It all began with an eating at a Pharisee's house. The Pharisee was called Simon. In Matthew's version, this Simon was a leper (Matthew 26:6-13). Probably out of gratitude, he invited Jesus to dinner to thank Jesus. A sinful woman knew about it, came and anointed Jesus with expensive ointment (Luke 7:36-50). In Mark and Matthew, Jesus defended the action of the woman by saying that she was preparing his burial in advance. However, this story was handled in a different manner in the hand of Luke. Jesus defended the woman and turned the situation into a discourse on forgiveness. Luke wants to tell his readers that forgiveness is closely related to love. Or does he? Let us analyze the logic of Luke.
First of all, Jesus told a parable of two debtors, both of whom were unable to repay. The creditor forgave them both. Jesus did not explain why the creditor did so. He simply asked Simon which debtor loved the creditor more. Cautiously, Simon answered correctly that the one who was forgiven more (7:43). Obvious enough. The act of forgiving elicits gratitude and love.
Then, Jesus took the offensive to spell out how Simon had neglected his manners as the host in contrast to lavishness of the sinful woman's love (7:44-46). And Jesus drew the conclusion that because the sinful woman loved more, therefore she was forgiven more.
"her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much;
ἀφέωνται αἱ ἁμαρτίαι αὐτῆς αἱ πολλαί, ὅτι ἠγάπησεν πολύ" (7:47).
Immediately, Jesus put his words into action and forgave the sins of the woman (7:48). Now, it seems that the logic is turned around. Love elicits forgiveness. Did Jesus really mean this? Not quite.
Let us read the complete verse 47.
"Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little."
The first part seems to say that because she loves more, therefore she is forgiven more. However, the second part seems to be out of place. It seems to complete Jesus' question in saying that he who is forgiven little and therefore loves little in return.
The key word is "for" but the Greek original "ὅτι" can simply means "that" and does not make "LOVE" the requirement/reason for obtaining forgiveness. Of course, we should encourage people to love God more. But our love cannot be a kind of bargain. God, see how much I love you. Therefore, forgive me more. This kind of motive is wrong. Love should be love for love's sake.
It is always God who loves us first. We do not deserve such unreserved love. It is only right that we love God in return. The creditor loves the two debtors. He has mercy and compassion on them. Therefore, he forgave them. It so happened that one debtor owed more than the other. One sinner sins more than the other sinner. Therefore, the sinner who sins more, or rather who knows that he sins more, loves God more. Love is the consequence, not the cause. Faith in God is the cause.
One the other hand, Simon is not guiltless. Yet, he does not know his sins. He was not aware of his "negligence". His lack of faith in Jesus "... if this man were a prophet" (7:39) was the cause of his inhospitality shown to Jesus. In other words, we are not aware of our sins when our faith in God is wanting. The "advantage" of a public sinner is that she knows her sins.
No wonder Jesus took the offensive to spell out the "sins" of Simon. No wonder it was faith and not love that saved the sinful woman.
Dear Lord, open my heart so that I may know my sins more, that I may love You more. Amen.
p.s.
I brought up the same question to my colleagues to bring to their attention that we cannot take the Sunday Gospel reading for granted. It took some time for them to know the problem. Then during lunch time, a brave Pastoral Assistant, Natalie Wu, attempted to explain why Jesus said the faith of the sinful woman had saved her, not her gratitude or love. I challenged her arguments and asked her to show me which part of the story mentioned the faith of the sinful woman. None! However, in the end, she came up with a beautiful solution.
Jesus forgave the woman (7:48). The audience openly queried Jesus' authority (7:49). Jesus pronounced the teaching (7:50). The sentence was meant for the audience who questioned Jesus' authority to forgive sins. These people, including Simon, did not have enough faith in Jesus.
A very brave attempt. I like the answer.
p.p.s.
The story is too good a challenge to allow it to fly in my face too easily. Moreover, the attempt to discuss this story with Wulstan, my second son, led to an unhappy experience. But I have run out of my wits. So, I sought help from Fr. Placid Wong, OFM again. He kindly replied promptly and I think I have cracked the hard nut.
Here are the exchanges.
On June 21, 2013.
Dear Father,
Sorry to bring you trouble again.
The story of the sinful woman is a difficult nut to crack.
First of all, Jesus' parable of two debtors and a creditor in Luke 7:41-42 has drawn out the conclusion that forgiveness gives rise to gratitude (7:43). Love is a consequence of forgiveness. However, in 7:47, Jesus gives an opposite conclusion that Love is the cause of forgiveness. In between, he simply contrasts what Simon the Pharisee had failed to do with what the sinful woman had done. This contrasting does not seem to warrant the conclusion that Love is the cause of forgiveness. Moreover, this conclusion seems to be guilty of Pelagianism. The more love/work you do, the more grace you obtain!
Then at the end of the story, we all expect Jesus to say "Your love/charity has saved you; go in peace." Instead, he said, "You faith ... etc." Faith suddenly jumped out from nowhere in the story! This is really hard to follow.
