Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Luke 7:36 - 7:50
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
(Gospel on St. Mary Magdalene’s Day.)
2. Harmony. It is a question whether this anointing is the same which the three other Evangelists mention at the beginning of the history of the Passion. Although distinguished men have given an affirmative answer to this question (Schleiermacher, Strauss, De Wette, Ewald), we have no scruple, nevertheless, to attach ourselves to those who declare for the original diversity of the two narratives. For both accounts agree only in this, that in the two cases the host is named “Simon,” and that the woman who anoints the Saviour dries His feet with the hair of her head. But on what grounds it is impossible that two Simons may have lived, of whom one was a disciple in Galilee, who treated Jesus with distrust, and the other a recovered leper in Judea, who clave to Jesus with faithful affection, we comprehend as little as why those whose doubts arise from the agreement of the two names, leave us yet two Judases, two Simons, and two Jameses in the circle of the apostles. And as respects the other circumstances, it scarcely needs suggestion that two affectionate and thankful women, quite independently of each other, might have the thought occur to them of bringing the Saviour an homage of such a kind. Besides these, all the features of the case are different: In this, the host is an enemy, there a friend, of the Saviour; here it was an anointing from thankful love, there, at the same time, an anointing for death; here Jesus is censured by a Pharisee, there the woman by a disciple; here it is haughtiness, there it is selfishness, which is the source of this hostility; here the sinner is pronounced blessed, there the female disciple is honored with the highest distinction. “A criticism which in these representations can see images with no solidity, dissolving into one another, because in them accidentally there are two hosts of the name of Simon, or some other similarities, would more easily become skilled in assigning titles and uniforms, than in distinguishing the highest delineations of character and exhibitions of peculiar dispositions in the higher region of the primitive Christian history or the Christian spiritual life.” Lange, Leben Jesu. Even the conjecture (Neander) that the name Simon has through an incorrect tradition been transferred from the second host to the first, we consider as arbitrary as unnecessary. With greater justice it might perhaps be assumed that Mary of Bethany had knowledge of the act of the Galilean woman, and had therefore the earlier come to the thought of showing her love and her thankfulness to the Saviour in a similar manner. The endeavor to identify the two accounts with one another presupposes a view of the incorrectness of the evangelical tradition, to which we are in principle opposed.
Luk_7:36. And one of the Pharisees desired Him.—Time and place are not particularly indicated. There is as little reason for ascribing the very invitation of the Pharisee to hostile intentions as for believing that it sprung from the good ground of esteem and affection. Perhaps pride itself impelled him to receive a Rabbi at his table, whose name was already upon so many tongues, and in respect to whom one did not know how high he might yet rise. And the Son of Man, who was come “eating and drinking,” yielded willingly to his invitation, although we may well suppose fie was not unaware (Joh_2:25) that it had sprung from an impure intent.
And reclined at table.—It appears from the sequel, without having His feet washed or being anointed. “Jesus lay supported on His left arm with His head turned towards the table, upon a pillow, and His feet were turned outward to where the attendants stood; moreover they were naked, as He had laid off His sandals.” De Wette.
Luk_7:37. A woman who in the city was a sinner.—The name of the town is not given. The conjecture that it was Jerusalem (Paulus) is quite as unfounded as many others. In any case, we are to seek the theatre of the event in Galilee. “Sinner” appears here to intimate especially an unchaste life, by which she stood in evil repute among her fellow townsmen. (See Luk_7:39.) Respecting the different ways in which a woman among the Jews might procure to herself the name ἁìáñôùëüò , comp. Light-foot, ad loc.
