From the Times:
To Simon’s embarrassment He compares him with the woman. He is a guest in Simon’s house, but common courtesies have not been observed: there has been no kiss of welcome, no opportunity for Him to wash His feet, no anointing of his head. The woman, on the other hand, has bathed His feet, even with her tears, and has kissed and anointed them. The immediate lesson is not that she is forgiven because of this great outpouring of affection. Forgiveness is not a reward for making a display. It’s the other way round. Jesus concludes that the display reveals that she must have been forgiven already; forgiveness had released the display of love: “Her many sins must have been forgiven her, or she would not have shown such great love.” Whereas Simon, all stiff and correct, who had been forgiven little, had shown little love.
What lessons might this episode have for us? There is a lesson about not judging too swiftly. Simon had dismissed the woman out of hand, but then had been found wanting in comparison with her. There is a lesson, too, about the way, when people receive forgiveness, they are freed to love more deeply. And there is a lesson about sexual maturity. The whole scene is highly charged. Jesus’s feet are kissed and caressed and wiped with this woman’s hair. Was He aroused? How extraordinary if He were not. And if we find the question offensive, what does that tell us about ourselves and our understanding of Him and sexuality? Jesus appears to have been completely at ease. Whatever was sexual in this meeting was integrated maturely into the relationship. And the woman’s behaviour was more than sexual display. Of course, it was sexual, but not sexual only. It had matured into love and it showed that she was free.
To make the transition between the two paragraphs requires an assumption that Jesus sees the woman as a sexual object. To those whose preoccupation is with sexuality, this is an easy jump. However, the gospel presents this as a lesson in the healing that flows from forgiveness. The moment may be highly charged, but it is not a sexual encounter.
Ralph M.
In reading this I was reminded of the old joke about the man who goes to the psychiatrist. The psychiatrist shows the man ink blot afer inkblot. The man has the same response to every one. ” It looks like two people having sex”. The psychiatrist then tells the man ” You are preoccupied with sex”. The man replies with indignation ” Well you’re the one showing all the dirty pictures”.
You know, it’s so interesting that in the avid sexualization of the culture — the extension of the propriety and moral acceptability of sex outside of marriage — that the concepts of human love for one another, and the normal expressions of affection or the extraordinary expressions of worship and admiration and submission have basically become trivialized and subsumed into sexual expression.
Here’s a woman who is “with her body worshipping” the living God . . . every fiber of her being is engaged in expressing the deep love, gratefulness, and adoration she has for Jesus Christ . . . and this man has the audacity to state that it would be extraordinary for Jesus to not be turned on.
Actually . . . it would be extraordinary if he were. I’ve been in situations that were matters of life and death — highly significant, and deeply basic to human survival — as had happened to this woman — and the Very Last Thing On One’s Mind is the seeing of the giver as a sexual object. Sex is the last thing on one’s mind.
‘This man’ is an utterly, utterly orthodox RC, himself completely celibate. He’s uttering a thought. It may or may not be right. What it most certainly is not is the product of a brain crazed by the rampant sexuality of a decadent contemporary culture.
From the article: Jesus concludes that the display reveals that she must have been forgiven already; forgiveness had released the display of love: “Her many sins must have been forgiven her, or she would not have shown such great love.â€
What version of the Bible is the author using? I’ve just searched out quite a few and have not found this wording for Luke 7. The common wording is similar to that of the ESV which phrases it i the present tense:
44Then turning toward the woman he said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. 45You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not ceased to kiss my feet. 46You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment.
47Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven–for she loved much. But he who is forgiven little, loves little.” 48And he said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”
49Then those who were at table with him began to say among themselves, “Who is this, who even forgives sins?” 50And he said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”
(emphasis and passage breaks added by me for the sake of the post)
Putting it in the past tense (“Her many sins must have been forgiven her, or she would not have shown such great love.â€) takes away from the conclusion of Jesus being able to forgive sins.
36Now one of the Pharisees invited Jesus to have dinner with him, so he went to the Pharisee’s house and reclined at the table. 37When a woman who had lived a sinful life in that town learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee’s house, she brought an alabaster jar of perfume, 38and as she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them.
