18  The Transformed Sinner  (Luke 7:36–50)

Now one of the Pharisees was requesting Him to dine with him, and He entered the Pharisee’s house and reclined at the table. And there was a woman in the city who was a sinner; and when she learned that He was reclining at the table in the Pharisee’s house, she brought an alabaster vial of perfume, and standing behind Him at His feet, weeping, she began to wet His feet with her tears, and kept wiping them with the hair of her head, and kissing His feet and anointing them with the perfume. Now when the Pharisee who had invited Him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet He would know who and what sort of person this woman is who is touching Him, that she is a sinner.” And Jesus answered him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” And he replied, “Say it, Teacher.” “A moneylender had two debtors: one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. When they were unable to repay, he graciously forgave them both. So which of them will love him more?” Simon answered and said, “I suppose the one whom he forgave more.” And He said to him, “You have judged correctly.” Turning toward the woman, He said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave Me no water for My feet, but she has wet Myfeet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave Me no kiss; but she, since the time I came in, has not ceased to kiss My feet. You did not anoint My head with oil, but she anointed My feet with perfume. For this reason I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little.” Then He said to her, “Your sins have been forgiven.” Those who were reclining at the table with Him began to say to themselves, “Who is this man who even forgives sins?” And He said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.” (7:36–50)

Much evidence for the truthfulness of the Christian faith can be amassed from such fields as science, history, philosophy, and fulfilled prophecy. Yet the truth of the gospel is also evidenced by the testimony of the transformed lives of the redeemed.

The profound account of the transformation of Saul—zealous, Christian-persecuting Pharisee—to Paul—apostolic missionary—has led, directly or indirectly, to the conversion of millions of people through the centuries. The transformed lives of the believers in Corinth (1 Cor. 6:9–11) provided a powerful witness in that debauched city. In 1 Peter 4:3–4 Peter described the impact of believers’ lives on unbelievers:

The dramatic change in the life of the hated tax collector Levi (Matthew) was immediately evident to those who attended the reception he gave in Jesus’ honor (Luke 5:27–29). Even more astonishing was the turnaround in Zaccheus’s life. As a chief tax collector (Luke 19:2), he oversaw several tax collectors like Matthew, and was thus even more despised. Yet his life was forever changed the day Jesus passed through Jericho (v 1) and brought salvation to him (v 9)—a change noted by the others present (v 7). The marked change in the life of the Samaritan woman of Sychar led many more people from her village to believe in Jesus (John 4:39–42). An equally miraculous and uniquely stunning transformation was wrought in the demon-possessed Gerasene man, who went from being a deadly, naked maniac to a sane missionary (Luke 8:26–39).

The main thrust of this passage appears on the surface to be the transformed life of the sinful woman. But she was merely one element ofthe story which focuses primarily on the Lord evangelizing a Pharisee. Jesus used her as a testimony to him and the others present of the truth and power of the gospel. Ironically, Jesus demonstrated His power to forgive sins and transform lives by using the very type of person the Pharisees despised the most. In reality, the self-righteous, hypocritical religious leaders were the worst possible sinners; people who believe they are not lost and think they do not need redemption cannot be saved.

The Lord Jesus Christ came to seek and save the penitent and believing lost (Luke 19:10)—the self-righteous members of the religious establishment as well as the outcast riff raff of society In keeping with that truth, Luke records two other occasions when Jesus had a meal at a Pharisee’s house (11:37–54; 14:1–24). In both instances, the Pharisees had no genuine interest in Jesus. Having already rejected Him and His message, they were merely attempting to gather evidence they could use to condemn Him. In 14:1 Luke notes that the Pharisees present were “watching [Jesus] closely,” while after the meal recorded in chapter 11, “the scribes and the Pharisees began to be very hostile and to question Him closely on many subjects, plotting against Him to catch Him in something He might say” (vv. 53–54).

