Preview of my next book

I am currently in the process of writing my second book. My goal is to make a reference guide to every named, and notable unnamed, woman in the Bible (just the 66 books of the Protestant Bible). I am aware that there are other books out there with similar information, however I am hoping to offer this one as a more affordable ($2.99 for e-book and Kindle) and user friendly version. The e-book version will have hyperlinks to the Bible verses as well as alternative spellings.

 I am looking for feedback to see if this is something that would be useful or if there is more information you would like to see. Below are a few entries to sample. Please post your comments. I read and value all of them.

 Also, you can find my first book, “7 Common Mistakes That Christians Make and How to Avoid them” on Amazon.

Paperback version (click here)
Kindle version (click here)

Here are the sample entries:

Anna (Ἄννα) “gracious; one who gives”

Parents: Phanuel (father)
Husband: Unnamed
Siblings: Unknown
Children: Unknown
Story: Anna was a prophetess that worshipped in the temple for 77 years after her husband of seven years died. We are told that she never left the temple and worshipped by fasting and praying each day. When Jesus’ parents presented him at the temple, Anna saw the Christ child and gave thanks to God, and began to talk to everyone about him.
Alternative spellings: None
Luke 2:36

Azubah (עזוּבה) “forsaken”

Parents: Unknown
Husband: Caleb
Siblings: Unknown
Children: If she is the same woman as Jerioth (see alternate spellings below) then she would have been mother to Jesher, Shobab, and Ardon.
Story: Unknown
Alternative spellings: Other scholars have identified Jerioth as being the same woman as Azubah, while still others believe Jerioth was Azubah’s mother. The NSRV, KJV, ESV, and NIV bibles all consider these to be two separate women.
1 Chronicles 2:18-19

Candace (Κανδάκη) “who possesses contrition”

Parents: Unknown
Husband: Unknown
Siblings: Unknown
Children: Unknown
Story: All we know from scripture about her is her name. Her court official, an unnamed eunuch who was in charge of her treasury, was met by Philip on his way back from Jerusalem and baptized. Nothing further is known about him.
Alternative spellings: None
Acts 8:27

What are Traditional Family Values?

     We hear a lot today from the media or from the pulpits about the so-called war on traditional families and the destruction of traditional family values. This is usually associated with the undefined political liberals and the ongoing issue of gay marriage, or the equally undefined “homosexual agenda.” What we do not hear so much, or at least I don’t, is, what exactly are family values, traditional or otherwise? For that matter, how do we, as a culture or society, accurately define “family”?     If you’re like me, you grew up in a traditional family setting. We had two parents, siblings, grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, and so on. There were annual family reunions (one for each of my parents) where we met with distant relatives that we only saw once a year or less, but what about those who were not so lucky, by my standards at least, to have had the blessing of growing up in such a traditional fashion? In other words, what standard or model do we use to define what family is?
     I had friends that came from severely broken homes. Divorced parents, siblings split between parents, custody given to a grandparent or distant relative, etc. Would these people be willing to admit that they did not have a family, or would they just define it differently than I did? There are also people without the benefit of blood relations that would have quite a different definition of family too. For them, it may be a close network of friends. I, for one, have a friend of many years that I consider as much family as I do my own siblings. Many of our elderly live in retirement or assisted living facilities where family is defined as those with whom they live with and rely on daily.
     Still, many hold fast to the idea that the ideal family is constructed of two adults of different sexes that have one or more children between them. Does that mean that couples who are unable, or choose not, to have children are not families? How about couples who are living together without the legality of marriage, either with or without children? Is marriage required to define family? As we can see, the definition of family, traditional or otherwise, is as varied as there are individuals who define it. Likewise, “tradition” is equally hard to pin down. Therefore, I would conclude that “family” cannot be defined by its physical construction since it is built differently for each of us, and yet still remains “family” for each of us.
     So, what is the unifying thread that runs through families that causes us to call them that? Is it family values? Again, I find “family values” equally hard to apply to “family.” How do we define something as intangible and subjective as a value? While we value our family members, they are not, in of themselves, a value. Maybe value is not the right word. May we, perhaps, use the term “quality” instead? Now we have something we can work with. What qualities do our families possess that we place value on? I would suggest things like; mutual love and respect, acceptance (in spite of differences), or comfort, as in offering a safe place to be, be from, or return to. They likewise offer us a place to turn to for acceptance, sympathy, empathy, and affirmation. This is not to say that all families are of like mind or are in total agreement. We all know that’s not true, but we also know that the differences do not outweigh the qualities that we deem so valuable.
     I believe, now, we can safely say that both “family” and “family values” can be defined in such a way as to apply those definitions in a universal fashion. We can define family as two or more people who are in agreement on the fact that every member of the group is considered a member of their family. Family values, then, are the aforementioned qualities that the individual groups possess that the members value.
     Which brings me back to my original question, what is it about gay marriage or the homosexual relationship that is claimed by so many to devalue or break down family values? Perhaps it is the inclusion of the word “traditional” that causes the problem. This is an obvious argument fallacy since traditions vary and cannot be applied universally. It is my belief that when people say “traditional” they really mean “Christian” family values, which is to say that only Christians are capable of possessing qualities such as love, respect, acceptance, and so on. This is a false assumption. These qualities can be found in families of all faiths as well as in families of no faith at all.
     For the sake of argument, let us turn to the Bible and see what, if anything, Jesus had to say on the subject of family. We know that Jesus was raised by two parents and that he had siblings. However, Joseph was not his biological father and his siblings were only half siblings, so there goes any notion that traditional Christian families must have complete biological connections. Likewise, Jesus was (probably) not married and (also probably) had no children, which throws the notion that marriage and children are necessary in a traditional Christian family right out the window. There is, however, one passage of scripture where Jesus does address the concept of family. It can be found in Mark’s gospel (how convenient for me), chapter 3, and verses 31-35. When Jesus’ mother and brothers come to get him from the crowds, Jesus was told that they were looking for him. His reply was this, “Who are my mother and my brothers?” And looking at those who were sitting around him in a circle, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother.”
     So, for those who wish to apply Christianity to family and family values, it might do you well to first understand what Christianity has to say about it.