Very early has this sinner been regarded as one and the same with Mary Magdalene, on which account the church has appointed this gospel for her memorial. See Winer, in voce, and Sepp, Leben Jesu, p. 281–292, who has also collected the most noticeable legends in regard to her person. Undoubtedly the identity of the persons is not mathematically demonstrable, but much less can we designate the difficulties which have been raised against it as entirely unremovable, and we doubt whether the Catholic church in this point deserves the opposition which, as a rule, falls to her share from the most of modern expositors. Tradition, which was acquainted with the second anointing by Mary, the sister of Lazarus, would not also, without some special occasion, have given the name Mary to the woman first anointing. That Mary Magdalene is first mentioned, Luk_8:2, certainly does not prove that she could not before this have anointed the Saviour in Simon’s house. Perhaps she had belonged to the unhappy ones, out of whom Jesus, only a short time before, about the time of the visit of John’s disciples (Luk_7:21), had expelled unclean spirits. A sinner like Magdalene had certainly not been received in the ordinary way into the most intimate circle of friends, and assuredly one can scarcely imagine a more beautiful occasion for it than the act here recorded in Simon’s house. We may add that precisely such a behavior as that recorded of the woman in Simon’s house agrees entirely with what is known to us respecting the loving Magdalene (Joh_20:11-18), especially if she had only lately been healed of her terrible plague. But enough concerning a conjecture, which certainly cannot be fully proved, but which still less deserves to be rejected without further inquiry. Comp. Lange, Life of Christ, ad loc. [I do not see what occasion the author has to regard Mary Magdalene as an extraordinary sinner. As Trench has well observed in his work on Miracles, demoniac possession appears to have implied a peculiar deficiency of the energy of personal will in the afflicted, whether natural or induced by weakening disease, but by no means to have implied of course any peculiar criminality. Undoubtedly sin, and especially sins of voluptuousness, tend very greatly to weaken the moral and voluntary energies. But there are so many other causes that may effect the same result, that to bring such an imputation against Mary Magdalene on no other ground, appears to me, I confess, little better than a posthumous slander. Then the mention of Mary Magdalene immediately afterwards, Luk_8:2, in a manner that does not betray the faintest consciousness of her having been mentioned before, is certainly very little agreeable to this identification. Our Saviour, moreover, although He came to seek and to save the lost, and although to His inward view one saved sinner was even as another, appears in the choice of His intimate companions to have maintained a Divine decorum, such as breathes through all His words and acts, and which may not without reason have been supposed to be operative in this case.—C. C. S.]
Luk_7:37. When she knew.—The meals at which Jesus took part appear to have had a somewhat public character. The entrance stood open to all, not because they were invited with Him, but because the concourse could not be hindered.
An alabaster flask, ἀëÜâáóôñïí ìýñïõ .—A very fine, mostly white species of gypsum, but not so hard as marble, and therefore not so serviceable for finely polished furniture. “Unguenta optime servantur in alabastris,” writes Pliny, xiii. 3, and to this notion apparently it is to be ascribed that they were accustomed to transport unguents and perfumes in alabaster flasks, which were sealed at the tops, and opened by breaking the long neck. Perhaps we are here to understand alabaster from Damascus and Syria, which was distinguished especially by its clearness, while the best Nard ointment was prepared at Tarsus in Cilicia. Comp. Friedlieb, Die Archæol, der Leidensgeschichte, on Mat_26:6 seq.—Moreover, among the ancients there prevailed elsewhere also the custom of kissing the feet of those to whom it was intended to display a very especial reverence, especially of the Rabbis (Wetstein), and the noting of the moment when the whole transaction began ( ἤñîáôï ), contributes not a little to heighten the vividness of the whole narrative.
Luk_7:38. And began to moisten His feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head.—The question spontaneously presents itself to us, what may have given occasion to all this burst of feeling in the homage rendered by the woman. Without doubt she had previously seen and heard the Lord, and, in whatever way it may have come to pass, had already received a great benefit from Jesus. We are most disposed to understand this as a bodily healing and benefit, certainly not worth less than the debt of five hundred denarii. For this mercy she will manifest to the Lord her thankful love. Perhaps He had, in order to put her to the proof, delivered her indeed from the malady which was the consequence of her sinful life, but as yet withheld the word of pardon and grace, of which she stood in most need. So there burns along with the flame of gratitude the secret longing after a higher, a spiritual salvation in her heart. The impure wishes to be declared pure, the fallen to be raised up, the sorrowing to be comforted, the thankful for recovery to be blest with yet greater fulness of grace. For a shorter or longer time she has already been looking for an opportunity to draw near to the Saviour without being thrust back by an incompassionate hand, and now when she hears He is a guest in Simon’s house, she is withheld as little by false shame as by fear of man from following the drawing of her heart.