This incident is not to be confused with the later anointing of Jesus by Mary the sister of Martha and Lazarus (Matt. 26:6–13; Mark 14:3–9; John 12:1–8). The story recorded in this passage took place in Galilee, not Bethany; the unnamed woman was a sinner (most likely a prostitute, as noted below) not Mary; this anointing happened much earlier in the Lord’s ministry, not during Passion Week, at the house of Simon the Pharisee, not Simon the leper. The only superficial similarity is that the owners of both houses were named Simon. However Simon was an extremely common name in Israel. The New Testament lists several other men by that name, including two of the apostles, Simon Peter and Simon the Zealot, (Luke 6:14–15), one of Jesus’ brothers (Matt. 13:55), a man from Cyrene forced by the Romans to carry Jesus’ cross (Mark 15:21), the father of Judas Iscariot (John 6:71), the false prophet Simon the magician (Acts 8:9–24), and Simon the tanner, at whose house in Joppa Peter stayed (Acts 9:43).

As the story opens, one of the Pharisees was requesting the Lord to dine with him. Where this incident took place is not known, except that it was in Galilee during Jesus’ Galilean ministry, which Luke describes in 4:14–9:50. Like the other Pharisees who invited Jesus to a meal, this Pharisee had no personal interest in Him. He was not an open-minded inquirer, but had like the majority of the Pharisees, already decided that Jesus was a blasphemer, arrogating to Himself the right to forgive sins that belongs to God alone (Luke 5:21). These self-appointed guardians of legalistic, external, ritualistic religion hated Jesus’ messageof grace, repentance, and forgiveness, and His call for sincere love of God from the heart. They also hated Him for pointedly rebuking their hypocritical self-righteousness (Matt. 23), and for associating with the outcasts of society (Luke 7:34). Having already reached a conclusion regarding Jesus, they were busy accumulating evidence against Him. This Pharisee’s invitation to Jesus was part of that evidence-gathering process. No self-respecting Pharisee would invite any association with a blasphemer, except to do him harm.

Jesus, of course, was well aware of this man’s motive for inviting Him. Despite the fact that inviting someone to a banquet was normally a sign of friendship and honor, He understood that the Pharisee was a hypocrite and that his intentions toward Him were evil. Yet Jesus graciously reached out to this lost sinner, exposing him to the power that He has to transform lives. The Lord entered the Pharisee’s house and, as was customary, reclined at the table. Since roads were either dusty or muddy, it was prudent to keep the guests’ feet as far away from the table as possible. Lying down leaning on one’s elbow was both a sanitary and a comfortable position for the prolonged conversation that accompanied such a meal.

It was not uncommon to invite a visiting rabbi to a Sabbath meal or a special banquet, giving those present the opportunity to discuss theological, cultural, and social issues with him. There is some evidence that on such occasions the doors were often left open so that those not invited to the meal could stand around the perimeter of the room and listen in on the dialogue. That is undoubtedly what happened on this occasion.

The story revolves around two main characters: the sinful woman, and the self-righteous man.

THE SINFUL WOMAN

And there was a woman in the city who was a sinner; and when she learned that He was reclining at the table in the Pharisee’s house, she brought an alabaster vial of perfume, and standing behind Him at His feet, weeping, she began to wet His feet with her tears, and kept wiping them with the hair of her head, and kissing His feet and anointing them with the perfume. (7:37–38)

The Greek text of verse 37 literally reads, “and behold” (kai idou), emphasizing that a startling, shocking thing was about to happen. What was shocking was that this woman was well-known in the city as a sinner, a term for the most despised people in society (cf. Prov. 11:31; Matt. 9:10–13; Luke 19:7). In all likelihood, she was a prostitute, a professionaladulteress; immoral, impure, and living a flagrantly sinful life at a public level. There is no reason to identify her, as some do, with Mary Magdalene. Mary is introduced just a few verses away (8:2) as if for the first time; if she were this sinful woman, Luke would have named her here, not later.

Having learned that Jesus was reclining at the table in the Pharisee’s house, and knowing that the doors could be left open, the woman went there with a specific plan in mind. She brought with her an alabaster vial of perfume. Not only was perfume part of the trade of being a prostitute, it was also widely used by women in general. That the vial in which the perfume was stored was made from alabaster, an expensive kind of marble quarried in Egypt, indicates that the perfume was valuable. The woman intended to anoint Jesus’ head with the perfume, instead of the more common and less expensive olive oil normally used for such purposes (cf.v.46; Pss. 23:5; 133:2; 141:5; Eccl.9:8).Waiting for her opportunity, she took up a position standing behind Jesus at His feet. She evidently was not immediately recognized by the other people there; certainly the Pharisee would have been outraged that she defiled the purity of his house and would have ordered her to leave. It may be that the banquet took place in the evening, and the dim light from the candles and lamps masked her identity.

