tears, and did wipe

kissed his feet, and 39 Now when the

c render, he.

• literally, eagerly kissed: see on

exceedingly improbable. 36.] The exact time and place are indeterminate the occasion of St. Luke's inserting the history here may have been the friend of publicans and sinners in ver. 34. Wieseler places it at Nain, which certainly is the last city that has been named: but it is more natural to suppose in the city to refer only to the house before-the city where the house was. Meyer thinks that the definite article points out Capernaum. The position of the words in the city in the amended text requires a different rendering from a woman in the city which was a sinner.' We must either render, which was a sinner in the city,' i. e. known as such in the place by public repute,—carrying on a sinful occupation in the place, or (2) regard which was in the city as parenthetic, a woman which was in the city, a sinner.' The latter seems preferable. 37.] a sinner, in the sense usually understood a prostitute: but, by the context, penitent. was is not how

ever to be rendered as if it were "had been." She was, even up to this time (see ver. 39), a prostitute-and this was the first manifestation of her penitence. "What wonder that such should fly to Christ, seeing that they had also come to the baptism of John ?" Matt. xxi. 32 (Grotius). It is possible, that the woman may have just heard the closing words of the discourse concerning John, Matt. xi. 28-30; but I would not press this, on account of the obvious want of sequence in this part of our Gospel. The behaviour of the woman certainly VOL. I.

d

render, the tears. Matt. xxvi. 49.

implies that she had heard our Lord, and been awakened by His teaching. an alabaster box: for the word, &c., see on Matt. xxvi. 7. Our Lord would, after the ordinary custom of persons at table, be reclining on a couch, on the left side, turned towards the table, and His feet would be behind Him. She seems to have embraced His feet (see Matt. xxviii. 9), as it was also the Jews' custom to do by way of honour and affection to their Rabbis (see Wetstein on this passage), and kissed them, and in doing so to have shed abundant tears, which, falling on them, she wiped off with her hair. From the form of expression in the original (see in my Greek Test.), it does not appear that this latter was an intentional part of her honouring our Lord. It was the tears, implied in the word weeping,-the tears which she shed, -not her tears,' which would be otherwise expressed. The ointment here has a peculiar interest, as being the offering by a penitent of that which had been an accessory in her unhallowed work of sin. 39.] The Pharisee assumes that our Lord did not know who, or of what sort, this woman was, and thence doubts His being a prophet (see ver. 16);

the possibility of His knowing this and permitting it, never so much as occurs to him. It was the touching by an unclean person, which constituted the defilement. This is all that the Pharisee fixes on: his offence is merely technical and ceremonial. 40.] answering-perhaps to the disgust manifested in the Pharisee's coun

:

therefore, &c.

tenance; for that must have been the ground on which the narrative relates ver. 39. We must not however forget that in similar cases "Jesus knowing their thoughts" is inserted (Matt. ix. 4), and doubtless might also have been here. There is an inner personal appeal in the words addressing the Pharisee. The calling by name-the especial I have somewhat to say unto thee refer to the inner thoughts of the heart, and at once bring the answer Master, say on, so different from "This man, if he were a prophet." 41.] We must remember that our Lord is here setting forth the matter primarily with reference to Simon's subjective view of himself, and therefore not strictly as regards the actual comparative sinfulness of these two before God. Though however not to be pressed, the case may have been so and, I am inclined to think, was so. The clear light of truth in which every word of His was spoken, will hardly allow us to suppose that such an admission would have been made to the Pharisee, if it had not really been so in fact. But see more below. two debtors] The debtors are the prominent persons in the parable the creditor is necessary indeed to it, but is in the background. And this remark is important-for on bearing it carefully in mind the right understanding of the parable depends. The Lord speaks from the position of the debtors, and applies to their case the considerations of ordinary gratitude and justice. And in doing so it is to be noticed, that He makes an assumption for the purpose of the parable:-that sin is proportionate to the sense of sin, just as a debt is felt to the amount of the debt. The disorganization of our moral nature, the deadly sedative effect of sin in lulling the conscience, which renders the greatest sinner the least ready for penitence, does not here come into consideration; the examples being two persons, both aware of their debt. This assumption itself is absolutely necessary for the parable for if forgiveness is to awaken love in proportion to the magnitude of that which

is forgiven, sin in such a connexion must be the subjective debt which is felt to exist, not the objective one, the magnitude of which we never can know, but God only: see on ver. 47 below. five hundred

...

