01 May 2024
In Luke 7:36-50 we have the woman in Simon the Pharisee's House. The format is ABCDCBA:
A. Intro
B. Outpouring of love
C. Dialogue with Simon
D. A parable
C. 2nd dialogue with Simon
B. Outpouring of love
A. Conclusion
In an footnote Bailey mentions that Luke joined Paul's travels at the point in Acts 16:10 where Paul is in Troas. Then again in 21:18, Luke steps out of the narrative. Shortly Paul is arrested, goes through some rigmarole with the Sanhedrin and is eventually sent down to Caesarea. This is when Luke is preparing the case history for Paul, traveling for two years around Palestine visiting eyewitnesses and collecting documents. Thus, whenever a story is laid out in a strong Hebrew rhetorical outline, it seems safe to assume it was a something already written by the witness and Luke incorporates it in his account. Luke rejoins Paul in the narrative at 27:1.
It's obvious this woman had heard Jesus' message. Meanwhile, this being still early in Jesus' ministry, while He had proclaimed Himself a prophet, it was clear He didn't follow the rabbinical traditions the way the Pharisees would have liked. This invitation to a formal dinner was probably part of a planned meeting to get Jesus "up to speed".
The Pharisee who made the invitation failed all the common courtesies. In rabbinical tradition, this was no oversight; it communicated that Jesus was not in good standing with this ad hoc committee. Bailey notes the normal courtesies and the proper protocols of who reclines first, but I think he reads too much into Luke's account.
Still, the woman surely witnessed the humiliating lack of protocol dished out to Jesus, having been there when He entered, so she jumps in and fills the void. He was already known to receive sinners and to socialize with them, and both the Pharisees and the woman knew it. His teaching indicated that there was a path of repentance for everyone still living, while the Talmud excluded some like this woman. She knew she was welcomed into the Messianic Kingdom.
This dinner was a rather public event. Bailey leans on Middle Eastern tradition that probably stood from ancient times, suggesting that at such an event, the outcasts were permitted to gather in the shadows along the wall and even eat the leftovers when the guests leave. This allows the host to demonstrate his nobility.
Jesus' feet were the only part of Him within her reach without seriously breaking protocol, so she begins weeping and washing them with her hair. This was not meant to win absolution, but to express profound gratefulness for forgiveness received and the mere opportunity to give something back. She is weeping as much for the abuse He gracefully absorbed. The perfume was a terribly expensive compensation for the lack of courtesy. Now He was honored above them all.
Bailey goes on at length about how the exposure of the woman's hair was shocking. To this day, a woman can be summarily divorced (dismissed without formalities) for uncovering her hair in public under both the Talmud and Sharia. At a minimum, the woman was declaring her undying loyalty to Jesus. How should Jesus react?
According to Simon, and no doubt his cohort, Jesus had already failed the test of a prophet. Somehow, they avoid the mere possibility she regarded Him as the Messiah. But it was not lost on Jesus, and He declined to rebuke her. Instead, He took advantage of the scene to rebuke His host, though indirectly. His declaration that He had something to say was, by tradition, a rather blunt warning that Simon might not like what was coming. Simon played along, telling the rabbi to say it.
We'll start with the parable tomorrow.
This document is public domain; spread the message.