Pastoral Psychologist’s View on Jesus’ Teaching on the Law – Preventing “Musterbation” (6th Sunday in Ordinary Time Year A)

The Gospel reading  for the 6th Sunday in Ordinary Time Year A (Matthew 5:17-37) is loaded with an important preventive Rx by Jesus, the physician (and psychologist)! If we fall in the trap in the law, our hearts gets hardened (spiritual problem) and we exhibit what Albert Ellis calls "musterbation" (psychologically).  And, then, the law becomes like the salt that lost its taste! Jesus in the 6th Sunday Gospel story gives the Rx without charging even a penny!

 *******

As a mental health clinician, as well as a pastoral minister in the Roman Catholic faith tradition, what comes to my mind in response to the 6th Sunday Gospel reading  (Matthew 5:17-37) on Jesus’ teaching about the law is a psychological problem that Albert Ellis described as “musterbation”.

Ellis, who developed Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy (REBT), coined the term, “musterbation”, in describing how cognitive rigidness can result in fixed, obsessive, and demanding emotions and thoughts, often result in verbal expressions like, “must”, and “should”, as well as “shouldn’t”, “should have”, “shouldn’t have”. 

As a psychotherapist, I recognize a rigid cognitive and emotive process in clients and patients with “musterbation”.  And, from a psychodynamic perspective, I also see tremendous repressed anxieties and fears, behind their “musterbation” symptoms.  In light of Morita Therapy, a Japanese psychotherapeutic method, such clients’ and patients’ “musterbation”  symptom is understood as “toraware” , which is an apprehension due to “shuuchaku”, obsessive attachment, to certain objects. 

In reflecting his teaching on the law in Matthew 5:17-37, which is a part of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus warns us that we may blind ourselves in the law if we become obsessed with the law itself. This obsession leads to a tunnel vision in the law.  In light of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), generally including REBT, such a tunnel vision phenomenon is a clinical sign of obsession or “traware” due to a pathological attachment to the law.  People who have developed this clinical problem often exhibit “musterbation”,a s their verbal expressions are loaded with “must” and “should”, whether to themselves and to others.  A good clinical case study is the Pharisees – how the Pharisees observe the law and how they treat others in regard to the law.  This case study is consistently found throughout the New Testament. 

In fact, it is not just Jesus’ discourse in Matthew 5:17-37 that is considered as an Rx to prevent from getting lost in the law in our efforts to observe it but rather, Jesus himself is a solution to this clinical problem – because he has come to fulfill, not to abolish the law (Matthew 5:17).  In the original Greek text, Matthew uses “πληρῶσαι” (plerosai) in place of “to fulfill”.  This Greek word also means for completion. Thus,  when Jesus says that he is to fulfill “πληρῶσαι” (plerosai) the law, it also means that he is to complete the law.  So, what does it mean that Jesus is to complete the law?

The law that the Pharisees were boasting about their “perfect’ observance, though given by God to us through Moses, was not perfect.  It was because the law entered into our life because of our repeated sins and unrepentant hearts.  Before the Original Sin, there was no law at all. But, through our history of repeated sins, which are offense against God, God really have to put some limitations on our freedom – though God never take away our freedom – free will.  So, the very first restriction we got through our very first sin, the Original Sin, was suffering and death (Genesis 3:16-24; Romans 5:12-14). Through the Original Sin, we traded our eternal life in the Garden of Eden for wisdom. So, our wisdom comes with the price of our own life and sufferings – biblically speaking. 

At that time, we still did not have the law.  It means that we had much more freedom with our free will. But, instead of using it wisely , in spite of wisdom we have gained by eating the forbidden fruit, we continue to abuse our freedom to sin more and more. So, God had to do some serious cleansing of His Creation. Thus, the great flood took place.  But, God saved certain people and creatures, including Noah and his family. This is when a covenant entered into our life (Genesis 9). 

A covenant is not a contract. Thus, it is not about the law. And, the law was not yet in our life. God made a covenant – a promise rooted in trust – with us through Noah.  Had we lived as faithful as Noah and Abraham, then, we would have never needed the law!  But, alas, we continued to disappoint God by continuously sinning  and sinning, abusing the freedom and the wisdom. So, during the time of Moses in Exodus, God really had to step up in guiding us to stay on the right path with the law (Exodus 31)! 