As always, your comments are welcome and encouraged.

The Blame Game

Today I was reviewing an old sermon that I delivered some years ago. I found the video on my YouTube channel (which I rarely visit) and realized that I had forgotten what the sermon was about, so I watched it. I am almost always fascinated by the fact that I like my sermons after a few years have passed more than the day I preach them. This particular text was from the gospel of John, 9:1-41. This scripture recounts a time when Jesus and his disciples come across a man blind from birth who sat in the middle of town begging for a living. The disciples ask Jesus the following question, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents?” Jesus bypasses the question and proceeds to heal the man by making clay out of dirt and his spit, putting it on the man’s eyes, and telling him to wash. After which the man is healed. Later, the man is taken to the authorities to determine if Jesus was acting from God’s power or not.
What struck me was the relevance to today’s society. Here we find a man who, by no fault of his own, was born blind, and because of his disability, was reduced to begging for a living. When the disciples see him, they do not try to help, but instead try to find fault for his situation. In other words, they are trying to transfer responsibility from themselves to either the man or someone else. Aren’t we doing that to our own downtrodden today? Are we not passing blame back and forth between parties other than ourselves? The republicans blame the democrats and vice versa, the president blames the congress and vice versa, Wall Street blames the OWSers and vice versa, yet no one claims responsibility.
Back to the scripture. The man that has just been healed is taken to the authorities to determine, not if he has been healed, but if the healing was LEGAL. Give me a break. The Pharisees completely ignore the miracle and go into debate over whether or not Jesus broke the law. Really? Someone does a deed of kindness and they are questioned as to whether or not that deed was within the law. Sound familiar?
Maybe we should stop looking for blame, passing responsibility, and checking the letter of the law, and just DO THE RIGHT THING!
Sorry for the rant, but I found it necessary to get it off my chest.
Peace

The Power of Lent

I was going through some old sermons I had on file and ran across this one I wrote for Ash Wednesday some years ago. Since we are in the season, I thought it a good ideal to share again. Your comments are welcome.

