Behold, a woman in the city who was a sinner, when she knew that he was reclining in the Pharisee’s house, brought an alabaster jar of ointment. Standing behind at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears, and she wiped them with the hair of her head, kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment. Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw it, he said to himself, “This man, if he were a prophet, would have perceived who and what kind of woman this is who touches him, that she is a sinner.”
Jesus answered him, “Simon, I have something to tell you.” He said, “Teacher, say on.”
“A certain lender had two debtors. The one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. When they couldn’t pay, he forgave them both. Which of them therefore will love him most?”
Simon answered, “He, I suppose, to whom he forgave the most.” He said to him, “You have judged correctly.”
Turning to the woman, he said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered into your house, and you gave me no water for my feet, but she has wet my feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head. You gave me no kiss, but she, since the time I came in, has not ceased to kiss my feet. You didn’t anoint my head with oil, but she has anointed my feet with ointment. Therefore I tell you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much. But one to whom little is forgiven, loves little.” He said to her, “Your sins are forgiven.”
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain On vv39, 40, 47 The Pharisee respecteth the Law, which holdeth them defiled,…
The Pharisee respecteth the Law, which holdeth them defiled, that touch the defiled.
Rashness is the fellow of pride.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain On vv37–48 37 And, behold, a woman in the city, which…
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,
Ver. 37. A woman] Not that woman, say some, mentioned Mat 26:6; Joh 11:2, but some other.
Read full note →
A sinner] A strumpet, a she-sinner, as their mates call such.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain On vv37, 39, 40 What hath made any interpreters imagine this was the…
What hath made any interpreters imagine this was the some story which is mentioned Mat 26:6-13; Mar 14:3-9; Joh 12:1-3, I cannot tell. The histories agree scarcely in any thing, unless in the bringing the alabaster box of ointment, and the anointing our Saviour’s feet, whereas there was nothing in those countries more ordinary. That anointing was done in Bethany, within two miles of Jerusalem, this in Galilee. That in the house of one Simon the leper this in the house of one Simon a Pharisee. That a little, this a great while, before our Saviour’s passion. At that Judas was offended, at this Simon the Pharisee was offended. There Christ vindicates the woman from one head of argument, here from another. Questionless this is another quite different piece of history.
And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner; that is, a remarkable sinner; it is a word generally so used, and, applied to women, signifies a prostitute, or at least one of an ill report as to chastity.
Read full note →
Was, refers here to the time past, though lately past; she had lately been infamous and notorious, but it appeareth by what followeth that she was not so now, otherwise than in the opinion and vogue of the people; according to whose opinion, though uncharitable enough, Quae semel fuit mala, semper praesumitur esse mala in eodem genere mali, A person who hath once been bad is always presumed so to be, through their ignorance of the power of Divine grace in changing the heart, or their malice against and envy towards those whose hearts they see so changed. But whatever this woman had been, it seems God had affected her heart with the word which Christ had preached, and filled it with the pure love of God and Christ, instead of its former fullness of impure love, and made her sins as bitter as they had been formerly pleasant to her.
She hearing Christ was eating meat at the house of Simon the Pharisee, makes no noise, but cometh behind him, bringing an alabaster box of ointment, and stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with her tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment. Weeping in the sense of her sins, and so plentifully as she washed the feet of Christ with her tears, spoke a broken and a contrite heart. Wiping them with her hair; her hair, with which she had offended through wantonness, plaiting it, and adorning herself by the dress of it to allure her lovers, she now useth to testify her abhorrence of her former courses.
And kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment. The kiss is a symbol of love, and not of love only, but of subjection and worship; by this she both showed her love to Christ, and also her subjection to him, she kissed Christ in the psalmist’s sense, Psa 2:12. It was not a kiss of love only, but of reverence and subjection, like Joseph’s kiss to Jacob, Gen 50:1, Moses’s kiss to Jethro, Exo 18:7; nay, of the highest reverence, for such was the kiss of the feet. And to testify her adoration of him: thus the idolaters kissed the calves, Hos 13:2, and Baal. 1Ki 19:18. Washing and anointing with oil, was a common compliment they used in those countries for cleansing and cooling the feet. She had been a great sinner, she now shows the profoundest sorrow, greatest love, humility, subjection, &c. But some may say, How could she come behind him, sitting at meat, and do this? While we sit at meat our feet are before us. This confirmeth the notion I mentioned before, in my notes on Mat 26:20, concerning the Jewish manner of sitting at meat, which was kneeling and resting their bodies upon their legs leaning backwards: admitting that, all that we here read of this woman was very easy; for his legs being thrust out backward, the soles of his feet were turned up, and she might with convenience enough come at them behind him to wash, and to wipe, and to anoint them, which it is hard to conceive how she could do, admitting him to have sat as we do, putting our feet forward under the table.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
William Burkitt 1703 · Public Domain On vv39, 44 Observe here, 1. How unreasonably the Pharisee was offended…
Observe here, 1. How unreasonably the Pharisee was offended with Christ, for permitting this poor woman to come near him, and touch him. Admit she had been the greatest of sinners, might not such come to Christ, when he was come from heaven to them?