So, basically, we have “earned” to have the law, as our own behavioral consequence of sinning and sinning throughout the history, including all the narratives of our sins in the Bible.  

When God gave us the law through Moses, it was not to make us become a bunch of the Pharisees – to cause our cognitive and emotive rigidity, “musterbation” symptom, and obsession out of fear.  Rather, God’s intent behind giving us the law was to ensure that we would not sin any more. So, the law was mean to be the guide for us to stay on the right path. But, our ego, which makes us self-centered, thus causing our tunnel vision, interpreted the law as the burden on us.  It makes me wonder if devil is hiding in our ego, trying to manipulate our perception of the reality, twisting it self-centered, putting distance from God. I wonder if the id (Freudian psychology)has something to do with this culprit – or if manas-vijnaana (Yogacara psychology)in the depth of our mind has. 

Whether it is id or manas-vijnaana, there is something in us that twist our perception and cognition to keep us away from God. Psychologically, it can be the marks of the Original Sin, which has the propensity to corrupt us and make us sin.  To put this in Buddhism, it is what causes kleshas, making us to commit Three Poisons (anger/hate, ignorance, and attachment/obsession), psychologically speaking.  No wonder Jesus said what defiles us is within us (Matthew 15:1-20; Mark 7:2-23)!

So, this is a psychological process behind sinning.  This is like how the serpent misguided Eve to believe that it was OK to eat a fruit of the forbidden tree (Genesis 3).  What defiles us from within is like the serpent whispering to our consciousness to alter our perception and cognition, leading to our stinking and rotten attitudes to make us sin and to make it difficult for us to repent. 

As we let the defilers within us – whether id or manas-vijnaana or something else, twist our senses, our perception and cognition of the law tend to become a narrow vision.  Then, we become blind to the spirit of the law – God’s intent of giving us the law, as our narrow vision’s focus is on our ego – ego preservation. Thus, we tend to develop a knee-jerk cognitive-emotive reaction to the law with our fear of punishment for failing to observe.  And, this makes a down-spiral vicious effect with intensifying the fear, making our vision even more narrower. This also turns our sensory information’s emotive and cognitive process system more rigid. Thus, creating the Pharisee-like obsessive “musterbation”.

When we develop this “musterbation” symptom, then, our head is spinning with “I must observe the law”, “You must observe the law”, “I must be punished if I failed to observe the law”, and “You must be punished if you failed to observe the law”.  And, we tend to reason like the Pharisees, by saying things like, “Because it is the law”, but never think even what the spirit of the law and what God intended through the law.

Basically, in Matthew 5:17-37, we appreciate Jesus preparing us for the best way of dealing with the law – not to sink into the cognitive and emotive quagmire of rigidity through “musterbation”.

If we heed Jesus’ teaching here, and further, Paul’s teaching on the law – especially in Romans 7, we  realize how we can relate ourselves to the law. To put this in a psychodynamics term, Matthew 5:17-37, further expounded by Romans 7, offers  a  direction for the most fruitful our object relation to the law.  By forming such an object relation to the law, we have nothing to fear. Thus, the law is not a burden. And, the law is not an object of our fear-driven obsession. Therefore, we will never suffer from “musterbation” in dealing with the law.

 If we think we might heading toward “musterbation” with the law, or anything else that can cause you fear-driven obsession, maybe you can seek a psychotherapist like Albert Ellis, who practices or incorporate REBT. But, as a pastoral psychologist, it is very important that you seek out Jesus. And her these words of him:

Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. "Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS (Matthew 11:28-29).

The yoke in this statement of Jesus is the law. So, Jesus is saying that the law that he is fulfilling (see Matthew 5:17) for us is not a burden to us.  That is why he wants us to learn from him. He invites us to learn about the law with the right attitudes – with the right object relation – because he does not want us to suffer from “musterbation” with the law.

If we did not learn from Jesus on the law – if we do not seek him when we are slipping toward “musterbation” with the law, ignoring clinical symptoms leading to it, then, we would become like the Pharisees, who loses their ability of compassion in the face of the law (John 8:1-11) and whose narcissism cannot be restrained with love, becoming self-righteous hypocrites (Luke 8:9-14),  because of their own twisted perception and cognition of the law – due to their pathological object relations to the law. 