Lent is a time in the Christian year that is, at best, misunderstood and at worst, ignored. Traditionally, Lent was a time of repentance spent in preparation for new believers to be baptized into the family of Christ. Over time, the importance of the season and the disciplines associated with it has been reduced to the point that we barely pay it lip service and rarely, if ever, participate.
Jesus did not begin his ministry on a whim. He prepared himself fully before he started his ministry; mentally, ritually and spiritually. Jesus prepared himself mentally through years of studying the scriptures, which armed him with full working knowledge of both Mosaic Law and the prophets, because he knew that he would come up against criticism from learned priests, scribes and Pharisees, and he knew he would have to defend himself as well as prove himself scripturally to anyone that questioned him.
Jesus prepared himself ritually through the public act of baptism after which he received his ordination from God proclaiming him to be God’s son, the Messiah, the savior who would free mankind from sin and death.
The third phase of Jesus’ preparation for ministry was his spiritual formation. The gospel of Mark tells us that immediately after his baptism he went out into the wilderness to fast, pray and meditate. It is this third and final phase of preparation that we honor and emulate during the season of Lent and it deserves close attention, if for no other reason than because it is a discipline ordained by Christ; a sacrament, if you will, just as important as Holy Communion or baptism.
Spiritual enlightenment and fulfillment begins with the practice of fasting. This is an act of self-denial and purging of the trappings, temptations and distractions of our lives with the purpose of allowing more room in our lives for the Holy Spirit to come in to. The more we give up of worldly distractions, the more aware of, and attentive to, the workings of the spirit we can become. And it follows naturally that the more we allow the Holy Spirit into our lives, the better prepared we will be to address spiritual challenges.
The second discipline of Lent is that of prayer. Through prayer we enter into a communication with our Lord. This is a time for repentance and humility. It is a time whereby we can freely speak to our maker about our own shortcomings and misgivings. It is a time to ask questions, and yes, a time to be still and quiet so that we may hear the answers also.
Finally, there is the act of meditation where we then reflect and discern what we have learned through our prayers, with the help of the Holy Spirit. Only after diligently following these three disciplines are we fully prepared to resist the evils and temptations of this world.
The scriptures are clear as to the necessity for being spiritually prepared in this manner. After Jesus had been in the wilderness, fasting, praying and meditating for 40 days we are told that the devil came to tempt him. This was a grave error in judgment on the part of Satan. Satan assumed, wrongly, that in his physically weakened human state, Jesus would be most vulnerable to human temptation. He could not have been more mistaken. Not being human himself, but spirit, Satan could only be defeated by spiritual strength, and although weakened and famished physically, Jesus was spiritually at his strongest and able to easily resist. That is the power of Lent!
We must then ask ourselves when, where, and under what circumstances, does Satan come to tempt us? When and where and under what circumstances are we most vulnerable? How prepared are we to resist him and the evils of this world that surround us every day? If we cannot answer an emphatic yes to that last question then we must ask, what are we going to do about it?
The season of Lent is not something to be ignored, watered down or rewritten for our own convenience through false justifications. Lent is to be looked forward to and embraced, joyfully, with anticipation and expectation. Lent is a season of empowerment. If we study the word, accept Christ as our savior through baptism and allow the Holy Spirit to come in and fill our minds, our bodies, and our very souls, then, then can we be fully prepared disciples of Jesus Christ!

The Legend of Philip and the Eunuch: A Sermon

Originally written as an assignment for Campbell. It received such high praise from the professor I thought I’d share.

Acts 8:4-8; 26-40 (NRSV)