Oh, blessed Saviour! There is merit enough in thy blood, and mercy enough in thy bowels, to justify and save the vilest sinners, which by repentance and faith do make a timely application to thee.
Read full note →
Observe, 2. The parable which Christ makes use of, for the Pharisee’s conviction, and the woman’s comfort: namely, the parable of the two debtors, one of whom owed a greater sum, and the other a less, who both having nothing to pay, were both freely forgiven; and both upon their forgiveness loved their creditor much, but he most to whom most was forgiven.
Now from this parable we gather these lessons of instruction;
1. That great is the debt which all mankind have contracted, and lie under to the justice of God: ’tis here expressed by five hundred pence. Our debt is infinite; and, had not miraculous mercy interposed, divine justice could never have been satisfied, but by undergoing an infinite punishment.
2. That yet all sinners stand not alike indebted to the justice of God; some owe more, and others less; all are guilty, but not all alike; some owe five hundred talents, others fifty pence.
3. That be men’s debt greater or less, their sins more or fewer, ’tis utterly impossible for any person of himself to clear his debt, and make satisfaction, but they that owe least stand in need of mercy and forgiveness; He forgave them both.
4. That the forgiveness that is in God is a free, gratuitous, and gracious forgiveness: he frankly forgave them both: Gracious art thou, O Lord, in thy doings towards thy children, and thy tender mercy is over all thy works.
William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain On vv37–46 There was a certain creditor,.... All the Oriental versions…
There was a certain creditor,.... All the Oriental versions premise something to this. The Syriac version reads, "Jesus said unto him". The Arabic version, "then he said". The Persic version, "Jesus said"; and the Ethiopic version, "and he said to him"; and something of this kind is understood, and to be supplied in the text:
which had two debtors, the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty; these were, as the word shows, Roman "denarii" or "pence"; the former of these sums, reckoning a Roman penny at seven pence halfpenny of our money, amounted to fifteen pounds and twelve shillings and six pence; and the latter, to one pound eleven shillings and three pence; the one of these sums was ten times larger, than the other. This is a parable: by "the creditor", God is meant, to whom men owe their beings, and the preservation of them, and all the mercies of life; and are under obligation to obedience and thankfulness: hence: no man can merit any thing of God, or pay off any old debt, by a new act of obedience, since all is due to him: by the "two debtors" are meant, greater and lesser sinners: all sins are debts, and all sinners are debtors; not debtors to sin, for then it would not be criminal, but lawful to commit sin, and God must be pleased with it, which he is not, and men might promise themselves impunity, which they cannot; but they are debtors to fulfil the law, and in case of failure, are bound to the debt of punishment: and of these debtors and debts, some are greater, and others less; not but that they, are all equally sinners in Adam, and equally guilty and corrupted by his transgression; and the same seeds of sin are in the hearts of all men, and all sin is committed against God, and is a breach of his law, and is mortal, or deserving of death, even death eternal; but then as some commands are greater, and others less, so must their transgressions be: sin more immediately committed against God, is greater than that which is committed against our neighbour; and besides, the circumstances of persons and things differ, which more or less aggravate the offence.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain On vv37, 40, 43, 44, 47 A woman - Not the same with Mary of…
A woman - Not the same with Mary of Bethany, who anointed him six days before his last passover.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain On vv37, 38, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 Verse 37. A woman - which was a sinner]…
Verse 37. A woman - which was a sinner] Many suppose that this woman had been a notorious public prostitute; but this is taking the subject by the very worst handle. My own opinion is, that she had been a mere heathen who dwelt in this city, (probably Capernaum,) who, through the ministry of Christ, had been before this converted to God, and came now to give this public testimony of her gratitude to her gracious deliverer from the darkness and guilt of sin. I am inclined to think that the original word, αμαρτωλος, is used for heathen or Gentile in several places of the sacred writings. I am fully persuaded that this is its meaning in Mt 9:10-11; Mt 9:13; Mt 11:19; and Mt 26:45. The Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners, i.e. is delivered into the hands of the heathens, viz. the Romans, who alone could put him to death. See Mr 2:15-17; Mr 14:41. I think also it has this meaning in Lu 6:32-34; Lu 15:1-2; Lu 15:7; Lu 15:10; Lu 19:7; Joh 9:31. I think no other sense can be justly assigned to it in Ga 2:15: We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles. We Jews, who have had the benefit of a Divine revelation, know that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Christ, (Ga 2:16), which other nations, who were heathens, not having a Divine revelation, could not know. It is, I think, likely that the grand subject of the self-righteous Pharisee's complaint was her being a heathen. As those who were touched by such contracted a legal defilement, he could not believe that Christ was a conscientious observer of the law, seeing he permitted her to touch him, knowing who she was; or, if he did not know that she was a heathen, it was a proof that he was no prophet, Lu 7:39, and consequently had not the discernment of spirits which prophets were supposed to possess. As the Jews had a law which forbade all iniquity, and they who embraced it being according to its requisitions and their profession saints; and as the Gentiles had no law to restrain evil, nor made any profession of holiness, the term αμαρτωλοι, or sinners, was first with peculiar propriety applied to them, and afterwards to all others, who, though they professed to be under the law, yet lived as Gentiles without the law. Many suppose this person to be the same as Mary Magdalene, but of this there is no solid proof.
