The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah
THE ASCENT: FROM THE RIVER JORDAN TO THE MOUNT OF
THE WOMAN WHICH WAS A SINNER
(St. Luke 7:36-50.)
The precise date and place of the next recorded event in this
Galilean journey of the Christ are left undetermined. It can scarcely have
occurred in the quiet little town of Nain, indeed, is scarcely congruous with
the scene which had been there enacted. And yet it must have followed almost
immediately upon it. We infer this, not only from the silence of St. Matthew,
which in this instance might have been due, not to the temporary detention of
that Evangelist in Capernaum, while the others had followed Christ to Nain, but
to what may be called the sparingness of detail in the Gospel-narratives, each
Evangelist relating mostly only one in a group of kindred events.1
But other indications determine our inference. The embassy of the Baptist's
disciples (which will be described in another connection)2
undoubtedly followed on the raising of the young man of Nain. This embassy
would scarcely have come to Jesus in Nain. It probably reached Him on His
farther Missionary journey, to which there seems some reference in the passage
in the First Gospel3
which succeeds the account of that embassy. The actual words there recorded
can, indeed, scarcely have been spoken at that time. They belong to a later
period on that Mission-journey, and mark more fully developed opposition and
rejection of the Christ than in those early days. Chronologically, they are in
their proper place in St. Luke's Gospel,4
where they follow in connection with that Mission of the Seventy, which, in
part at least, was prompted by the growing enmity to the Person of Jesus. On
the other hand, this Mission of the Seventy, is not recorded by St. Matthew.
Accordingly, he inserts those prophetic denunciations which, according to the
plan of his Gospel, could not have been omitted, at the beginning of this
Missionary journey, because it marks the beginning of that systematic
the full development of which, as already stated, prompted the Mission of the
1. This is specially characteristic of the Gospel by St. Luke.
2. See note in previous chapter.
3. St. Matt. xi. 20-30.
4. St. Luke x. 13-22.
5. St. Matt. xi. 16-19
Yet, even so, the impression left upon us by St. Matt. xi.
20-30 (which follows on the account of the Baptist's embassy) is, that Jesus
was on a journey, and it may well be that those precious words of encouragement
and invitation, spoken to the burdened and wearily labouring,6
formed part, perhaps the substance, of His preaching on that journey. Truly
these were 'good tidings,' and not only to those borne down by weight of
conscious sinfulness or deep sorrow, who wearily toiled towards the light of
far-off peace, or those dreamt-of heights where some comprehensive view might
be gained of life with its labours and pangs. 'Good news,' also, to them who
would fain have 'learned' according to their capacity, but whose teachers had
weighted 'the yoke of the Kingdom'7
to a heavy burden, and made the Will of God to them labour, weary and
unaccomplishable. But, whether or not spoken at that special time, we cannot
fail to recognise their special suitableness to the 'forgiven sinner' in the
and their inward, even if not outward, connection with her history.
6. St. Matt. xi. 28-30.
7. Made 'the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven' (Mym# twklm lw() equal to 'the yoke of the Law'
(hrwt lw() or to that 'of the commandments' (tw(m lw().
8. St. Luke vii. 36.
Another point requires notice. It is how, in the unfolding of
His Mission to Man, the Christ progressively placed Himself in antagonism to
the Jewish religious thought of His time, from out of which He had historically
sprung. In this part of His earthly course the antagonism appeared, indeed, so
to speak, in a positive rather than negative form, that is, rather in what He
affirmed than in what He combated, because the opposition to Him was not yet fully
developed; whereas in the second part of His course it was, for a similar
reason, rather negative than positive. From the first this antagonism was there
in what He taught and did; and it appeared with increasing distinctness in
proportion as He taught. We find it in the whole spirit and bearing of what he
did and said - in the house at Capernaum, in the Synagogues, with the Gentile
Centurion, at the gate of Nain, and especially here, in the history of the much
forgiven woman who had much sinned. A Jewish Rabbi could not have so acted and
spoken; he would not even have understood Jesus; nay, a Rabbi, however gentle
and pitiful, would in word and deed have taken precisely the opposite direction
from that of the Christ.
As St. Gregory expresses it, this is perhaps a history more fit
to be wept over than commented upon. For comments seem so often to interpose
between the simple force of a narrative and our hearts, and few events in the
Gospel-history have been so blunted and turned aside as this history, through
verbal controversies and dogmatic wrangling.
