Gospel according to Saint Luke, commented on verse by verse

CHAPTER 7

Luke 7, 1-10. = Matt. 8, 5-13.

Here we have one of the greatest miracles of Our Lord Jesus Christ. But it acquires a whole new importance in the third Gospel, when we remember that it was performed on behalf of a pagan. Therefore, St. Luke recounted it in more detail than St. Matthew.

Luke 7.¹ After he had finished saying all his words to the people, Jesus entered Capernaum. This verse specifies the time and place of the miracle. The healing took place shortly after the Sermon on the Mount. It was performed in the city of Capernaum, which served as Jesus' usual residence. 

Luke 7.² Now, a centurion had a sick servant who was going to die, and he loved him very much. – The two protagonists of the miracle are presented to us here. They were a pagan centurion (see commentary on St. Matthew), in charge of part of the garrison at Capernaum, and his gravely ill slave. With his characteristic medical precision, St. Luke states that the latter was on the verge of death. He adds further, to explain the particular concern that the dying servant inspired in his master: He loved her very much. It was, however, a pagan proverb that said, "The more slaves you have, the more enemies you have." But the centurion, half-converted to the religion of the true God, rather practiced this advice from the Holy Scriptures: "Let the servant who has sense be dear to you as your own soul; do not deny him freedom, and do not leave him in poverty " (Ecclesiasticus 7:23)

Luke 7.³ Having heard about Jesus, he sent Jewish leaders to him, asking him to come and heal his servant. – Having heard about Jesus : «"« »Not only with the ear of the body, but also with that of the heart,” St. Bonaventure. He had heard of Jesus, of his holiness, of his miracles, and he conceived a high esteem for him: he believed in his supernatural powers, and now he was preparing to resort to them in the pressing need in which he found himself. He sent him prominent Jewish figures.. We have sometimes seen in these prominent Jewish figures who served as ambassadors to the centurion, the officers of the synagogue; but this opinion is unfounded. It simply refers to some of the notables of Capernaum. begging him to come…and yet, a little further on, in verse 6, the centurion will ask Jesus not to come, recognizing himself as unworthy to receive such a holy personage into his home. To reconcile these two seemingly contradictory facts, Maldonat writes, «One can easily reply that the Elders of the Jews added…” that he would come of their own accord. ». We prefer to admit that the centurion, after initially requesting a visit from the Thaumaturge, then humbly withdrew his request, deeming it too presumptuous. There is, regarding this episode, another point of reconciliation, concerning the discrepancies between the accounts of St. Matthew and St. Luke (see commentary on St. Matthew). The conflict is only apparent, and any attentive observer readily recognizes that there is no true antilogy here, but simply a difference in perspective. St. Matthew, who condenses the events, omits the intervening figures and focuses solely on the centurion; St. Luke presents things as they objectively occurred.

Luke 7.⁴ When they came to Jesus, they begged him earnestly, saying, «He deserves that you do this for him, ⁵ "Because he loves our nation and he even built our synagogue."» The delegates faithfully carried out the commission entrusted to them. Forgetting their Jewish prejudices, they ardently pleaded the cause of the pagan officer. "He deserves it!" they exclaimed, while he himself would soon say, "I am not worthy." The evangelist has preserved for us some interesting details cited by the notables in favor of the centurion. He loves our nation Many pagans at that time hated the Jewish nation; nevertheless, several felt drawn to it by its lofty doctrines and pure morality, and the centurion was among the latter. His position afforded him daily opportunities to demonstrate his benevolence to the Jews of Capernaum through his actions. Among these actions, the notables mention one of a truly extraordinary nature: He even built our synagogue. The centurion was therefore not only a friend of the Jews; he was a benefactor to them, and a benefactor in matters of religion. He had built them a synagogue at his own expense, the delegates said, relying on the article. They were undoubtedly referring to the synagogue in their district, or at least the well-known building that resulted from the centurion's generosity; for a city as large as Capernaum necessarily possessed several synagogues. The Emperor Augustus had recently issued a very laudatory edict concerning Jewish synagogues, which he described as schools of knowledge and virtue: the centurion of Capernaum had drawn the practical conclusion from this edict. Perhaps his house of prayer was the one whose remains can be seen today at Tell Hum (see St. Matthew), attesting to its great magnificence.

