Luke 7:36-50
This passage is filled with a series of striking contrasts. To begin with, a Pharisee invited him to dinner and Jesus readily accepted. A woman in the city “who was a sinner” sought him out. Was she a prostitute, an unfaithful wife, or just a poor woman seeking customary charity? We are not told. Nor are we told how she got into the house.
She may have been a person of means because of the gift she brought - an alabaster jar of ointment. The excellence of the gift may have got her past the servants at the door. Or she stole in when the servants were busy elsewhere. We are not told what was in the jar, but such small containers made from a soft white rock usually held a fine ointment or perfume of considerable value.
At table, people reclined rather than sat around a low U-shaped table. Servants provided food and drink from the centre rather than the outside. Their feet were exposed behind them as they leaned on their left elbows. Thus it would have been easy for the woman to come up behind Jesus to anoint his feet, and did so fervently, even sensuously.
Anointing a guest with olive oil and kissing him or her was a normal way to greet a special friend or guest. This woman did both, but to his feet, still dusty from the streets because his host had not provided for this to be done as Jesus arrived. Latecomers would have had their feet washed as they reclined at the table. This woman may have been mistaken for someone who arrived late.
The Pharisee knew she was an intruder and was much displeased. Not so Jesus. He rebuked his host for not supplying the basic services a guest might expect, then frowning upon Jesus for allowing this intruder to do what he ought to have done.
Sensing the host’s embarrassment, Jesus spoke up, diverting everyone’s attention by telling his host that he had something to say to him. Given the host’s permission he told a brief story. One can imagine everyone listening eagerly to what he would say. Any good raconteur gets a hearing.
The story ended with a question that put the whole situation in context. Who deserves to be forgiven? It was a question any Pharisee would love to debate. They argued small points of the scriptural law codes like this ad infinitum. This time the Pharisee wasn’t too sure where Jesus was going with his anecdote, so he gave a somewhat tentative answer.
Then Jesus drove his point home by bringing the intruding woman back into the picture. He contrasted her uncharacteristic behaviour with the neglect of his host. This would put the host on the spot. The level of the host’s embarrassment must have brought some tension to room.
Again Jesus diverted everyone’s attention by speaking directly to the woman. He forgave her whatever sins she was confessing by her unusual actions. That startled everyone. What had he done? They began to question among themselves who this Jesus was. After all, he had usurped power and authority that belonged to God alone.
Showing posts with label authority. Show all posts
Showing posts with label authority. Show all posts
Monday, January 25, 2010
Sunday, January 24, 2010
10 - QUESTIONING JESUS’ AUTHORITY AGAIN
Luke 6:1-11
The simple act of reaping a few kernels of ripening grain got Jesus and his disciples into trouble. The story may have been important to the church in Luke’s time. The Pharisees had assumed the religious and political leadership of the Jewish communities throughout the Roman Empire during the years after the destruction of the temple by the Romans in 70 CE. Keeping of the sabbath by attendance at synagogue services had become of supreme importance.
Jesus turned the challenge on its head. It was undoubtedly still a very painful issue for devout Jews, and especially those who were Pharisees, that they could not longer go up their sacred sanctuary to offer the traditional sacrifices that had become so much a part of their worship. Jesus seems almost to have taunted them by pointing to an incident in the life of their greatest king, David (1 Samuel 21:1-6).
As Sharon Ringe points out in her Luke, in the Westminster Bible Companion series, there are three anomalies in the story. What the disciples did was within law of Moses because the reaped grain met an immediate need, always permissible on the sabbath. The Pharisees were walking with Jesus, something forbidden on the sabbath. That the story about David did not exactly fit the situation may indicate that it may have been a literary creation by Luke to make his point to prove that Jesus’ authority surpassed that even of David.
The principle of Jesus’ authority for Christians is fully expressed in the words of 6:5. The issue is not what one does on the sabbath, but what rules one’s life all of the time.
The second incident similarly established Jesus’ authority over all of life. Synagogue attendance involved studying the Torah and other Hebrew scriptures. All Jewish men were required to be there, even the disabled if at all possible.
