spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who, and what man 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 ala-ner of woman this is that toucheth baster-box of ointment, him for she is a sinner. 38 And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment. 39 Now, when the Pharisee which had bidden him, saw it, he 37. In the city. The name of the city is not given. Some suppose it was Nain, and others that it was some other city. May it not have been Bethany? TA woman- which was a sinner. It is generally supposed that a particular kind of sinfulness, the sin of lewdness, is bere intended; though such is by no means the general import of the word. It is used to denote sinners generally, without regard to their peculiar characteristics. See Matt. ix. 13; Luke v. 8; xiii. 2; xxiv. 7. This woman may have been a repenting prostitute; she was certainly one who had been a notorious sinner in some respect, for she was well known as such, by Simon, ver. 39. An alabaster-box of ointment. See note on Matt. xxvi. 7. See also Mark xiv. 3. 38. Stood at his feet. As he reclined at the table, after the Jewish fashion, on his side, resting on his elbow, with his feet extended back nearly on a level with his body, she might easily approach behind him, and bathe and anoint his feet as here represented. So deep was her humility, and such the power of her gratitude, that she kissed his feet, having washed them with her tears and wiped them with her hair. 39. Spake within himself. That is, he thought; language is given to his thoughts. If he were a prophet. Simon appears to have strongly doubted whether Jesus was under the divine guidance, because he suffered this woman thus to express the emotions of her heart. He supposed that one, guided by divine inspiration, would know when a polluted person approached him, and would repel such a one immediately. What manner of "The Pharisee had respect to woman. 40 And Jesus answering, said unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he saith, Master, say on. 41 There was a certain creditor, which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty. the law concerning their pollution who touched the polluted. Numb. xix. 22. He knew not the gracious mercy of God in Christ. Here was Simon's failing; he thought the stains of sin so absolutely indelible, that what this sinner had been she must be reputed still, not considering the power and mercy of God, converting sinners, making their scarlet sins white as snow, and themselves new creatures; and therefore he concluded that it became not a prophet to permit such a one to touch him. Hence proceeded another foul error; that Christ did not know what condition she was of, and therefore that he was no prophet."-Assem. Annot. Very many have been partakers of "Simon's failing," as here described. They seem not to be conscious that God can cleanse the soul from the deepest stains of guilt. And hence the frequent exclamation of surprise that any can believe the wicked, those dying in sin, shall be admitted to the communion of the blessed and the presence of God. Could they but understand the power of God to forgive sin and to cleanse from unrighteousness, they might perceive that when he had thus purified the most wicked man who dies, such a one retains no more of pollution than he does who is least wicked when he dies, after he has been purified; for no man dies, who does not need a thorough purification, before he shall become absolutely holy and a fit companion for the holy. What is done in a less degree for some may be done in a greater degree for others. And when it shall be done, as we are assured it will be, then will all bear the spiritual image of the Lord Jesus. 41. Five hundred pence. About 42 And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most? 43 Simon answered and said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged. 44 And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thy house, thou gavest me no seventy dollars; the penny being about fourteen cents. Fifty. Fifty pence were equal to about seven dollars. The particular sums specified are of little consequence. The simple idea is, that one owed much more than the other. 42. Frankly forgave them both. Remitted the debt entirely, and placed both debtors in precisely the same position, as to debt, which they sustained before they became indebted. On this subject, although the divine economy is figuratively represented in the comparison here used, it must be remembered that the parallel is not complete and absolute. For some remarks on the nature of divine forgiveness, see notes on Matt. vi. 14, 15. In the case supposed, one debtor was forgiven ten times as large an amount as the other. Although both were unable to pay, and on this ground were equal, yet a much larger liability was removed from the one than from the other; for, according to the Jewish law, both were liable, not only in their property, but in their persons, which might be sold into servitude by the creditor. water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head. 45 Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman, since the time I came in, hath