Brought an alabaster box] See Clarke on Mr 14:3.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain On vv39, 40, 44 Luk 7:39. Now when the Pharisee saw it —…
Luk 7:39. Now when the Pharisee saw it — When Simon observed what was done, that Jesus permitted such a notorious sinner to approach, nay, and to touch him; he spake within himself — He thought in his heart; This man, if he were a prophet — As he pretends to be; would have known what manner of woman — What a vile, abominable creature; this is that toucheth him — Thus familiarly; and instead of allowing her to do so, would immediately have driven her away with just disdain, as the tradition of the elders directs; for it was a maxim with the Pharisees, that the very touch of the wicked caused pollution. “But though Simon did not declare his sentiments, they were not hidden from Christ, who, to show him that he was a prophet, and that he knew not only the characters of men, but the inward and invisible state of their minds, conversed with him immediately upon the subject of his thoughts. The scope indeed of what he said was, to convince Simon how absurdly he reasoned. Nevertheless, Jesus did not expose him before the company, by making what he said within himself public, but, with great delicacy, pointed out the unreasonableness of his thoughts to Simon alone, without letting the guests at table know any thing of the matter.”
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain On vv37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 In the city - What city is meant is…
In the city - What city is meant is unknown. Some have supposed it was Nain; some Capernaum; some Magdala; and some Jerusalem.
Which was a sinner - Who was depraved or wicked. This woman, it seems, was known to be a sinner - perhaps an abandoned woman or a prostitute. It is certain that she had much to be forgiven, and she had probably passed her life in crime. There is no evidence that this was the woman commonly called Mary Magdalene.
Read full note →
An alabaster-box ... - See the notes at Mar 14:3.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain On vv38, 39, 42, 43, 47 Jesus Christ was then at table, after the manner…
Jesus Christ was then at table, after the manner of the Orientals, reclined at length on a couch, a little raised from the ground, having his face turned towards the table, and his feet extended. He had quitted his sandals, according to the custom of the country, before he had laid himself on the couch. (Bible de Vence)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset & David Brown 1871 · Public Domain On vv37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 CHRIST'S FEET WASHED WITH TEARS. (Luk 7:36-50)
CHRIST'S FEET WASHED WITH TEARS. (Luk 7:36-50)
a sinner--one who had led a profligate life. Note.--There is no ground whatever for the popular notion that this woman was Mary Magdalene, nor do we know what her name was. (See on Luk 8:2.)
Read full note →
an alabaster box of ointment--a perfume vessel, in some cases very costly (Joh 12:5). "The ointment has here a peculiar interest, as the offering by a penitent of what had been an accessory in her unhallowed work of sin" [ALFORD].
Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain On vv37, 38, 39, 41, 42, 43, 44, 47, 48 37. A woman in the city… a sinner—It is…
37. A woman in the city… a sinner—It is not said that her character was notorious through town, or that she was “a woman of the town;” but that, being in town, she heard of the Lord’s also being there, and where he was. Dr. Clarke holds, correctly we think, that the word sinner, here and often elsewhere, signifies heathen or Gentile. The decisive proof-text for this then customary meaning of the word is Gal_2:15, where it was held ritually unclean to eat with sinners, namely, of the Gentiles. The phrase publicans and sinners requires this meaning; otherwise the phrase is a solecism; for the publicans themselves were a class of sinners in the common sense of that term. See Mar_2:15-17; Mar_14:41; Luk_15:1-2; Luk_15:7; Luk_15:10; Luk_19:7; Joh_9:31.
To this woman there evidently belongs a previous history, which Luke presupposes, but does not give. It is plain that the entire argument of Jesus assumes that her love to him was preceded by forgiveness and was caused by it. She must, therefore, at some previous time, have heard with faith the Gospel from his lips; must have felt her condition of sin and ruin; must have repented and experienced the joy and gratitude of conversion. That justification, however, she had felt only by his spirit in her heart; never by announcement from his lips. Hence, when she learns the place of his stay, she hastens, provided with the fragrant token of gratitude, the ointment, to pour forth upon him.
Read full note →
Brought—In the East, the warm climate produces tents and open doors, destroying much of that exclusiveness which reigns in the close houses of more northern latitudes. The meals are often taken in the court, with one side perfectly open. And even in the house, while the company are at table, persons will come in, and, uninvited and unchallenged, take their seat upon the divan or long sofa that lines the walls, and enter freely into conversation with the host and guests at table.