Although healing was considered work, it was permissible as long as it dealt with a life-threatening situation. In a world where right-handedness was dominant and left- handedness sinister, this was indeed the case. But would have endangered the man’s life to wait until the sabbath was over at sunset?
Again the story may point to a total separation of synagogue and church in Luke’s community. For Christians, the issue is about the purpose of keeping the sabbath, not about the letter of the law. Jesus’ concern was for the disabled man. To heal his disability was closer to the purpose of the commandment than rigid but vapid holiness. We are given life to serve God wholly in body, mind and spirit. As has been noted before, in English healing, health, whole and holy all come from the same ancient German root word heil.
Have we lost the meaning of keeping the sabbath? It has been said that today on any given Sunday, there are more Christians at worship than at all the professional sports events in the country. But what about the rest of the week? It too is holy.
The simple act of reaping a few kernels of ripening grain got Jesus and his disciples into trouble. The story may have been important to the church in Luke’s time. The Pharisees had assumed the religious and political leadership of the Jewish communities throughout the Roman Empire during the years after the destruction of the temple by the Romans in 70 CE. Keeping of the sabbath by attendance at synagogue services had become of supreme importance.
Jesus turned the challenge on its head. It was undoubtedly still a very painful issue for devout Jews, and especially those who were Pharisees, that they could not longer go up their sacred sanctuary to offer the traditional sacrifices that had become so much a part of their worship. Jesus seems almost to have taunted them by pointing to an incident in the life of their greatest king, David (1 Samuel 21:1-6).
As Sharon Ringe points out in her Luke, in the Westminster Bible Companion series, there are three anomalies in the story. What the disciples did was within law of Moses because the reaped grain met an immediate need, always permissible on the sabbath. The Pharisees were walking with Jesus, something forbidden on the sabbath. That the story about David did not exactly fit the situation may indicate that it may have been a literary creation by Luke to make his point to prove that Jesus’ authority surpassed that even of David.
The principle of Jesus’ authority for Christians is fully expressed in the words of 6:5. The issue is not what one does on the sabbath, but what rules one’s life all of the time.
The second incident similarly established Jesus’ authority over all of life. Synagogue attendance involved studying the Torah and other Hebrew scriptures. All Jewish men were required to be there, even the disabled if at all possible.
Although healing was considered work, it was permissible as long as it dealt with a life-threatening situation. In a world where right-handedness was dominant and left- handedness sinister, this was indeed the case. But would have endangered the man’s life to wait until the sabbath was over at sunset?
Again the story may point to a total separation of synagogue and church in Luke’s community. For Christians, the issue is about the purpose of keeping the sabbath, not about the letter of the law. Jesus’ concern was for the disabled man. To heal his disability was closer to the purpose of the commandment than rigid but vapid holiness. We are given life to serve God wholly in body, mind and spirit. As has been noted before, in English healing, health, whole and holy all come from the same ancient German root word heil.
Have we lost the meaning of keeping the sabbath? It has been said that today on any given Sunday, there are more Christians at worship than at all the professional sports events in the country. But what about the rest of the week? It too is holy.
8 - CHALLENGES TO JESUS’ AUTHORITY
In Luke 5:12-26, we are told next of two incidents that once more raised issues about Jesus’ authority and his growing popularity. Moving about Galilee, he was confronted by a leper who pleaded to be cleansed. Note the difference in this man’s attitude from the way Simon had reacted: he believed instinctively that Jesus could heal him.
In those days, any skin affliction was seen as leprosy, not just the true form we now know as the disabling and disfiguring Hansen’s disease. Having such an affliction meant being ostracized from family and community. Jesus touched him and he was immediately healed. To touch a leper was to make oneself also diseased and, more seriously, to be impure in the sight of the law of Moses. What happened next was the point of this incident in Luke’s mind.
Jesus demanded secrecy until the man had showed himself to the priest and offered an appropriate sacrifice, as the law of Moses required. Obviously Jesus was aware that his ministry of teaching and healing had social and religious implications. The religious authorities would be the first to challenge him. The attempt to keep the incident quiet failed completely. As the news of Jesus’ power spread far and wide, more and more people flocked to hear him and have their diseases healed.
