Then one of the Pharisees asked Him to eat with him. And He went to the Pharisee’s house, and reclined to eat. And behold, a woman in the city who was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus reclined at the table in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster flask of fragrant oil, and stood at His feet behind Him weeping; and she began to wash His feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head; and she kissed His feet and anointed them with the fragrant oil. (Luke 7:36-38)
Most of us today simply cannot picture this scene. Luke took for granted we would recognize the various hints in the description and have no trouble seeing it. Luke was a Gentile, probably Greek, and most scholars agree he wrote for a Gentile audience. Rome had been ruling Greece for at least 300 years at this point, and had injected Roman cultural habits into the remnants of Alexander the Great’s old empire.
One of Rome’s peculiar cultural habits was in how one ate at mealtime. It was very specific, based on their knowledge of human anatomy, the plumbing of the digestive system. Proper Roman etiquette was to recline on a couch on one’s left side. The couch was raised at the head, and the left elbow was propped on this hump. The couch was placed at an angle to the table, the face rather close, so one could eat with the right hand. The foot of the couch extended out away from the table. It was common to bend the knees, which put the feet behind one’s back. This was not as cozy as sitting upright, but it allowed space for servers to come and go without the diners having to move. Eastern cultures would also recline, but on big cushions rather close to each other. The Gentile audience would recognize Luke’s use of the word “recline” either way.
Readers also knew if the host was among the wealthy elite, and wanted the rest of the world to know it, they would have a dining hall built so that the long rectangular table and couches/cushions occupied a raised central area, with a nice airy, sky-lit ceiling. On each of the two long sides would be a colonnaded hall with a lower ceiling, and somewhat shadowed, perhaps partially obscured by drapes. In these darker halls, the public was allowed to roam freely, as long as they stayed rather quietly in the shadows. It was a public spectacle, where the less fortunate could watch and see all the big shots living the life of luxury, and everyone could see who’s who.
It was odd how wealthy Pharisees would mix cultural habits. For the most part, no self-respecting Jewish man would be seen speaking to a woman in public. All the more so if she was a sinner. Almost certainly, the woman in this story was a prostitute. Her presence in the hall was of no consequence, but that she dared to come out of the shadows and touch one of the elite guests was scandalous. Apparently Jesus acted as if it were perfectly normal. Even were she not of ill repute, her expression of devotion was extravagant, and trumped the host’s restrained attempt to honor Jesus. The price of her ointment might have easily paid for all the food served at that meal.
“There was a certain creditor who had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. And when they had nothing with which to repay, he freely forgave them both. Tell Me, therefore, which of them will love him more?” (Luke 7:41-42)
Reading His host’s mind wasn’t necessarily a miracle. The self-righteous Pharisee no doubt displayed his thoughts dramatically on his face. The parable itself isn’t too hard to understand, if we accept the possibility the Pharisee may have actually accepted Jesus’ teachings, on the surface at least. Thus, the Pharisee is represented by the man of little debt — he felt gratitude at having his sins forgiven, but hardly felt there was much to forgive on his account. The prostitute was the hopeless debtor. Her sense of forgiveness could find no words, so great was it (Luke 7:40-47).
Jesus then called attention to the contrast between the host’s expressions of gratitude, missing as they were some of the minimal courtesies of that time, versus the overwhelming abundance of the woman’s efforts. No one bothers to note what she did was essentially an act of worship, blasphemous in the Jewish mind.
Mark mentions the event, as well (Mark 14:3-9). Having a different purpose in mind, Mark recounts the story from a different angle. Between the two, we get a fairly detailed picture. While Luke mentions Jesus called His host Simon (verse 40), Mark tells us the man was also known as “the Leper.” Many scholars speculate Jesus healed Simon of his leprosy, a disease which would have barred the man from casual contact with society. His wealth simply assured he was a famous leper. But to dine at a table in public, Simon would have to have been healed, and the circumstances indicate it could well have been at the hands of Jesus. This formal dinner would be a way of celebrating his return to public life, and to honor the One who made it possible.
In Mark’s account, though, Jesus assures all it is the woman who would go down in history, at least among believers. This singular event proved so memorable John could mention it in his Gospel (John 11:2) and we instantly get a much better picture of Jesus’ friendship with Lazarus, whom He raised from the dead. The woman forgiven at Simon’s “welcome back” party was Mary, the sister of Lazarus. Little wonder she did not share her sister’s passion for domestic management, if indeed she had been a prostitute. Whether the stories are related or simply similar is not certain, but plenty of people see it as the same event.
In this case, we have a parable which is not so hard to grasp, but without the context could be very confusing.