Alabaster box—See note on Mat_26:7.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain On vv37–48 37. a woman in the city] The harsher reading…
37. a woman in the city] The harsher reading of A, B, L, is “who was a sinner in the city.” No city is named, but if the Christian church is right in identifying this woman with Mary Magdalene, we may assume that the city implied is Magdala, which appears at that time to have been a flourishing place, though now it is only a mud village—El Mejdel. It cannot of course be regarded as indisputable that this woman was the Magdaleire, but it is, to say the least, possible; and there is no sufficient reason to disturb the current Christian belief which has been consecrated in so many glorious works of art. See further on Luk_8:2.
which was a sinner] It was the Jewish term for a harlot, and such had come even to John’s baptism, Mat_21:32.
Read full note →
when she knew that Jesus sat at meat] Literally, getting to know. She had not of course received permission to enter, but the prominence of hospitality as the chief of Eastern virtues led to all houses being left open, so that during a meal any one who wished could enter and look on. “To sit down to eat with common people” was one of the six things which no Rabbi or Pupil of the Wise might do; another was “to speak with a woman.” Our Lord freely did both.
an alabaster box] The word alabastron meant originally a vase or phial of alabaster, such as were used for perfumes and unguents (unguenta optime servantur in alabastris, Plin. XIII. 3), but afterwards came to mean any phial used for a similar purpose (just as our box originally meant a receptacle made of box-wood).
of ointment] This was doubtless one of the implements of her guilty condition (Pro_7:17, Isa_3:24), and her willingness to sacrifice it was a sign of her sincere repentance (comp. Son_4:10).
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain On vv37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 (37) A woman in the city, which was a…
(37) A woman in the city, which was a sinner.—The word is clearly used as pointing to the special sin of unchastity. The woman was known in the city as plying there her sinful and hateful calling. The question who she was must be left unanswered. Two answers have, however, been given. (1) The widespread belief that she was Mary Magdalene—shown in the popular application of the term “Magdalen” to a penitent of this class—has absolutely not a single jot or tittle of evidence in Scripture. Nor can there be said to be anything like even a tradition in its favour. The earliest Fathers of the Church are silent. Origen discusses and rejects it. Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine are doubtful. It first gained general acceptance through the authority of Gregory the Great. The choice of this narrative in the Gospel for the Feast of St. Mary Magdalene stamped it as with the sanction of the Western Church. The omission of that feast from the calendar of the Prayer Book of 1552 shows that the English Reformers at least hesitated, if they did not decide against it. We may note further (a) that if the popular belief were true we should have expected some hint of it on the occurrence of the name of Mary Magdalene in Luk_8:3; (b) that the description given of that Mary, as one out of whom had been cast “seven devils,” though not incompatible with a life of impurity, does not naturally suggest it; (c) that, on the assumption of identity, it is difficult to say when the “devils” had been cast out. Was it before she came with the ointment, or when our Lord spake the words, “Thy sins are forgiven thee?” It is obvious that the conduct of the woman in the Pharisee’s house was very different from the wild frenzy of a demoniac. (2) The belief adopted by some interpreters, and more or less generally received in the Church of Rome, that the woman was none other than Mary the sister of Lazarus, who, on this hypothesis, is identified also with Mary Magdalene, is even more baseless. The inference that when St. John speaks of Mary of Bethany as “that Mary which anointed the Lord with ointment,” must refer to the previous anointing which St. Luke narrates, and not to that which St. John himself records (Joh_12:3), is almost fantastic in its arbitrariness; and it will seem to most minds inconceivable that such a one as the sister of Lazarus, who appears in Luk_10:42 as “having chosen the good part,” could so shortly before have been leading the life of a harlot of the streets. Occurring as the narrative does in St. Luke only, it is probable enough that the “woman which was a sinner” became known to the company of devout women named in Luk_8:1-3, and that the Evangelist derived his knowledge of the facts from them. His reticence—possibly their reticence—as to the name was, under the circumstances, at once natural and considerate.
When she knew that Jesus . . .—The words imply that she had heard of Him—perhaps had listened to Him. She may have heard of His compassion for the widow of Nain in her sorrow. She might have been drawn by the ineffable pity and tenderness of His words and looks. She would show her reverence as she could.
Read full note →
Brought an alabaster box of ointment.—See Note on Mat_26:7. There is not the same stress laid here, as in the anointing by Mary of Bethany, on the preciousness of the ointment; but we may believe that it was relatively as costly. Passages like Pro_7:17, Isa_3:24, suggest the thought that then, as perhaps in all ages, the lavish and luxurious use of perfumes characterised the unhappy class to which the woman belonged. The ointment may have been purchased for far other uses than that to which it was now applied.
