Jesus broke the Law?

[JohnDB]

Consider the following verses and see if you can see the Paradox here.

DT 23:18 "You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog into the house of the LORD your God for any votive offering, for both of these are an abomination to the LORD your God. (NASB)

Dt 23:18 You must not bring the earnings of a female prostitute or of a male prostitute into the house of the LORD your God to pay any vow, because the LORD your God detests them both. (NIV)

So...we got this part right?...no one sees anything wrong with this so far...pretty cut straight. Even the Euphamism of Dog shouldn't throw anyone off base yet.

Lk 7:37 When a woman who had lived a sinful life in that town learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee’s house, she brought an alabaster jar of perfume,
Lk 7:38 and as she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them.
Lk 7:39 When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is—that she is a sinner."


If the Altar is more important than the gift that is offered upon it...then the wages of a prostitute can't be accepted by God. (and every commentary out there says that she was a prostitute) Remember Judas when he went to return the thirty pieces of silver to the Temple treasury? The Levites couldn't accept it as it was "blood money" so they bought a field instead.

So...what's the deal with this?
Jesus obviously couldn't break the Law. It very much appears as if He did. This is very expensive perfume granted...once the jar was broken it was over and done with...and bought with the wages that she earned as a prostitute.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

So...what's the deal with this?
Jesus obviously couldn't break the Law. It very much appears as if He did. This is very expensive perfume granted...once the jar was broken it was over and done with...and bought with the wages that she earned as a prostitute.

Perhaps it was her heart He was looking at.
Notice what Jesus said in Matt 21:31

# 4204 shown 12 times in 12 verses. First time in Matt 21. Used 5 times in the book of Revelation, last time Reve 19:2

Matthew 21:31 "which of the two does the will of the father?" They are saying to Him "the first."
Is saying to them the Jesus "verily I am saying to ye, that the tribute collectors and the prostitutes/inappropriate contentai <4204> are preceding ye into the Kingdom of the God"

Revelation 17:1 And came One out of the seven Messengers, of the ones having the seven bowls and he speaks with me saying to me "Hither thou! I shall be showing to thee the judgement of the Prostitute/inappropriate contenthV <4204, the Great, the one sitting upon the many waters"

 

[squint]

Consider the following verses and see if you can see the Paradox here.

DT 23:18 "You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog into the house of the LORD your God for any votive offering, for both of these are an abomination to the LORD your God. (NASB)

Dt 23:18 You must not bring the earnings of a female prostitute or of a male prostitute into the house of the LORD your God to pay any vow, because the LORD your God detests them both. (NIV)

So...we got this part right?...no one sees anything wrong with this so far...pretty cut straight. Even the Euphamism of Dog shouldn't throw anyone off base yet.

Lk 7:37 When a woman who had lived a sinful life in that town learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee’s house, she brought an alabaster jar of perfume,
Lk 7:38 and as she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them.
Lk 7:39 When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is—that she is a sinner."


If the Altar is more important than the gift that is offered upon it...then the wages of a prostitute can't be accepted by God. (and every commentary out there says that she was a prostitute) Remember Judas when he went to return the thirty pieces of silver to the Temple treasury? The Levites couldn't accept it as it was "blood money" so they bought a field instead.

So...what's the deal with this?
Jesus obviously couldn't break the Law. It very much appears as if He did. This is very expensive perfume granted...once the jar was broken it was over and done with...and bought with the wages that she earned as a prostitute.

Perhaps the answers to your questions reside here:

Mark 16:9
Now when Jesus was risen early the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had cast seven devils.


Luke 8:2
And certain women, which had been healed of evil spirits and infirmities, Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils,

 

[JohnDB]

LilttleLambof Jesus,
Maybe you are on to something...
But Jesus couldn't break the Law...that would be wrong. The Deuteronomy Law is a good one..for good purposes and reasons. We can't go about defiling what is holy...and Jesus was holy holy holy...so he coulnd't allow is body to be defiled by this woman's offerring could He? That would be the issue and the paradox.

Squint,
There is no proof that this is that Mary. It is pure conjecture on anyone's part to say that these two are the same women.

 

[Yarddog]

So...what's the deal with this?
Jesus obviously couldn't break the Law. It very much appears as if He did. This is very expensive perfume granted...once the jar was broken it was over and done with...and bought with the wages that she earned as a prostitute.