Luke 7.⁶ So Jesus went with them. He was not far from the house when the centurion sent some of his friends to say to him, «Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof, ⁷ Therefore I did not even consider myself worthy to come to you, but say the word and my servant shall be healed. ⁸ For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, 'Go,' and he goes; and that one, 'Come,' and he comes; and that one, 'Do this,' and he does it.» – St. Matthew preserved the Savior's initial response, so full of divine kindness: “I will come and heal him.” Warned of Jesus' approach, or having himself glimpsed the procession at his doorstep, the centurion hastened to send a second delegation, composed of several friends whom his misfortune had gathered to his side. The rest of the centurion's words are recorded in almost identical terms by both sacred writers. St. Luke, however, has his own version of the first half of verse 7, so full of faith andhumilityThis man fully understood his inferiority in relation to Jesus; but he also fully understood the power of Our Lord. He expresses these two ideas forcefully through a striking analogy, drawn from the daily events in which he was both participant and witness. He knows from experience what a word of command can achieve. At a word from his superiors, he obeys; a single word of his own, as a mere junior officer, is enough to make his subordinates come and go. Therefore, say a word, and the evil will suddenly disappear. «If then I,» he said, “who am a man under the orders of another, have the power to command, what can you not do, you whose servants are all the powerful?” St. Augustine, Enarr. in Ps 96, 9.

Luke 7.⁹ When Jesus heard this, he was amazed at the man and, turning to the crowd following him, said, «Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.» – On this astonishment of Jesus, see the commentary on St. Matthew. The picturesque detail turning towards is proper to St. Luke; likewise the addition of the word crowd. – Even in Israel…Not even in Israel, the people of the covenant: It was a Gentile who provided Jesus with the most fervent example of faith he had ever encountered. St. Thomas Aquinas does not hesitate to affirm, following Origen, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Ambrose, that in speaking these words, Our Lord was not excluding the apostles, nor several other saints of the New Testament, who were nonetheless devoted to his sacred person: «It speaks of the apostles, Martha, and Mary Magdalene. And it must be said that the centurion’s faith was greater than theirs.» – According to St. Matthew 7:11-12, Jesus combines the praise of the centurion with a prophecy concerning the adoption of the Gentiles and the imminent rejection of the Jews. One is initially surprised to see that St. Luke did not include this significant passage in his account; But this omission is explained by encountering further on, in 13:28, the serious prediction of Jesus. Our evangelist did not deem it necessary to repeat it twice.

Luke 7.¹⁰ Upon their return to the centurion's house, the messengers found the servant who had been ill healed. – The first Gospel simply mentions the miracle: “And at that very hour the servant was healed.” St. Luke has it witnessed by the centurion’s delegates. – It is more than likely that the centurion then became a friend and fervent disciple of Jesus, as St. Augustine delicately suggests: “By declaring himself unworthy, he made himself worthy to receive Christ, not into his home, but into his heart; he would not even have spoken with such fervor.”humility and of faith, if he had not carried in his soul Him whom he dreaded having to enter his dwelling.” Sermon 62, 1. And elsewhere, Sermon 77, 12: “I am not worthy to receive you into my dwelling,” and already he had received Him in his heart. The more humble he was, the greater his capacity and the more he was filled. Water falls from the hills and fills the valleys.

The Resurrection of the Widow's Son of Nain. 7:11-17

This account belongs exclusively to St. Luke. He alone, moreover, attributes several miracles of resurrection to Our Lord Jesus Christ. St. Matthew and St. Mark speak only of Jairus' daughter; St. John speaks only of Lazarus.