Their loss of love in the face of the law really is an irony because love is what the very law that Jesus is fulfilling.  And, that is why Jesus called us to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world, as he wants us to partake in his efforts to fulfill the law with love.  If you understand this, you know that Jesus was not “violating” the law when he worked on the Sabbath day (Mark 2:23-27; Matthew 12:1-8; Luke 6:1-5).  By working on the Sabbath day – though the law made the violation of the Sabbath law is punishable by death (Exodus 31:14), Jesus demonstrates what he means by he came to fulfill the law (Matthew 5:13) with love and mercy (compassion). That is why Jesus will teach us to even love our enemies and overcome hate with love in the next Sunday’s Gospel reading (Matthew 5:38-48). 

Psychologically, if we follow Jesus’ teaching, we keep our mind and heart from hardening and stay out of developing “musterbation”  with the law.  Love - agape - fulfills and completes (
“πληρῶσαι” (plerosai)) the law!

Agan/ ἄγαν is the Character of the Love of God in His Mercy, Forgiveness – Exegesis of the Scripture Readings of the 11th Sunday of Ordinary Time, Year C

Overview

If I ask my religious education students, “What is the Sacrament most relevant to this Sunday’s scripture readings?”, they shall answer, “The Sacrament of Reconciliation”, as a common theme for this Sunday’s scripture readings ( 2 Samuel 12:7-10, 13; Galatians 2:16, 19-21; Luke 7:36-8:3) is forgiveness.  

In the Second Reading (Galatians 2:16, 19-21), Paul addresses justification by faith in Christ.   Justification means removing sins by the works of God’s grace, leading to salvation. Therefore, justification involves in forgiveness, because there is no justification for sinners unless their sins are forgiven by God. In Catholicism, the Sacrament of Reconciliation helps us obtain justification. 

In the Gospel Reading, Jesus indicates mutual association between love and forgiveness (Luke 7:41-42; 47).  The word used for “love” in the original Greek text of the Gospel is agapao/ ἀγαπάω both for verse 42 to indicate the kind of love enables forgiveness and for verse 47 the kind of love that can lead to forgiveness. The Greek word agapao/ ἀγαπάω is derived from agape/ ἀγάπη, which is known for selfless and sacrificial love. The root word of these words is agan/ ἄγαν, which implies abounding abundance.

Agan/ἄγαν characterizes how God pours His love (agape/ ἀγάπη) in way of  agapao/ ἀγαπάω , and this is what is important to be appreciated through this Sunday’s readings.

That being said, this Sunday’s First Reading (2 Samuel 12:7-10, 13) and the Gospel Reading (Luke 7:36-8:3) challenge us more than what Paul teaches in Galatians 2:16. Perhaps, these are to supplement Paul’s teaching on justification by faith. 

The First Reading (2 Samuel 12:7-10, 13) is about merciful God forgiving King David though his sin was so grave, while the Gospel Reading (Luke 7:36-8:3) is about Jesus forgiving a sinful woman, whose sins are many but who showed her care for Jesus.    

The first reading teaches not only that God is gracious and compassionate, as said in Psalm 145:8,  but also that it takes our humility to have our sins forgiven.  The Gospel Reading teaches that we must act on faith and show our work of faith with love in order to be forgiven. 

Exegesis of the First Reading 

- Ontogeny of David's Sin -

Though David came from a humble origin, a son of Jesse, a shepherd, he gave his humility to his ever-growing appetite for power, as he rose in political and military power, taking over Saul.

In the David’s army, there was a soldier, Uriah the Hittite, whose wife was Bathsheba.  

David’s trouble with God began when he saw Bathsheba bathing while he was walking on the roof of his palace. Upon seeing her body, with growing carnal temptation, he asked his servant to find out what she was and called her to his chamber upon learning that she was Bathsheba, the Uriah’s wife.  And, David had a sexual contact with him in his private space.

The escalation of David’s sin grew further from forcing Bathsheba into adultery. This is how sin begets sins. 

Upon having sex with David in his chamber, Bathsheba became pregnant. David knew how Uriah would react. So, David responded to his adulterous scandal with Bathsheba and her pregnancy with another grave sin – another violation of the Ten Commandments: murdering.

If this scandal had taken place in today’s American social context, an abortion could be considered as an option to cover-up the scandal. But, David decided to “get rid of” the husband of the woman he violated.

David instructed the commander of his army, Joab, Uriah’s direct boss, “Put Uriah out in front where the fighting is fiercest. Then withdraw from him so he will be struck down and die”(2 Samuel 11:15). And, Uriah was killed in the battle field. So, this is David’s anther violation of the Ten Commandments – besides, in addition to adultery.  