The first impression on our minds is, that the history itself
is but a fragment. We must try to learn from its structure, where and how it
was broken off. We understand the infinite delicacy that left her unnamed, the
record of whose 'much forgiveness' and great love had to be joined to that of
her much sin. And we mark, in contrast, the coarse clumsiness which, without
any reason for the assertion, to meet the cravings of morbid curiosity, or for
saint-worship, has associated her history with the name of Mary Magdalene.9
Another, and perhaps even more painful, mistake is the attempt of certain
critics to identify this history with the much later anointing of Christ at
Bethany,10 and to
determine which of the two is the simpler, and which the more ornate - which
the truer of the accounts, and whence, or why each case there was a 'Simon' -
perhaps the commonest of Jewish names; a woman who anointed; and that Christ,
and those who were present, spoke and acted in accordance with other passages
in the Gospel-history:11
that is, true to their respective histories. But, such twofold anointing - the
first, at the beginning of His works of mercy, of the Feet by a forgiven,
loving sinner on whom the Sun had just risen; the second, of His Head, by a
loving disciple, when the full-orbed Sun was setting in blood, at the close of
His Ministry - is, as in the twofold purgation of the Temple at the beginning
and close of His Work, only like the completing of the circle of His Life.
9. The untenableness of this strange hypothesis has been shown in almost all commentaries. There is not a tittle of evidence for it.
10. St. Matt. xxvi. 6&c. and parallels.
11. The objections of Keim, though bulking largely when heaped together by him, seem not only unfair, but, when examined one by one, are seen to be groundless.
The invitation of Simon the Pharisee to his table does not
necessarily indicate, that he had been impressed by the teaching of Jesus, any
more than the supposed application to his case of what is called the 'parable'
of the much and the little forgiven debtor implies, that he had received from
the Saviour spiritual benefit, great or small. If Jesus had taught in the
'city,' and, as always, irresistibly drawn to Him the multitude, it would be
only in accordance with the manners of the time if the leading Pharisee invited
the distinguished 'Teacher' to his table. As such he undoubtedly treated Him.12
The question in Simon's mind was, whether He was more than 'Teacher' - even
'Prophet;' and that such question rose within him indicates, not only that Christ
openly claimed a position different from that of Rabbi, and that His followers
regarded Him at least as a prophet, but also, within the breast of Simon, a
struggle in which strong Jewish prejudice was bearing down the mighty
impression of Christ's Presence.
12. St. Luke vii. 40
They were all sitting, or rather 'lying'13
- the Mishnah sometimes also calls it 'sitting down and leaning' - around the
table, the body resting on the couch, the feet turned away from the table in
the direction of the wall, while the left elbow rested on the table. And now,
from the open courtyard, up the verandah-step, perhaps through an antechamber,14
and by the open door, passed the figure of a woman into the festive
reception-room and dining-hall - the Teraglin (triclinium) of the
Rabbis.15 How did
she obtain access? Had she mingled with the servants, or was access free to all
- or had she, perhaps, known the house and its owner?16
It little matters - as little as whether she 'had been,' or 'was' up to that
day, 'a sinner,'17
in the terrible acceptation of the term. But we must bear in mind the greatness
of Jewish prejudice against any conversation with woman, however lofty her
character, fully to realise the absolute incongruity on the part of such a
woman in seeking access to the Rabbi, Whom so many regarded as the God-sent
13. Ber. vi. 6 makes the following curious distinction: if they sit at the table, each says 'the grace' for himself; if they 'lie down' to table, one says it in the name of all. If wine is handed them during dinner, each says 'the grace' over it for himself; if after dinner, one says it for all.
14. Ab. iv.16.
15. The Teraqlin was sometimes entered by an antechamber (Prosedor), Ab. iv. 16, and opened into one (Jer. Rosh haSh. 59 b), or more (Yom. 15 b), side-or bed-rooms. The common measurement for such a hall was fifteen feet (ten cubits) breadth, length, and height (Baba B. vi. 4).
16. The strangeness of the circumstance suggests this, which is, alas! by no means inconsistent with what we know of the morality of some of these Rabbis, although this page must not be stained by detailed references.