Luke 7.¹¹ Some time later, Jesus went to a town called Nain, and many disciples and a large crowd went with him. This general formula leads the reader from one striking miracle to another, even more striking. Again, the date and location are given. (See verse 1.) The date is somewhat vague; perhaps it should read "the following day." A city called NaimThe Greek name corresponds identically to the Arabic name still in use today, Nain or Nein. This name means "the beautiful one" in Hebrew, and it was perfectly justified by the city's gracious location. It stretched across the northern slope of Mount Hermon, and from the hill that served as its throne, it gazed down upon the vast and fertile plain of Esdraelon; opposite, the beautiful wooded hills of Galilee, surmounted by the snow-capped peaks of the Lebanon and of the great Hermon. Nain is not mentioned again in the Bible. It is about a day's walk from Capernaum. a large crowd. During this blessed period of his public life, Our Lord, wherever he went, was usually accompanied by crowds of friends, eager to see and hear him. Alongside this multitude that followed Jesus, we will soon see another crowd, equally numerous, forming the funeral procession. God allowed it to be so in this instance, in order to multiply the witnesses of the miracle, according to the wise observation of Bede the Venerable.

Luke 7.¹² As he approached the city gate, he found that a dead man was being carried out, the only son of his mother, and she was a widow, and many people from the city were accompanying her. Ancient cities were almost always fortified. Moreover, towns in the East usually have gates, even if they lack any defensive walls. So, just as the Prince of Life was about to pass through the massive gate into Nain with his escort, suddenly a victim of death passed through it in the opposite direction, with the customary procession leading to the tomb. The Jews always buried their dead outside the cities. Through a few simple but delicately chosen details, the evangelist most movingly depicts the particular desolation that accompanied this otherwise commonplace scene. Death had not only struck a young man in the prime of life; this young man was an only child, and his poor mother was a widow. She was left alone, without hope, without support, without joy. These two incomparable afflictions, widowhood and, even more so, the loss of an only son, had become proverbial among the Jews. cf. Jeremiah 6:26; Zechariah 12:10; Amos 8:10; Ruth, 1, 20 and 21; Job. 24, 3, etc. Out of sympathy for such a heartbreaking loss, a large number of the town's inhabitants had wanted to attend the young man's funeral.

Luke 7.¹³ When the Lord saw her, he was moved with compassion for her and said to her, «Do not weep.» – The title of Lord, which St. Luke frequently applies to Jesus (cf. 7:31; 11:39; 12:42; 17:5-6; 18:6; 22:31, 61, etc.), has a special emphasis here, because the divine Master is truly about to reveal himself as the Lord par excellence. Touched by compassion. The compassionate heart of Jesus is fully revealed to us in this passage. At the sight of this grieving widow leading her son to the tomb, he was deeply moved. The sacred writer shows that the desire to console the mother of the deceased was the motive for the miracle. As she passed by him, Don't cry, he told him kindly. Men also address this word to those who weep. But how little power it has on their lips! For most of the time they are unable to provide the consolation that dries up tears. But the one who speaks it now is God, powerful enough to put an end to weeping in heaven forever (Revelation 21:4).

Luke 7.¹⁴ And approaching, he touched the coffin, the pallbearers having stopped, then he said: "Young man, I command you, get up."« – A highly graphic scene, no less well told than the previous one. The Hebrews' "coffin" does not refer to a closed coffin like ours, but to one of those open biers in which the dead, covered with their shroud and a burial cloth, are carried to the tomb. – When, without uttering a single word, Jesus had touched the end of the bier, the bearers, understanding his thought, or rather struck by the majesty that shone on his face, stopped suddenly. However remarkable this having stopped, We do not believe ourselves authorized to see in it, following several exegetes, the result of a first miracle. The voice that had previously said with emotion, "Do not weep," now cries out in a tone of irresistible authority, amidst universal silence and attention: Young man, I command you, get up. The two other resurrections recounted in the Gospel were brought about by words of power similar to these. Cf. 8:54 and John 11:43. How great it is! Yet how simple! «No one awakens a man in his bed as easily as Christ raises a dead man from the tomb.» (St. Augustine, Sermon 98, 2). «Elijah raises the dead, it is true; but he is obliged to lie down several times on the body of the child he raises: he breathes, he shrinks, he stirs; it is clear that he invokes a foreign power, that he calls back from the dominion of death a soul that is not subject to his voice, and that he is not himself the master of death and life. Jesus Christ raises the dead as he performs the most common actions; He speaks as a master to those who sleep an eternal sleep, and one truly feels that he is the God of the dead as well as the living, never more tranquil than when he accomplishes the greatest things.» Massillon, Disc. on the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Luke 7.¹⁵ Immediately the dead man sat up and began to speak, and Jesus gave him back to his mother. – Two immediate signs of a complete return to life: the dead man sits up and begins to speak. A legendary tale would have delighted in highlighting the first words of the resurrected; the inspired narrative leaves them in oblivion as a completely incidental detail. He returned it to his motherThere is in this final detail "something ineffably sweet," Wiseman, Religious Miscellany, vol. 2. Miracles From the New Testament, p. 127. It was for the sake of the grieving mother that Jesus performed the miracle: he now offers her his resurrected son as a precious gift. "A true gift given to Jesus was one that could only be received by Jesus," Fr. Luc of Bruges.