What was unbeknownst to Bathsheba was that her husband died due to plot of the man she slept with and who made her pregnant  – David. Thus, upon her mourning, she married to David. 

Because marrying to a widow could be seen as an act of compassion in the cultural context of that time, David sure looked good on the surface, as long as the adultery and his plot of killing Uriah were kept in secret.  But, as Adam and Eve had experienced, David sure could not hide his grave sin from God. In fact, God was quite displeased with David.

- Nathan as an Effective Psychotherapist - 
 

Annoyed by David’s sin, God sent Prophet Nathan to David to confront his sin.  But, the way Nathan handled David was quite tactful. As a psychotherapist, I can confidently say that the way Nathan confronted David’s sin is clinically effective in treating clients and patients with significant ego defense. 

Usually, if someone told another person about what is wrong with him or her, the person who was told would become irritated and even angry. As a result, this person would grow even more defensive about his or her problem.  It was as if Nathan had mastered  great psychotherapeutic skills to treat a person in denial. 

Instead of first telling David what his problem was, Nathan applied a narrative, to which David could see himself. 

So, Nathan began the “therapy” session for David with this narrative:

There were two men in one city, the one rich and the other poor.
“The rich man had a great many flocks and herds.
“But the poor man had nothing except one little ewe lamb
Which he bought and nourished;

 
And it grew up together with him and his children.
It would eat of his bread and drink of his cup and lie in his bosom,
And was like a daughter to him.

“Now a traveler came to the rich man,
And he was unwilling to take from his own flock or his own herd,
To prepare for the wayfarer who had come to him;

 
Rather he took the poor man’s ewe lamb and prepared it for the man who had come to him.” (2 Samuel 12:1-4). 

In response to this narrative, David grew angry at a rich man who committed extortion upon a poor man, saying , “As the Lord lives, the man who has done this deserves death!  He shall make fourfold restitution,  for the lamb because he has done this and was unsparing “(2 Samuel 12:5-6).   

David sure judged right.  But, Nathan indicated that David is the man he was judging harshly for his offense.  In response to this Nathan's powerful psychotherapetutic confrontation, David must have been stunned. And, this is where this Sunday’s First Reading takes it off. 

As David was the King of Israel (the United Kingdom of Israel before splitting between Israel (Northern Kingdom) and Judah (Southern Kingdom)), he could have killed Nathan to further cover up his sin. But, this time, David woke up to who he really was – a humble man. 

Because David humbled himself and acknowledged his sin, God, out of His mercy, forgave him – though David judged himself deserving a death penalty.  God, indeed, forgives a person who has violated more than one commandment in the Decalogue, as David violated two of them – adultery and murder.

As Nathan further reminded David of what God had done for him, David must have been ashamed of what he had done.  This is not to accuse him as a prosecutor does to a defendant in the court of the law, but it is rather to help him recognize how disappointed and hurt God is because of his sin, for God care him so much. 

Upon recognizing God’s disappointment over him, David humbly repented and was able to reconcile with God through God’s forgiveness.

-God's Merciful Response to David's Humble Admission to Sin -

God is not punitive to sinners, who wake up to the fact of God’s disappointment over sins and repent. Because of this God’s character, God do not dig into sinners’ past offenses. God prefer reconciliation to a punishment.  So, we must not only repent but also demonstrate a contrite heart through works of faith.

It is also important to note here that God did not let David off the hock of his sin’s consequences.  For this, God, through Nathan’s mouth, prophesized hardships upon David’s life and his offspring.  In fact, the first child that David had with Bathsheba, a product of his sin, died. To this, David grieved gravely.  Even after this, David’s life continued with myriad of sufferings – and many of his successors became corrupt kings, contributing to the loss of the kingdom down in the history.  However, David himself demonstrated his steadfast faith in God, no matter how difficult his challenges were. 

In repenting, as in the David’s case, we can experience a sense of shame. But, it is important that we do not dwell upon the shame.  We must move on with a contrite heart and demonstrate our willingness to be forgiven by our action.  This lesson leads to this Sunday’s Gospel reading.

Exegesis of the Gospel Reading

Problem with Sinful Woman? Problem with Righteous Simon?