17. The other and harsher reading, 'a woman which was in the city a sinner,' need scarcely be discussed.
But this, also, is evidential, that here we are far beyond the
Jewish standpoint. To this woman it was not incongruous, because to her Jesus
had, indeed, been the Prophet sent from God. We have said before that this story
is a fragment; and here, also, as in the invitation of Simon to Jesus, we have
evidence of it. She had, no doubt, heard His words that day. What He had said
would be, in substance, if not in words: 'Come unto Me, all ye that labour and
are heavy laden, and I will give you rest . . . . Learn of Me, for I am meek
and lowly in heart. . . . . Ye shall find rest unto your souls. . . . .' This was
to her the Prophet sent from God with the good news that opened even to her the
Kingdom of Heaven, and laid its yoke upon her, not bearing her down to very
hell, but easy of wear and light of burden. She knew that it was all as He
said, in regard to the heavy load of her past; and, as she listened to those
Words, and looked on that Presence, she learned to believe that it was all as
He had promised to the heavy burdened. And she had watched, and followed Him
afar off to the Pharisee's house. Or, perhaps, if it be thought that she had
not that day heard for herself, still, the sound of that message must have
reached her, and wakened the echoes of her heart. And still it was: Come to Me;
learn of Me; I will give rest. What mattered all else to her in
the hunger of her soul, which had just tasted of that Heavenly Bread?
The shadow of her form must have fallen on all who sat at meat.
But none spake; nor did she heed any but One. Like heaven's own music, as
Angels' songs that guide the wanderer home, it still sounded in her ears. There
are times when we forget all else in one absorbing thought; when men's opinions
- nay, our own feelings of shame - are effaced by that one Presence; when the
'Come to Me; learn of Me; I will give you rest,' are the
all in all to us. Then it is, that the fountains of the Great Deep within are
broken open by the wonder-working rod, with which God's Messenger to us - the
better Moses - has struck our hearts. She had come that day to 'learn' and to
'find rest.' What mattered it to her who was there, or what they thought? There
was only One Whose Presence she dared not encounter - not from fear of Him, but
from knowledge of herself. It was He to Whom she had come. And so she 'stood
behind at His Feet.' She had brought with her an alabastron (phial, or
flask, commonly of alabaster) of perfume.18
It is a coarse suggestion, that this had originally been bought for a far
different purpose. We know that perfumes were much sought after, and very
largely in use. Some, such as true balsam, were worth double their weight in
silver; others, like the spikenard (whether as juice or unguent, along with
other ingredients), though not equally costly, were also 'precious.' We have
evidence that perfumed oils - notably oil of rose,19
and of the iris plant, but chiefly the mixture known in antiquity as foliatum,
were largely manufactured and used in Palestine.20
A flask with this perfume was worn by women round the neck, and hung down below
the breast (the Tselochith shel Palyeton).21
So common was its use as to be allowed even on the Sabbath.22
This 'flask' (possibly the Chumarta de Philon of Gitt. 69 b) -
not always of glass, but of silver or gold, probably often also of alabaster -
containing 'palyeton' (evidently, the foliatum of Pliny) was used
both to sweeten the breath and perfume the person. Hence it seems at least not
unlikely, that the alabastron which she brought, who loved so much, was
none other than the 'flask of foliatum,' so common among Jewish woman.23
18. I have so translated the word muron,
which the A.V. renders 'ointment.' The word is evidently the Hebrew and
Rabbinic rwm which, however, is not always the equivalent for myrrh, but
seems also to mean musk and mastic. In short, I regard it as
designating any fluid unguent or - generally speaking, 'perfume.' So common was the use of perfumes, that Ber. vi. 6 mentions a mugmar, or a kind of incense, which was commonly burnt after a feast. As regards the word 'alabastron,'
the name was given to perfume-phials in general, even if not made of alabaster, because the latter was so frequently used for such flasks.
19. Shebh. vii. 6.
20. Jer. Demai 22 b.
21. Ab. S. 35 b.
22. Shabb. vi. 3.
23. The derivation of the Rabbinic term in Buxtorf's Lexicon (p. 1724) is certainly incorrect. I have no doubt the Nw+yylp was the foliatum of Pliny
(Hist. Nat. xiii. 1, 2). In Jew. War iv. 9, 10, Josephus seems to imply that women occasionally poured over themselves unguents. According to Kethub. vi. 4, a woman might apparently spend a tenth of her dowry on such things as unguents and perfumes. For, in Kethub. 66 b we have an exaggerated account of a woman spending upwards of 300l. on perfumes! This will at
any rate prove their common and abundant use.
