This parable buttresses my earlier observation: because Simon did not feel as convicted of sin as the woman did, and consequently did not feel as much gratitude for forgiveness received, he did not return to the savior as much love as the woman did. And this is quite understandable. Luke describes Simon as a Pharisee, and Pharisees were self-righteous. Recall in this regard the Parable of the Pharisee and the Publican (Luke 18: 9-14). The occasion for this self-righteousness was underpinned by the event of an otherwise sinful woman’s touching of the feet of a prophet in the house of a consequently indignant Pharisee.
Hence, one point it appears Jesus is trying to make here is humility. God the father who forgives our sins wants us to acknowledge what he has done for us. Recall in this regard the case of the ten lepers (Luke 17:11-19). Having healed them all, only one returned to thank Jesus, and Jesus was disappointed and so asked: “Were not all ten healed? How is it that only this one has returned to show gratitude?” (v17-18). Interestingly, the one who returned was a foreigner. There is a humorous but insightful Ibo proverb that bears telling here: “The people who live closest to the church often arrive late for mass.” The motif of the foreigner was also played into in the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). Again, God tells Peter to prepare and eat from an array of unclean meat choices (Acts 10:13). We therefore see that Luke’s Gospel is interested in speaking to an audience that is wider than the Jewish population.
Setting a background to the foregoing is here apt. John’s Gospel states that Jesus was visiting with Lazarus and his sisters. The Gospel also states that a large crowd was there and they had come to see not only Jesus, but also Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead, and the Pharisees were intent on killing Lazarus because he represented to the people the resurrection power of the Lord Jesus Christ. (John 12:9-11). We are told in all other three gospels other than Luke in any case that the event in question took place in Bethany, the town where Lazarus, Martha and Mary lived; and, even though Luke does not expressly mention Bethany, we can assume that it was because he was more interested in the message than in the location of the important event of Jesus’ being anointed by the woman.
Luke calls the woman sinful, but the other gospels are silent as to her moral repertoire. They simply call her a woman (Matt. 26:7; Mark 14:3). And so, where it seems as if Mark and Matthew are interested in the location and the tradition, Luke is interested in the message, and John draws our attention to the relationship between Jesus and Lazarus, as well as the symbol of the salvific power that Lazarus portrays. One may theorize in this regard, borrowing from the theory that places Mark’s Gospel first, that Matthew borrowed the account from Mark and left it in much the same way with regard to detail. Luke in turn edited the story to highlight points he considered to be important. John took a further step in the editorial process. The subsequent portion of the paper proceeds with providing a background to the didactic events of the pericope, and gradually builds up to its themes and motifs, and the review of a pertinent Greek usage.
To begin with, Matthew and Mark render the story in essentially the same way, with Mark being a tad more detailed. They both start off by indicating that Jesus was in Bethany in the house of Simon the Leper. Mark in any case further details that Jesus was “reclining” (Mark 14:3). Both accounts then state that a woman came up to him with an alabaster jar of perfumed oil. But whereas Matthew simply said it was costly, Mark detailed that it was “costly, genuine, spikenard” (Ibid.) They both state that the woman poured the oil on his head – not his feet, as in Luke and John – but Mark adds that she broke the jar first (Ibid.) Mark then testifies that some people, very likely those who were similarly in Simon the Leper’s house, were indignant. Matthew specifically uses the word “disciples” in this regard (Matt. 26:8).
Hence, one point it appears Jesus is trying to make here is humility. God the father who forgives our sins wants us to acknowledge what he has done for us. Recall in this regard the case of the ten lepers (Luke 17:11-19). Having healed them all, only one returned to thank Jesus, and Jesus was disappointed and so asked: “Were not all ten healed? How is it that only this one has returned to show gratitude?” (v17-18). Interestingly, the one who returned was a foreigner. There is a humorous but insightful Ibo proverb that bears telling here: “The people who live closest to the church often arrive late for mass.” The motif of the foreigner was also played into in the Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37). Again, God tells Peter to prepare and eat from an array of unclean meat choices (Acts 10:13). We therefore see that Luke’s Gospel is interested in speaking to an audience that is wider than the Jewish population.
Setting a background to the foregoing is here apt. John’s Gospel states that Jesus was visiting with Lazarus and his sisters. The Gospel also states that a large crowd was there and they had come to see not only Jesus, but also Lazarus, whom he had raised from the dead, and the Pharisees were intent on killing Lazarus because he represented to the people the resurrection power of the Lord Jesus Christ. (John 12:9-11). We are told in all other three gospels other than Luke in any case that the event in question took place in Bethany, the town where Lazarus, Martha and Mary lived; and, even though Luke does not expressly mention Bethany, we can assume that it was because he was more interested in the message than in the location of the important event of Jesus’ being anointed by the woman.
Luke calls the woman sinful, but the other gospels are silent as to her moral repertoire. They simply call her a woman (Matt. 26:7; Mark 14:3). And so, where it seems as if Mark and Matthew are interested in the location and the tradition, Luke is interested in the message, and John draws our attention to the relationship between Jesus and Lazarus, as well as the symbol of the salvific power that Lazarus portrays. One may theorize in this regard, borrowing from the theory that places Mark’s Gospel first, that Matthew borrowed the account from Mark and left it in much the same way with regard to detail. Luke in turn edited the story to highlight points he considered to be important. John took a further step in the editorial process. The subsequent portion of the paper proceeds with providing a background to the didactic events of the pericope, and gradually builds up to its themes and motifs, and the review of a pertinent Greek usage.
To begin with, Matthew and Mark render the story in essentially the same way, with Mark being a tad more detailed. They both start off by indicating that Jesus was in Bethany in the house of Simon the Leper. Mark in any case further details that Jesus was “reclining” (Mark 14:3). Both accounts then state that a woman came up to him with an alabaster jar of perfumed oil. But whereas Matthew simply said it was costly, Mark detailed that it was “costly, genuine, spikenard” (Ibid.) They both state that the woman poured the oil on his head – not his feet, as in Luke and John – but Mark adds that she broke the jar first (Ibid.) Mark then testifies that some people, very likely those who were similarly in Simon the Leper’s house, were indignant. Matthew specifically uses the word “disciples” in this regard (Matt. 26:8).
No comments:
Post a Comment