The Gospel reading, in a way, describes an act of restitution as a demonstration of a sinner’s remorse for offending God.

Though the scripture did not say if the sinful woman had known of Jesus’ divinity, it is likely that she was aware of Jesus’ divine quality, because he has performed a significant number of miracles by the time he came to the house of Simon, a Pharisee. Thus, it is possible to think that this sinful woman bathed Jesus’ feet with her tears of remorse, dried his feet with her hair, kissed them and anointed him with expensive oil  as her gesture of penance and desire to live a new life through reconciliation.

This event took place after the last Sunday’s Gospel Reading scene, Jesus raising a widow’s only son in Nain, near Nazareth, a Jesus’ home town, where he was once rejected (Luke 7:11-17).  That miracle of Jesus on the widow’s son made Jesus quite well-known for his power (Luke 7:17).  

This growing reputation of Jesus also reached John the Baptist, making him ask if Jesus is the one who is to come as the Messiah or someone else to further wait for (Luke 7:19). Therefore, the reputation about Jesus must have reached to the sinful woman, as well.

Obviously, Simon, a Pharisee, who is pious and righteous, did not understand this, as he thought that the Messiah saves sinners like this women.  Simon must know that Jesus is not one of those ordinary men because the news of his miracle in Nain must have reached him, as well.  In fact, he thought Jesus was a prophet like Elijah, who also raised the son of a poor widow.  But, it was his mentality – obsession with piety and purity that blinded him from who Jesus is and what his teaching  is about, though the sinful woman seemed to understand better. 

The problem of Simon, a Pharisee, was his pride, which makes him think he is better than others for his strict observance of the Mosaic law. But, Jesus teaches quite differently from the belief of the Pharisees. This problem of the Pharisees, including Simon, is clearly pointed by Paul in the Second Reading (Galatians 2:16, 19-21).  Paul, a teacher of the Jesus’ teaching, emphasizes that the works of the law will neither will save us nor will make us holy. The Pharisees work very hard to perfect the works of the law by their strict observance of the law to a point of obsession, thinking that such a pious attitude would lead them to justification (salvation).

Just as Simon, a Pharisee, thought that Jesus should not be associated with a sinful woman (Luke 7:37). But, is it because it is forbidden by the law to have a contact with a sinner or because of his prejudicial mentality?  The Pharisees were not comfortable with the fact that Jesus often made personal contacts with sinners.  As a Pharisee, Simon was sure disturbed by Jesus’ contact with the sinful woman, by telling, if Jesus were a prophet, he should know the woman, who is touching him is a sinner (Luke 7:39), because such Jesus’ behavior with the woman does not bode well with his understanding of  the works of the law. 

Jesus Plays a Psychotherapist, as Nathan did to David, to Simon

Sensing what is inside Simon’s prejudicial mind, Jesus challenges him – in a methodologically similar way as Nathan confronted David’s sin. So, Jesus asked Simon: 

“Two people were in debt to a certain creditor; one owed five hundred days’ wages - and the other owed fifty. Since they were unable to repay the debt, he forgave it for both. Which of them will love him more?”(Luke 7:41-42)

In the First Reading, in order to awake David to his need to repent, Nathan told him about two men, one rich, and the other poor.  In the Gospel narrative, Jesus also told a story about two people, to guide Simon to realize his needs to realize the importance of love (agapao/ ἀγαπάω), which is derived from agape (ἀγάπη). 

Agan/ ἄγαν  - the way of  God’s Love, Mercy and Compassion – God’s Sense of Justice

So, Simon rightfully answered that the one whose debt is greater received a greater proportion of love.  But, it is not sure if Simon really understood why Jesus asked him this question.

As Luke 7:47 says, the woman’s sins are many, the person with greater debt is considered to be a metaphor to the sinful woman, in the Jesus’ question to Simon. 

God’s justice is not about “equality”.  It is not based on equity, as John Rawl’s “Theory of Justice” argues.  Rather, God’s justice is heavily involved in mercy and compassion - because God is love (1 John 4:8). God is not about “fairness” but his love is distributed in proportion to our needs.  In fact, God’s justice is more similar to Martha Nussbaum’s view of justice, which is need-based and capability-based, rather than John Rawl’s theory of justice, which is about equity.  If God were all about “fairness) and God’s justice were more like Rawl’s view, then, the creditor in Jesus’ question to Simon could give both debtors the same amount of money.  This might out the person with smaller debt out of obligation but not the one with greater debt.    