fifty-a very different ratio from the ten thousand talents and the hundred pence (denarii) in Matt. xviii. 21-35, because there it is intended to shew us how insignificant our sins towards one another are in comparison with the offence of us all before God. 42. when they could not pay, he frankly forgave them both] What depth of meaning there is in these words, if we reflect WHO said them, and by what means this forgiveness was to be wrought! Observe that the could not pay is pregnant with more than at first appears:- how is this incapacity discovered to the creditor in the parable? how, but by themselves? Here then is the sense and confession of sin; not a bare objective fact, followed by a decree of forgiveness: but the incapacity is an avowed one, the forgiveness is a personal one,-them both.

which of them will love him most?] The difficulty usually found in this question and its answer is not wholly removed by the subjective nature of the parable. For the sense of sin, if wholesome and rational, must bear a proportion, as indeed in this case it did, to the actual sins committed: and then we seem to come to the false conclusion, The more sin, the more love: let us then sin, that we may love the more.' And I believe this difficulty is to be removed by more accurately considering what the love is which is here spoken of. It is an unquestionable fact, that the deepest penitents are, in one kind of love for Him who has forgiven them, the most devoted;-in that, namely, which consists in personal sacrifice, and proofs of earnest attachment to the blessed Saviour and His cause on earth. But it is no less an unquestionable fact, that this love is not the highest form of the spiritual life; that such persons are, by their very course of sin, incapacitated from entering into the length, breadth, and height, and being

i omit.

literally, eagerly to kiss.

filled with all the fulness of Christ; that their views are generally narrow, their aims one-sided:-that though love be the greatest of the Christian graces, there are various kinds of it; and though the love of the reclaimed profligate may be and is intense of its kind, (and how touching and beautiful its manifestations are, as here!) yet that kind is not so high nor complete as the sacrifice of the whole life, the bud, blossom, and fruit,-to His service to whom we were in baptism dedicated. For even on the ground of the parable itself, in that life there is a continually freshened sense of the need, and the assurance, of pardon, ever awaking devoted and earnest love. In the I suppose of Simon, we have, understood, "that is, if they feel as they ought." 44-46.] It would not appear that Simon had been deficient in the ordinary courtesies paid by a host to his guests-for these, though marks of honour sometimes paid, were not (even the washing of the feet, except when coming from a journey) invariably paid to guests: -but that he had taken no particular pains to shew affection or reverence for his Guest. Respecting water for the feet, see Gen. xviii. 4; Judg. xix. 21. Observe the contrasts here:-water, tears,—the blood of the heart, as Augustine calls them :thou gavest me no kiss (on the face), eagerly kissing my feet-with oil my head, my feet with ointment (which was more precious). 45. since the time I came in] These words will explain one difficulty in the circumstances of the anointing: how such a woman came into the guest-chamber of such a Pharisee. She appears by them to have entered simultaneously with our Lord and His disciples. Nor do vv. 36, 37 at all pre

i read, her hairs.

render, she anointed.

clude this idea :-the words of the original in ver. 37 may mean, 'having knowledge that He was going to dine,' &c. If she came in His train, the Pharisee would not exclude her, as He was accustomed to gather such to hear Him: it was the touching at which he wondered. 47.] This verse has been found very difficult to fit into the lesson conveyed by the Parable. But I think there need be little difficulty, if we regard it thus. Simon had been offended at the uncleanness of the woman who touched our Lord. He, having given the Pharisee the instruction contained in the parable, and having drawn the contrast between the woman's conduct and his, now assures him, 'Wherefore, seeing this is so, I say unto thee, she is no longer unclean-her many sins are forgiven: for (thou seest that) she loved much: her conduct towards Me shews that love, which is a token that her sins are forgiven.' Thus the clauses are not connected by the causative particle, 'because she loved much; but, as rightly rendered in A. V., for she loved much: for she has shewn that love, of which thou mayest conclude, from what thou hast heard, that it is the effect of a sense of forgiveness.' Thus Bengel says, "The remission of sins, not imagined by Simon, is proved by its fruit, ver. 42, which latter is evident and meets the eye, whereas the other is hidden from us:"-and Calovius, "Christ was using that kind of proof which is called à posteriori." But there is a deeper consideration in this solution, which the words of the Lord in ver. 48 bring before us. The sense of forgiveness of sin is not altogether correspondent to the sense of forgiveness of a debt. The latter must be altogether past, and a fact to be looked back on, to awaken