ONE hardly expects to say anything new in meditating on this most touching incident. As so often in this Gospel, and as the aged Simeon predicted (2:35), the thoughts of many hearts are revealed here, as they come in contact with Him who was set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel. We mark the contrition and devotion of the woman that was a sinner, the supercilious insolence of Simon, the coarse unbelief of his guests. But the believer marks the grave and gracious attitude of the Savior; His thoughts too, thoughts of love and pity, are revealed as He reveals God and man. And how vividly the whole picture stands out, characterized as it is by matchless simplicity and directness. Every word tells, none is superfluous. It was such trials as these, so numerous in this Gospel, that led the apostate French professor to call it (in words I have recently quoted, but may be pardoned for quoting again) “the most beautiful book in existence.” He should have asked himself, how it came about, if this book was written by man's mind and skill, that it so transcends all that was ever written by the greatest masters of style. Other learned critics have been similarly eulogistic over the Epistle to Philemon. How comes it, that, judged thereby as a noble specimen of epistolary composition, this letter is placed by men with no bias in favor of Christianity above all that the Platos and Ciceros Plinys and Senecas ever wrote? The Christian has a ready and satisfactory answer. The Gospel of Luke and the Epistle to Philemon were written by men, not only born of God, as are all true believers, and bringing forth the “fruit of the Spirit;” but they were (how precisely brought about man does not comprehend—the fact is the great thing) guided and controlled by the Holy Ghost. It was so with the O. T. Scriptures; (2 Peter 1:2121For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:21)), surely not less with the N. T. And we may rest assured that there was a gracious guidance as to what should be received into, what excluded from, the sacred canon. Hence the spiritual mind feels no surprise—at least not in this sense, though we may well be filled with praise, when we contemplate the grace of the Son of God. For no less was He whom the proud Pharisee had received so churlishly, giving him no water for His feet, no oil for His head, nor the kiss that in those days was the token of cordial welcome.
And the Lord, at the due moment, does not fail to bring home to Simon his gross incivility. The thrice repeated contrast that He draws between the Pharisee's neglect and the woman's loving service is strikingly emphasized by the “but she,” “but this woman” (twice said) of the Savior's dignified and searching reply. No making light of what she had been; nay, the Lord speaks of “her sins, her many sins” (for such is the more literal rendering). But she loved much, because she repented deeply, and so she hears the precious words of absolute forgiveness. O highly favored woman, thou also, to whom was granted to hear such comfortable words from the lips of the Incarnate God the True Light! Yet all who believe without seeing are still more blessed.
Remark next that the Lord does not add, as elsewhere He did the warning,” Go and sin no more,”
In the case of her who ventured into Simon's house the work in her soul was real and profound. Hence contrariwise she is bidden to “go in peace.” We can recollect other cases, where there was little or no spiritual exercise, when the word of warning was needed. How suitable to the occasion ever were the words of our Lord! Now the Spirit of Jehovah was upon Him to heal the brokenhearted; but what of Simon? He was not even of those who love little. Self-satisfied and self-righteous, he doubtless regarded himself as having little or nothing to confess—certainly nothing to the Teacher from despised Galilee, whom for some fancy of his own he had patronizingly desired to eat with him. We can imagine the loathing with which he would shrink from the woman who had been such a disreputable character—he who, like his fraternity, affected to regard all women with contempt. No, he did not love even a little; but probably hated a great deal. True it is that every repentant soul should love much, and will love in proportion to the sense of God's holiness and his own sins. No doubt that sense is deeper in some than in others; perhaps deeper in ardent natures that have gone far astray; but which, realizing their terrible guilt, love with more fervent and passionate love. But deepest of all in such a one as Saul of Tarsus, so conscientious whilst unconverted, so deeply self-judging and devoted when he heard the Lord's voice, saw His glory and believed in His grace.
Yet, self-satisfied and proud and dark as he was, Simon, we may note, uses the courteous appellative “Master,” or rather “Teacher.” There must have been something in our Lord's manner that compelled respect, and that from the indifferent as well as from His friends. Compare “The Master is come, and calleth for thee” (John 11:2828And when she had so said, she went her way, and called Mary her sister secretly, saying, The Master is come, and calleth for thee. (John 11:28)). It is not necessary with Jerome to suppose that there was “something starry” in the blessed Lord's aspect, but still less do I sympathize with those, who, giving a too external meaning to certain passages in the prophets, would infer there was something—the reverse. But that indefinable effluence that men habitually feel in the presence of such as are not spiritually, but even intellectually and morally (I say not intellectually alone) above the mass, must, a fortiori, have been found in the Savior. And so we learn that while Simon used the term “Teacher,” Christ addresses him as “Simon.” To address people by their simple name, indeed was the universal custom even between men of diverse social position; even slaves so addressed their masters. People were more simple then in many ways. At any rate Simon's outward courtesy in this respect (though in this only) is noticeable.
I suppose few now would contend for an identification of this scene with that recorded in Matt. 26, Mark 14, and John 12. The fact is, that while there are close points of resemblance, others are quite incompatible with identity; that this incident in Luke 7 took place early in the Lord's ministry is corroborated by the probability that later on no Pharisee would have cared to incur the censure of his fellows by inviting One against whom they had become so bitter. Also on the latter occasion our Lord was evidently among friends; here He was in the presence of thinly disguised hostility in all, save the woman in whom the Holy Spirit had so wonderfully wrought. And, as has been well said, the same grace that saved her drew a veil over her name. It was enough to record that one who had sinned greatly had been made a signal monument of God's grace.
R. B.