not ceased to kiss my feet. 46 My head with oil thou didst not anoint but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment. 47 Wherefore, I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are for 44-46. In these verses, the difference between the conduct of the Pharisee and that of the penitent woman is pointed out, and the attention of Simon specially called to it. He had not even offered the customary tokens of respect to illustrious visitors, water for the feet, the kiss of friendship, and oil for the head. But she had bedewed his feet, yea, had literally washed them with her tears, wiping them with her hair; she had repeatedly and affectionately kissed his feet, and anointed them with precious and expensive ointment. All this she had done in the most humble manner. She had not presumed to address Jesus; but in silence she had expressed her deep gratitude to him for his kindness. It was for Simon to consider, which of the two had manifested the most respect and affection towards his guest, himself, or this despised female. The answer was perfectly obvious. But without imposing on Simon the mortification of a direct confession, our Lord proceeded to explain to him the propriety of what he had witnessed, and to show him that it was not only right but natural. 43. I suppose, &c. Simon seems to have perceived the tendency of the 47. Wherefore, &c. The meaning question proposed, and to have hesitated of this verse is more distinctly expressin regard to the answer. He dared noted by Campbell: "Wherefore, I tell absolutely give the lie to his own conscience; nor was he willing to utter the truth in positive terms; so he said, I suppose that he will love most unto whom most was forgiven. Some think he was unconscious of our Lord's object, and answered honestly. However this be, he most effectually condemned himself for entertaining such ungenerous suspicions. Jesus assured him that he had answered correctly, and then made the intended application, in the succeeding verses. thee, her sins, which are many, are forgiven; therefore her love is great. But he to whom little is forgiven, hath little love." It is perfectly manifest, from the parable or comparison used by our Lord, that his intention was to represent the love as the result, not as the cause of forgiveness. The woman was not forgiven because she loved much, as the common translation might seem to imply ; but she loved much because her many sins had been forgiven; just as Simon, having been forgiven com given; for she loved much but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little. 48 And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven. paratively little, loved but little. We may understand this according to its more literal import as indicating that Simon had been generally upright and virtuous, while the woman had been guilty of aggravated sins; so that while both felt that they had been forgiven, she realized a much greater blessing than he did, and consequently exercised a more strong and fervent love. Or, we may understand, with others, that this was spoken according to the opinion of the Jews, that diseases were always the effect of sin, and that Simon had been healed of one disease, and the woman of another much more dreadful. And this interpretation will have additional force, if, as is supposed, Simon had been healed of leprosy, being the same "Simon the leper," mentioned in Matt. xxvi. 6, and the woman was the same "Mary called Magdalene, out of whom went seven devils," Luke viii. 2, that is, had been cured of insanity and restored to her right mind. Bodily diseases are not to be compared with mental maladies. It will be universally admitted that insanity is more dreadful by far than the leprosy, loathsome and fatal as is that disease; and by just so much is relief from it to be regarded as a richer blessing. 48. Thy sins are forgiven. See note on Matt. ix. 2. She had previously felt that her sins were forgiven; and therefore she loved much; but she now received an express assurance, perhaps a repeated assurance, of the fact. "Jesus does not say, I forgive your sins; but, with an intimate knowledge of the divine will, simply pronounces them to be forgiven. In a similar way, his apostles also were to forgive sins. Matt. xvi. 19; xviii. 18; John xx. 23." -Livermore. All this may be very true. Still it must not be forgotten that Jesus did distinctly claim to have power on earth to forgive sins," Luke I do not understand him to claim this as an inherent, underived power; but rather as one of the gifts bestowed on him by the Father, to qualify him for his important work, and to which he refers when he says, V. 24. 49 And they that sat at meat with him, began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also? 50 And he said to the woman, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth." Matt. xxviii. 18. When, therefore, he said, "Thy sins are forgiven thee," I see no impropriety in understanding the words in substantially the same sense as if he had said, "I have forgiven thy sins." Especially if, as is probable, there was an allusion to her deliverance from some dreadful bodily or mental disease; for such a disease was regarded as the penalty of sin, and its removal as an evidence of forgiveness; and there can be no question that he frequently thus forgave sin, and that his apostles in his name did likewise. See Acts iii. 6; iv. 10. 