Sinful woman in Luke 7:36-50; invited or not?

[Dewi Sant]

NRSV:

One of the Pharisees asked Jesus to eat with him, and he went into the Pharisee's house and took his place at the table. And a woman in the city, who was a sinner, having learned that he was eating in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster jar of ointment. She stood behind him at his feet, weeping, and began to bathe his feet with her tears and to dry them with her hair.

KJV:

And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisee's house, and sat down to meat. 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, And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.

It appears to me that it doesn't say whether she was uninvited or whether (as I suspect) she was a member of the household, ie, a slavegirl. Did Pharisaic Jews keep slaves? If so, this seems remarkable to me; the Jews having a long history of being used as slave labour.

It was not uncommon to have slave/servants (or even hired persons) to perform sexual acts upon diners in Pagan households. The fondling of feet was considered a typical sign that sexual acts were being offered. Now, if this were so, Christ's forgiveness of the 'sinful woman' would be all the more profound as she not only was sinful herself but bound in sinful employment by her Jewish owner.

This does rest on whether the woman was hired/kept by Simon the Pharisee or whether she 'gatecrashed' the dinner.

I have much to talk about and I am infact writing an essay on this as I speak. Actually, I do hope that what I type here doesn't appear on whatever software the university uses to check plagiarism, if so, I may have to prove my identity to them as 'Dewi Sant'

 

[tekiahteruah]

I don't know if the Pharisees in general would have owned slaves-- they were not at the same social/political status as the Sadducees, for instance. But there is no reason to think that the woman was a slave, and if she were, she probably would have been identified as one. It seems more likely that she is an uninvited guest.

 

[buzuxi02]

Its unlikely that the pharisee kept this woman as a slave since verse 39 has him mortified that Jesus would allow such a woman to touch him. Judging from the pharisees reaction it would be that the pharisee himself would not allow such a woman to touch him, let alone allow a sinful slave he owns to touch a prophet.

It maybe that the sinful woman was known to the pharisees family and allowed to enter. In Lk5.27 we see how Levi the tax collector held a feast for Jesus and many other tax collectors and sinners joined the banquet, this also raised the ire of the pharisees who considered tax collectors to be great sinners.

My theory (which is just an opinion) is that the sinful lady was a follower of Jesus who was able to make it inside the house along with his disciples and probably other un-named followers. In fact this is what is implied in (Lk 8.1-2).

The context in which Luke decided to make mention of female disciples (who followed Christ and provided for Him out of their own possesions) immediately following the incident with the sinful woman suggests she was one of Christs followers along with Mary Mgadelene ( i believe some have theorized that the woman maybe Mary Magdelene) and other women mentioned in 8.3. Mark 15.41 also makes mention of "many other women" which followed Jesus traveling with him from Galilee and Jerualem.
The woman having an alabaster box of perfume which she used to anoint Christ would fall under the category of "ministering Him out of their substance" mentioned in Lk 8.3 & Matt 27.55.