You seem to look at this in a superficial manner. What did she really bring him?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

LilttleLambof Jesus,
Maybe you are on to something...
But Jesus couldn't break the Law...that would be wrong. The Deuteronomy Law is a good one..for good purposes and reasons. We can't go about defiling what is holy...and Jesus was holy holy holy...so he coulnd't allow is body to be defiled by this woman's offerring could He? That would be the issue and the paradox.

Squint,
There is no proof that this is that Mary. It is pure conjecture on anyone's part to say that these two are the same women.

If Jesus broke the Law, then He could not have been the Messiah/Savior prophecied to come to the Jews I would think.

Acts 8:32 The yet contexts of the Writing which he read was this `As a sheep/flockling/probaton <4263> onto slaughter/sfaghn <4967> He was led and as a-Lamb/amnoV <286> before/in-stead of the one shearing Him soundless, thus not He is opening His mouth' [Isaiah 53:7/Reve 5:6]

Reve 5:6 And I saw in midst of the throne and of the four living ones and in midst of the elders a-lambkin/arnion <721> standing, as having been slaughtered/slain/esfagmenon <4969>

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7245442
The "lambkin" in Revelation and John 21 question

 

[Hentenza]

All sins are pardonable through God's grace. The passage in Luke certainly implies that she was a sinner not that she continued in her sin. Verse 50 makes it clear that the fragrant oil was not an offering because her sins were forgiven because of her faith not because of the oil.

 

[JudaicChristian]

Consider the following verses and see if you can see the Paradox here.

DT 23:18 "You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog into the house of the LORD your God for any votive offering, for both of these are an abomination to the LORD your God. (NASB)

Dt 23:18 You must not bring the earnings of a female prostitute or of a male prostitute into the house of the LORD your God to pay any vow, because the LORD your God detests them both. (NIV)

So...we got this part right?...no one sees anything wrong with this so far...pretty cut straight. Even the Euphamism of Dog shouldn't throw anyone off base yet.

Lk 7:37 When a woman who had lived a sinful life in that town learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee’s house, she brought an alabaster jar of perfume,
Lk 7:38 and as she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them.
Lk 7:39 When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is—that she is a sinner."


If the Altar is more important than the gift that is offered upon it...then the wages of a prostitute can't be accepted by God. (and every commentary out there says that she was a prostitute) Remember Judas when he went to return the thirty pieces of silver to the Temple treasury? The Levites couldn't accept it as it was "blood money" so they bought a field instead.

So...what's the deal with this?
Jesus obviously couldn't break the Law. It very much appears as if He did. This is very expensive perfume granted...once the jar was broken it was over and done with...and bought with the wages that she earned as a prostitute.

I do believe that the word "had" is past tense.
Lk 7:37 When a woman who had lived...

 

[squint]

Squint,
There is no proof that this is that Mary. It is pure conjecture on anyone's part to say that these two are the same women.

All people have indwelling sin and evil present, which same is OF THE DEVIL.

Luke 7:
37 And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster box of ointment

It is quite blind NOT to see God in Christ dealing with that working OF THE DEVIL in that woman, in people, or in ANY PERSON including YOU AND I, and FORGIVING 'us' while nearly simultaneously CONDEMNING the working of the devil in ANY person.

One aspect of how Jesus saw or did will yield confusions IF ALL the components and players are not on the table of judgments.

s

 

[cobweb]

John 11:2

Unless this happened to Jesus more than once... it was Mary the sister of Lazarus that they are talking about.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

John 11:2

Unless this happened to Jesus more than once... it was Mary the sister of Lazarus that they are talking about.

The lawless Judean rulers didn't take kindly to Lazarus since Jesus raising him from the dead after more than 3 days was more than they could bear ehehe....

John 12:10 Counsel yet the Chief-Priests that also the Lazarus they may be killing.

 

[RND]

Consider the following verses and see if you can see the Paradox here.

DT 23:18 "You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog into the house of the LORD your God for any votive offering, for both of these are an abomination to the LORD your God. (NASB)

Dt 23:18 You must not bring the earnings of a female prostitute or of a male prostitute into the house of the LORD your God to pay any vow, because the LORD your God detests them both. (NIV)

So...we got this part right?...no one sees anything wrong with this so far...pretty cut straight. Even the Euphamism of Dog shouldn't throw anyone off base yet.

Lk 7:37 When a woman who had lived a sinful life in that town learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee’s house, she brought an alabaster jar of perfume,
Lk 7:38 and as she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them.
Lk 7:39 When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is—that she is a sinner."