Though the woman’s sins are many, God, through Jesus, forgave her.  This is similar to the fact that God forgave David – though his sin was so grave and two-fold.   Agapao/ ἀγαπάω characterize God’s justice.  In fact, the root word of  agapo (agaphesei )and agape, agan/ ἄγαν  means “much” with an image of overflowing.   Thus, there is no mathematical calculation on how much “love” is given.  Because it is about agan/ ἄγαν  , God’s love, agape/ ἀγάπη always overflows so abundantly to those who are in need. And, this is how God’s grace for our justification flows, as well.  But, the mentality of the Pharisees seems to think of justice more like Rawl’s view on justice. 

Simon’s obsession to the law itself made him lost in his sight to the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law reflects agan/ ἄγαν  of whatever God offer us – love (agape /ἀγάπη) and grace (charis/χαρις ) . And the spirit of the law has no mathematical calculation for the sake of fairness but flows and effects abundantly without a limit – as long as we need.  As a matter of fact, God proclaimed His character to Moses, “The Lord, the Lord God, compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in lovingkindness and truth;  who keeps lovingkindness for thousands, who forgives iniquity, transgression and sin; yet He will by no means leave the guilty unpunished, visiting the iniquity of fathers on the children and on the grandchildren to the third and fourth generations”(Exodus 34: 6-7).  Indeed, this statement of God about Himself captures agan/ ἄγαν  - abounding nature of love. 

Now, upon teaching Simon that God’s mercy and compassion are abundantly given without calculation to those who are in need, as long as there is a need, by his question, Jesus forgives the sinful woman – though her sins are many and teaches Simon about his problem. 

“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. You did not give me a kiss, but she has not ceased kissing my feet since the time I entered.  You did not anoint my head with oil, but she anointed my feet with ointment.  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” (Luke 7:44-47).

Again, the way Jesus handled Simon echoes the way Nathan handled David as Jesus first told a story with a metaphor for what Simon needed to understand before he directly explains what Simon’s problem is. So, Jesus first helped Simon better realize (Luke 7:41-42) why Jesus has to criticize him in Luke 4:44-47) – mirroring that Nathan first gave a metaphorical story to help David realize (2 Samuel 12:1-4) to prepare him better receive Nathan’s criticism on him (2 Samuel 12:7-12).

Just as the creditor in Jesus’ story to Simon also cancelled a person with greater debt without any string attached, God through Jesus, the Son, forgave the sinful woman, though her sins are many. This also reflects that God forgave David despite the fact that his sin was two-fold grave sin to deserve death. 

As Buddhists say that Amitabha’s mercy is infinite, this Sunday’s First Reading and The Gospel Reading remind that God’s love through His mercy and compassion is abounding,  the meaning of the root word of agape/ ἀγάπη and  agapao/ ἀγαπάω : agan/ ἄγαν, which means limitless abundance. 

It must be also noted that Jesus regards what the sinful woman did to him (bathing his feet with her tears, drying them with her hair, kissing them and anointing him) is an act of love. And Jesus indicates that love and forgiveness are in positive correlation, as greater love leads to greater forgiveness and vice versa in Luke 7:47.

So I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven; because, she has shown great love. But the one to whom little is forgiven, loves little”.

Justification - Forgiveness:  Sola Fide ? or Fide et Opus?

Jesus further declares that the woman’s faith has saved her (Luke 7:50), suggesting that it was her faith that led to her forgiveness. Interpretation of Luke 7:50 and 7:47 is different between Catholic and Protestant, because Catholic view is that it was the woman’s act of love demonstrated to Jesus, as a form of her faith, led to her forgiveness (being saved – being justified), while Protestant view is that it was, indeed, her faith, which led to her forgiveness, and her love was not the basis for her forgiveness but simply evidence of her forgiveness.

Being a Catholic, my view is that faith is definitely a necessary condition  but not a sufficient one by itself for justification (to be forgiven and saved).  For faith to be sufficient to lead to forgiveness and justification, it must be fortified with an act of love. This my view reflects James 2:14-26 and 1 Corinthians 13:1-3. Thus, in order for faith to be worthy of justification, it must be demonstrated through an act (work) of love, as love is the greatest among faith, hope and love. 