A major turning point in Jesus’ ministry was at hand. So he retreated for a time to pray. Luke frequently used such a withdrawal as a warning that a new series of conflicts was about to begin. The challenge would come from the Pharisees and scribes, (i.e. teachers of the law). In Jesus’ time they were not yet a powerful significant party, more like a minor group of religious reformers or activists. By Luke’s time fifty years later, they had come to dominate the Jewish tradition.
The incident Luke related next not only reflected the determination and faith of the sick man’s friends, but more importantly raised the question of Jesus’ authority to forgive sins. Nothing was said about the nature of the man’s illness, but the implication is that it was due to some unstated sinfulness. We might call it a psychosomatic illness arising from a deep sense of guilt. The healing of the man stands alone as an act of mercy. Jesus did not question the man’s moral character. Yet the consequences of Jesus’ action caused immense controversy.
The religious authorities charged Jesus with blasphemy for forgiving the man’s sin. In the Hebrew tradition, blasphemy involved abusing God’s name (Lev. 24:10-11, 14-16, 23); attacking something belonging to God (2 Kings 19:4. 6, 22; Ezekiel 35:1-2). In this instance, the issue was usurping God’s unique power to forgive. To the Pharisees, by healing the man and forgiving him, Jesus had violated God’s very being, as their challenge revealed. Jesus claimed to be doing what only God was capable of doing. Did he have such authority?
Luke conveyed his understanding that Jesus indeed did have such authority in the phrase he put into Jesus’ response using the familiar term, the Son of Man. To Luke, late int the 1st century CE, the term meant something more than “the Human One,” an ordinary mortal, as in the Hebrew tradition of Ezekiel and Daniel. It had already become a christological confession.
In those days, any skin affliction was seen as leprosy, not just the true form we now know as the disabling and disfiguring Hansen’s disease. Having such an affliction meant being ostracized from family and community. Jesus touched him and he was immediately healed. To touch a leper was to make oneself also diseased and, more seriously, to be impure in the sight of the law of Moses. What happened next was the point of this incident in Luke’s mind.
Jesus demanded secrecy until the man had showed himself to the priest and offered an appropriate sacrifice, as the law of Moses required. Obviously Jesus was aware that his ministry of teaching and healing had social and religious implications. The religious authorities would be the first to challenge him. The attempt to keep the incident quiet failed completely. As the news of Jesus’ power spread far and wide, more and more people flocked to hear him and have their diseases healed.
A major turning point in Jesus’ ministry was at hand. So he retreated for a time to pray. Luke frequently used such a withdrawal as a warning that a new series of conflicts was about to begin. The challenge would come from the Pharisees and scribes, (i.e. teachers of the law). In Jesus’ time they were not yet a powerful significant party, more like a minor group of religious reformers or activists. By Luke’s time fifty years later, they had come to dominate the Jewish tradition.
The incident Luke related next not only reflected the determination and faith of the sick man’s friends, but more importantly raised the question of Jesus’ authority to forgive sins. Nothing was said about the nature of the man’s illness, but the implication is that it was due to some unstated sinfulness. We might call it a psychosomatic illness arising from a deep sense of guilt. The healing of the man stands alone as an act of mercy. Jesus did not question the man’s moral character. Yet the consequences of Jesus’ action caused immense controversy.
The religious authorities charged Jesus with blasphemy for forgiving the man’s sin. In the Hebrew tradition, blasphemy involved abusing God’s name (Lev. 24:10-11, 14-16, 23); attacking something belonging to God (2 Kings 19:4. 6, 22; Ezekiel 35:1-2). In this instance, the issue was usurping God’s unique power to forgive. To the Pharisees, by healing the man and forgiving him, Jesus had violated God’s very being, as their challenge revealed. Jesus claimed to be doing what only God was capable of doing. Did he have such authority?
Luke conveyed his understanding that Jesus indeed did have such authority in the phrase he put into Jesus’ response using the familiar term, the Son of Man. To Luke, late int the 1st century CE, the term meant something more than “the Human One,” an ordinary mortal, as in the Hebrew tradition of Ezekiel and Daniel. It had already become a christological confession.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)