49. Who is this, &c. See notes on Matt. ix. 2-6. They may be understood to express astonishment at the mighty power which Jesus exhibited, or indignation at what they regarded as an impious assumption of power. 50. Thy faith hath saved thee. Her faith in Jesus and confidence in his ability to heal had induced her to apply for relief, and her request had been effectual. See note on Mark v. 34. In the note on Matt. xxvi. 6-13, the possibility was suggested that the woman mentioned in that place, and in Mark xiv. 3-9, and John xii. 1-8, might be the same whose case is here narrated by Luke. Since that note was written, the subject has been again examined; and, although not able to speak with perfect confidence, I am even more strongly inclined than before to believe that the four evangelists refer to the same individual, and describe the same interview,-relating different circumstances in regard to it with reference to the particular lesson designed by each to be illustrated and enforced. I shall give, in this note, some of the reasons which seem to justify this conclusion. But, in the first place, it may be proper to show the fact distinctly, that commentators have very much differed in opinion upon this subject, and have freely indulged in conjectures; hence I may plead respectable precedent, if my opinion should be adjudged conjectural. Calmet, in his Commentary, expresses an opinion peace. and one by Matthew and Mark; but he expresses a doubt whether John may not relate the same event as Matthew and Mark. The result thus far is this: most commentators regard the narrative of Luke as standing by itself, not parallel with either of the other evangelists; but Chrysostom considers it parallel with Matthew and Mark, not with John, while Jerome thinks it is parallel with John, but not with Matthew and Mark. Another opinion is expressed by Grotius, namely, that all the four evangelists relate the same transaction, and that the Mary who anointed Jesus, as described by all, was the sister of Lazarus, but was not the same as Mary Magdalene. Lightfoot seems to agree with Jerome. He makes Matthew and Mark parallel with each other; but positively asserts that the supper at which occurred the transaction recorded by them "was not the same supper with that in John xii. 1." On the other hand he seems to make Luke and John parallel, by expressing an opinion that the woman named by Luke was Mary Magdalene, and that she was also sister to Lazarus. Such are some of the various theories which have been adopted upon this confessedly difficult subject. That each of them contains some truth, is very evident; but that either is absolutely and entirely correct, may he doubted. Thy faith hath saved thee; go in that the female named by Luke was Mary Magdalene, but that the other evangelists refer to Mary the sister of Lazarus, a different person. He adds: "In this opinion most of the Greek Fathers and very many critics coincide, who have written particularly upon this subject; yet there are some exceptions. Origen, in Cantic. hom., acknowledges two Marys, but in Matt. tom. 12, he confounds the two; and afterwards supposes that, instead of two, there were three, which last opinion is also expressed by Euthymius in Matt. xxvi., and by Theophylact in Mark xiv. Augustine and many of the more recent interpreters believe that the woman mentioned by Matthew, Mark, and John, was not the same who is commemorated by Luke. On the contrary, Chrysostom, in Matt. hom. 80, supposes that John alone names the sister of Lazarus, and that the other three evangelists refer to the woman who was a sinner. But Jerome, in Matt. xxvi., differs from all the others, since he holds that Matthew and Mark relate the same event, but one entirely distinct from that which is described by John and Luke." Theophylact says, "Many inquire how many females anointed our Lord. Some say there were two, namely, one mentioned by John, who was sister of Lazarus, and another by Matthew, Mark, and here by Luke. But I agree with those who There are reasons which favor a supsay there were three; one named by position different from either of the John, six days before the passover; foregoing; namely, that all the evanwho was sister of Lazarus; another by gelists refer to the same supper, in the Matthew and Mark, two days before house of Simon at Bethany; and that the passover; and a third by Luke, in Mary the sister of Lazarus, named by the midst of our Lord's ministry." John, was the same who is denominated Among the later commentators, the by Luke a "sinner," vii. 37, and Mary general opinion is that Matthew, Mark, Magdalene, viii. 2. That the same and John, speak of one event and Luke transaction is recorded by all is renderof another; as the authors of the As-ed probable, (1.) by their substantial sembly's Annotations, and of the Geneva Bible, Hammond, Pearce, Doddridge, Rosenmüller, Newcome, Barnes, and Livermore. Whitby says the