Luke 7.¹⁶ They were all filled with awe and they glorified God, saying, «A great prophet has appeared among us, and God has visited his people.» This verse and the following one describe the effect produced by the miracle, first in Nain, then throughout Palestine. Everywhere the sensation was immense. The eyewitnesses were at first seized by a religious awe quite natural in such a case; but they soon rose to a nobler sentiment, that of great gratitude to God, stirred by the magnificent hopes that such a striking miracle had awakened in their hearts. A great prophet has arisen among us., they said to themselves. Indeed, in the sacred antiquity of the Jews, only the prophets, and even only the greatest among them (cf. 1 Kings 17:17-24; 2 Kings 4:11-27), had received from God the power to raise the dead. – The crowd added: God visited his people.

Luke 7.¹⁷ And this word spoken about him spread throughout all Judea and all the surrounding country. – From Nain and its surroundings, the news of the miracle, crossing Samaria, soon reached the whole province of Judea; it then spread to all the surrounding countries, such as Idumea, the Decapolis, Phoenicia, especially Perea where St. John was imprisoned. cf. v. 18. – To accept the rationalist explanation according to which the dead brought back to life by Jesus and his apostles were simply plunged into a lethargic sleep, it must be found credible that, during the short period of Gospel and apostolic history, this identical circumstance, this same remarkable chance of a lethargy which, remaining unnoticed by all the people who had cared for the dead, yields to the first word of the divine messenger and gives rise to the thought of a true resurrection, was seen to be renewed five times consecutively, that is to say, three times in the Gospels and twice in the Acts.

Luke 7, 18-35. = Matt. 11, 1-19

St. Luke and St. Matthew agree on this episode, but they do not place it in the same period. The order adopted by our evangelist is generally preferred. St. Luke also has the merit of being the most complete.

Luke 7.¹⁸ John's disciples having reported all these things to him, This detail is unique to the third Gospel. When his disciples brought him the news of Jesus' miracles and growing reputation, John the Baptist was a prisoner of the tetrarch Antipas in the dungeons of Machaerus (cf. 3:19-20). As Mr. Planus observes, following Bede the Venerable, Theophylact, Brother Luke, and others, we see through this line from St. Luke the prejudices and antipathy that John the Baptist's disciples harbored toward Our Lord. "The brevity and laconic nature of this verse leave no doubt as to the state of mind and heart of these friends, who were overly jealous of their master's glory. Clearly, in their eagerness... there is an ulterior motive against Jesus." (St. John the Baptist, Study on the Forerunner, p. 249).

Luke 7.¹⁹ He called two of them and sent them to Jesus to say, «Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?» – Two ordinary disciples: St. Luke had no details to provide about the messengers. Cf. Acts 23:23. On the false interpretations given, especially in modern times, of the embassy and the question of the Forerunner, cf. commentary on St. Matthew. The truth is that St. John's actual conduct was motivated neither by a fit of impatience aroused in the soul of the prisoner of Machaerus by Jesus' slowness in establishing his kingdom, nor by any real doubt about the messianic character of the Savior. For anyone who thoroughly studies the St. John of the Gospels, these two things are psychologically impossible; they are even more impossible from the point of view of the divine role of John the Baptist. Thus, through his message, "John did not consult for his own benefit but for that of his disciples," St. Hilary, Canon 9 in Matthew. He sees that, given their current state, his disciples will only be fully convinced by Jesus himself: that is why he directs them to Jesus. The one who is to come The name of the Messiah among the Jews. According to a very ancient and rather strange opinion, which one is surprised to see adopted by St. Jerome and St. Gregory the Great, the Forerunner, speaking in this way to his Master, supposedly intended to ask him whether his imminent arrival should be announced to the patriarchs held in limbo, since John foresaw that Herod would soon put him to death. «Ask me if I should announce you in hell, I who announced you on earth. Is it truly fitting that the Son should taste death, and will you not send another to these mysteries (sacraments)?» St. Jerome, in chapter 11 Matthew. cf. St. Gregory, Hom. 6 in Gospel, and Hom. 1 in Ezekiel. «This opinion must be absolutely rejected.» Nowhere in Holy Scripture do we find that Saint John the Baptist had to announce in advance in hell the coming of the Savior,” St. Cyril, Chain of the Greek Fathers.

