-------
Not To Pass On
Luke 7:36 One of the Pharisees invited him to eat with him. He entered into the Pharisee’s house, and sat at the table. 37 Behold, a woman in the city who was a sinner, when she knew that he was reclining in the Pharisee’s house, she brought an alabaster jar of ointment. 38 Standing behind at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears, and she wiped them with the hair of her head, kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment. 39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw it, he said to himself, “This man, if he were a prophet, would have perceived who and what kind of woman this is who touches him, that she is a sinner.”
40 Jesus answered him, “Simon, I have something to tell you.”
He said, “Teacher, say on.”
41 “A certain lender had two debtors. The one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. 42 When they couldn’t pay, he forgave them both. Which of them therefore will love him most?”
43 Simon answered, “He, I suppose, to whom he forgave the most.”
He said to him, “You have judged correctly.” 44 Turning to the woman, he said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered into your house, and you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head. 45 You gave me no kiss, but she, since the time I came in, has not ceased to kiss my feet. 46 You didn’t anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. 47 Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little.” 48 He said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”
49 Those who sat at the table with him began to say to themselves, “Who is this who even forgives sins?”
50 He said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you. Go in peace.”
Introduction
“. . . and I am not stupid.” These are the concluding words of seven boat owners seen some time back in a local commercial. One by one the owners gave their respective names and in each case say “. . . and I am not stupid.” Obviously, the intent is to show that the owners in question exercised good judgment in the selection of the boat purchased from a certain San Diegocompany. The company spokesman in turn promises forgiveness for those who have not been as wise, especially if they turn around and purchase a boat from the company. Would it not be a simple thing if forgiveness was merely the exchange of a few dollars and the choice of a particular water craft?
Perspective
Outside of commercials personal forgiveness is more difficult. Consider the case of Simon Wiesenthal as detailed in his autobiographical book, The Sunflower.[Simon Wiesenthal, The Sunflower: On the Possibilities and Limits of Forgiveness (rev. ed., Schocken Books, 1998).] The book is about his experiences while in a Nazi concentration camp. Being a Jew he details some of the horrific things he was required to do and of the suffering he and others endured at the hands of the Nazis. At the heart of his story is a question raised about forgiveness based on a situation Wiesenthal himself faced. He was taken one day from his prison work detail to the bedside of a dying Nazi
soldier. The man was 21 years old. He knew he was going to die and he convinced a nurse to find a Jew and bring him secretly to his room. Wiesenthal writes, I sat on the bed spellbound. I could not take my eyes off the stricken man and the gray-yellow stains on the bandages seemed to me to be moving, taking new shapes before my eyes. ‘I have not much longer to live,’ whispered the sick man in a barely audible voice.
‘I know the end is near’.... I was unmoved by his words. The way I had been forced to exist in the prison camps had destroyed in me any feeling or fear about death (26).
Several times Wiesenthal attempts to leave but the young man clings tightly to his hand so he is unable to do so. He listens as the young soldier recounts his family upbringing and then what has occurred since his entrance into the war. As a member of the SS the young man spells out the horror that he and others committed against Jewish people. In particular he is deeply troubled by one scene that recurs in his thoughts. After barrels of gasoline are hauled into a large building, several hundred Jews are forced inside. Then the structure is set on fire with orders given to shoot anyone who attempts to leave the building. The young man sees a father, mother and young child throw themselves out of an upper window and perish on the street. This the young man cannot forget. He feels it necessary to confess to a Jew as to what he has done and his sorrow for doing so. “I am left here with my guilt,’ he says, ‘in the last hours of my life you are with me. I do not know who you are, I only know that you are a Jew and that is enough.” Later on in his confession he says, “I know that what I have told you is terrible. Long nights while I have been waiting for death, time and time again I have longed to talk about it to a Jew and beg forgiveness from him. Only I didn’t know whether there were any Jews left.... I know that what I am asking is almost too much for you but without your answer I cannot die in peace” (54.).
However Wiesenthal can feel no pity. Wiesenthal says, “I stood up and looked in his direction, at his folded hands. Between them there seemed to rest a sunflower. At last I made up my mind and without a word I left the room” (55).