As she stood silently wondering how she was going to get to where she could anoint Jesus’ head, the woman was suddenly overcome with emotion and began weeping. Because of where she was standing, she began to wet His feet with her tears. Brecho (wet) literally means, “to rain” (Matt. 5:45; Luke 17:29; James 5:17; Rev. 11:6). The emotional dam had burst, and her tears flooded down on the feet of Jesus in a gentle rain.

Bent over as she wept, the woman noticed that the host had neglected to provide for Jesus’ feet to be washed (v.44), so she kept wiping them with the hair of her head. In that culture, washing the feet of another person was considered degrading, something done by only the lowliest slaves (cf. John 1:27). But what would have shocked the onlookers even more than the woman’s washing of Jesus’ feet was her letting down her hair. For a Jewish woman to do so in public was considered indecent, even immoral. But overwhelmed with emotion, she was not concerned with the shame she might face.

After finishing washing them, the woman began kissing Jesus’ feet. Kataphileō (kissing) is an intense word. In Luke 15:20 it describes the father’s kissing of the prodigal son on his return home. Luke used it in Acts 20:37 to describe how the elders of the church at Ephesus kissed Paul when he took his leave of them. The woman’s kissing of Jesus’ feet was a striking expression of affection. Then, unwilling or unable to waitany longer, she did what she had come to do and anointed the Lord’s feet with the perfume. This was a staggering display of honor rendered to Jesus in the midst of those who sought only to dishonor Him.

THE SELF-RIGHTEOUS MAN

Now when the Pharisee who had invited Him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet He would know who and what sort of person this woman is who is touching Him, that she is a sinner.” And Jesus answered him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” And he replied, “Say it, Teacher.” “A moneylender had two debtors: one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. When they were unable to repay, he graciously forgave them both. So which of them will love him more?” Simon answered and said, “I suppose the one whom he forgave more.” And He said to him, “You have judged correctly.” Turning toward the woman, He said to Simon, “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave Me no water for My feet, but she has wet My feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave Me no kiss; but she, since the time I came in, has not ceased to kiss My feet. You did not anoint My head with oil, but she anointed My feet with perfume. For this reason I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little.” Then He said to her, “Your sins have been forgiven.” Those who were reclining at the table with Him began to say to themselves, “Who is this man who even forgives sins?” And He said to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace.” (7:39–50)

The woman’s actions could have put Jesus in a very bad light. After all, she was a notorious sinner. Letting down her hair, washing, kissing, embracing, and anointing His feet was a serious breach of propriety That may have led some to wonder why she felt the freedom to be so familiar with Him and reach an obvious, but wrong, conclusion. The Lord’s sinless, unblemished character (John 8:46) precluded any thoughts of impropriety on His part, even on the part of His enemies.

The Pharisee drew an equally false conclusion: he chalked up the Lord’s reaction not to evil, but to ignorance. That, however, was proof to him that Jesus could not be who He claimed to be because, the Pharisee reasoned, “If this man were a prophet He would know who and what sort of person this woman is who is touching Him, that she is a sinner.” How could Jesus tell them things they did not know if He did not even know what they themselves knew about this woman? After all no sensible religious teacher, let alone one claiming to be the Messiah, would ever allow such a woman to touch Him. The Pharisee was both disgusted by the scene he was witnessing, and at the same time satisfied, because it confirmed his belief that Jesus’ ignorance of this woman’s wickedness was proof that He was not a true prophet.