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain On vv37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 46, 47, 48 And, behold, a woman in the city, which was…
And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee"s house. The text in the older authorities is more forcible: "a woman which was a sinner in that city." Her miserable way of life would thus be well known to Simon and other of the guests. This sad detail would serve to bring out the contrast in more vivid colours. In these Oriental feasts the houses were often left open, and uninvited strangers frequently passed in through the open courtyard into the guest-chamber, and looked on. She had heard Jesus already, perhaps often, and had drunk in his pleading words, begging sinners to turn and to come to him for peace. Perhaps what had decided her to take this step of boldly seeking out the Master were words apparently spoken about this time (in St. Matthew"s Gospel they follow directly after the discourse respecting the Baptist just related), "Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest," etc. (Mat_11:28-30) It was a bold step for one like her to press uninvited, in broad daylight, into the house of a rigid purist like Simon; but the knowledge that Jesus (though personally, as she thought, she was unknown to him) was there, gave her courage; she felt no one would dare to thrust her out of the presence of the strange loving Master, who so earnestly had bidden the sin-weary come to him, and he would give them rest! Brought an alabaster box of ointment. Pliny mentions alabaster as the best material for pots or vessels intended for these precious ointments. It was softer than marble, and easily scooped into pots or bottles. These costly unguents and cosmetics were much used by the wealthy Roman ladies. The precious ointment poured over the Redeemer"s feet had probably been originally procured for a very different purpose. The word muron , translated "ointment," was used for any kind of sweet-smelling vegetable essence, especially that of the myrtle.
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain On vv40, 41, 42, 44, 46, 47, 48 Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee
Luk_7:40
Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee
Read full note →
On administering reproof
1.
To say somewhat to our brother when we see him run into an error. In such a case we may not be silent. Thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him (Lev_19:17). Observe--
2. Courteous usage should not keep us from telling men of their faults, and discovering their failings to them. (N. Rogers.)
Rebuke in parable
It is none of the worst observations we meet withal in Oleaster; that the holy prophets in dealing with great ones have spoken most an end in parables, as our Saviour did here to Simon. Let reproof be as good and wholesome diet as a partridge, yet it would not be served in to a great mans table raw, or with the feathers on, but cooked and seasoned. Reproof of them must be well wrapped up (as we do a pill in sugar), that it may the more easily be swallowed, and work before they think on it. But it may not be wholly withheld from any man whatever, be he our dearest friend. In so doing we should deal unkindly with them who deal friendly with us. Unhappy is that friendship, saith Carthusianus, which favouring our brothers cares doth break his neck. Such friendship David putteth in his Litany, and desireth God to keep him from. (N. Rogers.)
On receiving reproof
The word Christ speaks ought to be received with all readiness of spirit. Thus Simon received it, so ought we. Eli desired Samuel to tell him all (1Sa_3:17). Such should be the desire of all Gods people, that Gods ministers would deal faithfully with them in delivering the whole counsel of God unto them--as well one part as another. Wantons, you know, come into a garden to pick only flowers; here they pick a gay, and there another; but the good housewife comes to gather herbs: so should we come into Gods house to hear His Word. (N. Rogers.)
The ear the door to the soul
The devil s study is to keep this door shut, that Christ may not enter. Like a gaoler, he will sometimes be content to let his prisoner have hands and feet free, provided the prison doors and gates be fast locked and barred. His captives shall sometimes give an alms, or do
some other outward work of mercy, come to church to satisfy the law, &c. But he cannot endure the doors should stand open, for fear of an escape. Act_7:57; Psa_58:45.) Search the Scriptures, and you shall find that none was cured with greater difficulty than he that had a deaf and dumb spirit. (N. Rogers.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
B. W. Johnson 1891 · Public Domain On vv37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 47 37. A woman … a sinner. Evidently an outcast…
37. A woman … a sinner. Evidently an outcast woman. When she knew. She had them heard before of his compassion and tender mercy. She had learned to believe that there was mercy even for her, for whom earth had no mercy. Brought. How could she enter into the banquet chamber? Kitto says: “There were always many people hanging about the court and the outer parts of the guest chamber, which was wholly open in front. A door is a great hindrance to admission into a room, and where that does not exist people easily slip in.”
B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.
Alexander MacLaren 1905 · Public Domain On vv41, 47 Luk 7:41 - Luk 7:43.
Luke
THE TWO DEBTORS
Read full note →
Luk 7:41 - Luk 7:43.
We all know the lovely story in which this parable is embedded. A woman of notoriously bad character had somehow come in contact with Jesus Christ, and had by Him been aroused from her sensuality and degradation, and calmed by the assurance of forgiveness. So, when she heard that He was in her own town, what could she do but hasten to the Pharisee’s house, and brave the cruel, scornful eyes of the eminently respectable people that would meet her there? She carries with her part of the spoils and instruments of her sinful adornment, to devote it to His service; but before she can open the cruse, her heart opens, and the hot tears flow on His feet, inflicting an indignity where she had meant an honour. She has nothing at hand to repair the fault, she will not venture to take her poor garment, which might have done it, but with a touch, she loosens her long hair, and with the ingenuity and self-abasement of love, uses that for a towel. Then, gathering confidence from her reception, and carried further than she had meant, she ventures to lay her sinful lips on His feet, as if asking pardon for the tears that would come-the only lips, except those of the traitor, that are recorded as having touched the Master. And only then does she dare to pour upon Him her only wealth.