As she stood behind Him at His Feet, reverently bending, a
shower of tears, like sudden, quick summer-rain, that refreshes air and earth,
'bedewed'24 His Feet.
As if surprised, or else afraid to awaken His attention, or defile Him by her
tears, she quickly25
wiped them away with the long tresses of her hair that had fallen down and
as she bent over His Feet. Nay, not to wash them in such impure waters had she
come, but to show such loving gratefulness and reverence as in her poverty she
could, and in her humility she might offer. And, now that her faith had grown
bold in His Presence, she is continuing27
to kiss those Feet which had brought to her the 'good tidings of peace,' and to
anoint them out of the alabastron round her neck. And still she spake
not, nor yet He. For, as on her part silence seemed most fitting utterance, so
on His, that He suffered it in silence was best and most fitting answer to her.
24. This is the real meaning of the verb.
25. This is implied in the tense.
26. It is certainly not implied, that she had her hair dishevelled as in mourning, or as by women before drinking the waters of jealousy.
27. The tense implies this.
Another there was whose thoughts, far other than hers or the
Christ's, were also unuttered. A more painful contrast than that of 'the
Pharisee' in this scene, can scarcely be imagined. We do not insist that the
designation 'this Man,'28
given to Christ in his spoken thoughts, or the manner in which afterwards he
replied to the Saviour's question by a supercilious 'I suppose,' or 'presume,'29
necessarily imply contempt. But they certainly indicate the mood of his spirit.
One thing, at least, seems now clear to this Pharisee: If 'this Man,' this
strange, wandering, popular idol, with His strange, novel ways and words, Whom
in politeness he must call 'Teacher,'30
Rabbi, were a Prophet, He would have known who the woman was, and, if He
had known who she was, then would He never have allowed such approach. So do
we, also, often argue as to what He would do, if He knew. But He does
know; and it is just because He knoweth that He doeth what, from our lower
standpoint, we cannot understand. Had He been a Rabbi, He would
certainly, and had he been merely a Prophet, He would probably, have repelled
such approach. The former, if not from self-righteousness, yet from ignorance
of sin and forgiveness; the latter, because such homage was more than man's
due.31 But, He
was more than a prophet - the Saviour of sinners; and so she might quietly weep
over His Feet, and then quickly wipe away the 'dew' of the 'better morning,'
and then continue to Kiss His Feet and to anoint them.
28. ver. 39.
29. ver. 43.
30. In the A. V.
31. The Talmud, with its usual exaggeration, has this story when commenting on the reverence due by children to their parents, that R. Ishmael's mother had complained her son would not allow her, when he came from the Academy, to wash
his feet and then drink the water - on which the sages made the Rabbi
yield! (Jer. Peah 15 c). Again, some one came to kiss R. Jonathan's feet, because he had induced filial reverence in his son (u. s., col. d).
