Human Nature

Luke 7:36-50 continues from the same events. To remind ourselves of those events, Jesus had been witnessed healing plagues and infirmities, driving out evil spirits, giving sight to the blind, cleansing lepers, putting the lame back on their feet, and raising the dead. The witnesses included disciples, a crowd, the locals of Nain and their religious leaders. One of the local Pharisees invited Jesus to eat with him in the house where he lived in Nain.

We are somewhat inclined to view the Pharisees only as the enemies of Jesus, always offended by his claims, always planning his demise. We gather this from their words and deeds. That this Pharisee invited him into his home shows us a different side to their nature. They were, after all, members of their respective communities. They were often social and civil. Pharisees cared adamantly about the law. That was their bone of contention with Jesus.

The fact that this Pharisee, Simon by name, was so kindly disposed toward Jesus might indicate a certain kinship of spirit, for it is obvious that Simon did not invite just anyone into his home. There were a whole city full of sinners to whom Simon's home was off-limits. And yet, a sinner somehow managed to get past the Pharisee's house servants to crash the party.

Having gotten past the witless servants, Simon still spotted the intruder. He could tell a sinner from a block away. What I want to ask here is how did he know at a glance? Was it the way the woman dressed, or the fact that she was female, or uninvited? Was she poor and ragged? Was she of the Samaritan people? Did Simon know this particular sinner personally? I doubt this woman's sin was adultery, else she might already have been stoned and unable to attend.

Yes, this is the story of the woman who washed Jesus' feet with her tears. I am not here to rehash that tale; you can hear the forgiveness end of that story in church. Having no clear answer how Simon knew she was a sinner, I turn my attention to a detail few of us consider – that is where she stood. The Bible text informs us that she stood behind Jesus in a position conducive to the washing of his feet. That fact is an indication of the seating of those times.

It is believed that there were no chairs in those days, that people reclined on padded benches, or else on arranged pillows. In an arrangement like that, reaching the food becomes an issue. Of course, servants might have served them, but other than that, the seating would have been close. I think this may have been the case for there is no mention of anyone other than Jesus being invited to eat. So then, the picture is this: Jesus and Simon reclining close to one another – a comfortable situation that allowed casual conversation and easy access to the food.

An easily identifiable sinner came in. She carried an alabaster box of ointment. Were they expensive in those days? Was the ointment expensive? How did the sinner come by the box of ointment? Did she steal it, or had she spent hard earned coin to buy it? At any rate, she was able to stand behind Jesus and wash his feet with tears and anoint his feet with ointment.

This portion of text is also the place we find the parable of the two debtors. I have treated this parable elsewhere. I'll not rehash it here, instead, I would like to turn our attention to what the Pharisee forgot to do. While Simon was being civil and social, why did he not complete the custom with a kiss and with water for Jesus to wash his feet in? Was Simon being rude? Was he so overwhelmed with recent events that he simply forgot? Was he, perhaps, focused on a plan to get Jesus alone and trap him in word games while Jesus' guard was down?

After the short parable about the two debtors, which Jesus employed to show Simon the link between love and forgiveness, he told him that the woman's sins were all forgiven. There are two points in that exchange that I wish to address. First was the beginning of the exchange.

Jesus told Simon he had something to tell him. In his own words, this is how Simon answered in verse 40, “Master, say on.” What we have here is a case of a Master calling a Master 'Master.' Was that a professional courtesy? Is this an indication that Jesus was one of them – a Pharisee? It certainly gives me pause for thought. Second is the aftermath of forgiving a sinner.

Jesus explained himself with the parable and in the light of that explanation, turned and forgave the woman. The aftermath shows me that there was at least one other person eating with Simon and Jesus: thus the use of 'they.' The fact that they thought the same or similar thought, comparing his actions of forgiveness to his previous miracles of the day, lead me to believe that there was at least one other Pharisee in the group. Their mindset is portrayed thus: ' He performed miracles, he raised the dead, he also forgives sins. Who is he?'

For that matter, who was it, exactly, that recounted this exchange? Was it one of the Pharisees? To be fair, some scripture references indicate a close relationship between the Pharisees and at least one of the disciples of Christ, yet it still seems to me that none of them appeared on the invitation list. What I base my current opinion on is the fact that the person who recounted the tale (not necessarily the person who was the final author of the gospel) pegged the woman as a sinner initially in verse 37.

Finally, there is the point of the forgiveness of sin as Jesus explained it. Forgiveness and love go hand-in-hand. The more you are forgiven, the more you love. Also, the more you love, the more you are forgiven. Was Jesus telling us any more than that it is human nature? We love those who give us the most. We love those who give us the best. In a bar, the one who buys the drunk the most drinks is his best pal.

That is just how we are on the receiving end, but how are we on the giving end? Our human nature dictates that we either give, or forgive, those we deem the most worthy. Most of us, upon getting an unexpected gift, feel somehow obligated to give something back. When we have a choice in who we might forgive, we lean toward the innocent, or toward the person of good character. Our human nature gives us a resounding 'no' when it comes to persons of a nasty character or reputation. When they are against us, they just don't deserve the time of day.

This shows us that there is not love only on the receiving end. It is a reflection of the love on the giving and forgiving end. Likewise, I think that the love found on the giving and forgiving end is a reflection of the love that is found on the end in need. There is an unmistakable connection between the one who loves much and the one who forgives much. That connection reveals that the one who forgives sees something of himself in the one he pities. Likewise, we who stand in the greatest need look always to the one so like ourselves that he will surely understand.

It is clear that Jesus came to us in human nature and for human nature. It is clear that the reflection of the divine is seen as much in the contrite as the reflection of the humble is seen in the divine.