RESPONSE:
What we know for sure about this woman is only what is written in these verses. She came to a dinner party and washed Jesus' feet with her tears, dried them with her hair, and poured ointment all over them. There is much that can be read "between the lines." For example, this story immediately follows a comment about wisdom and an accusation that Jesus eats with publicans and sinners.

The first interesting point is that there is no outrage over the woman's arrival. One scholar suggests that poor people were allowed to come to large banquets for the leftovers. Her presence, then, was not the problem. The problem is that she touched a guest. She is identified as a sinner -- one who broke the law of Moses. There were many options for sinning, though prostitution is most commonly assumed (and it is only an assumption). Whatever her sin, she was well known for it, and she exhibited great courage in even daring to enter a Pharisee's house. But high, upstanding, moral citizens, like Pharisees, didn't associate with sinners. It was unclean. This was Simon's problem with Jesus. Jesus didn't obey these rules, and that made Simon not want to associate with Jesus (which is why he didn't kiss him when Jesus arrived, etc.). Not only was it unacceptable for the unclean woman to be so close, it was even more deplorable for her to make physical contact.

The fact that the woman's hair was loose is generally seen as a sign of her stature in the community. "Nice" women wore their hair bound up; but even this is not a "for sure" thing. She brought an "alabaster box of ointment." Most likely this was really an alabaster jar of oil. Such a jar would have been a vase of white, fine-grained gypsum. The jar would have had a long neck, which would have to be broken to get at its contents. That meant the oil had to be used all at once. The oil is not identified, although the fact that it was kept in such a lovely jar might attest to its value.

Since this was a banquet or a fancy meal, all the guests would have left their sandals at the door and would be reclining on couches arranged in a circle around the food. This would have given the woman easy access to Jesus' feet, which she kept washing, drying, kissing, and anointing. All the verbs are in the present tense, indicating continuous action. After Jesus rebuked Simon with the parable of the debtors, he said to him, "Her sins, which are many, are forgiven." His words could mean that because of what she had been doing to his feet, now her sins were forgiven. Or they could mean that it was obvious that her sins had been forgiven because of what she had been doing to his feet. In either case, when he repeats to her that her sins are forgiven, it's like saying, "Indeed, your sins have been forgiven." Then he tells her to go in peace. We assume that she does, and technically, that's the last we know of her.

QUESTION:
Romans 5:8
But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.

Can you give some background behind this passage?
— Kathy C

RESPONSE:
First we will do the two-minute background on Romans. It is one of Paul's undisputed works, written in the late 50's CE. The purpose of the letter was his anticipated visit to Rome. He knows some of the Christians in Rome (though he has never been there, and hence, did not start this church), and he is preparing them for his visit. Romans is his longest letter and his most complete treatise on his view of the Christian faith. It is not known whether his choice of topics was in response to information he had received about the situation in Rome or whether he was just putting forth ideas that he thought might be helpful to any Christian community.

Like many of Paul's letters, Romans is comprised of two main sections: chapters 1-11 are theological; 12-16 are more practical. There are dozens of ways of subdividing each section. Suffice it to say that his central theme is all about what God is doing through the redemptive act of Jesus. This letter reveals God's way of righteousness, a divine righteousness that is based on a principle of faith and presented to all for their acceptance by faith. In 1:18-3:20 he puts forth the universal need for righteousness. 3:21-5:21 is God's provision for meeting this need. 6:1-8:39 discusses moral obligations for those living in holiness. 9:1-11:36 addresses the problem of Judaism's rejection of the gospel. Chapters 12-16 discuss the ethics evident in a Christian way of life.

Paul continues this chapter by noting that if God could do something so remarkable for us while we were all still sinners, how much more will He do now that we have been reconciled! And having been reconciled with God through Christ, we can rejoice in his abiding love every day. Paul goes on to contrast Adam and Christ, saying that Christ is the New Adam from whom we derive righteousness and eternal life.
— Mary Jane Chapin

QUESTION:
One of my high school students mentioned a few weeks ago that he had seen a documentary on the Discovery Channel (I think), which reported that Judas was not a traitor or betrayer of Jesus. The reason given, evidently, was that the word "betrayed" or "traitor" was mistranslated when the King James Version of the Bible was written. I read through the references in the Bible related to Judas and felt that the story of his betrayal was too significant for a single word to have made a difference in the overall translation.

I have emailed Discovery about this, but have not received a response yet. This is not a big deal; however, I do try to follow-up on some of these reports and give a balanced response back to the students. I am aware that the scholastic, literal, material mentality would try to discredit the Bible or rob it of its spiritual import and negate its historical impact on the world. However, I just wondered if you had a response to this or if you were aware of the report and the thrust behind it.
— Mindee Spear

RESPONSE:
I am not aware of the report on Judas on the Discovery Channel. However, the root word used for "betray" is didomi, which simply means "to give or offer." The full word is paradidomi. When it is used with para (as in paradidomi), it means to "hand over, give (over), deliver, entrust" anything to anyone. It is also the word commonly used for passing down traditions, documents, etc. It has a totally benign meaning. When used of a person, it generally means to "hand that person over, turn over, give up (as in hand over into the custody of)." The KJV translates this word as "betray," or "deliver." (The context determines their choice.) Jesus uses paradidomi when he predicts his passion, telling them over and over (in all the gospels) that he will be "betrayed" or "delivered unto" to the authorities.

No one would argue that Judas "handed Jesus over" to the authorities. But a careful reading of the stories raises some questions. Jesus predicts his passion several times to the effect that he would be delivered up to the authorities. When "his hour" comes, he tells the disciples that one of them will paradidomi him to the authorities. They all respond by asking, "Is it I?" -- a rather remarkable response. In both John and Matthew, Jesus identifies Judas as the one, presumably in the presence of all the disciples. The question to be asked is, if this was seen as a "betrayal," why didn't the other disciples attack Judas, tie him down, and prevent him from going out? But no, there isn't a single word of protest, and Judas slips out. To do what? Betray? Hand over? Deliver?

Some scholars now argue that Judas was a radical and zealous follower, that he decided it was time to push the envelope. He was eager to get the revolution started, and neither he nor any of the other disciples ever expected anything less than a full victory. Perhaps it wasn't a betrayal at all. He simply provided the spark that was meant to light the flame toward victory. Of course, things didn't quite turn out that way.

The gospels are clear in their portrayal of Judas. They present him as someone who didn't understand Jesus' true mission and who turned him in, possibly out of frustration. In so doing, he "betrayed" his closest friend. Perhaps. But from a theological point of view, they are also clear that this outcome was always part of God's grand plan. Jesus had to die so that he could rise up. Judas happened to be the one to get the ball rolling. Not that this in any way absolved him from full responsibility for his own actions. Judas alone bore the guilt of what he had done -- hence his untimely death. As for Jesus, well, he knew what would happen to him from the beginning and he let it all play out. He was obedient to God's plan of salvation, telling Judas to "do what you are to do quickly." (John 13:27) Is it any wonder that the actions of Judas have received new attention over the past few years?
— Mary Jane Chapin