Chapter 7

1 Christ findeth a greater faith in the centurion a Gentile, than in any of the Jews: 10 healeth his servant being absent: 11 raiseth from death the widow’s son at Nain: 19 answereth John’s messengers with the declaration of his miracles: 24 testifieth to the people what opinion he held of John: 30 inveigheth against the Jews, who with neither the manners of John nor of Jesus could be won: 36 and sheweth by occasion of Mary Magdalene, how he is a friend to sinners, not to maintain them in sins, but to forgive them their sins, upon their faith and repentance.

1. When. [The Centurion’s Slave, Luke 7:1–10=Matt. 8:5–13. Major comment: Luke. See Middle Galilean Ministry; The Ministry of Our Lord; on miracles pp. 208–213.] Or, “after.” The events of vs. 1–10 followed the Sermon on the Mount in close chronological sequence (see on Matt. 8:2), and may have occurred on the same day. Luke 7:1 provides the transition from the place where the Sermon on the Mount was given to that where the centurion’s servant was healed. For other instances of sequence transition in Luke see chs. 4:30, 37, 44; 5:11, 16, 26; 6:11; etc. It was now probably the late summer of a.d. 29 (see MB 2, 45; see on Matt. 5:1), and the time of day, perhaps late afternoon.

His sayings. Specifically, the Sermon on the Mount (Luke 6:20–49; cf. Matt. 7:28).

In the audience. Or, “in the ears,” that is, “in the hearing.” An “audience” is a group of “hearers.”

Entered into Capernaum. Apparently upon His return from giving the Sermon on the Mount, as the context implies (see DA 316). On Capernaum as the headquarters for the Galilean ministry see on Matt. 4:13. It seems that the deputation of elders bearing the centurion’s request met Jesus as He returned to the city.

The parallel account in Matt. 8:5–13 appears to have a number of differences, but a comparison of the two accounts makes it evident that these are not discrepancies, and that the two accounts are simply different versions of the same incident. The conversational portions of both accounts are almost identical, and the differences occur mainly in the narrative sections. In both instances the focal point of interest is the great faith of the centurion, a Gentile (see on Luke 7:9). The unusual circumstance of the miracle is the fact that the one benefited by it was not in the immediate presence of Christ at the moment of healing.

2. Centurion’s. Gr. hekatontarchos, means “commander of a hundred [men]”; that is, a captain of a group in the Roman army called a century. The number of soldiers in a century varied from 50 to 100. This particular centurion was probably in charge of a company of Roman soldiers on police duty for Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee. As becomes evident during the course of the narrative (see on vs. 5, 6, 9), the centurion was not a Jewish proselyte. All the centurions mentioned in the NT seem to have been men of commendable character (Mark 15:39, 44, 45; Luke 23:47; Acts 10:22; 22:26; 23:17, 23, 24; 24:23; 27:43). The word “certain” refers to the centurion, not to the servant.

Servant. Gr. doulos, literally, “a slave,” or “a bond servant.”

Dear. Gr. entimos, “in honor,” “honored,” or “prized.” In ch. 14:8 entimos is translated “honourable,” in Phil. 2:29, “in reputation,” and in 1 Peter 2:4, 6, “precious.” Entimos appears in the papyri in reference to soldiers of long and distinguished service. This “servant” was held in high esteem by the centurion, doubtless for the valuable service he had rendered. The term itself may or may not imply personal affection, but in this particular case the centurion was “tenderly attached” to the slave (DA 315).

Was sick. See on Matt. 4:24. Ordinary paralysis is not usually so painful as the words “grievously tormented” (Matt. 8:6) imply, and it has therefore been suggested that the slave’s acute pain and paralysis accompanied some disease akin to rheumatic fever.

Ready to die. That is, “about to die.”

3. When he heard. The centurion’s knowledge of Jesus was limited to the reports that had reached him of the Saviour’s great deeds. He had never seen Jesus previous to the present occasion (DA 315).

The elders. These may have been either the leading citizens of the town or the board of elders of the local synagogue (see p. 56), or they may have served in both capacities. Owing to the friendly gestures of the centurion (see v. 5), he was on particularly good terms with the “elders” despite the fact that he was a Gentile and not a Jew. Fully aware of the usual Jewish attitude toward Gentiles (see on Matt. 7:6), the centurion may have been uncertain as to how Jesus would respond to a request coming directly from one not of His own race. Having had, perhaps, unpleasant experiences with various Jewish leaders in the past, he may have feared a rebuff. In typically Oriental fashion, also, the correct procedure would be to make arrangements through a middleman, who, presumably, was in a position to provide for things that might otherwise be refused. Possibly these were the “elders” of the very synagogue Jesus usually attended when in Capernaum (see on Luke 4:16).

The most apparent difference between the accounts of Matthew and Luke occurs at this point in the narrative. Luke records the sending of two delegations by the centurion—“elders” (v. 3) and by the “friends” (v. 6)—whereas Matthew mentions neither. The latter speaks only of the centurion himself coming to Jesus (ch. 8:5). It is probable that Matthew, bearing in mind the fact that the delegations actually spoke for the centurion, simplifies his account by presenting the words of the messengers on behalf of the centurion as if they had been spoken by the centurion himself in person. Today, as in ancient times, a man in authority is commonly said to do certain things when, in fact, the actual work is done by his subordinates. Pilate, for instance, is said to have scourged Jesus (John 19:1). But the actual scourging was, of course, administered by a subordinate, at Pilate’s order. Apparently the two delegations, the “elders” and the “friends,” approached Jesus, but when it became evident that He was continuing on His way to the centurion’s home, the latter came out in person, and when he met Jesus, repeated practically the same message he had sent by the “elders” and “friends.” Furthermore, Luke had special reasons for mentioning any friendly act on the part of the leaders of Israel toward Jesus (see Additional Note at end of chapter). See on Luke 5:2.

Beseeching. Or, “asking,” “entreating.”

Heal. Gr. diasoµzo, “to bring safely through,” “to save.” The centurion wanted Jesus to bring his faithful slave safely through his illness.

4. Besought. Gr. parakaleoµ, a stronger word than that used in v. 3, which means merely “ask,” or “request” (see on v. 3).

Instantly. Gr. spoudaioµs, “earnestly,” or “urgently”. This was one of the meanings that the word “instantly” formerly conveyed (see Rom. 12:12). The matter was urgent because the man was “ready to die” and time was short.