If the Altar is more important than the gift that is offered upon it...then the wages of a prostitute can't be accepted by God. (and every commentary out there says that she was a prostitute) Remember Judas when he went to return the thirty pieces of silver to the Temple treasury? The Levites couldn't accept it as it was "blood money" so they bought a field instead.

So...what's the deal with this?
Jesus obviously couldn't break the Law. It very much appears as if He did. This is very expensive perfume granted...once the jar was broken it was over and done with...and bought with the wages that she earned as a prostitute.

How did anointing Jesus' feet amount to offering a vow?

 

[JohnDB]

If you guys would quit shooting from the hip and actually read your bibles you would see that the action in Luke happened at Simon's house and not Lazarus' house. So...this isn't Mary of Lazarus, Mary, and Martha fame that did this in this instance. This is another story of a woman annointing Jesus with perfume.

 

[RND]

If you guys would quit shooting from the hip and actually read your bibles you would see that the action in Luke happened at Simon's house and not Lazarus' house. So...this isn't Mary of Lazarus, Mary, and Martha fame that did this in this instance. This is another story of a woman annointing Jesus with perfume.

It's the same story that is in Matthew 26, Mark 14, and John 12. Your assuming the story in John 12 was in Lazarus' house. The narrative doesn't say where they were. Simon was from Bethany also.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Would that event be akin to this passage in the Song of Solomon?

Song of Solomon 1:12 Still the king in his roundabout/table spikenard of me he gave scent of him. 13 pouch of the myrrh beloved of me to me between breasts of me

 

[Yarddog]

If you guys would quit shooting from the hip and actually read your bibles you would see that the action in Luke happened at Simon's house and not Lazarus' house. So...this isn't Mary of Lazarus, Mary, and Martha fame that did this in this instance. This is another story of a woman annointing Jesus with perfume.

Do you believe that it was the oil and perfume which Jesus accepted or was it the extreme love and repentance that she displayed?
Luke 7:

37 Now there was a sinful woman in the city who learned that he was at table in the house of the Pharisee. Bringing an alabaster flask of ointment, 38 she stood behind him at his feet weeping and began to bathe his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them, and anointed them with the ointment.
39 When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this he said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would know who and what sort of woman this is who is touching him, that she is a sinner."
40 Jesus said to him in reply, "Simon, I have something to say to you." "Tell me, teacher," he said.
41 "Two people were in debt to a certain creditor; one owed five hundred days' wages and the other owed fifty.
42 Since they were unable to repay the debt, he forgave it for both. Which of them will love him more?"
43 Simon said in reply, "The one, I suppose, whose larger debt was forgiven." He said to him, "You have judged rightly."
44 Then he turned to the woman and said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? When I entered your house, you did not give me water for my feet, but she has bathed them with her tears and wiped them with her hair.
45 You did not give me a kiss, but she has not ceased kissing my feet since the time I entered.
46 You did not anoint my head with oil, but she anointed my feet with ointment.
47 So I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven; hence, she has shown great love. But the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little."
48 He said to her, "Your sins are forgiven."
49 The others at table said to themselves, "Who is this who even forgives sins?"
50 But he said to the woman,[n] "Your faith has saved you; go in peace."[/b]This story is not about the pay of prostitutes or of dogs, it is about the show of real love and faith. Love is what is most important.

Seek what the Gospel stories are telling and not what a single line might appear to say. Context is so important.

 

[JohnDB]

OK,
You Protestants are not looking good here with answers...Catholics are looking pretty good at this point...Course he doesn't have the complete answer to the question in the OP.

Maybe a Protestant can finish it for him...and a clean up the point about Judas would be extra nice.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

OK,
You Protestants are not looking good here with answers...Catholics are looking pretty good at this point...Course he doesn't have the complete answer to the question in the OP.

Maybe a Protestant can finish it for him...and a clean up the point about Judas would be extra nice.

What point is that as how does Judas fit into this thread?

 

[RND]

I think your OP is a bit off John as others have pointed out.

 

[Yarddog]

OK,
You Protestants are not looking good here with answers...Catholics are looking pretty good at this point...Course he doesn't have the complete answer to the question in the OP.

Maybe a Protestant can finish it for him...and a clean up the point about Judas would be extra nice.

I'm not sure what you mean because Jesus didn't break the Law. You misapply these verses.