Another important factor to be noted here is that agapao/ ἀγαπάω is used in the original Greek text of Luke 7:47, in describe Jesus’ use of the word, “love”, in characterizing the sinful woman’s act to Jesus and a factor in positive correlation to forgiveness. Because agapao/ ἀγαπάω was also used to describe Jesus’ use of the word, “love”, in his words to Simon in Luke 7:42, God’s act of love (agapao/ ἀγαπάω) to forgive sinners, however great their sins maybe, corresponds to sinners’ acts of love (agapao/ ἀγαπάω).

 Love of Agan/ ἄγαν  - the Spirit of the Law – "Here and Now" : Therapeutic (Healing) Effects in light of Morita Therapy and Logo Therapy

With this obsession-driven blindness to the spirit of the law, all the hard works of the law (dutiful observation of the law) will turn vain and lead to the fulfillment of the law – or as Paul puts it in the Second Reading, it cannot lead to justification. 

The spirit of the law is not about us judging who is more pious and who is not – who is better and who is not but to live our faith in the spirit of the law – what the law is intended, rather than the letters of the law, for salvation. To teach this, Jesus came to us and demonstrated what he meant by fulfilling the law. Therefore, along with raising the only son of a widow in the last Sunday’s Gospel reading (Luke 7:11-17), as well as many other ministry works of him, Jesus was demonstrating what it means to fulfill the law by allowing the sinful woman to care for him as she did and forgave her. Because the spirit of the law is to bring and keep everyone in communion with each other and with God – not to isolate because of sins or sickness. Though purity is important aspect of living in faith, purity itself is not the objective of faith.  What matters more than purity is love.

Perhaps, her act of offering foot washing  service, kissing, and anointing to Jesus could be thought as her way of sin and guilt offerings – though it is quite different from what was prescribed in the law (Leviticus 4 – 7). 

There is a mutual exchange of love between Jesus and the sinful woman.  First, the woman demonstrated her love for Jesus by washing his feet  with tears, drying them with her hair, kissing them and anointing him with special oil. In response, Jesus demonstrated his love by forgiving her and bring her back to the community.  And, this is what the Christians are called to emulate, reflecting his new commandment: love one another as he has (John 13:34-35).

Another important element of this Sunday’s Gospel story is that God through Jesus do not keep us in the matter of our past sins. That is why Jesus never asks this woman and other sinners what types of sins they have committed and why, while those who are accusatory often “dig” deep into the problems of the past at the expense of the opportunity to work on what is needs to be done for metanoia and to construct a better life. To God, an inquiry of our past sins is not as much important as inspiring to strive for what we do now to become a better persons with the contrite heart.  Though the woman’s sins in the past were many, Jesus did not ask what sins she had committed and how she got into a sinful life in the past.  This Jesus’ approach to sinners echoes important clinical wisdom in effective psychotherapy.

While some psychotherapies, such as traditional psychoanalysis, expend a large amount of time and energy in exploring the past life of the client/patient,  Morita Therapy and Logo Therapy focus on the client’s current life in a way to lead to a better future.  The  “here and now” focus in their clinical orientation of Morita Therapy and Logo Therapy are, therefore, very applicable into pastoral counseling and pastoral care, reflecting the way Jesus healed many.  Exploration of the life in the past can be conducted as necessary only to enhance the effect of the “here-and-now”-focused treatment. 

Just as the “here-and-now” clinical orientation of Morita Therapy and Logo Therapy does not necessarily means giving no attention to the past, Jesus’ focus on the present behaviors and attitude (the state of the heart) does not necessarily mean that Jesus pays no attention to sinners’ past.  In fact, Jesus already knew that the woman had committed many sins – even though he did not ask her, as a psychotherapist of the past life orientation would do, because of his divine power.  And, Jesus touched upon the past life in the healing process he offered to a Samaritan woman by the Jacob’s Well ( John 4:1-26 ). It was not to judge her or accuse her because of her sinful past but to call her attention to what she needs to do now to break free from the sinful bondage of her past. 

Just imagine if Simon, a Pharisee, would  be disturbed upon seeing  the exchange between Jesus and the sinful woman had he really understood the meaning of this Sunday’s First Reading and the Second Reading.  But, fortunately, we are given these readings to better understand this Gospel narrative.

Let our love flows abundantly without limit as God’s abounding love is always poured and showed on us – so that we forgive one another as we are forgiven by God. For this, we shall not lose our sight in the letters of the law.