Was worthy. In the centurion’s own eyes he was unworthy (vs. 6, 7). In the eyes of the “elders” he was “worthy” (v. 4). A consciousness of one’s own unworthiness is a recommendation of the highest order. But with the centurion it seems that this appraisal of his status before Jesus was more than humility. Though a believer in the true God, the centurion was not yet a full proselyte, and accordingly in Jewish eyes still a heathen and therefore not eligible to participate in religious services (see on vs. 2, 5). Truly humble of heart before God, and probably conscious as well of his status in the eyes of the Jews, he sought to avoid embarrassing Jesus by obligating Him to enter a Gentile home. This would at best be repulsive to a pious Jew and would doubtless render him ceremonially unclean (see John 18:28). A Jew summoned by a direct command of a Roman officer would be obligated to comply with the summons, for to refuse would be interpreted as resistance to lawfully constituted authority. Evidently the truly devout and humble centurion sought to spare Jesus this and avoid embarrassing Him. The centurion’s humility was both real and practical (see on Luke 7:6).

He should do this. Textual evidence attests (cf. p. 146) the reading “you [Jesus] should do this.”

5. He loveth our nation. And was, in the light of this, “worthy” in the eyes of the elders (see on v. 4). It seems that the centurion was, in all probability, what was known as a “proselyte of the gate,” one who believed in the true God and in the tenets of the Jewish faith but who had not accepted circumcision, the sign of the covenant (see on Gen. 17:10, 11), and did not practice the ceremonial ritual of the Jewish religion. It is said that during the first century a.d. there were unnumbered thousands of Gentiles throughout the Roman Empire who had become “proselytes of the gate.” They had learned to admire and respect the comparatively pure worship of the Jews and were convinced of its superiority to their own. Many such proselytes later became full-fledged Jews (see p. 62).

A synagogue. Literally, “the synagogue”; probably the very one for which these messengers served as “elders.” It may have been the one Christ commonly attended while in Capernaum, and where He began His ministry there. The pronoun “he” is emphatic—probably the centurion had built this synagogue at his own expense. According to a 2d-century inscription, a certain pagan official of Egypt assisted the Jews in the erection of a synagogue at Athribis. Other similar instances are on record.

6. Went. According to the Greek, “was proceeding.” He did not accompany them all the way back to the centurion’s home, as the narrative makes evident (see Luke 7:7; cf. Matt. 8:5).

Friends. This second delegation may have been composed of Romans, perhaps personal associates of the centurion. Apparently Jesus kept moving toward the centurion’s home in spite of the proxy protest of his unworthiness, for the centurion himself finally came out (DA 316). In view of the fact that the second delegation intercepted Jesus “not far from the house,” and that Jesus advanced yet closer after receiving the second delegation, the centurion must have met Jesus very near his home.

I am not worthy. See on v. 4. Though the centurion protested his own unworthiness, Jesus later said of him, “I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel” (v. 9). The remarkable faith of this supposed heathen made him more worthy in the sight of Heaven than any of Jesus’ fellow countrymen. It is of more than passing interest to find that Jesus and the Jewish leaders, who so frequently found themselves in complete disagreement, should both affirm the worthiness of a Gentile. To be sure, their reasons for doing so were not the same; the “elders” approved of the centurion’s works; Jesus, of his faith. Perhaps herein is implied the truth that when faith and works are blended in the life, a man may be highly esteemed by both God and man. Rare is the leader who is esteemed by friends and foes alike, by men of different parties or shades of thought. Rare is the teacher who is held in honor by all his students, those to whom he of necessity gives low grades as well as those to whom he gives high. Rare is the pastor who is favored by all segments in his congregation.

Roof. Gr. stegeµ, “a covering.”

7. Worthy. See on vs. 4, 6. Perhaps the conscientious scruples with respect to what the centurion mistakenly thought to be the attitude of Jesus toward Gentiles (see on v. 4) had kept him from presuming upon the good will of Jesus, even so far as to appear before Him in person. However, he did come to Jesus, and vs. 7, 8 represent what he said in person to the Lord (see DA 316).

In a word. The centurion considered the command of Jesus with regard to the healing of the slave sufficient to accomplish what he now requested. It was this that marked the extent of the centurion’s faith. Unlike the nobleman of Capernaum a year earlier, the centurion did not demand or even expect “signs and wonders” to strengthen his confidence in the power of Jesus (see on John 4:48).

Shall be healed. Like the leper whose great faith led him to exclaim, “If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean” (Matt. 8:2), the centurion seemed to realize that all that was necessary was for Jesus to will that the slave be released from the clutches of disease.

8. I also. The centurion had come to recognize from what he had heard that Jesus represented the authority and power of Heaven in the same way that he, as an army officer, represented the power and authority of Rome.

Under me soldiers. As the centurion was a representative of the Roman government, and yielded obedience to its commands, so the soldiers under him recognized his authority and obeyed him. He knew both how to receive and how to issue orders and see that they were carried out. A word from his superiors secured his obedience, and a word from him secured the obedience of his subordinates. Having already learned to recognize the true God as ruler of heaven and earth, the centurion now recognized Jesus as the representative of God. The centurion knew, no doubt, of the healing of the nobleman’s son a year earlier (see John 4:46–53), and must have heard of the many miracles Jesus had performed since making Capernaum the center of His ministry in Galilee. As in the case of the nobleman (John 4:50), a word from Jesus would be sufficient, and healing could be accomplished at a distance. As in the case of the leper, however, the question in the mind of the centurion was whether Jesus would be willing to respond to the request (see on Mark 1:40). The leper was an outcast from society because of his disease. Similarly, the centurion probably felt that he was not socially acceptable to the Jews because of his race.

9. Marvelled. Gr. thaumazoµ, “to wonder,” or “to marvel.” The centurion’s faith that a word from Jesus would be sufficient was extraordinary in itself. The fact that the centurion had never seen or conversed with Jesus made that faith all the more remarkable, particularly in view of the slowness of the Jews and even of Christ’s own disciples to exercise faith (Matt. 6:30; 8:26; 16:8; see Mark 4:40; Luke 8:25; 12:28; 17:6). But the fact that the centurion was—officially, from the Jewish standpoint—a Gentile, made his faith seem great, almost beyond belief. A year later Jesus commended the Syrophoenician woman for her great faith (see Matt. 15:28), and she, too, was a Gentile (cf. Luke 4:24–27).

People that followed. In all probability this was the throng that had, perhaps that very day, listened to the Sermon on the Mount (see on Matt. 8:1; Luke 7:1). If so, this miracle would tend to confirm the words Jesus had spoken and to leave a vivid impression on the minds of the people.

So great faith. See on v. 8. The great faith of the centurion is the climax of the narrative. Christ’s commendation of the centurion may be taken as implying his complete conversion, either now or at a later time. The fact that Christ had “not found” faith of this magnitude implies prior ministry covering a considerable period of time (see on v. 1).

