Pharisee, that Jesus begins to tell him this parable. As indicated earlier, Simon’s response to Jesus, “Tell me, Teacher”, does not portray a Pharisee that has set out from the beginning to undermine Jesus. Rather, this is a curious man.
Jesus’ parable was not difficult for the people to understand. Lending and borrowing money was common place in the lives of the Jews. In that way it required very little explanation for those present. In comparison, the amounts of money owed are relatively small. Even the 500 denarii debt would have been less than the typical home loan. However, in the case of both, each was so utterly bankrupt that they were unable to repay the debt.
Jesus then poses the question to Simon the Pharisee, “which of them will love him more?” His understanding is revealed by his reluctance to answer and demonstrated by the “I supposed” preceding his answer. Simon clearly sees the point being made, but now Jesus will drive the point home.
There are three customs that were common when a distinguished guest was invited to dinner. First the host gave the guest a kiss. Second the host would provide water for the guest’s feet. Finally, oil was typically placed on the guest’s head. None of these were required, but they were considered to be a courtesy offered. Through Jesus’ dialogue, we see that Simon the Pharisee had not extended any of these courtesies to his guest, yet this woman kissed, washed, and anointed his feet.
Jesus uses the parable to contrast the sinful woman against Simon the Pharisee. By Simon’s own admission the one that was forgiven more would love more. While the formal greetings that Simon had neglected weren’t required, his failure to perform them stood in stark contrast to the woman’s actions. As Jesus alluded from his parable, the woman had been forgiven much more than Simon and thus she displayed her love more prominently.
There was no assumption on the part of Jesus as to the life of Simon the Pharisee. As a Pharisee, he would have been considered one of the righteous people in the land, but we know that none are without sin. Looking at this passage, it seems clear that Simon had drawn a hard line between himself and the woman. Clearly, compared to the number and level of this woman’s sins, Simon would be considered a saint, but Jesus did away with this idea. In his parable it was not the amount owed that was the issue. Both owed an amount that was beyond their ability to pay. The same is true for us today.
We need recognize that it is not the amount of bad found within us on which we should focus. Rather we need to place our focus upon the goodness of the one who holds the debt, God. It doesn’t matter how bad we are or aren’t when compared to others. Regardless of our pasts we all have a debt that we are unable to pay. True, some have debts greater than others, but since none of us are able to repay our debts, the amount isn’t of importance. The true point is the love and forgiveness offered by he who offers to pay our debt.