Psalm 37:1-11
Luke 7:36‑50
Howard W. Roberts

"Women are more like men than anything else in the world.   They are human beings."1 The Gospel accounts of Jesus' life and ministry reveal clearly that Jesus related to women as persons to be accepted and loved rather than as objects to be used.  The Samaritan woman at the well, the woman caught in adultery, and Mary Magdalene are extensive illustrations.  The account of the woman who anointed Jesus' feet provides the detailed way that Jesus responded redemptively to sexism.

Some of Luke's distinctive interests are contained in this story.  He revealed Jesus' sociability and enjoyment of hospitality, the worth of all people to Jesus, his love toward sinners and his forgiveness of sins.  Mark and John record a similar story but with differences.  Apparently the writers had different sources for their information as well as describing the incident with their unique qualities and interests. 

Jesus was invited to the home of a Pharisee whose name is not revealed until later in the story.  The invitation included dinner.  In those days people reclined on couches on their sides to eat their meals with their feet extended away from the table.   Part of the Eastern custom when a teacher was invited to dinner was that people could come in from the street at their leisure and listen to the conversation.  A woman came in from the street who apparently knew Jesus or knew about him.  She came prepared to anoint his feet.

Characteristic of Luke's style is to contrast the insider and the outsider.  In the first sentence of this story Luke introduces the Pharisee (the insider) and the sinful woman (the outsider).  In rabbinic literature the phrase sinful woman is used to identify a prostitute.  This woman's sin is not disclosed but it may have been prostitution.  In a male‑oriented world, prostitutes were despised as sinners.  Men could retain their respectability even though they patronized prostitutes.

Jesus received numerous invitations to dine with a variety of people.  Apparently he accepted every invitation that was offered and initiated some of his own (Luke 19:5).  In the play, Harvey, an acquaintance says to the lead character, "Let's have dinner sometime."  Immediately the lead whips out his pocket calendar and says, "How about Tuesday evening at 7?"  I sense that whenever an invitation was extended to Jesus, he accepted it.  Because he didn't discriminate with whom he ate, Jesus was discriminated against.  One of the highest compliments paid to Jesus was first uttered in derision, "He eats with tax collectors and sinners."

Jesus went to a Pharisee's home for dinner.  Immediately Luke portrayed the contrast between the Pharisee and the woman through the hospitality customs of the day.  There were three things which a host usually did for his guest.  When the guest arrived the host would place his hands on the guest's shoulders and give a kiss of greeting that symbolized the guest was welcome in the host's home.  Travel was done by walking.  Shoes were sandals and the roads were dirt.  When a guest arrived in a home, the host would wash the guest's feet, a refreshing gesture as well as a symbol of the host being a servant to the guest.  After the guest was refreshed, perfume or olive oil was put on the guest’s head.  The Pharisee did none of these.  No reason is given for the oversight.  Jesus was not a traditionalist and he expected no one to keep a custom just to be observing it.  However, indirectly the Pharisee made an issue out of his own oversight. 

Apparently this woman had seen Jesus and had some understanding of who he was and what he could do.  She came in from the street and stood behind Jesus at his feet.  The context of this event caused her emotions to overflow.  There she stood, sobbing.   She noticed her tears were making circles in the dust on Jesus' feet as they dropped from her cheeks.  She stooped down and dried Jesus' feet with her hair.  No one, certainly no man, had ever treated her like a person, like she was somebody, that is, no man except Jesus.  Her tears flowed.  This woman became so caught up in what was happening to her that she forgot where she was.  She dried Jesus' feet with her hair.  A woman was never to let her hair down in public, figuratively or literally.  This woman had done both because in the words of the hymn she had become "lost in wonder, love, and praise."  After she had dried Jesus’ feet, she broke a bottle of nard (Mark 14:3).  Nard was a very expensive perfume that came from India.  The cost of it was equal to a year's salary in that time.  The fact that the woman broke the bottle is indication that all of the expensive perfume was to be used.  There was a custom in the Eastern culture that  if a glass were used by a distinguished guest, then it was to be  broken so that no one less than he would ever use it.  Perhaps this was part of the woman's symbolism in breaking the bottle.

This entire event disturbed the Pharisee's images of himself and of Jesus.  The Pharisee was accustomed to people stopping by to overhear conversation, but not women, certainly not a sinful woman like this one.  What about his reputation?  What would his friends and colleagues think when they heard about this?  Just as disturbing to this Pharisee was how he had been fooled by Jesus.   He had been intrigued by the sharp, intelligent, insightful ability and approach of Jesus.

The Pharisee began to question whether or not Jesus was a prophet.  An authentic prophet would not allow himself to be ritually unclean by allowing himself to be touched by one who was unclean.  The Pharisee talked to himself about what Jesus was permitting.  I don't know who told Luke what the Pharisee said.   Did he talk loud enough so others could hear?  Unlikely.  Were these Luke's words to convey the Pharisee's attitude?  Maybe.   The Pharisee drew one conclusion:  Jesus was no prophet.   Numerous other conclusions could have been drawn such as, "Jesus certainly is kind to this woman," or "This woman is struggling with an important issue in her life," or "Jesus doesn't seem to be disturbed by the presence and attention of this woman."  The Pharisee suffered from scotoma regarding this woman.  He had a pre‑judged opinion of the woman and he found support for his view.  Then he put Jesus in the category with the woman.  If Jesus could not discern what kind this woman was, then Jesus must be her kind and no prophet.  The Pharisee concluded, "You can tell a person by the company he keeps."