Luk_7:39. Now when the Pharisee … saw.—Without doubt the first feeling of the Pharisee was that of displeasure that such a woman had ventured to pollute his pure threshold. But with that is next joined dissatisfaction and doubt in reference to his guest, who, as he sees, is well content to be touched by such hands. Without any organ by which he is able to place himself in the woman’s condition or to estimate the beauty of her action, he judges according to the logic of the natural man and of the Jew imprisoned in prejudices. The major term of the syllogism which, in secret, he forms to himself, is double. A prophet would, in the first place, know what is hidden, and know accordingly the history of this ἁìáñôùëüò , and, secondly, shudder at the contact of that which is unholy. That the former may be true of Jesus and the latter not, does not even enter his mind. The minor and the conclusion from his point of view need no statement. Among the Jews the idea commonly prevailed that a prophet must know everything secret, and that in particular the Messiah must be at a loss for an answer to no question; therefore the ensnaring questions which even to the end of His life they continued to propose to Him; therefore also the inference of the disciples (Joh_16:29-30).—As respects our Simon, moreover, it is scarcely to be doubted that he, how much soever he may have been ëÝãùí ἐí ἑáõôῷ , yet also gave vent to his displeasure by looks, gestures, and light murmurs. The Saviour, however, has no need of that to hear him, He already reads in Simon’s thoughts. He vindicates the honor of the woman and His own in a noble parable, which He presents in so striking, so powerful a manner that we scarcely know which we should most admire: the skill with which He causes the accuser to appear as witness against himself, or the moderation with which He still spares His host, inasmuch as He forbears any severer censure; whether the holy irony with which He explains Simon’s deficiency in love, or the lofty seriousness with which He gives him to feel that his sin is yet unforgiven.
Luk_7:41. A certain creditor.—Under the image of the creditor the Lord depicts Himself, while, in the debtor that owed the more and the one that owed the less, we behold respectively the portrait of the sinner and of Simon. It results, therefore, from this, that the Saviour declares the action of the sinner to be a work of thankful love in consequence of a benefit received. It does not however necessarily follow from this that Simon also had been restored by a miracle from a sickness (Paulus, Kuinoel); the benefit bestowed on him (=50 denarii) was the honor of a visit from the Lord, the value of which, however, must have been exceedingly small in his eyes.
ÄçíÜñéá , a Roman silver coin, =1 drachma = 16 asses [about 7½d. sterling, or 15 cents; 50 denarii =$7.50; 500 D. = $75.Luke 00: both sums worth then many times their present value.—C. C. S.].
Luk_7:43. I suppose.—The gravity of the Pharisee, before whom a problem is laid for solution, does not belie itself. With greater modesty than that with which he had just murmured in secret does he give his opinion, and is rewarded by the Saviour with an ὀñèῶò of holy irony, an ὀñèῶò which is about to turn itself immediately as a weapon against him.
Luk_7:44. Seest thou this woman?—Apparently Simon had as much as possible avoided looking at her. At least he must, after the parable he had heard, have regarded her with quite different eyes, and have seen in a great sinner a great lover, and so far a great saint, if he compared her with himself, the proud egoist. But now the word of rebuke breaks as a flood over him. The great distinction which the Lord had rendered to Simon by His coming He brings at once, with the noblest sense of dignity, into view.—I entered into thine house.—The óïõ at the beginning of the address gives emphasis to the tone of reproach, of which Simon is made conscious in a threefold comparison of his behavior with that of the sinning woman. No washing of the feet, no kiss of welcome, no anointing has he, at the entrance of his Guest into his dwelling, had ready for Him. What Meyer, ad loc., in reference to the first adduces as an excuse, namely, that the washing of His feet had not been absolutely necessary, since the Saviour had not come directly from His journey, is to our apprehension not satisfactory; for if this neglect had been entirely unimportant or accidental, the Saviour would certainly not have brought it up to him. As opposed to his lovelessness and his avarice, the benevolence and bounteousness in the sinning woman’s exhibition of love strikes the eye so much the more. Simon gives no water—she her tears, aquarum preciosissimas (Bengel), and instead of a linen cloth, the thousand hairs of her head. Simon gives no kiss upon the mouth, she kisses much more humbly the feet, of the Lord; Simon gives no ἔëáéïí , but she something much more precious, ìýñïí . And this proof of her homage she presented to the Lord from the very time of his entrance, ἀö ̓ ῆ ̓ ò åἰóῆëèïí . (See the textual notes on Luk_7:45.) The reading åἰóῆëèåí , has perhaps arisen from the fact that the woman was supposed to have entered after Jesus, so that she could not well have manifested her love to Him from His very entrance. This difficulty, however, vanishes if we consider that the woman, seeking for an opportunity for her work of love, would probably have entered very soon after the Saviour; and thus at the same time the antithesis is most distinctly preserved between that which the two, Simon and the woman, had done at His entrance into the house.