Wiesenthal concludes his portion of the book with these words:
Was my silence at the bedside of the dying Nazi right or wrong? This is a profound moral question that challenges the conscience of the reader of this episode, just as much as it once challenged my heart and my mind. There are those who can appreciate my dilemma, and so endorse my refusing to ease the last moment of a repentant murderer. The crux of the matter is, of course, the question of forgiveness. Forgetting is something that time alone takes care of, but forgiveness is an act of volition, and only the sufferer is qualified to make the decision. ... Ask yourself the crucial question, ‘What would I have done?’ (97-8).
Gregory Jones, in his book, Embodying Forgiveness, observes that there are several problems with forgiveness in modern western cultures.[L. Gregory Jones, Embodying Forgiveness: A Theological Analysis (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1995).] For one thing, forgiveness has become an increasingly marginal notion. Due to the emphasis on such factors as individual autonomy, the
attention given to isolated acts rather than character, and a fascination with technique, these elements have undermined Christian practices. Where individual autonomy reigns, little regard for what is good for a community suffers as a consequence. Moreover, Christianity’s history has shown erosion on the centrality of forgiveness. It is not just that those outside of Christianity have undervalued forgiveness, Jones believes that Christians have, too. Especially since the fourth century, the move away from placing forgiveness within a communal context has given way to individualized and increasingly privatized practices. Forgiveness has become more and more inward with the result being a private transaction between God and a particular person. In the earliest centuries forgiveness took place before the congregation so Christian understandings of God, Christ, ethics and the church were intertwined. An additional problem for forgiveness in our time, says Jones, is that Christians have increasingly secularized our own language. Outside worship and even sometimes within worship, non-theological language to describe the Christian life appears. Instead of the practice of
reconciliation, we talk of “managing conflict,” of “coping with difficult people,” and the like. Citing a statement from Theodore Jennings, Jones characterizes our culture as being caught up in “mental health moralism and therapeutic narcissism.”
Psychological language and practices have become more powerful than the language and practices of the gospel, not only in the whole culture but even in the Church. . . . We have substituted cheap grace for the costly grace of discipleship.”[This paragraph is indebted to Jones, 37-39.] Today’s scriptural text shows an alternative through the discourse and actions of a Pharisee, Jesus and a woman.
Luke 7:36-50
36“One of the Pharisees asked Jesus to eat with him, and he went into the Pharisee’s house and took his place at the table. 37And a woman in the city, who was a sinner, having learned that he was eating in the Pharisee’s house, bought an alabaster jar of ointment. 38She stood behind him at his feet, weeping, and began to bathe his feet with her tears and to dry them with her hair. Then she continued kissing his feet and anointing them with the ointment. 39Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw it, he said to himself, ‘If this man were a prophet, he would know who and what kind of woman this is who is touching him–that she is a sinner.’ 40Jesus spoke up and said to him, ‘Simon, I have something to say to you.’ ‘Teacher,’ he replied, ‘Speak.’ 41two debtors; one owned five hundred denari, and the other fifty. 42When they could not pay, he cancelled the debts for both of them. Now which of them will love him more?’ 43Simon answered, ‘I suppose the one for whom he cancelled the greater debt.’ And Jesus said to him, ‘You have judged rightly.’ 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 bathed my feet with her tears and dried them with her hair. 45You gave me no kiss, but from the time I came in she has not stopped kissing my feet. 46You did not anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. 47Therefore, I tell you hersins, which were many, have been forgiven; hence she has shown great love. But the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little.’ 48Then he said to her, ‘Your sins are forgiven.’ 49But those who were at the 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.’”