And yet Prophet He also was, and in far fuller sense than Simon
could have imagined. For, He had read Simon's unspoken thoughts. Presently He
would show it to him; yet not, as we might, by open reproof, that would have
put him to shame before his guests, but with infinite delicacy towards His
host, and still in manner that he could not mistake. What follows is not, as
generally supposed, a parable but an illustration. Accordingly, it must in no
way be pressed. With this explanation vanish all the supposed difficulties
about the Pharisees being 'little forgiven,' and hence 'loving little.' To
convince Simon of the error of his conclusion, that, if the life of that woman
had been known, the prophet must have forbidden her touch of love, Jesus
entered into the Pharisee's own modes of reasoning. Of two debtors, one of whom
owned ten times as much as the other,32
who would best love the creditor33
who had freely34
Though to both the debt might have been equally impossible of discharge, and
both might love equally, yet a Rabbi would, according to his Jewish
notions, say, that he would love most to whom most had been forgiven. If this
was the undoubted outcome of Jewish theology - the so much for so much - let it
be applied to the present case. If there were much benefit, there would be much
love; if little benefit, little love. And conversely: in such case much love
would argue much benefit; little love, small benefit. Let him then apply the
reasoning by marking this woman, and contrasting her conduct with his own. To
wash the feet of a guest, to give him the kiss of welcome, and especially to
were not, indeed, necessary attentions at a feast. All the more did they
indicate special care, affection, and respect.37
None of these tokens of deep regard had marked the merely polite reception of
Him by the Pharisee. But, in a twofold climax of which the intensity can only
the Saviour now proceeds to show, how different it had been with her, to whom,
for the first time, He now turned! On Simon's own reasoning, then, he must have
received but little, she much benefit. Or, to apply the former illustration,
and now to reality: 'Forgiven have been her sins, the many'39
- not in ignorance, but with knowledge of their being 'many.' This, by Simon's
former admission, would explain and account for her much love, as the effect of
much forgiveness. On the other hand - though in delicacy the Lord does not
actually express it - this other inference would also hold true, that Simon's
little love showed that 'little is being forgiven.'40
32. The one sum="upwards" of 15l.; the other=upwards of 1l. 10s.
33. Money-lender - though perhaps not in the evil sense which we attach to the term. At the same time, the frequent allusion to such and to their harsh ways offers painful illustration of the social state at the time.
34. So rather than 'frankly' in the A. V.
35. The points of resemblance and of difference with St. Matt. xviii. 23 will readily appear on comparison.
36. Comp. for ex. St. John xiii. 4.
37. Washing: Gen. xviii. 4; xix. 2; xxiv. 32; Judg. xix. 21; 1 Sam. xxv. 41; kissing: Ex. xviii. 7; 2 Sam. xv. 5; xix. 39; anointing: Eccl. ix. 8; Amos vi. 6, as well as Ps. xxiii. 5.
38. Thou gavest me no water, she washed not with water but tears; no kiss, she kissed my feet; no oil, she unguent; not to the head, but to the feet. And yet: emphatically
- into thy house I came, &c.
39. So literally.
40. Mark the tense.
What has been explained will dispose of another controversy
which, with little judgment and less taste, has been connected with this
marvellous history. It must not be made a question as between Romanist and
Protestant, nor as between rival dogmatists, whether love had any meritorious
part in her forgiveness, or whether, as afterwards stated, her 'faith' had
'saved' her. Undoubtedly, her faith had saved her. What she had heard
from His lips, what she knew of Him, she had believed. She had believed in 'the
good tidings of peace' which He had brought, in the love of God, and His
Fatherhood of pity to the most sunken and needy; in Christ, as the Messenger of
Reconciliation and Peace with God; in the Kingdom of Heaven which He had so
suddenly and unexpectedly opened to her, from out of whose unfolded golden
gates Heaven's light had fallen upon her, Heaven's voices had come to her. She
had believed it all: the Father, the Son - Revealer, the Holy Ghost -
Revealing. And it had saved her. When she came to that feast, and stood
behind with humbled, loving gratefulness and reverence of heart-service, she was
already saved. She needed not to be forgiven: she had been forgiven. And it was
because she was forgiven that she bedewed His Feet with the summer-shower of
her heart, and, quickly wiping away the flood with her tresses, continued
kissing and anointing them. All this was the impulse of her heart, who, having
come in heart, still came to Him, and learned of Him, and found rest to her
soul. In that early springtide of her new-born life, it seemed that, as on
Aaron's rod, leaf, bud, and flower were all together in tangled confusion of
rich forthbursting. She had not yet reached order and clearness; perhaps, in
the fulness of her feelings, knew not how great were her blessings, and felt
not yet that conscious rest which grows out of faith in the forgiveness which
And this was now the final gift of Jesus to her. As formerly
for the first time He had turned so now for the first time He spoke to her -
and once more with tenderest delicacy. 'Thy sins have been forgiven'41
- not, are forgiven, and not now - 'the many.' Nor does He now heed the
murmuring thoughts of those around, who cannot understand Who this is that
forgiveth sins also. But to her, and truly, though not literally, to them also,
and to us, He said in explanation and application of it all: 'Thy faith has
saved thee: go into peace.'42
Our logical dogmatics would have had it: 'go in peace;' more truly He, 'into
peace.'43 And so
she, the first who had come to Him for spiritual healing the, first of an
unnumbered host, went out into the better light, into peace of heart, peace of
faith, peace of rest, and into the eternal peace of the Kingdom of Heaven, and
of the Heaven of the kingdom hereafter and for ever.
41. So, properly rendered. Romanism, in this also arrogating to man more than Christ Himself ever spoke, has it: Absolvo te, not 'thy sins have been forgiven,' but I absolve thee!
42. So literally.
43. This distinction between the two modes of expression is marked in Moed. K. 29 a: 'into peace,' as said to the living; 'in peace,' as referring to the dead.