Luk_7:47. Wherefore I say unto thee. We consider it forced and unnatural to regard ëÝãù óïé as standing in a parenthesis (De Wette), and separated in some measure from ïὗ ÷Üñéí . Better Meyer: “On this account I say to thee; for the sake of these her exhibitions of love, I declare to thee: Forgiven are her sins,” &c.
ἈöÝùíôáé — ὅôé ἠãÜðçóå ðïëý .—According to the Roman Catholic exegetes, with whom, among others, De Wette also agrees, the words: Because she loved much, must indicate the proper cause, the antecedens of the forgiveness of the debt. The Romish church has here found a support for the doctrine of the meritoriousness of good works, and the Protestant polemics have undertaken to confute it by often in some measure doing violence to the text. To the unsuccessful attempts to escape from this difficulty must apparently be added the following: “Her sins are forgiven her (this she knows, and) therefore has she exhibited much love;” or this: “Her sins are forgiven her, that she might love much,” or “that the Pharisee, from her thankfulness, might be well able to conclude that already much must have been forgiven her,” &c. All these interpretations suffer shipwreck on the simple signification of the words, especially of ὅôé , and the parable also, Luk_7:41-42, shows evidently that the Saviour received her work as a token of thankful love. Had the woman really already received entire assurance of forgiveness, and her rich love now been the proof of it, as it is asserted, then the assurance, Luk_7:48, would have been, at least in a good measure, superfluous. No, the progress of the case is this: The woman held herself, by a former benefit (bodily healing perhaps, but not as yet any full assurance of forgiveness), quite as much favored by Jesus as if a debt of five hundred denarii had been remitted to her. Out of thankfulness for this benefit she had come believingly to Jesus (Luk_7:50), and had shown to Him in her love the strength of her thankful faith, and now she receives, in such a temper of mind, not out of merit, but out of grace, the assurance of the forgiveness of sins. Simon, on the other hand, considers himself as little favored by the visit of Jesus as by the remission of a debt of fifty denarii; therefore also he has shown the Lord little love.—“But to whom little is forgiven the same loveth little,”—and because he had so little faith and love he could moreover have little (or no) part in the forgiveness which he did not even earnestly desire.—However, the holiness of works seeks in vain a support in these words, for Jesus Himself says (Luk_7:50): “Thy faith hath saved thee,” and by this of itself makes known that her love had flowed from the fountain of faith. Because she believes and has manifested this her faith by love, therefore does forgiveness fall to her lot.—We can hardly see that now any other difficulty remains to be removed, since at all events we read elsewhere also that love covers even the multitude of sins, and that mercy rejoiceth against judgment, 1Pe_4:8; Jam_2:13; Mat_25:34-40. That she has deserved forgiveness by her love, the Saviour is as far from saying as that she has deserved it through faith; but only through the faith which works by love (Gal_5:6), was she receptive for the benefit of forgiveness, which He immediately bestowed upon her purely out of grace. [Meyer’s explanation appears to me better: “This ὅôé ἠãÜðçóå ðïëý does not contain the cause and therefore not the antecedent of the forgiveness. So Catholics interpret it, proving therewith their doctrine of the meritoriousness of works, and of late also De Wette, apprehending love to Christ as one with faith in Him; Olshausen, seeking to surmount the difficulty of the thought in his way, and interpreting love as receptive activity; Paulus, B. Crusius. The contrary is established, not by dogmatics (see the admirable remarks of Melanchthon, in the Apol. iii. 31 seq., p. 87 seq., ed. Rech.), but, as appears by the context, because this interpretation is entirely inconsistent with the ðáñáâïëÞ lying at the basis, Luk_7:41-42, as well as with the immediately following ᾧ äὲ ὀëßãïí ἀößåôáé , &c, if love does not appear as the consequence of forgiveness; the antecedent, that is, the subjective cause of forgiveness, is not Love, but Faith, as appears from Luk_7:50. According to the context, therefore, it is correct to interpret ὅôé … of the ground of knowledge; Forgiven are, &c, which is certain, since she has exhibited love in a high degree. … Calov. Probabat Christus a posteriori.”—C. C. S.]