Not in Israel. Or, “not even in Israel.” Luke here omits Christ’s comment, recorded by Matthew in ch. 8:11, 12, concerning the great in gathering of the Gentiles into the kingdom of heaven, but records a similar statement on another occasion (Luke 13:28, 29). Paul later expressed the same truth in a similar way (see Rom. 9:7, 8; 11:15, 17, 25). It is worthy of note that in the two instances of healing performed at the request of Gentiles—the one here recorded and that of the Syrophoenician’s daughter (Matt. 15:21–28)—the healing occurred, not only as a reward of “great faith,” but at a distance. Hence there was little contact with the Gentiles. Perhaps this may have been a concession to the prejudices of the disciples. It was essential, in preparation for the work of the gospel in all the world, that Jesus demonstrate the eligibility of Gentiles to share in the benefits of the kingdom He had come to establish, but it was not essential that the Lord go out of His way unnecessarily to offend Jewish sensitiveness to social contact with the Gentiles. To have done other than He did would have been to arouse Jewish prejudice and hinder His mission. In his ministry for souls a minister, though himself free of prejudice, may often find it necessary to take into account the prejudices of others.

10. They that were sent. Probably including both the “elders” and the “friends,” at least the latter. They did not have far to go (see on v. 6), and could verify the miracle immediately.

Whole. From the Gr. hugiainoµ, “to be in health,” a common medical term (cf. Luke 5:31; 3 John 2).

That had been sick. Important textual evidence may be cited (cf. p. 146) for the omission of these words.

11. The day after. [The Son of the Widow at Nain, Luke 7:11–17. See Middle Galilean Ministry; The Ministry of Our Lord; on miracles pp. 208–213.] Textual evidence is divided (cf. p. 146) between this and the reading “soon after.” Most modern scholars consider the former reading to be more in keeping with the style Luke commonly employs in writing.

He went. Thus begins the second great missionary journey through the towns and villages of Galilee, probably during the early autumn of a.d. 29 (see on Matt. 4:12; Matt. 5:1; Mark 1:39). The second tour began at Capernaum, Jesus’ headquarters during His ministry in Galilee (see on Matt. 4:13), at most but a few days after the appointment of the twelve disciples and the giving of the Sermon on the Mount (see on Matt. 5:1; Luke 7:1). The first tour had been conducted earlier during the same summer (see on Matt. 4:23; Mark 1:39; 2:1; Luke 4:16).

Having formally inaugurated the kingdom of divine grace with the appointment of the Twelve (see on Matt. 5:1), and having proclaimed the fundamental law and purpose of the kingdom in the Sermon on the Mount, Christ now set forth on His second tour through Galilee to demonstrate by precept and example the nature of His kingdom and the scope of its benefits to mankind.

As with the first tour (see on Mark 1:39, 40), it is evident that only the more significant and impressive incidents are recorded by the gospel writers (cf. John 20:30, 31; 21:25). The first village mentioned on this journey is Nain (see under “Nain”), though Jesus probably ministered to the needs of the people and taught in other villages along the way. Whether He took a direct or more circuitous route is uncertain, though the latter would seem the more probable. Whether “much people” accompanied Jesus on His tour beyond Nain is not clear.

After the miracle at Nain came the day of ministry somewhere along the western shore of the Lake of Galilee, during the course of which Christ spoke the parables recorded in Matt. 13. That evening, as Christ and the disciples crossed the lake, the great storm arose (see on Matt. 8:23–27), and the following morning came the encounter with the Gadarene demoniacs (see on Mark 5:1–20). Later that day Jesus returned to Capernaum to attend the feast at Matthew’s home (Mark 2:15–17; see DA 342), healed the woman who touched the hem of His garment, and raised Jairus’ daughter (see on Mark 5:21–43). Thus, on the second tour, Jesus demonstrated His power over death, over the elements of nature, and over evil spirits; and in the series of parables set forth the principles of the kingdom of heaven and its operation among men. On this tour the Twelve, as His assistants, received a priceless training in methods of evangelism, a training which soon, in the third tour, they had the opportunity to put into practice.

Nain. This town is not mentioned elsewhere, either in the Bible or in secular sources, but is generally identified with the modern Nein, on the northern slopes of a mountain overlooking the broad plain of Esdraelon to the north. Nein is about 25 mi. (40 km.) southwest of the site of ancient Capernaum and about 5 mi. (8 km.) southeast of Nazareth. There is but one approach to the village, along a steep and rocky path (see DA 318) that comes in from the east. Just east of the village is a rockhewn burial ground still in use today.

12. Nigh to the gate. The local cemetery lay about half a mile east of Nain, beside the only pathway up to the village (see on v. 11). The rock-hewn tombs still stand beside the pathway, about ten minutes’ walk east of the village. This marks the first occasion in the gospel narrative when the Lord of life came face to face with death and triumphed over it.

Only. Gr. monogeneµs, “only,” or “an only one of a kind” (see on John 1:14).

Widow. The fact that the woman was a widow, and this her only son, made the situation pathetic in the extreme.

Much people of the city. Evidently the widow’s extremity touched the hearts of the villagers, and many if not most of them accompanied her to the burial site. Their sympathy was met by the sympathy of the great Life-giver.

13. The Lord. This is one of the comparatively few instances where the gospel writers speak about Jesus as “Lord.”

Had compassion. The love and pity of Jesus are often mentioned as motives for the performance of miracles (see Matt. 14:14; 15:32; 20:34; Mark 1:41; 8:2; etc.). No request came from her lips and, so far as we know, no petition arose from her heart. But in His sympathy for suffering humanity Jesus answered the unuttered prayer, as He does so often for us today.

Weep not. Or, “stop weeping.” The widow had ample reason for her deep sorrow. But Jesus was about to give her reason for the greatest possible joy, and it was not appropriate that she should continue weeping, unless it be with tears of joy. Similarly, before raising Lazarus, Jesus sought to inspire hope and trust in advance of performing the miracle of imparting life (see John 11:23–27).

14. Touched the bier. The bier, an open coffin with the corpse shrouded in folds of linen, led the funeral procession (see DA 318). In Bible times such a “bier” was probably made of wickerwork (see on Mark 6:43). The touch of Jesus on the coffin was a signal to the pallbearers to halt. According to the law of Moses, contact with the dead in any way, such as even touching the bier, brought ceremonial defilement for seven days (see on Num. 19:11). But to Jesus, who knew neither sin nor defilement, and who was the Source of life, there could be no defilement from contact with death.

I say unto thee. In the Greek the word “thee” is emphatic: “To thee I say, Arise!” To the mother, Jesus had just said, “Weep not.” He had the right to bid her to weep no more because He had the power to rebuke death, the cause of her weeping.

15. Delivered. Literally, “gave.” In death the son had been lost to his widowed mother, and she had no means of reclaiming him. Now the Life-giver came and restored him to her. Compare the restoration of the lunatic son to his father (ch. 9:42).

16. There came a fear on all. Or, “fear seized all.”

Glorified God. According to the Greek they continued to praise God. When the people recovered from fear their next thought was to praise God.

A great prophet. This experience no doubt reminded them of similar incidents in olden times. Here was incontestable evidence of divine power; and the people concluded that the human agent through whom it was manifested must be a “prophet.” Compare also the Messianic promise of Deut. 18:15, and the reaction of the Jews to John (see John 1:21) and later to Jesus (see John 6:14; cf. chs. 4:19; 7:40).