I would like to look at our scripture reading today as a story. As in all stories, there is first and foremost a teller of the story followed by a number of characters of greater or lesser parts. There is a setting, or stage, where the story takes place and at least some description of the surrounding area, or props if you will. Finally, there is the purpose of the story; that is, what point our storyteller is trying to get across to us.
Let’s start with our cast of characters. Our main character is Philip, and he is the only one actually named in the story. Philip is a disciple of Jesus of which we know little of. He is not one of the three favorites (Peter, James and John) nor did he have a gospel named after him (Matthew and John). We first meet him in the John’s gospel when Jesus finds Philip in Galilee and asks Philip to follow him. We are told that he was from Bethsaida, the city where Peter and Andrew were from and we are also told that Philip found Nathanael and told him that the Messiah had been found in the person of Jesus. John also makes it clear that Philip did not hesitate to follow Jesus, unlike his friend Nathanael.
Philip next appears with Jesus and disciples prior to the feeding of the 5000. Jesus asks Philip about buying bread for the crowd and Philip answers him that there is no way they had enough money to buy bread for a crowd that size. Next, Philip appears in John’s gospel after Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem when two Greeks approach him to ask to see Jesus. Philip then gets his friend Andrew and together they ask Jesus for these men to speak to him. As we can see, Philip does not play much of a talked about role during the ministry of Jesus and we don’t see him again until this passage from Acts.
Our next character in our story today is an unnamed eunuch on his way home from Jerusalem. We are told a few things about this man. First, he is a Jew. We know this because we are told that he has been to the temple in Jerusalem to worship and he is reading a scroll of Isaiah. Apparently this man was of high standing for we also know that he was in charge of the entire treasury of Queen Candace of Ethiopia, which would have made him also very trustworthy. What else can we discern about this man? I would venture to guess that he was humble. He is approached by a stranger, Philip, admits that he doesn’t fully understand what he is reading, and then invites this stranger into his chariot with an open and questioning mind to hear what Philip has to say.
Minor characters in our story include an unnamed angel, the Holy Spirit, and a crowd of Samaritans whom we are told listened to Philip with one accord. There is, however, one more very important character here. Any professor of literature will tell you that the narrator of any story is also a character in the story. In this case we have the writer of both the gospel of Luke and the book of Acts (originally written as one document) whom we will call Luke out of convenience even though we do not know for sure who actually wrote it. Luke is the most important person in the story because he is the one that reveals to us exactly what he wants us to see and hear. He knows ahead of time what is going to be said by the other characters and how they will respond. Our story teller is not recording history here, he is giving instruction. He is an evangelist with an agenda.
So, you may be asking yourselves why I say that this is story, not history. Do I believe that this did not actually happen and that Luke just made it up? Not necessarily. But, I do believe that Luke embellished the story for his own purposes. Let me explain what I mean. First, and most importantly, our two main characters, Philip and the eunuch, are behaving very out of character as we might expect knowing what we know about them already. Based on prior knowledge about Philip, we might conclude that he was not a very assertive individual. He follows Jesus without question, unlike his friend Nathanael. He has little to no faith in Jesus’ ability to feed the masses in spite of having seen miracle after miracle performed by Jesus. And, he is apparently too timid to approach Jesus with the request of the Greeks without first getting support from Andrew. Does this sound like the same man who could preach to great crowds in Samaria of all places? Does this sound like someone that would approach a high official of the queen in his chariot?
Likewise so is our eunuch. Here is a man of high social standing, probably educated, with servants at his command. Are we to believe that he would allow a stranger of lower rank to get that close to his chariot, much less invite him in, not to mention asking him to baptize him? No, in my mind all of these things sound very unlikely. But that is not the point. Perhaps something similar did occur, but that in retelling it exactly the way it happened served no purpose or was so boring that no one would bother reading it twice, much less remember it and reflect on it later. Enter the story teller. Now we have an event worth noting.
For many of us, at least for myself, when we read a story, be it fiction, history, the Bible, or any other work that includes characters, we are invited by the author to put ourselves into the minds and places of the characters we are reading about. If a character is thinking something, we are told what they are thinking. If they are feeling something, again the author tells us what that feeling is so that we can share in it with them. This is what good story telling is about. And, often times, if the author is very good, we learn a little something about ourselves by experiencing others, even if for a short moment.
So, with that in mine, let us immerse ourselves into the story and live out the plot from “within” the characters minds. Let us imagine that it is we ourselves reciting the lines, viewing the scenery, acting according to the script. How well can we relate to what is being said and done? Are we like Philip? Are we usually pretty timid when it comes to our faith in Jesus; following the same routine without question, not asking hard questions, reading about miracles without actually believing that those kinds of things actually happen anymore, just in Bible stories, never really approaching Jesus on our own without first relying on someone else to go with us? Do we believe in angels? Do we listen to the direction of the Holy Spirit? Do we step out of our comfort zone or social class to tell someone the good news about Jesus? How does it make us feel when we read about that person (ourselves) in this story turning into the great hero Christian? Through the story we get to feel what it is like to take action and fulfill our duty as missionaries for Christ. We get to teach the scripture, win a new soul for Christ, and be protected by the Spirit. Feels good, doesn’t it?
Are we like the eunuch? Are we successful and educated, secure in our position within society? Do we wear a badge of importance and hold a high income job? Do we show our faith in the same way, going to church in a big fancy car with an entourage of underlings? Do we avoid associating with those of lower class than ourselves for fear of how we would be viewed by our peers? Do we read the Bible and claim to understand it when in fact we are just too proud to admit we don’t? Perhaps we have never let Jesus in our lives because we never allowed anyone to get close enough to us to share him with us. How does it feel now from this perspective to read about this hero eunuch? Here’s a man we can relate to that allowed himself to be open to a stranger of lower class without fear of social rejection. Here is a man that is willing to admit that he doesn’t know everything in spite of his position and education. Here is a man that could humble himself to step out of his comfort zone and admit that he needs Jesus and be baptized. Feels good, doesn’t it?
We need story tellers like Luke. We need people to give us a glimpse of how things could be if we just let it happen. Is the story true or fiction; historically accurate or highly embellished? I don’t know and I don’t think it matters. I think what does matter is that it serves the purpose of the evangelist well and gives us a chance to give pause and reflect on our own lives. No matter how we view our real-world lives, either boring and unremarkable or important but lacking, perhaps this little story should give us hope; hope that with the help of the Holy Spirit we too can be heroes for Christ and tell others our story.
Amen