The immediate setting is a banquet at Simon’s house with Jesus in attendance.[Hellenistic homes had courtyards open to the street so those passing by could not only see in but could enter as well. According to M. Eugene Boring and Fred Craddock,” This made the entry of an uninvited guest less intrusive than it would have been in a modern Western home.” See their The People’s New Testament Commentary (Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 207.] The text is careful to note three times that the host is a Pharisee. Being that this account takes place in the home of a Pharisee one can assume that ritual purity is strictly observed. Into this home enters an unnamed woman who is described as “a sinner.” This woman has brought an alabaster jar of ointment. Apparently the meal is in the form of a Greco-Roman symposia with Jesus reclining on his left side, with his legs stretched out behind the person to his right. The woman begins to bathe Jesus’ feet with her tears and to dry his feet with her hair. Moreover she continued by kissing Jesus’ feet and anointing them with the ointment. All this activity by this intruder disturbs Simon. Her outrageous behavior is inappropriate. Luke reports that Simon said to himself: “‘If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what kind of woman this is who is touching him--that she is a sinner.’” What began as at least an open opinion with respect to Jesus on Simon’s part has led to his questioning of who Jesus really is. Evidently Jesus is not a prophet as Simon may have thought when the invitation to dinner was initially given! Even though the Pharisee had spoken only to himself, Jesus addresses him! “‘Simon,’ he said, ‘I have something to say to you.’” Perhaps Simon now recognizes Jesus as indeed a prophet for Simon responds with “teacher,” a term normally used in Luke of someone who is open to learning or wants to receive something from him.[Joel B. Green, The Gospel of Luke (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997).] Jesus relates an account of a creditor who had two debtors, with one debtor owing five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. When the debtors could not pay, the creditor canceled the debts. Now, says Jesus, who will love the creditor more? Simon’s response that the debtor who owed the most is accepted by Jesus as the proper response.
This implies that the “woman’s actions--[are] not the repayment of a debt, as though she were a slave girl or prostitute, but an expression of love that flows from the freedom of having all debts canceled” (Green, 312).
Luke reports that Jesus “turned” to the woman before speaking to Simon. “‘Do you see this woman?’” Perhaps this is to get Simon to consider how Jesus sees the woman as over against the view of Simon that she is “a sinner.” Jesus then proceeds to point out the dishonorable behavior of Simon with respect to the conventions of hospitality that Simon lacked at his own banquet. He failed to fulfill his role as host! While Simon fulfilled social convention in his condemnation of the woman as a sinner, he came up short with respect to his treatment of Jesus as a guest. “‘You gave me no water.... You gave me no kiss.... You did not anoint my head with oil.’” In short, the woman fulfilled the role expected of Simon, and thus Simon is shamed as a host who failed in his duties. In addition the woman through her actions performed extravagantly, and on that part of the body considered unclean, Jesus’ feet! Her behavior can be explained as one who has been forgiven much, as one who loves much! “‘Therefore, I tell you,’” says Jesus, “‘her sins, which were many, have been forgiven; hence [hoti][The Greek term hoti can be translated as “because” or as the RSV and New English Bible have it as “for”, or as the NRSV puts it as “hence.” Jones suggests, “The hoti might relate to “tell” rather than to “show” suggesting that Jesus is saying something like “The reason that I [am able to] tell you that her many sins are forgiven is the fact that she is showing so much love.” The woman shows so much live because she has known such great forgiveness” (161).] Jesus relates an account of a creditor who had two she has shown great love. But the one to whom little is given, loves little.’” But when had she been forgiven? Evidently, this occurred on a prior occasion.[Green observes (313) that this lack of information is not unusual in Luke since persons are introduced into the narrative at times who have already begun the journey with Jesus though the narrative does not tell how or when (cf. 7:1-10; 8:43-48; 19:1-10; 40:43).]
Now Jesus addresses the woman directly, “‘Your sins are forgiven.’” Jesus’ words were unnecessary as far as the woman was concerned since she has already been forgiven and has acted as forgiven in coming to Simon’s house and performing in gratitude to Jesus. Others, however, would not necessarily have known of her new standing since they still regard her as “a sinner” at
this banquet. “She does not need forgiveness from God, but she does need recognition of her new life and forgiveness among God’s people” (Green, 314). It is not clear how Simon and his guests
respond to the woman’s new standing. Luke records that those at table began to question: “‘Who is this who even forgives sins?’” Jesus’ only response is directed to the woman: “‘Your faith has
saved you; go in peace.’”