Every Christian who mourns the loss of dear ones can find consolation in the compassion Jesus felt for the widow of Nain (see on v. 13), and has the privilege of comfort in the fact that the same Jesus still “watches with every mourning one beside the bier” (DA 319). He who holds in His hands the keys of death and the grave (Rev. 1:18) will one day break the bonds that bind His loved ones and set them forever free from the clutches of this great enemy of the human race (see 1 Cor. 15:26; 2 Tim. 1:10).

17. Rumour. Rather, “word,” or “report.” News of what had happened spread far and wide throughout the surrounding region.

Judжa. By this term Luke refers to all of Palestine, including Galilee and Peraea as well as what we commonly think of as Judea (see on ch. 1:5).

18. Disciples of John. [The Inquiry by John’s Disciples, Luke 7:18–23=Matt. 11:2–6. Major comment: Luke. See Middle Galilean Ministry.] Perplexed, John’s disciples related to him the “rumour,” or “report,” of all the wonderful works of Jesus. The insertion of this statement at this point suggests that it was specifically the report of the raising of the young man at Nain that prompted John to send some of his disciples to Jesus with a question (see v. 19). By this time John had been in prison for about six months, and was to remain there for about another six months before his execution (see on Matt. 4:12; Luke 3:19, 20).

19. Two of his disciples. Literally, “a certain two of his disciples.” The question regarding the Messiahship of Jesus originated with John’s disciples, not with John himself (see DA 214, 215), and John was disturbed that these men should cherish unbelief with respect to John’s own testimony that Jesus was indeed the Promised One (see DA 216). If the Baptist’s own disciples doubted his message, how could others be expected to believe? There were some things John did not understand—such as the true nature of the Messianic kingdom, and why Jesus did nothing to effect his release from prison. But despite the doubts that troubled him, he did not surrender his faith that Jesus was indeed the Christ (see DA 216; cf. v. 24). Disappointment and anxiety troubled the soul of the lonely prisoner, but he refrained from discussing these perplexities of his own mind with his disciples.

Sent them to Jesus. In the hope that a personal interview with Jesus would confirm their faith, that they would bring back a faith-strengthening message for his other disciples, and that he might receive a personal message to clarify his own thinking, John sent the two men to Jesus. If John was in the dungeon of Machaerus on the eastern side of the Dead Sea (see on ch. 3:20), the two messengers would probably follow the road through the Jordan valley, and once in Galilee could easily make inquiry as to where Jesus might be at the time. They must have walked at least 75 mi. in each direction, and have spent about three days each way. This means that they were gone at least a full week and perhaps more, counting the day they spent with Jesus, for no doubt they would not travel on the Sabbath.

Art thou? In the Greek the word “thou” is emphatic.

He that should come. Gr. ho erchomenos, which was often used as a Messianic expression, perhaps based originally on Ps. 118:26 (see also Matt. 3:11; 21:9; Mark 11:9; Luke 19:38; see on John 6:14; 11:27). Ho erchomenos is also used of Christ in reference to His second coming (see Matt. 23:39; Luke 13:35; Heb. 10:37; Rev. 1:4, 8).

God permits hours of perplexity to come even to the most worthy and trusted of His servants, in order to strengthen their faith and trust in Him. At times, when it is necessary for their own character development or for the good of God’s cause on earth, He permits them to go through experiences that seem to suggest that He has forgotten them. Thus it was with Jesus when He hung upon the cross (see Matt. 27:46; DA 753, 754). Thus it was with Job (see Job 1:21; 13:15). Even Elijah, the prototype of John the Baptist (see on Mal. 4:5; Matt. 17:10), had his moments of discouragement (see 1 Kings 19:4). In view of this, it can be easily understood that the experience of John in prison for a period of about one year was, in the merciful providence of God, permitted by way of encouragement to countless thousands of others who, in later years, must suffer martyrdom (see DA 224). Knowing that John’s faith would not fail (see 1 Cor. 10:13), God strengthened the prophet to endure. Steadfast to the end, John, even in prison and in death, stands forth as “a burning and a shining light” (John 5:35), his fortitude and patience illuminating the dark pathway of life for martyrs of Jesus down through the centuries.

It is appropriate to inquire how John was able to say, “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30), and to accept without murmuring the lonely months in the dungeon, and eventually death at the hands of Herod. The secret was that “the touch of divine love had transformed him” (DA 179)—his heart was right. He was willing to be faithful to his mission in spite of the fact that to some extent he misconstrued the nature of Christ’s kingdom, a misconception he shared with his contemporaries (DA 215). Even the disciples of Jesus, after the resurrection, thought that He was about to establish His glorious kingdom on earth (Acts 1:6; cf. Matt. 24:3). Christ told the Pharisees, “The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: … for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you” (Luke 17:20, 21). How often has it been true that perplexity has arisen from a misunderstanding of a statement in Bible prophecy! It was the preconceived opinions of the disciples, in spite of what their Lord had sought to teach them, that made His death and burial so bitter an experience for them (DA 412, 772, 796). Their experience may well be a lesson to us today to study with all diligence the messages that Inspiration has sent with regard to the hour of crisis that lies ahead of us (GC 594, 598; TM 116).

Another. What Jesus said and did—His sermons and His miracles—was not exactly what John had expected. Jesus seemed content to gather about Him a band of disciples and to go about the country teaching and healing the people (see DA 215). John was tormented with doubt as to whether Jesus was the Messiah, because He did not conform to the popular conception of what the Messiah would be like and would do when He came. John’s question, rephrased, was this: “Are you the kind of Messiah we are to look for?”

20. Hath sent us. The two messengers were probably unaware of the fact that they had been sent primarily for their own benefit (see on v. 19). John probably desired also to prepare them for the transfer of their affections and service to Jesus. No doubt these two men were among the disciples of Jesus who, some six months later, cast their lot with Christ (see DA 361).

21. In that same hour. The two messengers found Jesus amid the throngs of people somewhere in Galilee. Sufferers from various diseases were pressing through the crowd to where the Master stood or sat (see DA 216). Greeting John’s disciples courteously, no doubt, Jesus avoided answering their question and quietly went about His work of healing.

Christ’s method of answering the question posed by the two messengers, like all of His methods, is one of major importance to ministers and teachers. He might, upon this occasion, have given a good, practical theological answer, supported by numerous quotations from the prophets, but He did not do so. There was “a more excellent way” (1 Cor. 12:31), and one that was at the same time far more impressive and more permanent in its results. It is worthy of note that the supreme evidence Christ offered of His divinity was the perfect adaptation of His ministry to the need of suffering and lost humanity (see DA 217; cf. 406, 407).