accounts of Matthew and Mark are parallel, and that Luke and John each relate a distinct transaction; still on Matt. xxvi., he refers to John xii., in such a manner as evidently to show that he then regarded the two cases as parallel. In like manner, Clarke expresses an opinion that three similar transactions are recorded, one by Luke, one by John, agreement in so many particulars. Matthew, Mark, and John, agree that the supper was in Bethany; Matthew, Mark, and Luke, that it was in the house of a man named Simon. At this supper, while Jesus reclined at the table, all agree that a female approached and anointed him with precious ointment; Mark and John agree that this was "ointment of spikenard," and Matthew, Mark, and Luke, that it was contained in "an alabaster box." Luke and John agree that the woman anoint CHAPTER VIII. city and village, preaching and shewing the glad tidings of the AND it came to pass afterward, kingdom of God: and the twelve that he went throughout every ed the feet of Jesus with this ointment and wiped them with the hair of her head. Matthew, Mark, and John, agree that she was blamed by some for thus wasting the ointment which might have been sold for the benefit of the poor; and its value is estimated at three hundred pence. It is true there are also points of disagreement; yet none, I apprehend, which involve an absolute contradiction; and moreover, Luke differs not more from the other three, than they differ from each other. Matthew and Mark say the head of Jesus was anointed, while Luke speaks of his feet; but here John agrees with him; and probably both head and feet were anointed. The other evangelists omit the conversation with Simon, recorded by Luke; so does John omit the remarks concerning Judas, recorded by Matthew and Mark. None except Luke intimate that this woman had been a sinner; so neither do any, except John, intimate the fact that her name was Mary, the sister of Lazarus; and the reason is obvious; John had related the case of Lazarus, and Luke was about to relate an important conversation upon the subject of forgiveness and its effects. I think it is quite as easy to harmonize the four narratives, as the three of Matthew, Mark, and John.-(2.) Each of the evangelists relates one case of anointing and one only. If this, in Luke, be different from the other, then he nowhere relates that which is described by them; nor they, that which he describes. It does not seem probable that either would omit such an impressive event, nor that two or more such events should have occurred, so very similar to each other, and, at the same time, so unusual in themselves, one of which should be noticed by one and the other or others by others. Had it not been unusual, the complaint of waste would not have been made at this offering of gratitude, any more than at the making of the feast at perhaps equal expense. Luke so frequently differs from the other evangelists in the order of time, that the place he assigns to this transaction, in his narrative, presents no insuperable difficulty. (3.) All were with him, the circumstances which serve to identify the woman named by Luke, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the sister of Lazarus, as one and the same person, serve equally to identify the several accounts as narratives of one and the same transaction. "It is supposed, and that not without good reason, that this was Mary Magdalene. If so, then had her 'seven devils' been cast out of her before; and at that time her sins had been forgiven her, our Lord at once indulging to her the cure both of her body and her mind. There was a certain town near Jerusalem called Magdala, of a very ill fame, which perhaps was Bethany itself; or be it some other, yet might our Mary (if she was the sister of Lazarus) not unfitly be called Magdalene, either as she might have lived there sometime," &c.-Lightfoot, on Luke vii. 47, and viii. 2. See also his note John xii. 3. In confirmation of this suggestion, it may be observed, (a.) that if the woman named by Luke were Mary Magdalene, then we find on record a reason for the extraordinary love and gratitude which she manifested. Whatever may be understood by the "seven devils," whether insanity or gross sinfulness, or bodily disease, or all, the insanity perhaps being a consequence of the sinfulness or disease, the relief she had experienced will fully account for the fervency of her gratitude. (b.) If she were not Mary Magdalene, her conduct is not easily accounted for; because, after this outburst of feeling, we find no further trace of her devotion to Jesus; she is not identified as ever having seen him or ministered to him afterwards. But if she were Mary Magdalene, then her conduct was such as might be anticipated; she ministered to him while he lived, wept at the foot of his cross, watched the interment of his body, and was the first at the sepulchre on the morning of the resurrection. Such conduct was natural in one who "loved much," having been forgiven much. (c.) That Mary, the sister of Lazarus, was the same individual concerning whom these things are recorded is probable from the peculiarity and identity of character observable |