Luk_7:48. Thy sins are forgiven.—With celestial love the Lord ascends a yet more and more exalted climax in His language. First has He shown that He receives the homage of the sinful woman without any scruple; then has He said to a third person what a privilege is meditated for her, one much more excellent than she had hitherto enjoyed, namely, the full certainty of the forgiveness of sins; finally this assurance is personally addressed to herself, and sealed in her heart through the peace of God that passeth all understanding. The word áἱ ðïëëáß was uttered, it is true, in her presence, yet not to herself; the Lord, before this company, will not humble her more deeply, but on the contrary kindly raises her.
Luk_7:49. Began to say.—Just as in Luk_5:21. It would appear almost inconceivable that the same censure should have been already repeated, if we forgot that a Pharisaic heart at all times remains the same; besides, these guests need not of course have been acquainted with that which had already taken place at the healing of the paralytic.
Luk_7:50. And He said.—Not spoken at precisely the very instant when these thoughts were rising (Meyer), but probably because the Saviour heard the approach of the storm which would rise against the woman if she did not immediately withdraw herself. He gives her an intimation to leave the house before the peace which He had given her could be assailed or disturbed by any one.—Faith helped the woman, inasmuch as it brought her soul into the disposition in which she could entreat and receive the most ardently desired of all benefits from the Lord. A similar word of comfort was received by another woman, Mar_5:34. Comp. also the words of Eli to Hannah, 1Sa_1:17.
2. The whole narrative of the penitent sinner is a gospel within the gospel, as well in relation to the inward temper which the Lord demands of repentant sinners as also in respect to the salvation which His grace affords them. In this sense the whole narrative, which redounds to the honor of Luke’s delicate taste, as physician and artist, deserves to be named an eternal history, and so far it is indifferent whether the chief character be Mary Magdalene or another. The chief matter is still her voice and her experience, which may be the share of every one among us. With justice did Gregory the Great write concerning this Pericope: “As oft as I think upon this event, I am more disposed to weep over it than to preach upon it.” It fits perfectly into the Pauline Gospel of Luke, which proclaims to us the justification of the humble sinner out of free grace.
3. The parable which the Lord presents to Simon for consideration is for this reason above all so remarkable, that on the one side it sets forth as well the self-righteous Simons as the unrighteous ἀìáñôùëïß as debtors, and on the other hand strongly emphasizes the great benefit of the New Covenant, the blessing of the forgiveness of sins.
4. Whoever so understands the word of the Lord, Luk_7:47, as that the love of the woman was the meritorious cause of her pardon, such an one reverses the sense and the meaning of the parable, as if it taught that the two debtors had begun to love their creditor in an unequal measure, and that the creditor in consequence of this had remitted to them the debts of unequal amount, which then we should have to call: wishing to reap the fruit before the tree has been planted. For a debtor who is not in condition to pay will not love his creditor, but flee from him, and love awakes in his heart only when he, on good grounds, can believe that the debt at one stroke is remitted to him. So judges Luther also when he writes: “The Papists bring up this declaration against our doctrine of faith, and say that forgiveness of sins is attained through love and not through faith; but that such is not the meaning is proved by the parable, which clearly shows that love follows from faith. ‘To whom much is forgiven,’ says the Lord, ‘the same loveth much;’ therefore if a man has forgiveness of sins, and believes it, there follows love; where one has it not, there is no love.”