Forgiveness as a Way of Life
Recently, I came across a book read back in college days in the early 1960s. Edward John Carnell, who later became the president of Fuller Theological Seminary, wrote about a principle he called “the principle of double fulfillment.” The principle is based on the notion that gracious relationships are judged by love and not by law. Friends, for example, have little use for the nicedistinctions of a legal code since they are joined by cords of love. Love in turn seeks, as Carnell puts it, nothing but evidences of love with such evidences being given in one of two ways: “either by spontaneously doing what is right, or by expressing spontaneous sorrow for having failed.”[Edward John Carnell, The Kingdom of Life and the Pride of Life (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1960), 129.]
Following this principle accounts for the woman’s generosity in Luke 7. “Good people do not allow signs of legal imperfection [read: breaking Pharisaic expectations] to impede the progress of love” (Carnell, 130)
This fits well with the book mentioned earlier by Gregory Jones. For him, people are mistaken if Christian forgiveness is thought of simply as absolution from guilt. “Neither should forgiveness
be confined to a word to be spoken, a feeling to be felt, or an isolated action to be done; rather it involves a way of life to be lived in fidelity to God’s kingdom” (5). “Christian forgiveness--and, more specifically, forgiven-ness--is a way of life, a fidelity to a relationship of friendship, that must be learned and relearned on our journey toward holiness in God’s eschatological kingdom” (66). In today’s biblical account is found forgiveness. The woman recognized the judgment on her life as a judgment of grace, enabling her repentance and forgiveness to be directed towards the ends of God’s kingdom.
“The older I get, the better I was” were the words on a small truck’s bumper sticker just ahead of us. No doubt the sticker reflected revisionism! It is doubtful that the slogan on the bumper sticker will be on our lips when we stand before the Throne. It might be better if we recite instead John Donne’s “A Hymn to God the Father.” In that hymn are the themes of repentance, forgiveness and salvation. In the final analysis what counts is Christ’s forgiveness and what any one of us do is dependent upon what he has done for us.[The following hymn is taken from Mark Pryce, Literary Companion to the Lectionary (Fortress Press, 2002), 99. The hymn is cited for its overall perspective on Christ at the close and not its theology of sin. .]
“Wilt Thou forgive that sin where I begun,
Which was my sin, though it were done before?
Wilt thou forgive that sin, through which I run
And do run still, though still I do deplore?
When Thou has done, Thou hast not done;
For I have more.
Wilt Thou forgive that sin which I have won
Others to sin, and made my sin their door?
Wilt Thou forgive that sin which I did shun
A year or two, but wallow’d in, a score?
When Thou hast done, thou hast not done;
For I have more.
I have a sin of fear, that when I have spun
My last thread, I shall perish on the shore;
But swear by Thyself, that at my death Thy Son
Shall shine, as He shines now and heretofore:
And having done that, Thou hast done;
I fear no more.”
It is interesting the ways in which we can show emphasis whether in speaking or writing. In speaking it is by stressing a word or by repeating it a number of times. In writing the problem becomes especially acute since the printed word is all that there is before the reader. Thus some writers proceed to solve the problem of emphasis by putting into italics that part of the sentencewhere emphasis is needed.[Following here an idea used by Jones, chapter 9] Thus to say, “this is good” and to reflect what is meant comes out quite differently if the “this’ is stressed rather than placing the emphasis on “good.” Attention focuses on the particular item at hand, making the description secondary in importance.
With emphasis in mind let’s close with a few thoughts. Are there some specific actions, situations, or people that ought to be understood as unforgivable? Are stories like that which
Wiesenthal provides, an account that ought not to be passed on? Forget it. It has too much pain and human deprivation in it. In contrast are there other actions, situations or people that are
obviously forgivable? Consider the woman in this morning’s text, is this a story that must be passed on and thus repeated? Of course!
It would be a simple thing if forgiveness was merely the exchange of a few dollars and the choice of a particular water craft, as mentioned in the lesson’s introduction. Given what people do to
each other, this type of forgiveness is without doubt inadequate. Therefore, given what has been shared from several insightful books this morning forgiveness is certainly not a lesson to pass on! It bears repeating!
-------
First Church of the Nazarene
3901 Lomaland Drive
San Diego, CA 92106, US
-------
No comments:
Post a Comment