My newest project

Well, it’s been awhile. Years in fact since I began my academic journey (and no foreseeable end in sight I might add). My original goal of obtaining a four year degree so that I could qualify to work for the church was all I had expected to achieve. What I hadn’t counted on was an unshakable addiction to knowledge and the learning process. I am reminded of one of my favorite quotes from the movie, Oh Brother Where Art Thou which I will paraphrase here by saying that my degree in religious studies has only aroused my appetite without properly bedding it down. My first semester in divinity school likewise did little to satisfy me and much to increase my addiction.

I now find myself in the very uncomfortable position of having to take off from formal studies while I take care of my Aspersers son. Here I sit with all the training and tools to pursue and further my career in biblical studies and not a classroom or professor to guide me. So, I have decided to self-study and in the process (hopefully) I can improve my knowledge and perhaps help others with similar addictions. I have begun to write a book. Oh, not just any book, but a reference book. (Non-academics would call it dry and boring, serious egghead scholars would call it mind candy).

My wife told me I should pick a narrow subject and make it an assignment. As an advocate for the underdogs in life and the overlooked and underwhelmed members of society, I began to look at some of the lesser known figures in the scriptures where I finally landed on a fascinating creature that is rarely discussed; woman. Therefore, I am currently compiling a list of all the women in the Bible and will hopefully soon be making it available to the public in book form.

I would appreciate and encourage any thoughts or input any of you may have on the subject. What would you like to know? What kind of reference would be helpful to you? Which women in the Bible are your favorites or would like to know more about? Feedback on these or any other thoughts are welcome and helpful.

During this process I will be blogging on my progress and on some of the more interesting women I run across in my research. Please visit often and leave you comments.

Debt Relief

Debt Relief: Luke 7:36-50
Mark C. Taylor
Oak Island Presbyterian Church
Oak Island, North Carolina
June 13, 2010

Our gospel story this morning, from Luke’s gospel, is a fascinating story full of drama, power struggle, and daring acts of bravery. There are three characters in this story; a Pharisee whom we learn is named Simon, an unnamed woman we understand to have a well-known reputation as a sinner, and of course, Jesus.

The scene opens with a dinner invitation from Simon to Jesus, which he accepts. However, this dinner invitation is not extended with the intent on a casual social evening between religious scholars, as is evident by the reception Jesus receives when he arrives. No, Simon’s motive was not, “Let’s get together over dinner and discuss theological issues, maybe exchange some ideas, talk about teaching methods, etc.” Had that been the case, Simon would have greeted him with the proper social customs of the time: a greeting kiss, water to wash his feet and olive oil for his head, none of which was offered, as Jesus points out to him later on in verses 44 through 46. To be denied the entire proper greeting is nothing less than a premeditated, pointed, insult.