What says the Pharisee? Has he a heart at all? He is scandalised at such a scene at his respectable table; and no wonder, for he could not have known that a change had passed upon the woman, and her evil repute was obviously notorious. He does not wonder at her having found her way into his house, for the meal was half public. But he began to doubt whether a Man who tolerates such familiarities from such a person could be a prophet; or if He were, whether He could be a good man. ‘He would have known her if He had been a prophet,’ thinks he. The thought is only a questionably true one. ‘If He had known her, He would have thrust her back with His foot,’ he thinks; and that thought is obviously false. But Simon’s righteousness was of the sort that gathers up its own robes about it, and shoves back the poor sinner into the filth. ‘She is a sinner,’ says he. No, Simon! she was a sinner, but she is a penitent, and is on the road to be a saint, and having been washed, she is a great deal cleaner than thou art, who art only white-washed.
Our Lord’s parable is the answer to the Pharisee’s thought, and in it Jesus shows Simon that He knows him and the woman a great deal better than he did. There are three things to which briefly I ask your attention-the common debt, in varying amounts; the common insolvency; and the love, like the debt, varying in amount. Now, note these things in order.
I. There is, first of all, the common debt.
I do not propose to dwell at all upon that familiar metaphor, familiar to us all from its use in the Lord’s Prayer, by which sin and the guilt of sin are shadowed forth for us in an imperfect fashion by the conception of debt. For duty neglected is a debt to God, which can only be discharged by a penalty. And all sin, and its consequent guilt and exposure to punishment, may be regarded under the image of indebtedness.
But the point that I want you to notice is that these two in our parable, though they are meant to be portraits of Simon and the woman, are also representatives of the two classes to one or other of which we all belong. They are both debtors, though one owes but a tenth of what the other does. That is to say, our Lord here draws a broad distinction between people who are outwardly respectable, decent, cleanly living, and people who have fallen into the habit, and are living a life, of gross and open transgression. There has been a great deal of very pernicious loose representation of the attitude of Christianity in reference to this matter, common in evangelical pulpits. And I want you to observe that our Lord draws a broad line and says, ‘Yes! you, Simon, are a great deal better than that woman was. She was coarse, unclean, her innocence gone, her purity stained. She had been wallowing in filth, and you, with your respectability, your rigid morality, your punctilious observance of the ordinary human duties, you were far better than she was, and had far less to answer for than she had.’ Fifty is only a tenth of five hundred, and there is a broad distinction, which nothing ought to be allowed to obliterate, between people who, without religion, are trying to do right, to keep themselves in the paths of morality and righteousness, to discharge their duty to their fellows, controlling their passions and their flesh, and others who put the reins upon the necks of the horses and let them carry them where they will, and live in an eminent manner for the world and the flesh and the devil. And there is nothing in evangelical Christianity which in the smallest degree obliterates that distinction, but rather it emphasises it, and gives a man full credit for any difference that there is in his life and conduct and character between himself and the man of gross transgression.
But then it says, on the other side, the difference which does exist, and is not to be minimised, is, after all, a difference of degree. They are both debtors. They stand in the same relation to the creditor, though the amount of the indebtedness is extremely different. We are all sinful men, and we stand in the same relation to God, though one of us may be much darker and blacker than the other.
And then, remember, that when you begin to talk about the guilt of actions in God’s sight, you have to go far below the mere surface. If we could see the infinite complexity of motives-aggravations on the one side and palliations on the other-which go to the doing of a single deed, we should not be so quick to pronounce that the publican and the harlot are worse than the Pharisee. It is quite possible that an action which passes muster in regard to the morality of the world may, if regard be had {which God only can exercise} to the motive for which it is done, be as bad as, if not worse than, the lust and the animalism, drunkenness and debauchery, crime and murder, which the vulgar scales of the world consider to be the heavier. If you once begin to try to measure guilt, you will have to pass under the surface appearance, and will find that many a white and dazzling act has a very rotten inside, and that many a very corrupt and foul one does not come from so corrupt a source as at first sight might seem to be its origin. Let us be very modest in our estimate of the varying guilt of actions, and remember that, deep down below all diversities, there lies a fundamental identity, in which there is no difference, that all of us respectable people that never broke a law of the nation, and scarcely ever a law of propriety, in our lives, and the outcasts, if there are any here now, the drunkards, the sensualists, all of us stand in this respect in the same class. We are all debtors, for we have ‘all sinned and come short of the glory of God,’ A viper an inch long and the thickness of whipcord has a sting and poison in it, and is a viper. And if the question is whether a man has got small-pox or not, one pustule is as good evidence as if he was spotted all over. So, remember, he who owes five hundred and he who owes the tenth part of it, which is fifty, are both debtors.