5. “And He said to her, Thy sins are forgiven thee.” If we will not assume that the sinner here received nothing more than she already possessed, we are then certainly necessitated to suppose that the certain assurance of the forgiveness of sins had not been bestowed upon her before this meeting with the Lord. The benefit for which she comes to testify her thankfulness to Him cannot therefore possibly have been this assurance.
6. Simon and the sinner, with respect to the Lord, are two admirable types of the Roman Catholic and of the Evangelical church. The former is as little as Simon free from the leaven of self-righteousness, and takes secret or open offence at every revelation, at every confession, of the free grace of the Saviour. Like the proud Pharisee, she makes void the commandment of God for the sake of her own notions, and is not perfect in love for the very reason that she does not regard love as a consequence but as a condition of the forgiveness of sins. Here holds good the declaration of John, 1Jn_4:17-18. The other, on the contrary, feels herself in many respects as polluted as the sinning woman at the table, but as one entirely unworthy she lies at the feet of the Lord, and does Him homage, not in order thereby to merit anything, but out of pure thankfulness that He has merited and earned all for her. So long as she has not yet entirely unlearned the significance of the word äùñåÜí (Rom_3:24), the saying holds good for her: Thy faith hath saved thee; and she may go in peace. And this very faith will make her so much the richer in love and thankfulness, since she deeply feels that to her not fifty but five hundred denarii have been remitted out of grace. Thus does the gospel cherish and tend the fruit of obedience, which the law can indeed demand, yet cannot bring forth.
7. In order to understand the true relation between forgiveness and love, the parable Mat_18:23-35, deserves especially to be compared.
Starke:—J. Hall:—He is a wise teacher who accommodates himself to be all things to all men that he may gain all, 1Co_9:22.—The Christian, even a preacher, may indeed go to the festive meal, yet must he have regard of place, time, and occasion, to accomplish some good even there.—The female sex has also a part in the kingdom of God, 1Pe_3:7.—The soul which truly feels its sins counts nothing too good and too dear for Christ.—Shamefacedness is both a sign and an effect of grace.—Majus:—Those converted to God give their members, which they have aforetime consecrated to sin, as instruments of righteousness, Rom_6:19.—Who hath not himself repented knows not the heart of penitent sinners.—Quesnel:—Sweet mildness of Jesus: happy he that also deals thus when he will amend his neighbor.—To convince and instruct one by questions is the best mode of teaching.—Brentius:—Sin a great and heavy debt, which we in and of ourselves cannot discharge.—Nova Bibl. Tub.:—When the veil of our prejudices is removed, our own heart condemns us.—The penitent kisses continually the feet of the Lord Jesus.—Even in the holiest place one has often evil thoughts.—To forgive sins is God’s work alone, and therefore Jesus has by this also demonstrated His Godhead.—Whom God and his conscience absolve from sin, he has no cause to be troubled at the blind judgment of the world.
Heubner:—Tears of repentant sinners are precious to God.—Pride has no sense of the love which God bestows on repentant sinners.—God knows, like a careful creditor, just how much every one owes Him.—What love to Jesus is, and how it arises.—Jesus teaches us here how we should deal with fallen ones.—Great sinners, great saints.—Palmer:—How love to Christ arises in a heart. It arises: 1. From the hope of attaining through Him forgiveness of sins; 2. from the certainty of having obtained forgiveness.—Schleiermacher:—Respecting the connection of forgiveness of sins with love, Pred. i p. 522.
Admirable work of art representing the Magdalene [or rather, this woman.—C. C. S.], by Correggio, Battoni, and many others.
Footnotes:
Luk_7:37.—Agreeably to the most probable arrangement: ἥôéò ἧí immediately after ãõíÞ . [Cod. Sin. places the words so.—C. C. S.]
Luk_7:42.—Rec.: Ìὴ ἐ÷üíôùí äὲ . ÄÝ is to be omitted. [Ins., Cod. Sin. and 15 other uncials; om., B., D., L., P.—C. C. S.]
Luk_7:44.—Rec.: ôáῖò èñéîὶ ôῆò êåöáëῆò áὑôῆò . [Om., ôῆò êåö ., A., B., D., Cod. Sin. al.—C. C. S.]