Imagine, if you will, accepting a dinner invitation from a colleague, not a close friend or family member, but perhaps your boss or even a prominent member of the community, and when you arrived you were told, “The doors open, come on in. There are drinks in the fridge. Grab another cold one while you’re there. I’m just watching the game.” You find your host lounging on the couch, feet up, remote control in one hand and the other in a bowl of popcorn. No greeting, no handshake, no “can I get you something to drink,” or, “here, let me take your coat,” and little, to no, eye contact. Would you feel welcome? I know I wouldn’t.

It is apparent in this story that the true motive behind the dinner invitation was to be able to get Jesus away from the crowds for the purpose of cross examining him in hopes of finding fault. Perhaps Simon was thinking that if he and a few reliable witnesses could trip Jesus up enough to prove him a false prophet or a heretic, then maybe they could shut him up and get back to business as usual. We already know from chapters 5 and 6 in Luke’s gospel that twice the Pharisees have questioned Jesus’ actions concerning Jewish law, only to be bested and publically embarrassed by Jesus.

Now the power struggle begins. Jesus, rather than simply walking away from obvious personal insult, returns in kind by taking his place at the table, also without regard to proper custom. You see, it was customary among the religious leaders of the time to sit, or recline as is the more accurate description, in order of age; eldest first and youngest last. Kenneth Bailey, in his book, “Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes” comments that at age 30 Jesus could not have been close to the eldest in the room. Now who’s insulted? It is as if Jesus is saying, “Well Simon, if you’re going to act this childish, then I guess I’ll have to be the grown up here.” The tension in the room must have been thick enough to cut with a knife, and all of this takes place in only one verse.

The next verse introduces the third character, a woman whose name we are not told, but whose reputation is without question. She is described as a woman in the city who was a sinner. We are not told what her sin is but most scholars agree that it was probably prostitution. Now, just as in the first verse of this story, much is to be learned by noticing what is not said. We read that, “Having learned that he was eating in the Pharisee’s house…”, indicating that she was told by someone where Jesus was, either in passing or, more probably because she had inquired as to his whereabouts. And, that she brought an alabaster jar of ointment with her which also indicates an act of premeditation on her part. This woman actively sought out Jesus and went there bearing a gift. There are many possible explanations as to how she gained access to the house, much less the dinner table, but for now it is best just to accept her presence there as something that would have been considered normal for that time.

If our woman character had not already been identified as a sinful woman, her next actions would leave no question at all about her disregard for the law. Verse 38 says that she was weeping and began to bathe his feet with her tears. Now, for a woman to touch a man that was not her husband is bad enough, but touching a man that is considered a prophet is unheard of, and no prophet would allow himself to be touched by a woman, yet Jesus seems unconcerned and does nothing to stop her. Her next act could very well be the worst thing, outside of prostitution, that a woman in the Middle East, whether it be the first century or the present one, could think to do. She let her hair down! Had she been a pious, married, woman and done this her husband would have been duty bound to divorce her. You see, at that time, and even up to today in that culture, a woman’s hair was considered her most sensual asset. To expose it in a public setting was considered an act of sexual enticement, just as touching a man other than her husband would have the connotation of sexual misconduct. (Oh, if they could see us now! Oh, wait, they do. Do not think that our culture of reckless sexual abandonment is going unnoticed by the rest of the world.) And of course Simon seizes the opportunity to confront Jesus over his tolerance, and yes, full acceptance, of this woman’s actions.

Now we return to the power play, the, according to one commentator, the climax of the story. Simon serves up an accusation and Jesus returns the serve with a parable:
41‘A certain creditor had two debtors; one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. 42When they could not pay, he cancelled the debts for both of them. Now which of them will love him more?’ 43Simon answered, ‘I suppose the one for whom he cancelled the greater debt.’