Luke 7.²⁰ So they came to him and said, «John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, »Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?’” – St. Luke shows us, and this detail is also special to his narrative, the disciples of St. John faithfully carrying out their mission.

Luke 7.²¹ At that very moment, Jesus healed a great number of people afflicted by illness, infirmity, or evil spirits, and gave sight to several blind people. – To the question of his Precursor, Jesus responded in two ways: in deeds, v. 21, and in words, vv. 22 and 23. The deeds, which take precedence, are only explicitly mentioned in our Gospel; but St. Matthew implicitly presupposes them (9:4). At that very moment. At the very moment the delegates arrived, Jesus was in the midst of exercising his miraculous power: a truly providential coincidence. Before their very eyes, he continued to perform numerous miracles of healing, which the evangelist grouped under four headings: the cure of languishing illnesses, the cure of acute suffering, the casting out of demons, and the restoration of sight to the blind. Modern exegetes rightly point out, contrary to the rationalists, that St. Luke, the physician-evangelist, establishes, just as clearly as the other biographers of the Savior, a distinction between possessions and ordinary illnesses.

Luke 7.²² Then he answered the messengers, “Go and report to John what you have seen and heard: the blind receive their sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor are evangelized. ²³ Blessed is the one who is not offended by me.» This is the answer itself: brief, but decisive. It is identical in both Gospels (see Matthew 11:5-6 and the commentary). As one exegete points out, its demonstrative force stems not only from the miracles performed by Our Lord, but even more so from the close relationship that existed between them and the portrait of the Messiah drawn by the prophets (cf. Isaiah 35:4-5; 51:1ff.). Jesus seemed to be saying to the messengers of St. John: See for yourselves. The prophecy, before your very eyes, has been transformed into history, into reality. The one you seek is therefore before you. My works have prompted your question: to answer you, I need only refer you to my works, for their language is clear.

Luke 7.²⁴ When John's messengers had left, Jesus began to speak to the people about John: "What did you go out into the desert to see? A reed shaken by the wind? Jesus reminds his listeners of the enthusiasm that had once driven all classes of the Jewish nation to the Judean Desert. What would they find in those wild places? Was it a swaying reed, that is, a man lacking firmness of character, who one day affirmed Jesus' divine mission and the next questioned it, as his embassy seemed to demonstrate? A reed, that bronze pillar that resisted the priests, the Pharisees, and the tetrarch. A reed, that noble cedar that the storm of persecution had not uprooted (St. Cyril). Thus, Our Lord leaves this first question unanswered.

Luke 7.²⁵ What did you go out into the desert to see? A man dressed in soft clothes? But those who wear fine clothes and live in luxury are in royal palaces. – Emphatic repetition, to a beautiful effect; likewise in verse 26. The description of the unbridled luxury of the Eastern courts is more complete, more brilliant in St. Luke than in St. Matthew. According to the latter, Jesus merely says "a man clothed in fine garments"; our evangelist explicitly mentions both the fine garments and the corrupting delights of the royal court.

Luke 7.²⁶ So what did you go to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. If John the Baptist is neither a flexible reed nor a voluptuous courtier, could he truly be a prophet, as public opinion then proclaimed? (cf. Matthew 21:26). To this third question, Our Lord first answers in the affirmative; then he goes even further, saying without hesitation that the son of Zechariah was more than a prophet. «Greater than the prophets because the end of the prophets», St. Ambrose.