Christ did not always use the method He here employed in meeting the disciples of John. Upon a later occasion, following His resurrection, He hid His identity from the natural vision of the two disciples on the way to Emmaus, in order to direct their spiritual eyesight to the fact that events connected with His death and resurrection were in fulfillment of prophecy. His practical instruction in the Scriptures provided, in this instance, the very strongest possible evidence why His followers should have faith in Him (see DA 799).

The two messengers sent by John had heard the “rumour,” or “report,” of the ministry of Jesus (vs. 17, 18); now they saw for themselves, and could no longer doubt the truth of what they had heard. Christ’s method of answering them also illustrates another important principle of teaching truth—He presented the evidence and let John’s disciples draw their own conclusions. He did not dogmatize, He did not press them to take His word for an answer and assert that anyone who said anything to the contrary was in error. Their minds were left completely free to exercise judgment in the matter on the basis of what prophecy had said the Messiah would do (see on v. 22), and what He himself was doing (v. 21).

Infirmities and plagues. See on Matt. 4:23; Mark 3:10.

Evil spirits. It is important to note that Luke the physician carefully distinguishes between those who are demon possessed and those whose affliction is limited to the physical being. This fact precludes the possibility that he confused the two, as some have asserted (see vs. 6:17, 18; 7:2; 8:27–36; Additional Note on Mark 1).

Gave. Gr. charizomai, “to do a favor,” or “to give graciously”; from charis, “grace,” or “favor” (see on ch. 1:30). When Jesus restored others to health His act was not perfunctory or mechanical; it was, rather, an expression of the sympathetic interest and feeling of His great heart of love for all men.

22. Jesus answering said. Toward the close of the day Jesus turned to the two messengers and gave them a message to bear back to the one who had sent them, a message that proved sufficient to answer the questionings of John and his disciples (see DA 217). All doubts were set at rest, even though there might yet be aspects of Christ’s kingdom that were not completely understood.

Tell John. Christ’s answer to the question of the two disciples of John is a paraphrase of Isa. 61:1, a passage recognized by the Jews of Christ’s day as definitely Messianic (see on Luke 4:18–21). No more impressive answer could have been given.

Christ did not mention the “day of vengeance,” either at Nazareth or upon this occasion (see Isa. 61:2; Luke 4:19). In His message to John, Jesus also said nothing of “liberty” for the “captives” (Isa. 61:1). Such a reference could easily be misunderstood and might stir a false hope in John’s heart for release from prison. Implied in Christ’s answer was the unspoken explanation that He had not come to destroy sinners (see Luke 9:56; John 3:17; 12:47), but to restore them, physically, mentally, and spiritually. He had “come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” (John 10:10). Jesus’ answer to John’s question, “Art thou he that should come?” was, so to speak, “Yes, but I am not the kind of Messiah you expected.”

Seen and heard. There are no better witnesses than eyewitnesses. Christ made these two messengers eyewitnesses of the work He was doing for men’s souls and bodies (cf. Luke 1:2; John 1:14; 2 Peter 1:16; 1 John 1:1, 2).

To the poor. The common, illiterate peasants and laborers received little attention from the proud Pharisees and the learned rabbis. Their attention, for the most part, was reserved for men of wealth and influence. The “common people,” with their open hearts and simple faith, were the very ones who were attracted to Christ and who “heard him gladly” (Mark 12:37). Often among the Jews of Christ’s day, “the poor” not only were poor in wordly goods, but were also oppressed and afflicted at the hands of men in positions of power and influence (see on Matt. 5:3). See p. 55.

Gospel. Or, “good news” (see on Mark 1:1).

23. Blessed is he. Or, “happy is he” (see on Matt. 5:3). In the gracious form of a benediction, yet in words whose meaning would not be lost on John, or on the disciples who bore the message to him, Jesus administered a gentle rebuke (see DA 218). This benediction, following the paraphrase of Isa. 61:1 (see on Luke 7:22), was all that Christ had personally to say to the imprisoned prophet. It was Christ’s answer to the unspoken longing of John’s heart for a personal word of comfort and cheer (see DA 217). So far as the record of the Gospels goes, this is the last contact between Jesus and John.

Offended. Gr. skandalizoµ, “to cause to stumble,” hence, “to offend” (see on Matt. 5:29). Many of the Jews of Christ’s day “stumbled at that stumblingstone,” or the “rock of offence [Gr.skandalon, an object of stumbling],” Jesus (Rom. 9:32, 33), as the prophet Isaiah had said they would (see on Isa. 8:14). Jesus had come to “his own, and his own received him not” (see John 1:11; DA 30, 213, 391–394). At times, even Christ’s disciples were “offended” because of Him (see DA 380), and it was because of being “offended” at Jesus that Judas betrayed Him (DA 719). It was because the disciples were “offended” on the night of the betrayal that they all “forsook him and fled” (Matt. 26:31, 56).

24. He began. [Jesus’ Eulogy of John, Luke 7:24–35=Matt. 11:7–30. Major comment: Matthew.]

25. Gorgeously apparelled. That is, dressed in splendid clothing.

Delicately. That is, “in luxury.”

Kings’ courts. Or, “palaces.”

29. All the people. Some consider vs. 29, 30 an inspired parenthetical comment by Luke rather than a part of Christ’s discourse on John the Baptist. An interpolation of this length, however, would be most unusual for Luke. There is no reason why Christ might not have made the statement.

Heard him. That is, heard John the Baptist.

Publicans. See on ch. 3:12.

Justified. Gr. dikaiooµ, here meaning, “to acknowledge God’s righteousness.” The people “justified God” by responding to the divine message through John the Baptist. They recognized that what John said was true, and that, as a prophet, he had the right to make certain requirements of them.

Baptized. See on Matt. 3:6. The acceptance of baptism at the hands of John was a public acknowledgment of the fact that God spoke through John.

Baptism of John. See on Matt. 3:6. Christian baptism was patterned after the baptism of John (see John 3:22, 23; John 4:1, 2). However, the early Christian church apparently felt that John’s baptism alone was not adequate (see Acts 18:25; 19:1–5). His baptism was essentially a symbol of repentance; it was, in fact, called the “baptism of repentance” (Mark 1:4; etc.). Christian baptism typifies repentance (Acts 2:38), and, in addition, belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God (Acts 8:36, 37) plus the reception of the Holy Spirit (Acts 10:44–48; 19:1–6). John had, in fact, predicted that Jesus would “baptize” with the Holy Ghost (see Matt. 3:11; cf. Acts 11:16). This does not mean, however, that the baptism of John was without the approval of the Holy Spirit.

30. Pharisees. See pp. 51, 52.

Lawyers. See on Mark 1:22; 2:16. These men were not “lawyers” in the sense that we use the term today. They were students and expositors of Jewish law.

Counsel of God. For each group of people who came to be baptized, John had outlined in detail what they should do to bring forth “fruits meet for repentance” (see on Matt. 3:7, 8; Luke 3:10–14). Though some of the religious leaders were probably baptized, there were at best but few of them who accepted the rite at John’s hands. They refused to admit that they were sinners and in need of repentance (see on Matt. 3:6). Inasmuch as the baptism of John signified repentance, a step for which they felt no need, they were “not baptized of him.”