No dialogue between the Pharisee and Jesus had been recorded to this point.  Luke inserted that the Pharisee talked to himself and Jesus answered him.  How did Jesus know what the Pharisee was thinking?  Could Jesus read minds?  Maybe they had been in conversation and the Pharisee's words trailed off.  Perhaps his eyes wandered.  Haven't you been in a conversation when you could tell by the eyes that the other person was not listening?  Maybe the Pharisee's eyebrows assumed a harsh expression, or his jaw got stern, or his lips quivered as he mumbled to himself. In any case, Jesus sensed the Pharisee's withdrawal.

Jesus immediately arrested the Pharisee's attention by calling his name.  Wherever the Pharisee had gone on his mental excursion, Jesus brought him back to the table when he said, “Simon."  The quickest way to get a person's attention is to call his name.  Jesus did this and then held his attention by raising his curiosity, "I want to tell you something."  What was he going to say?  Jesus said two people were in debt, one owed ten times more than the other.  Both accounts were marked paid in full by the lender.  Which one will love the lender more?  Simon had the right answer, the one forgiven more.  He was used to having the right answers.

Jesus got Simon's attention and engaged him in conversation.   Then came the confrontation.  Looking at the woman, a method Jesus used to direct Simon's attention to her, Jesus asked, "Do you see this woman?"  What a ridiculous question!  Obviously, Simon had seen her; otherwise, why had he done all that talking to himself about Jesus not being a prophet?  Was not Jesus’ question an expression of anger directed toward Simon because he had stereotyped the woman?  Simon did not answer the question because his answer would incriminate him.  He had not seen the woman, he had stereotyped her.  He knew her kind.  He knew how to relate to her kind, have nothing to do with her.  He saw her as an object used by men for their pleasure and benefit.  Now Simon used her for his benefit, as a yardstick to measure how good he was compared to her.  
  
Then Jesus contrasted the action of the woman with the lack of action by Simon.  Why did Jesus underscore the hospitality customs that Simon had overlooked?  Was it because Simon insisted on going by the rules regarding a sinful woman?  Often the most consistent thing about insistent rule keepers is their inconsistency or their selectivity about which rules to keep. 
  
Rule keepers insist on retribution if not revenge.  They seem to gain satisfaction in using the rules to break those who break the rules.  Simon the Pharisee illustrated this with his attitude toward the woman.  Invariably, Jesus saw the person and then saw the potential in the person.  He sought ways to open up people to their potential that had been locked up by guilt or prejudice or oppression.  It is told that Willie Sutton once decided to read the Gospels as if they were entirely new to him.  When he had finished, his wife asked him what he found new in them.  He said he was impressed that Jesus never met an unimportant person.

The way Jesus related to this unknown woman in Simon's house was characteristic of the way Jesus related to all women and all men.  Every person was of worth and importance as a person.   Jesus saw the uniqueness of the individual and related to each person’s uniqueness. In Jesus' culture women were considered property and were so treated.  Single adult women in Jesus' day had three strikes against them.  Strike one was being a woman.   Strike two was being unmarried.  Strike three was having no children.  Jesus related to women and treated them as people of worth and value.  Examples include Jesus' relationship with the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53‑8:11) and the woman at the well in Samaria (John 4:1‑42).   Thus Jesus responded and related redemptively to women and modeled that for us.

Jesus elevated women to a place of equality and mutuality with men which is the place where they had been when God created human beings.  They were created male and female in God’s image.

Many women were important in the life of the early church.  Mary Magdalene was the first witness and proclaimer of the resurrection of Christ.  Priscilla was a missionary.  Lydia was a businesswoman who was one of the founders of the church in Philippi.  Phoebe was a deacon, apparently ordained and set apart for ministry in the church at Cenchrae.

 Many of Jesus’ first disciples were women.  Women were leaders in the early church.  Then, the church permitted the prevailing culture to dictate action.  The role of women declined.  The role of women in leadership positions in the church has increased in the last half century but discrepancy continues to be evident. The United Church of Christ was the first denomination in the United States to ordain a woman as a minister.  It was less than 20 years ago that women began to serve as ushers at Glenview Community Church.  As I have continued to learn about the history and development of Glenview Community Church, I have wondered why the Women’s Association has functioned as an affiliate organization of the church rather than a completely integrated part of the congregational structure.  Perhaps, originally, women were not accepted in leadership positions in the congregation and the Women’s Association served as a type of shadow organization of the church and we have never addressed these issues.  I’m just wondering if the issue of sexism is rumbling around back there is our history as a congregation. 

Lest we think that the issue of sexism has been addressed and resolved in the church, we need only be reminded that in 2006 when the Episcopal Church elected a woman as its presiding officer, there was great consternation in Anglican parts of the world and accusations that those in the United States branch of the Anglican world were being insensitive to the rest of the world. 

Jesus met, confronted, and responded redemptively to prejudice against women practically every day of his ministry.  He was angered by the injustice some people suffered because of the scotoma or blind spots that others had.  One of the forms that prejudice took in the first century was sexism.  This issue is still alive and doing harm today.  Part of our faith and work as individuals and as a congregation is to learn from Jesus to respond redemptively to this prejudice seeing people as people rather than stereotyping them according to their sexual identity.  The church can model the process of redemptive responses to prejudice by examining and pointing to the life and ministry of Jesus as the model of human wholeness and continue the revolution that Jesus began when he said to Simon the Pharisee, “Do you see this woman?”  And the revolution will continue as we ask and answer the question, “Do you see this person?”  “Do you see this person as a person?”  “Do you?”

Note
     1 Dorothy L. Sayers, Are Women Human? (Grand Rapids: William B. Erdmans Publishing Co., 1971) p. 37.