skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Luke 7:36-50 tells the story of a Pharisee (Simon) who invited Jesus into his home for a meal. Pharisees of course were a class of Jews who were super righteous. They interpreted the Law of Moses in a very strict way and were spiritually arrogant in their faith.
Simon didn’t just invite anyone in to his home. He certainly wouldn’t invite someone who might bring dishonor into his home like a Gentile or a Jew (who might be a hated Tax Collector working for the Romans) or an unclean leper or perhaps even worse… a prostitute.
Also Simon probably expected something in return… a favor by Jesus, maybe some miracle or anything like that which would bring honor to his house.
When Simon invited Jesus into his home he neglected something. He didn’t give Jesus water to wash his feet, he didn’t greet him with affection and he didn’t anoint Jesus’ head with any aromatic oils. These things may not be our custom today but they were back then and Jesus noticed the lack of hospitality and said nothing.
Simon is delighted to host Jesus and then a woman who was a known sinner walked into his house. Keep in mind that the city of Nain was a small town and in small towns everyone knows everyone else. This woman was probably guilty of some sexual sin, perhaps a prostitute and as such would not even be allowed in the Synagogue which was the social/religious center of every town. Her name is not given, but let’s call her Rachel… Rachel the prostitute.
Rachel knew who she was and that she would not be welcomed in Simon’s home. Rachel, probably with great temerity, entered Simon’s home. She didn’t intend to eat but just wanted to honor Jesus with an aromatic ointment.
And as she entered she started crying. When she was a little girl she never dreamed of being a prostitute. Perhaps circumstance had forced her into that occupation but she hated it and she hated herself every time a Jew made a wide berth around her on the sidewalk or when the whole village (except her and others like her) were gathered together in the synagogue... and she cried. She noticed Jesus’ feet were dirty so she washed Jesus’ feet with the only thing she had… her tears and dried his feet with the only thing she had… her hair. She kissed his feet and anointed them with the aromatic oil.
Simon sees in this scene the attention he deserved being directed on Rachel and as a true product of his religious upbringing mentally condemned Jesus for allowing Rachel the prostitute to even touch him.
Jesus of course could read minds but you didn’t really need that unique gift to figure out what was going on in Simon’s head and then Jesus identified for Simon and Rachel that there were two sinners in the room… Simon who was inhospitable and of course Rachel.
Sometimes we get so busy looking at others and the sin that rules their lives that we fail to look inwardly and see the sin that we own which is by comparisons sake small but which Jesus still holds us accountable for.
Sometimes because all we can see is the sin of others, we think we are better than them and treat them accordingly and compound our sin.
Jesus said that Rachel’s “faith” had save her because she “loved much” in understanding who she was and in honoring the one who could lift her out of the mess she had made of her life.
Rachel risked the wrath of Simon the Pharisee to reach out to the only hope that she had to reverse the course of her life. Simon was so blinded by Rachel’s great sin that he couldn’t see that he too was a sinner. Let’s open our eyes and see who we are and reach out to Jesus Christ.
The letter to Philemon is about a runaway slave named Onesimus who was owned by Philemon and somehow made it to Rome where the Apostle Paul was imprisoned by the Roman government awaiting trial.
Somewhere along the way Onesimus hears about Jesus Christ and becomes a Christian and a friend and helper of Paul.
This makes me wonder a few things… Paul could have asked/demanded that Philemon free the slave Onesimus or he could have offered to purchase Onesminus or he could have asked Philemon to loan Onesimus to him. Instead he sends Onesimus back to Philemon.
My guess is that if he had done any of these things (besides sending Onesimus back)that Philemon could have felt that he was being taken advantage of. After all Philemon could have had a significant investment in Onesimus especially if Onesimus had a particularly valuable skill set. It might have been, as Paul alluded to, that the slave Onesimus might have stolen from Philemon. All these things have to be considered as possibilities.
So Paul was very careful about how he handled this situation… after all it could have turned out to have a negative impact on the Kingdom. Paul’s handling of this situation demonstrated skill and concern about all parties involved. By sending Onesimus back, Paul demonstrated both Philemon’s legal right to Onesimus and Onesimus’ legal obligation to Philemon. So Paul was acting in a way that dealt honorably with the Law.
It was almost a certainty that Philemon would act honorably towards Onesimus and perhaps even free him. Paul in his writing to Philemon in an understated way reminded Philemon of his obligations to Paul. Presumably Paul converted Philemon to Jesus Christ and perhaps as an Apostle laid hands upon him and imparted some spiritual gift. Philemon was under a tremendous spiritual debt to Paul.
The bottom line is that Paul demonstrated great skill and consideration so that the Kingdom could be elevated and not diminished. What a great lesson… can we do any less?
“Now, however, I am on my way to Jerusalem in the service of the Lord’s people there. For Macedonia and Achaia were pleased to make a contribution for the poor among the Lord’s people in Jerusalem.” Romans 15:25
This passage references a special collection taken from Greek Churches to render aid to the church in Jerusalem whose members were suffering from a lack of basic necessities.
This passage is also used as authority to limit the collection taken every Sunday to the needs of Christians only.
I’ve been thinking about this for a while and it has caused me to ponder certain things about the use of these funds… perhaps because I am in a position of leadership and I see a few administrative problems.
- What if A Christian woman is in need of food but her husband and family are not Christians. Maybe the husband is a real scoundrel. Do you release funds to the woman and forbid her to share with her husband?
- What if a Christian family has some starving Muslim neighbors including the cutest little kids you have ever seen and you find out the Christian family has been sharing with those neighbors. Do you admonish them and tell them... that money is Holy money dedicated to God and not to be used to feed the dogs?
- Do the funds released to the Christian family cease to become church funds and now become funds belonging to an individual? If so what happens if you find out they have been using those funds to replace the carpet in their house?
- Why didn’t the Apostles exercise their power of miracles and turn rocks into loaves of bread so we wouldn’t have to deal with these kinds of problems?
- What if the real reason they restricted these funds to Christians was there was not enough to feed the Christians and the non-Christians?
- What if the church had a surplus of funds and all the Christians had been taken care of and there was plenty of money left over…then could we help the starving non-Christians?
I do believe that every interpretation we give a passage has to agree with the theme of the New Testament that Christians both individually and collectively should love God with all their hearts, soul and mind and love their neighbors as themselves. Thanks for thinking with me.