Against themselves. Better, “for themselves,” or “concerning themselves.”

31. The Lord said. Textual evidence attests (cf. p. 146) the omission of these words. They appear in the Vulgate and in later Greek manuscripts. It has been suggested that the phrase was inserted to indicate the belief that vs. 29, 30 were not the words of Jesus, but an editorial comment by Luke (see on v. 29).

36. One of the Pharisees. [The Feast at Simon’s House, Luke 7:36–50=Matt 26:6–13=Mark 14:3–9=John 12:1–9. Major comment: Matthew and Luke. See Betrayal, Trial and Crucifixion of Jesus; Passion Week; Additional Note at end of chapter.]

Desired. Jesus had cured Simon of the leprosy (Matt. 26:6; DA 557), and he, desiring to express his gratitude, prepared a feast and invited Jesus as the guest of honor. This feast took place in Bethany on the day preceding Christ’s triumphal entry into Jerusalem (DA 557 cf. 569), less than one week prior to the crucifixion. Furthermore, Lazarus, who had been raised from the dead not more than two months previously, during the late winter of a.d. 30–31 (see on John 11:1), was included as a guest of honor along with Jesus (DA 557). Jesus graciously accepted the hospitality of Pharisee and publican alike (see Luke 5:29; 19:5; cf. chs. 11:37; 14:1).

Sat down to meat. Literally, “reclined [at the table]” (see on Mark 2:15). Simon was on one side of Jesus and Lazarus on the other, as the guests reclined to partake of the meal (DA 558).

37. A woman. Mary of Bethany, otherwise known as Mary Magdalene (see Additional Note at end of chapter).

Alabaster. A comparatively soft rock that can be carved into cups, boxes, vases, or flasks. Ancient ointment flasks were usually carved from light-gray translucent limestone.

Ointment. The common “ointment” of Palestine was olive oil to which spice or other aromatic ingredients were added. Mary’s “ointment” was the “very costly” spikenard (see Mark 14:3; John 12:3), probably extracted from the fragrant roots of the Nardostachys jatamansi. This plant grows high in the Himalaya Mountains, and in ancient times was used as a source of perfume and medicine (see on S. of Sol. 1:12). If Mary’s “ointment” had come from the mountains of northern India, it is little wonder that it was considered “very costly” (John 12:3, 5). Mark 14:5 gives its value as about 300 Roman denarii (see p. 49). It should be remembered that this would be equivalent to 300 working days’ wages for a laborer of the time (see on Matt. 20:2). Such a valuable gift, suitable for the monarchs of earth, represented great personal sacrifice on the part of Mary (see DA 559, 564).

38. Stood at his feet. Guests at a feast would remove their sandals before the meal and recline on their left side on the couches on three sides of the table, with their left elbow resting on the table and their feet at the lower end of the couch, away from the table (see on Mark 2:15). This arrangement made it comparatively simple for Mary to “anoint” the feet of Jesus without being noticed until the aromatic scent of the perfumed ointment filled the room.

To wash. Literally, “to wet,” or “to moisten.”

With tears. Mary had probably not planned to shed tears of joy and thankfulness on Jesus’ feet. But as she knelt to apply the ointment, her tears probably came in spite of an attempt to hold them back, and fell on His feet before she could apply the ointment.

Hairs of her head. It was commonly thought a disgrace for a woman to let down her hair in public. But, probably unprepared for this apparently unforeseen need for a towel, she reached for her hair.

Kissed. According to the Greek, she kissed repeatedly (see v. 45). In some Oriental lands, today as well as in ancient times, and elsewhere, a kiss is a common form of greeting (see on Matt. 26:49). To embrace another’s feet and to kiss them was an entirely appropriate and respectable demonstration of high regard (see on Matt. 28:9).

Anointed them. See on Matt. 6:17. That is, after the burst of emotion.

39. Spake within himself. Simon was reclining next to Jesus, and would be one of the first persons at the table to detect the perfume and to notice what was happening. A gracious host, he said nothing. But he passed silent judgment on Jesus for permitting the act of gratitude without remonstrating with the woman.

A prophet. Textual evidence may be cited (cf. p. 146) for reading “the prophet,” that is, the Prophet predicted by Moses in Deut. 18:15 (see on Deut. 18:15; John 1:21). According to the Greek, Simon at this point had reached the conclusion that Jesus was not a prophet, or He would have known better what kind of woman Mary really was.

What manner. Or, “what sort.” Simon was apparently unaware that Jesus knew very well what “manner” of woman Mary was. Simon probably knew little of what had happened to Mary since the time he had humbled her (DA 566), a circumstance that tends to confirm the suggestion (see Additional Note at end of chapter) that Mary had left Bethany to save herself and her family embarrassment.

40. Jesus answering said. That is, answering Simon’s unspoken thought or question.

41. A certain creditor. [The Two Debtors, Luke 7:41–43. See on parables pp. 203–207.] That is, “a certain [professional] lender [of money at interest].” This brief parable is concerned with gratitude for the blessings of salvation. Apparently the parable is based on the fundamental principle that one’s appreciation for blessings received is in direct proportion to one’s sense of need in respect to those blessings. Only he who comes to the place where he feels his utter helplessness before God is in a frame of mind properly to appreciate what God does for him, whether in material things or in spiritual things. He who does not sense his need of divine help is confident of his own ability and resources, and relies on these to find a solution to the problems that confront him. It is for this reason that God so often permits His earthborn children to exhaust their own resources before He steps in to provide them with divine help. Should He intervene before they become conscious of their utter helplessness, they would not truly appreciate the blessings bestowed, they would not be led to trust in His wisdom and kindness, their characters would remain imperfect, and they would continue to trust in their own devices and ability to cope with the problems of life.

Thus it was with Simon. Though Jesus had healed him of the leprosy and he justifiably “desired to show his gratitude” (see Matt. 26:6; DA 557), it was the gratitude of one man toward another, not the gratitude of man toward the infinite God. Simon’s “character was not transformed; his principles were unchanged” (DA 557); in short, he was unconverted. Thus, Christ’s ultimate objective in healing his bodily leprosy, namely, healing him of the leprosy of sin, had not yet been achieved. Simon’s attitude toward Jesus was similar to that of Nicodemus, who recognized Jesus to be “a teacher come from God,” but failed to recognize his personal need of being “born again” (see on John 3:2, 3). Both were, at this stage in their religious experience, the “stony” ground type of hearers (see on Matt. 13:5).

Five hundred pence. That is, 500 Roman denarii, or about $56.56 (see p. 49). Fifty denarii would be about $5.66. In terms of actual purchasing power the value would be much greater (see on Matt. 20:2).