Our Lord’s words to the Pharisee, now introduced as Simon, inject a touch of irony into the story Simon had assumed that Jesus did not know the woman’s true character and hence was not a true prophet. But although Simon had not verbalized his question, He answered him. His knowledge of Simon’s thoughts proved that Jesus was in fact a true prophet (cf. Luke 5:22). Interrupting any conversation that may have been taking place, Jesus said to him, “Simon, I have something to say to you.” Respectfully polite but cold, Simon replied, “Say it, Teacher.” The Lord communicated the point He intended to make by means of a simple parable or analogy: “A moneylender had two debtors: one owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. Their debts differed dramatically (five hundred denarii was about a year and half’s wages for a common laborer; fifty about two month’s wages), but neither could repay their debt. Fortunately for both the moneylender had mercy on them, and when they were unable to repay, he graciously forgave them both. In addition to its use here in a business sense, (graciously forgave) charizomai, is used in a theological sense to describe the forgiveness that God grants believers in Christ (Rom. 8:32; Eph. 4:32; Col. 2:13; 3:13).

What made the moneylender’s act so generous is that by forgiving the debts of the two individuals, he incurred those debts in full. Paul understood that principle when he magnanimously offered to take on the debt Philemon would otherwise have incurred when he forgave his runaway slave Onesimus: “But if he has wronged you in any way or owes you anything, charge that to my account; I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand, I will repay it” (Philem. 18–19). Similarly, when God forgives believers’ sins He incurs their debt, and Jesus Christ died to pay it.

Then the Lord got to the point of His illustration by asking Simon, “So which of them will love him more?” Hesitating to give a straightforward reply Simon answered and said, “I suppose the one whom he forgave more.” He may have been being sarcastic, since the answer to the Lord’s question was obvious, or cautious, suspecting that somehow Jesus intended to embarrass him if he gave the wrong answer. But he got it right, and Jesus said to him, “You have judged correctly.” The principle was simple and obvious: whoever is forgiven the most will love the forgiver the most; great love comes from great forgiveness.

Turning toward the woman, Jesus then applied the principleillustrated in the parable to her and Simon. Addressing Simon, the Lord contrasted her obvious love for Him with his cold indifference. “Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave Me no water for My feet, but she has wet My feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You gave Me no kiss; but she, since the time I came in, has not ceased to kiss My feet. You did not anoint My head with oil, but she anointed My feet with perfume.” Her demonstration of love for Jesus gave clear evidence of her transformed life; she loved much because she had been forgiven much. In contrast, Simon had insulted Jesus by failing to offer the normal courtesy of providing water for His feet (cf. Gen. 18:4; 19:2; 24:32; 43:24; Judg. 19:21; John 13:4–5) or greeting Him with the customary kiss (cf.Gen.29:13;45:15; Ex. 4:27; 18:7; Rom. 16:16). And while he had failed to anoint the Lord’s head with inexpensive olive oil, she had anointed His feet with costly perfume.

Continuing to address Simon, the one He sought to reach, Jesus said, “For this reason I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little.” The perfect tense verb (describing action completed in the past with continuing results in the present) translated have been forgiven indicates that the woman had already been forgiven before she came there that day. This was her opportunity to show her gratitude and love to the one who had graciously forgiven her. Then, addressing the woman, Jesus reaffirmed that she had already been forgiven (again the verb is in the perfect tense), saying to her, “Your sins have been forgiven.” Her outpouring of love for the Savior was the mark of her transformed life.

That transformation was evident to those who were reclining at the table with Christ and they began to say to themselves, “Who is this man who even forgives sins?” That Jesus took it upon Himself to forgive her sins, instead of saying God had forgiven her, was not lost on them. Christ’s parting words to the woman, “Your faith has saved you; go in peace,” made it clear that her love and the good deeds she had done to Him were the result of her salvation, not its cause (Eph. 2:10). Salvation is by faith alone (John 5:24; 6:40; Rom. 3:28; 5:1; Gal. 2:16; 3:24; Eph. 2:8–9; Phil. 3:9; 2 Tim. 3:15), and produces eternal peace (Acts 10:36; Rom. 15:13; Eph. 2:14; Col. 1:20).

It is their love for the Lord Jesus Christ that is the believers’ most powerful witness to the lost world. An ungrateful, loveless Christian undercuts the testimony of the gospel and such attitudes are incompatible with God’s gracious forgiveness.