Luke 7.²⁷ It is of him that it is written: I am sending my messenger before your face, to go before you and prepare the way for you. – More than a prophet, says the Savior Jesus even better, because he is my Forerunner foretold by the Holy Books, the angel, that is to say the glorious envoy announced by Malachi, 3, 1.

Luke 7.²⁸ For I tell you, among those born of women there is no prophet greater than John the Baptist, but the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he. – Jesus solemnly reiterates his assertion concerning St. John: he is a prophet, more than a prophet. Ancient times had seen many great prophets—Samuel, Elijah, Elisha, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and so many others—but none of these inspired men was equal to John the Baptist, the Forerunner of the Messiah. – In the first Gospel, this thought is expressed in more general terms, for St. John is placed not only above the prophets, but above all the «sons of the woman» without exception. But the smallest one...Jesus means that even the lower members of his Church, in other words, the least among them Christians They surpass St. John the Baptist, whatever the Precursor's greatness may be. This is a truth easily demonstrated. Undoubtedly, John the Baptist is the first of men; but Christians belong, as Christians, to a transfigured, divinized species. Undoubtedly, John the Baptist was the king's close friend; but he was not granted entry to the kingdom, while the humblest of Christians received this favor. Undoubtedly, John the Baptist was the paranymph (the person who escorted the bride to the bridal chamber on her wedding day), but the Church, whose Christians are part of it, she is the very bride of Christ. Christianity has placed us on a much higher plane than Judaism: the members of the New Testament surpass the members of the Old as much as the New Covenant itself surpasses the Old. We can therefore apply here the famous axiom: "The least of the greatest is greater than the greatest of the least." Saint John the Baptist is thus not considered personally from the point of view of the excellence of his life and morals, but rather his status as the representative of the Old Law, of which he was the last representative. It follows that if, in the first part of this verse, John the Baptist is called the greatest of men, this cannot be in an absolute sense; it is only with regard to the Old Testament, since Jesus subsequently places him below the subjects of the Messianic kingdom. Having exalted St. John above all men who had lived until then, Jesus now makes a qualification, in the form of a striking antithesis. My forerunner, he had said, is, by virtue of his very title, the foremost figure of the Old Testament; and yet he is inferior in dignity to the least member of my Church (the kingdom of God). Our Lord, in this conclusion so consoling for ChristiansHe completely disregards personal sanctity: his reasoning focuses on the privileges and dignity of two distinct spheres. There is the sphere of the Old Covenant, to which St. John belonged; there is the sphere of the New Covenant, or the Kingdom of God. Now, since this second sphere is placed far above the first, the least elevated of the objects it contains obviously still dominates the highest of those contained in the other. “Although we may be surpassed in merit by some of the men who lived under the Law and whom John represents, now, after the Passion, the Resurrection"Through the Ascension and Pentecost, we possess greater blessings in Jesus Christ, having become, through him, partakers of the divine nature." St. Cyril of Jerusalem. 

Luke 7.²⁹ All the people who heard him, including the tax collectors, justified God by being baptized with the baptism of John., 1. The conduct of the common people toward John the Baptist. This was a conduct dictated by faith: upon hearing the voice of the Forerunner, the crowd, and even the tax collectors whom we saw indeed flocking to his preaching (3:12), believed they heard the voice of God himself, and they acted accordingly, zealously embracing the external means offered to them to more easily attain true conversion. And, by this, they gave glory to the Lord, benefited from the offers of his mercy, approved his conduct, and entered into the designs of his mercy. The multitude thus declared, in a completely practical way, by their actions toward St. John, that God had done well to send such a holy man into the world.

Luke 7.³⁰ while the Pharisees and the teachers of the law rejected God's plan for them by not being baptized by him.» – 2. The Conduct of the Pharisees and the Doctors of the Law. Everything in this verse contrasts with what we read in the previous one. The Pharisees and the Doctors of the Law, that is, the supposed saints and scholars of Jewish society, are opposed to the people and the tax collectors, who represent the ignorant and the fishermenWhile the former had received the baptism of St. John, and thereby proclaimed the excellence and facilitated the fulfillment of the divine plan, the latter, by rejecting the Forerunner and his baptism, had completely thwarted, at least as far as they themselves were concerned, the merciful designs of heaven. God's plan What Our Lord speaks of here was God's desire that everyone prepare themselves with all their might, especially through the baptism of St. John, for the coming of the Messiah. To nullify God's plan on them, in relation to them. Indeed, divine decrees remain, and no one can truly render them absolutely null and void. It is only in relation to oneself that one can annihilate them.