II. Now notice the common insolvency.
‘They had nothing to pay.’ Well, if there is no money, ‘no effects’ in the bank, no cash in the till, nothing to distrain upon, it does not matter very much what the amount of the debt is, seeing that there is nothing to meet it, and whether it is fifty or five hundred the man is equally unable to pay. And that is precisely our position.
I admit, of course, that men without any recognition of God’s pardoning mercy, or any of the joyful impulse that comes from the sense of Christ’s redemption, or any of the help that is given by the indwelling of the Spirit who sanctifies may do a great deal in the way of mending their characters and making themselves purer and nobler. But that is not the point which my text contemplates, because it deals with a past. And the fact that lies under the metaphor of my text is this, that none of us can in any degree diminish our sin, considered as a debt to God. What can you and I do to lighten our souls of the burden of guilt? What we have written we have written. Tears will not wash it out, and amendment will not alter the past, which stands frowning and irrevocable. If there be a God at all, then our consciences, which speak to us of demerit, proclaim guilt in its two elements-the sense of having done wrong, and the foreboding of punishment therefor. Guilt cannot be dealt with by the guilty one: it must be Some One else who deals with it. He, and only He against whom we have sinned, can touch the great burden that we have piled upon us.
Brother! we have nothing to pay. We may mend our ways; but that does not touch the past. We may hate the evil; that will help to keep us from doing it in the future, but it does not affect our responsibility for what is done. We cannot touch it; there it stands irrevocable, with this solemn sentence written over the black pile, ‘Every transgression and disobedience shall receive its just recompense of reward.’ We have nothing to pay.
But my text suggests, further, that a condition precedent to forgiveness is the recognition by us of our penniless insolvency. Though it is not distinctly stated, it is clearly and necessarily implied in the narrative, that the two debtors are to be supposed as having come and held out a couple of pairs of empty hands, and sued in formâ pauperis. You must recognise your insolvency if you expect to be forgiven. God does not accept dividends, so much in the pound, and let you off the rest on consideration thereof. If you are going to pay, you have to pay all; if He is going to forgive, you have to let Him forgive all. It must be one thing or the other, and you and I have to elect which of the two we shall stand by, and which of the two shall be applied to us.
Oh, dear friends! may we all come and say,
‘Nothing in my hand I bring,
Simply to Thy Cross I cling.
III. And so, lastly, notice the love, which varies with the forgiveness.
‘Tell Me which of them will love him most.’ Simon does not penetrate Christ’s design, and there is a dash of supercilious contempt for the story and the question, as it seems to me, in the languid, half-courteous answer:-’I suppose, if it were worth my while to think about such a thing, that he to whom he forgave the most.’ He did not know what a battery was going to be unmasked. Jesus says, ‘Thou hast rightly judged.’
The man that is most forgiven is the man that will love most. Well, that answer is true if all other things about the two debtors are equal. If they are the same sort of men, with the same openness to sentiments of gratitude and generosity, the man who is let off the smaller debt will generally be less obliged than the man who is let off the larger. But it is, alas! not always the case that we can measure benefits conferred by gratitude shown. Another element comes in-namely, the consciousness of the benefit received-which measures the gratitude far more accurately than the actual benefit bestowed. And so we must take both these things, the actual amount of forgiveness, so to speak, which is conferred, and the depth of the sense of the forgiveness received, in order to get the measure of the love which answers it. So that this principle breaks up into two thoughts, of which I have only just a word or two to say.
First, it is very often true that the greatest sinners make the greatest saints. There have been plenty of instances all down the history of the world, and there are plenty of instances, thank God, cropping up every day still in which some poor, wretched outcast, away out in the darkness, living on the husks that the swine do eat, and liking to be in the pigstye, is brought back into the Father’s house, and turns out a far more loving son and a far better servant than the man that had never wandered away from it. ‘The publicans and the harlots’ do often yet ‘go into the Kingdom of God before’ the respectable people.
And there are plenty of people in Manchester that you would not touch with a pair of tongs who, if they could be got hold of, would make far more earnest and devoted Christians than you are. The very strength of passion and feeling which has swept them wrong, rightly directed, would make grand saints of them, just as the very same conditions of climate which, at tropics, bring tornadoes and cyclones and dreadful thunder-storms, do also bring abundant fertility. The river which devastates a nation, dammed up within banks, may fertilise half a continent. And if a man is brought out of the darkness, and looks back upon the years that are wasted, that may help him to a more intense consecration. And if he remembers the filth out of which Jesus Christ picked him, it will bind him to that Lord with a bond deep and sacred.
So let no outcast man or woman listening to me now despair. You can come back from the furthest darkness, and whatever ugly things you have in your memories and your consciences, you may make them stepping-stones on which to climb to the very throne of God. Let no respectable people despise the outcasts; there may be the making in them of far better Christians than we are.