42. Nothing to pay. The size of the debt made no difference in the ability of the two debtors to pay. Both were unable to pay what they owed. But there was a vast difference in their appreciation for the lender’s cancellation of the debt. The man with the lesser obligation would, presumably, have found it easier to earn money to repay his debt, whereas the man with the greater obligation would have found it correspondingly more difficult. The man who owed the 500 Roman denarii (see on v. 41) was, apparently, so far in debt that he had little hope of repaying it, while the man who owed only 50 denarii might, if given time, do so. For both, at the moment their debts were due, however, there was, presumably, no alternative but that of slavery (see on Matt. 18:25).

Frankly. This word has been supplied by the translators, but its meaning is implied in the Gr. charizomai, “to do a favor,” or “to give graciously” (see on v. 21), here translated “forgave.”

Most. Literally, “more.”

43. I suppose. The answer was obvious, as was the case with so many of the parables and lessons of Jesus. In some instances those to whom they were addressed were reluctant, in other instances ready, to acknowledge the lesson so clearly set forth (Matt. 21:31, 41, 45; see Luke 10:36, 37).

He forgave most. See on v. 42. Simon pronounced judgment upon himself. Tactfully the Saviour led the proud Pharisee to realize that his sin, his seduction of Mary, was greater than hers, as 500 denarii was greater than 50 (DA 566, 567).

44. He turned to the woman. Though Christ turned to Mary as He spoke, His words were addressed to Simon. This fact may imply that Jesus meant His statement both as a rebuke to Simon and as an expression of gratitude to Mary for her thoughtful kindness. This tribute must have meant far more to Mary than a word later spoken to her alone, for Jesus honored her in the presence of others who considered they had valid reason to despise and ignore her.

Thou gavest me no water. According to the Greek in each case—the water (v. 44), the kiss (v. 45), and the oil (v. 46)—the word itself stands first for emphasis, as “water thou gavest me not,” etc. Why Simon did not provide at least water for his guests is not clear. It is doubtful that he would have invited a group of guests to share the hospitality of his home and table, and then have denied them lesser courtesies had these been mandatory upon the host. It seems, rather, that the contrast Christ here draws between Simon and Mary is not so much one of a duty omitted and a duty performed, as a favor neglected and a favor bestowed. Simon was hospitable, but he might have done even more than he did. Mary’s act of gratitude was performed, not as an obligation, but as the expression of a heart that overflowed with love and devotion.

45. Hath … ceased. Gr. dialeipoµ, “to be intermittent.” It denotes repeated rather than continuous action.

46. Oil. Gr. elaion, usually “olive oil.” Simon had not “anointed” Jesus even with the most common oil of Palestine. In contrast, Mary used “ointment,” muron, the most expensive that money could buy (see on v. 37). Simon had not used even the most common oil on Christ’s head, whereas Mary had applied the most expensive kind to His feet. What a contrast—and in this contrast was reflected the heart attitude of each. The hospitality of Simon was insignificant by comparison with the boundless gratitude of Mary.

47. Forgiven. Love for Christ leads to forgiveness in the sense that love for Him prompts contrition and confession. The love Mary now felt in her heart for Christ was the result of forgiveness already granted her prior to this occasion (see Additional Note at end of chapter). Simon felt but little love for Christ, because his sins were as yet unforgiven, because, like Nicodemus (see on John 3:3–7), he had not considered himself a sinner in need of divine forgiveness.

48. Are forgiven. Literally, “have been forgiven.” Mary had already received forgiveness for her sins.

49. Within themselves. Or, “among themselves.”

Also. Gr. kai, “and,” “also,” or “even.” Kai seems best translated by “even” in this passage.

50. Faith hath saved. Man’s faith must ever rise to claim the blessings of forgiveness, for “without faith it is impossible to please him” (Heb. 11:6). A sense of need and of dependence upon Christ must accompany faith (see on Matt. 5:3; Luke 5:8).

additional note on chapter 7

Most commentators are of the opinion that the incident here recorded by Luke should not be identified with the feast mentioned by the other gospel writers. Some of their more important reasons for this conclusion are: (1) doubt that Mary of Bethany could have been of the character of the woman described by Luke, inasmuch as what is recorded elsewhere in the Gospels concerning Mary of Bethany seems to them to preclude identifying her with this woman; (2) doubt that a Pharisee, particularly one living only 2 mi. from Jerusalem, would, less than a week prior to the crucifixion, entertain Jesus publicly, particularly when there was evidently a question in his own mind as to the Messiahship of Jesus; (3) seemingly irreconcilable differences between the account in Luke and that of the other three Gospels which, in their opinion, tend to outweigh the many points of similarity.

These difficulties, it must be admitted, are not to be dismissed lightly. But neither is the conclusion based upon them as compelling as might at first appear. This may be seen from the following considerations:

1. John identifies Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus as the one who anointed Jesus’ feet, and his account of the incident is obviously parallel to that of Matthew and Mark, who, with Luke, do not mention her by name. This may have been because the woman, a devout Christian, was still living at the time the Synoptic Gospels were written. The three synoptic evangelists, although feeling that the narrative should be included in the gospel record, may have decided, in Christian kindness, not to mention her name. John, however, might not have felt bound by this consideration inasmuch as his Gospel was written several decades later (see p. 181), and thus probably many years after the woman’s death. It is worthy of note that John, who alone mentions Mary, is the only gospel writer to omit the name of Simon.

Luke (ch. 10:39, 42) and John (chs. 11:1, 2, 19, 20, 28, 31, 32, 45; 12:3) both mention and identify a Mary of Bethany. Mary, known as Mary Magdalene (probably “of Magdala,” a town on the western shore of the Lake of Galilee [see Matt. 15:39; DA 405]), is listed among the women who accompanied Jesus on the Second Galilean Tour (see Luke 8:1–3), and is mentioned by all four Gospels in connection with the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (Matt. 27:56, 61; 28:1; Mark 15:40, 47; 16:1, 9; Luke 24:10; John 19:25; 20:1, 11, 16, 18). At some time prior to the Second Galilean Tour Jesus had expelled seven demons from her (Luke 8:2; cf. Mark 16:9).

If, let us say, Mary of Bethany left home as a result of her shameful life, she could have found a home in Magdala, perhaps with friends or relatives who lived there. A majority of the recorded incidents of Jesus’ Galilean ministry took place in the vicinity of the Plain of Gennesaret, where Magdala was situated, and it may be that upon the occasion of one of Jesus’ early visits to Magdala He freed her from demon possession. After accompanying Jesus on the Second Galilean Tour, she could have returned to Bethany, a changed person, and again made her home there. This possibility does not, of course, prove that Mary of Bethany and Mary of Magdala are to be identified as the same person, but it does show how this could reasonably have been the case. All the information on the subject that is given in the gospel record can easily be understood in harmony with such an explanation.