And of course, Simon falls into his own trap when he gives his answer. This gives Jesus the opportunity to chastise Simon for his earlier rude behavior. Now Jesus can play his hole card because he knows something about this woman that Simon does not. Notice the tense expressions when Jesus speaks:
“Therefore, I tell you, her sins, which were (past tense) many…”
“have been (past tense) forgiven,”
“hence (since that time) she has shown great love.”
We’ve already seen this use of the past tense back in verse 37 when the writer tells us, “And a woman in the city, who was a sinner…” The writer has already given us a clue about this woman long before Jesus makes his commentary about her. In literary terms this is called foreshadowing. Therefore, when Jesus says to the woman, “your sins are forgiven,” he is not performing the act of forgiving her, but rather, affirming what she already believes, a belief she achieved through faith.

Both of our characters, Simon the Pharisee and the sinful woman, have much in common, and yet both receive Jesus in very different ways. Simon knows about Jesus. He has watched him during his public ministry, heard his sermons, questioned him, studied him, analyzed him, and debated him with other Pharisees. At this point there is little Simon does not know about Jesus, he just doesn’t know Jesus. This is SO true about SO many today. Speaking as one in college majoring in religious studies I can attest that our schools are overflowing with scholars and academics that know more about Jesus than I do, yet truly do not know him. And not just in our college classrooms, but in our Sunday school classrooms as well. We invite Jesus into our schools and churches and homes. We study the scriptures, analyze them, debate them, question them, and interpret them. More often than not many people, like Simon the Pharisee, are looking for the faults, the imperfections, the contradictions, because if we can locate enough of them then we can justify dismissing the scriptures as flawed. However, knowing about Jesus is not the same as knowing Jesus.

And then there is our sinful woman. Like Simon, she also knows much about Jesus. In fact, she and Simon may have been part of the same crowd that followed Jesus around to hear what he was saying. I dare say that she also has analyzed, debated, and questioned what Jesus was saying and doing concerning the kingdom of God. The difference is that she was not looking fault in Jesus, she was looking to rid herself of her faults and Jesus offered her the answer: acceptance, repentance, and faith. Here is a woman that heard the word and accepted it. Jesus did not do anything to or for her. He did not cure her disease or infirmary. He did not cast out any demons from her. He simply said that God loves sinners and is willing to forgive their sins simply if they repent of those sins and accept the forgiveness. Problem solved! This message was literally her Good News!

Unlike Simon, this woman did not wait for Jesus to come to her, even by invitation, but rather, asked around as to where he was and then went there looking for him. She arrived at the house before Jesus with anticipation of thanking him with an offer of expensive ointment, possibly for him to put on his head. This woman started out that day a happy and grateful woman. She was going to meet the man that freed her from a lifetime of persecution and resentment. But what did she witness when Jesus did arrive? The man she was there to honor, her messiah, her savior, was treated with blatant disrespect and resentment. What may have started out as tears of joy on her face quickly became tears of pain. She began to feel Jesus’ pain, but rather than turn and leave she decided instead to risk everything, for his sake. By performing the greeting ritual than had been denied Jesus by his host she offered him the honor that had been denied. By the literal and figurative act of “letting down her hair” in his presence she made her intentions unmistakably known. She offered herself fully, completely, and publically to her lord.

The love that she is demonstrating is in direct proportion to how much has been forgiven her. In this case it is her sins, which we are told were many. That means ALL of her sins, not just the little ones and not just one or two of the big ones. She has been granted a clean slate in the eyes of God. She has been offered a second chance, a new life, one with and for God. She has been redeemed. Her place in this world, the world of sin, no longer matters. She now has a place in a new world, citizenship in the kingdom of God. Therefore the love she is showing to Jesus, who has made that possible, is a reflection of her gratitude. Simon the Pharisee is showing little, to no, love for Jesus, for as Jesus has pointed out in his parable, “But the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little.” As far as I can tell in this text, the only thing Jesus has forgiven Simon is his bad manners.

It comes down to faith. Simon heard the good news, but had no faith in it. The woman heard the same good news and put all of her faith in it. And, in doing so, she received acceptance and assurance by her savior, as is evident by his final blessing to her, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace!”

Amen


The following sources were used during the research for this sermon:

“A Survey of the New Testament” by Robert H. Gundry
“Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes” by Kenneth E. Bailey
“The Narrative Unity of Luke-Acts, A literary Interpretation, Vol. 1” by Robert C. Tannehill
“The Interpreter’s Bible, Vol. 8”
“The Harper Collins Study Bible, NRSV”