But, on the other hand, let no man think lightly of sin. Though it can be forgiven and swept away, and the gross sinner may become the great saint, there will be scars and bitter memories and habits surging up again after we thought they were dead; and the old ague and fever that we caught in the pestilential land will hang by us when we have migrated into a more wholesome climate. It is never good for a man to have sinned, even though, through his sin, God may have taken occasion to bring him near to Himself.
But the second form of this principle is always true-namely, that those who are most conscious of forgiveness will be most fruitful of love. The depth and fervour of our individual Christianity depends more largely on the clearness of our consciousness of our own personal guilt and the firmness of our grasp of forgiveness than upon anything else.
Why is it that such multitudes of you professing Christians are such icebergs in your Christianity? Mainly for this reason-that you have never found out, in anything like an adequate measure, how great a sinner you are, and how sure and sweet and sufficient Christ’s pardoning mercy is. And so you are like Simon-you will ask Jesus to dinner, but you will not give Him any water for His feet or ointment for His head. You will do the conventional and necessary pieces of politeness, but not one act of impulse from the heart ever comes from you. You discharge ‘the duties of religion.’ What a phrase! You discharge the duties of religion. Ah! My brother, if you had been down into the horrible pit and the miry clay, and had seen a hand and a face looking down, and an arm outstretched to lift you; and if you had ever known what the rapture was after that subterraneous experience of having your feet set upon a rock and your goings established, you would come to Him and you would say, ‘Take me all, O Lord! for I am all redeemed by Thee.’ ‘To whom little is forgiven the same loveth little.’ Does not that explain the imperfect Christianity of thousands of us?
Fifty pence and five hundred pence are both small sums. Our Lord had nothing to do here with the absolute amount of debt, but only with the comparative amount of the two debts. But when He wanted to tell the people what the absolute amount of the debt was, he did it in that other story of the Unfaithful Servant. He owed his lord, not fifty pence {fifty eightpences or thereabouts}, not five hundred pence, but ‘ten thousand talents,’ which comes to near two and a half millions of English money. And that is the picture of our indebtedness to God. ‘We have nothing to pay.’ Here is the payment-that Cross, that dying Christ. Turn your faith there, my brother, and then you will get ample forgiveness, and that will kindle love, and that will overflow in service. For the aperture in the heart at which forgiveness enters in is precisely of the same width as the one at which love goes out. Christ has loved us all, and perfectly. Let us love Him back again, who has died that we might live, and borne our sins in His own body.
Alexander MacLaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture (1904–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
C. I. Scofield 1917 · Public Domain On vv37, 44 i.e. in the sense of unchaste.
sinner
i.e. in the sense of unchaste.
The Scofield Reference Bible (1917 edition), notes by C. I. Scofield — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain On vv39, 41, 47 The Pharisee’s condemnation:
The Pharisee’s condemnation:
v. 39. Now when the Pharisee which had bidden Him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This Man, if He were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that toucheth Him; for she is a sinner.
Read full note →
v. 40. And Jesus, answering, said unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he saith, Master, say on.
The host had watched the entire proceeding with ill-concealed disgust. The very thought of Jesus’ being touched by such a notorious character made him shudder. And therefore he passed the ’verdict in his heart that Jesus could not be a prophet. The tears of the woman were disagreeable to him, and the smell of the ointment filled him with loathing. Note: The same spirit of self-righteous repulsiveness is found in the modern Pharisees. They draw aside their silken skirts or their fur-lined overcoats, even when they are given the assurance that a former sinner has left the path of transgression, not knowing that their hearts are filled with a far worse, a much more dangerous disease, that of pride and conceit. But Jesus knew the thoughts of the Pharisee, and He soon gave him evidence that He was a prophet who knew the hearts of men. He determined to give this haughty Pharisee a much-needed lesson, but in a kind and gentle way, with the object of convincing and gaining him. The host politely acquiesced when the Lord asked him whether He might tell him a certain matter, lay a certain case before him.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv39, 41, 44, 46, 48 he thought to himself, saying
he thought to himself, saying
"he said to himself"
Read full note →
If this man were a prophet, then he would know ... a sinner
The Pharisee thought that Jesus was not a prophet because he allowed the sinful woman to touch him. AT: "Apparently Jesus is not a prophet, because a prophet would know that this woman who is touching him is a sinner"
that she is a sinner
Simon assumed that a prophet would never allow a sinner to touch him. This part of his assumption can be stated clearly. AT: "that she is a sinner, and he would not allow her to touch him" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)
Simon
This was the name of the Pharisee who invited Jesus into his home. This was not Simon Peter.
translationWords
prophet
teacher
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 On vv37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 47 7:37 a certain immoral woman: The implication is that…
7:37 a certain immoral woman: The implication is that she was a prostitute. • Alabaster is a soft marble—white, yellow, or red—that was often used to make expensive containers like this beautiful . . . jar.
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.