39When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is—that she is a sinner.”
40Jesus answered him, “Simon, I have something to tell you.”
“Tell me, teacher,” he said.
41″Two men owed money to a certain moneylender. One owed him five hundred denarii,[d] and the other fifty. 42Neither of them had the money to pay him back, so he canceled the debts of both. Now which of them will love him more?”
43Simon replied, “I suppose the one who had the bigger debt canceled.”
“You have judged correctly,” Jesus said.
44Then he turned toward the woman and said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. 45You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet. 46You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet. 47Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little.”
48Then Jesus said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”
49The other guests began to say among themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?”
50Jesus said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.”
This to me shows more about the observer’s heart than anything else. If one is drawn to lust, then he sees the sexual aspect and objectifies the woman, other passages comment about the extravagant nature of the anointing of Jesus with expensive perfume (greed?). Jesus sees grace and a heart changed by mercy.
I don’t doubt that Jesus was tempted in the same way as me, including lust, but it is a stretch to assume from this passage that this was one of those times.
To the man with a hammer, all the world’s a…thumb.
This is agenda driven piffle. This doesn’t deserve space here. The scene itself is important. His commentary is too slanted for the time taken to read it.. His “arousal” conclusion rests on no evidence whatsoever. This is TECnology. He says is so because he wants it to be so. LM
Larry Morse,
This looks like agenda driven piffle to me too. It isn’t, however, TECnology, as Roderick Strange isn’t a TEC anything. He’s an English Roman Catholic priest. Scholasticus says he’s particularly orthodox. I am not sure of that point. Regardless, I don’t think its fair to blame his scriptural interpretation on us.
#9. Beg pardon. I recant. LM
RE: “’This man’ is an utterly, utterly orthodox RC . . . ”
No, JS, you’ve claimed that before about people. You and I do not define the word “orthodox” in the same way. This is unsurprising, since you and I do not define the words “gospel,” “Jesus”, “scripture”, “sin”, and a host of other words in the same way either.
RE: ” . . . himself completely celibate” . . .
This has absolutely zip to do with my thesis, which to repeat, is this: “You know, it’s so interesting that in the avid sexualization of the culture—the extension of the propriety and moral acceptability of sex outside of marriage—that the concepts of human love for one another, and the normal expressions of affection or the extraordinary expressions of worship and admiration and submission have basically become trivialized and subsumed into sexual expression.”
One may be “celibate” and still fall in to that cultural trap. And indeed, it appears that he has.
There once was a priest called Rod
whose grasp of Scripture was odd;
and though Rome was his range,
he was still somewhat Strange –
you’d think he’d be closer to God!
There came a reply from Roderick:
‘I’m as orthodox as Theodoeric! *
He sided with Rome,
though it was never his home –
I guess you could call me a moderick!’
* Theoderic I, King of Visigoths, 419-451
From heaven sighed St Bede:
‘Now this is all I need!
I labored long in Jarrow,
but he’s plowed a different farrow –
have English Catholics gone to seed?’
No, only Anglicans go to Seed,
to Father Michael*, who indeed,
for those swim the Tiber
from a church of fraying fiber,
he purveys a firmer creed.
Fr Michael Seed, English RC ‘priest to the stars’, said to be converting Tony Blair. Bound for heaven himself?
#15: ‘for those WHO swim the Tiber’
Sarah,
As I made clear, I left the validity of his particular interpretation open – I just wasn’t concerned with it (if you want to know, I think it’s loony). I stand by my claim that he’s orthodox (and nothing he said here goes against THAT). He publishes regularly in the London Time religious slot and I read him regularly. He’s orthodox. This judgement is not a matter of prejudice: simply of observation, combined with his position: he’s an RC apparachik.
Well, he’s still using an inferior translation of the Scriptures. He should be held in suspicion for that, if nothing else.
The Gordian wrote a ‘rick,
Which is not a simple trick.
Though some gunpowder plot
Over a church tied in a knot,
What’s needed is a “mick”.
Sounds like a couple of someones got hold of a book of limericks to inspire them!