2. The argument that near the close of His ministry Jesus had no friends among the leaders of Israel is not valid. Nicodemus, “a ruler of the Jews” (John 3:1), boldly took the part of Jesus in a council of the chief priests and Pharisees (see John 7:45–53). His influence upon this occasion—at the Feast of Tabernacles, a.d. 30, about six months before the crucifixion—is apparent from the fact that his counsel prevailed and the group dispersed without accomplishing their objective (see John 7:53; DA 460). At the crucifixion, when of all times men would fear to be known as followers of Jesus, when “all the disciples forsook him, and fled” (Matt. 26:56), and when Peter, His most ardent defender, denied Him repeatedly (Matt. 26:69–75), Joseph of Arimathaea, another “honourable counsellor” (see on Mark 15:43), publicly provided a burial place for Jesus, and, with Nicodemus, openly supervised His interment there (see Matt. 27:57–60; John 19:38–40). Many of the “chief rulers” believed on Jesus at this time (see DA 539, 699), but did not “confess” him for fear of excommunication (John 12:42), though after the resurrection many of them no doubt became Christians (see Acts 6:7).

3. The supposed points of difference between the various accounts are not so great as may appear, and by no means render the accounts mutually exclusive. Luke alone speaks of Jesus’ host upon this occasion as a Pharisee; but this is not strange, for there were many Pharisees, and it was simply a matter of choice on the part of the writer whether he identified a man as a Pharisee. Luke alone of the gospel writer refers to two other occasion on which Christ dined in the home of a Pharisee (chs. 11:37; 14:1). Apparently Luke considered Christ’s association with the Pharisees on a friendly, social basis a fact worthy of particular notice, and this would explain his recording here the fact that the host was a Pharisee.

That Luke dwells upon Simon’s reaction to the incident, whereas the other gospel writers have nothing to say about this aspect of it, emphasizing only Judas’ reaction, is not strange. If Luke had a reason for introducing the narrative at this point in his gospel record rather than at the close of Christ’s ministry, as do the other writers, he would hardly have reported the attitude of Judas and the lesson Christ sought to teach him; to do so would seem to have been inappropriate at this early point in the gospel narrative. It would have presented Judas in a character role he had not openly developed as yet, and the report as given by the other three gospel writers at a later point in their narratives, would have tended only to confuse the reader of Luke at the point where Luke inserts the story. See pp. 191, 192.

There are many points in the narrative of Luke that are mentioned by one or more of the other three evangelists: (1) All agree that the occasion was a feast. (2) All agree that the person who anointed Jesus was a woman. (3) The three Synoptists agree that the “ointment” was in an alabaster container; John does not speak of the container. (4) Neither Luke nor Matthew mentions the kind of “ointment,” but Mark and John both say it was “spikenard.” (5) Both Luke and John mention the anointing of Jesus’ feet. (6) Both Luke and John mention the fact that Mary used her hair as a towel to wipe Jesus’ feet. (7) The three synoptic writers give the host’s name as Simon. These points of similarity do not necessarily prove that Luke’s incident has to be identified with that recorded by the other three evangelists, but they do tend to increase the degree of probability in that direction.

Assuming that the feast at the home of a Pharisee that Luke records, is identical with that in the home of Simon in Bethany, two questions call for an answer: (1) Why did Luke insert the story so early in his gospel narrative, so far from its true chronological setting? (2) Why is his account so different from that of the other three Gospels in certain important respects? The context in Luke provides an entirely satisfactory and convincing answer to these questions.

Luke is writing primarily for non-Palestinian Gentile Christians (see p. 664). Having mentioned repeatedly the opposition of the Jewish leaders to Christ (chs. 5:17, 21, 30, 33; 6:2, 7, 11; etc.), Luke no doubt feared that his educated Gentile readers would ask how they should be expected to believe in Christ if all the leading men of His own nation (and thus, presumably, the men best qualified to appraise His claims) rejected Him. This probably accounts for the fact that Luke, alone among the four gospel writers, mentions three specific instances when Jesus dined in the home of a Pharisee (chs. 7:36; 11:37; 14:1), as well as other instances of seeming friendliness between Jesus and certain Jewish leaders (see on ch. 7:3).

The immediate context of Luke’s account of the feast in Simon’s house makes even clearer the reason Luke inserted the story at this point in the narrative. He has just recorded the fact that the leaders rejected both the message of John the Baptist and that of Jesus (see vs. 30–35)—not all the leaders, to be sure, but evidently the vast majority. Therefore at this very point in his story of Christ Luke would be most likely to feel the need of pointing out that some of the leaders were friendly toward Him. Furthermore, it is in this very chapter that Luke records the friendly mediation of certain “elders of the Jews” (v. 3). Immediately following this incident, Luke gives the circumstances leading up to Christ’s own admission that the leaders of Israel rejected both John and Him (vs. 11–35). The friendliness of certain of the leaders mentioned immediately preceding and after vs. 11–35 may have been intended by Luke to allay any suspicion on the part of his readers that Christ might not be the Messiah because His own nation had rejected Him.

On the assumption that this is why Luke inserted the account of Simon’s feast at this early point in the gospel narrative rather than in its true chronological setting, the reason for the major difference between Luke’s account and that of the other three evangelists becomes clear. Accordingly, there was no point in Luke’s recording either the reaction of Judas or the references to Christ’s imminent death. The main point was the attitude of Simon as one of the leaders of Israel. For the other three evangelists, it is the attitude of Judas that has meaning in the context where their recital of the incident appears. The account of Judas’ reaction and that of Simon are not mutually exclusive, but complementary, and would in no way contradict each other even if they were both given by one or more of the writers of the Gospels.

Luke’s narrative of the feast at Simon’s house is clearly identified in The Desire of Ages with that of the feast in the home of Simon in Bethany, as given in the other Gospels (DA 557–563). Simon of Bethany is also identified with the Simon in Luke’s narrative (DA 557, 558, 566). Furthermore, the unnamed woman of Luke’s account is identified with Mary of Bethany (DA 558–560, 566) and with Mary Magdalene, out of whom Jesus had cast seven demons (DA 568). Also, Simon himself is declared to be the one who had led Mary into sin at some previous time (DA 566). Simon had already professed faith in Jesus as a prophet, recognized Him as a teacher sent from God, and hoped that He might be the Messiah (DA 557; cf. John 3:1, 2). But he had not as yet accepted Him as the Saviour, and this incident became the turning point for salvation in his life (DA 567, 568).

Ellen G. White comments

1–17DA 315–320

4, 5 MH 65

4–7MH 63

4–9DA 316

5, 6 DA 317

11–15DA 318

14 DA 320

16, 17 DA 319

19–28DA 214–225

21–23DA 217

23 DA 218

30 DA 595

36–50DA 557–568

38 DA 559

39–43DA 566

43 SC 36; 2T 75

44, 45 DA 567

47 COL 211; DA 567; FE 275; MH 182

48 PP 754