I checked the Greek original of 7:47 and found the word ὅτι, which is usually translated into since, because. It can also be translated into "that". I wonder if it is possible to translated it into "so that". In this way, verse 7:47 will agree with 7:43 and 7:47 will not be guilty of Pelagianism. But still, I cannot figure out where "faith" came from. Have I misunderstood the theology behind the story? Or would it be possible for some exhausted monks to copy the wrong verse into the wrong location?
On June 22, 2013, Fr. Placid replied.
Dear Alex,
Since o[ti can be understood as "so that" (you may find this significance in a more comprehensive Greek Dictionary in the HSSC library), I think the first problem solved as you said. But be careful, don't mix up "grace" with "love", "grace" definitely granted to men by God unconditionally for his "love".
From "love" to "faith" in the passage seems to be odd, but it's true when you read slowly the passgage especially the part about the reaction of the people in verse 49, "Who is this who even forgives sins?" after Jesus says to the woman "Your sins are forgiven." What they think is "only God can forgive sins", thus it shows that they do not believe Jesus is God. They think Jesus is just a prophet in verse 39. On the contrary, the woman repents of her sins with tears before Jesus and anoint Him. This shows the woman loves Jesus and believe Him as God. Therefore Jesus says that she is saved by her faith.
From "love" to "faith" was not uncommon concept in the New Testament, in the Letter of James 2:17, "if it (faith) does not have work, is dead". What work does James mean is the work of charity, that is "love" in the context of the same chapter. We may conclude that the appearance of faith is deeds of love.
Hoping that the explanation is clear.
Regards.
Fr Placid Wong ofm
With this inspiration, I came up with the following reconstruction of the whole story.
Dear Father,
Thanks very much for your prompt reply. Things begin to fall into places now.
First of all, I equate "forgiveness" of Jesus with "grace" and "love/gratitude" of the woman with "work". That is why I feel the whole story sounds like Pelagianism. In fact, the layout of the story gives the impression that the gratitude/love of the sinful woman earned her forgiveness from Jesus. That is one of the reasons why Jesus insisted that it was faith, not work/gratitude/love that saved the woman.
If we assume that the whole story starts with something outside the story, then our theory, i.e. forgiveness/grace generates love and work, can stand.
Why did the woman come to anoint Jesus in the first place? Something must have happened to touch/move her. That something I could only speculate. Perhaps she had heard Jesus' preaching before. She felt that in the teaching of Jesus, she could find a new beginning in her life. She felt forgiven or even better, Jesus had actually told her that her sins had been forgiven. Sin no more (John 8). Therefore, she came to anoint Jesus.
Then, we have to explain why Jesus forgave her twice.
I think Jesus did it deliberately to provoke the audience. In order to restore her social status and to make her as well as all the people around NOT to make the mistake in thinking that work would earn grace, Jesus stated unequivocally that her faith had saved her, not her love/gratitude/work. A similar case can be found in the story of the bleeding woman. "Your faith has saved you, go in peace" is meant not just for the woman, but for the people who doubted Jesus' authority to forgive sin.
Wow, my chest is clear now. Thank you very much, Father, for your inspiration.
Have I missed anything?
On the Feast of the Nativity of John the Baptist, Fr. Placid Wong gave me more encouragement to keep exploring the teachings of the Bible.
Fr Placid Wong ofm
On June 25, I replied.
Dear Father,
On the Feast of the Nativity of John the Baptist, Fr. Placid Wong gave me more encouragement to keep exploring the teachings of the Bible.
Dear Alex,
It's nice to know that you felt it clearer.
From the view of exegesis, we may explain the Biblical Text in different ways when the description of text is not so detailed, we have a lot of space to speculate providing that our explanation or interpretation is not against our faith.
Probably Lk 7:36-50 is an example, even the passage is quite long but it is not so detailed to tell us what happened to the woman before. You have raised some queries. In fact we may ask more. Why this woman could access to Jesus so easily when He had dinner with the Pharisee in his house? If the woman was sinner known by the public, why the family members of the Pharisee did not stop her in the first place from entering their house? Was this the first time she encountered Jesus? Did she repent and sin again then come to ask once more for the forgiveness of her sins?...
I think it was not the purpose of the author of the Gospel to tell the readers the complete story of the woman. His aim was to tell the readers who Jesus was, how much love as God He laid on them, how merciful He was even they were great sinners. The author tried to call the readers to believe that Jesus was the Son of God, and to repent and confess their sins in order to be saved. That was why the author skipped many of the details.
It is quite interesting to explore the meaning of the Bible Text. Keep it up.
Regards.
On June 25, I replied.
Dear Father,
Thank you.
Studying the Bible has been my life-long passion. In the valedictory speech I delivered at the CBI Graduation Mass in 2007, I thanked God for giving me the opportunity to earn a living by teaching/studying the Bible!
I am grateful for your support. May the good Lord continue to bless us in our service for the Word.
No comments:
Post a Comment