Luke 7.³¹ «To whom then,” the Lord continued, “shall I compare the men of this generation? To whom are they like?” – To whom shall I compare… This emphatic repetition is peculiar to St. Luke. It has been keenly observed that it lends a poignant quality to the Savior's question. Jesus seems to be searching for a comparison for such senseless and tragic behavior as that which he is witnessing. He finds an image that delicately expresses his thought, and he presents it as a perfect answer to the twofold question he had just posed.

Luke 7.³² They are like children sitting in the marketplace, calling out to one another and saying: We played the flute for you and you did not dance, we sang dirges for you and you did not cry. – cf. commentary on St. Matthew. The two versions differ scarcely from one another. – It is therefore a question of two groups of children gathered in the public square during recess. With the spirit of imitation that characterizes this age, they try to mime in their games first a wedding scene, then a funeral. At least that is what the first group would like, having taken to singing alternately cheerful and mournful tunes: but the second group, thus offered the choice between sad or joyful games, stubbornly refused to participate, which draws the reproaches of the other children. With what dignity Our Lord presents, and with what grace he elevates, these details borrowed from what is most familiar in human life. 

Luke 7.³³ For John the Baptist came neither eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, 'He has a demon.'. ³⁴ The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, 'Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners.'. – «Saint Luke, through special additions, shed new light on certain general points that Matthew had, as it were, left in the shadows,» St. Ambrose. The words bread And wine These additions are foremost among these fortunate ones: they correct what seemed to be an exaggeration and inaccuracy in the wording of St. Matthew, «he neither ate nor drank.» Jesus now applies his comparison, proving by undeniable facts that the contemporary Jewish generation resembled the first group of children mentioned above (see in St. Matthew how this application is justified). In vain did Divine Wisdom resort to every means to convert these hardened Jews, trying to win them over sometimes by the stern preaching and mortified life of the Forerunner, sometimes by the gentle appeals and more accessible examples of Jesus. These souls, resistant to grace, were never satisfied. John the Baptist seemed too austere to them, and Jesus too like other men. They complained about the first because he refused to join his voice to their joyful melodies, and about the second because he refused to adopt their mournful and lugubrious tone. After all, they will have only themselves to blame when divine punishment comes, since they have successively rejected, on the flimsiest of pretexts, the various ambassadors of God.

Luke 7.³⁵ But Wisdom has been vindicated by all her children.» «The wisdom of Saint John the Baptist and my own have been vindicated by all wise men. All fair, enlightened, and pious people will agree that we acted rightly. Events demonstrate that we were both correct in our conduct toward the people. The Forerunner found disciples who received his baptism and imitated his penitent life; and I have led many sinners out of disorder through my conduct full of kindness and mercy. We prove our wisdom by the success that God has been pleased to grant us (Jesus speaks here as a man: his divinity approved his conduct as a man and crowned it with success). The children of Wisdom, the calm and pious men, listened to us and followed our advice. Others abandoned them and mocked them, but their unbelief and even their downfall serve as our defense.» Dom Calmet quotes in a footnote: (Jerome (St. Jerome) Natal Alexis Hammam Grotius Vat Le Clerc). "Only the children of folly and error have refused to follow us and are capable of condemning us" (cf. Dom Augustin Calmet, Literal Commentary on all the Books of the Old and New Testaments, The Gospel of St. Matthew, printed in Paris, Quai des Augustins, in 1725, on 11:19 and Luke 7:35). On the links between Jesus and Wisdom, cf. Luke 2:40 and 52; 11:31 and 49; 21:15. (Regarding the links between Jesus and Wisdom, several Fathers, St. Cyprian, St. Ambrose, St. Augustine, St. Athanasius, St. Hilary of Poitiers, teach that Baruch, 3:38, in speaking of the Wisdom of God, announces the Incarnation (cf. the Allioli Bible and the Calmet Bible).

Simon the Pharisee and the sinful woman. 7:36-50.

We believe that St. Luke alone recounts this scene from the Savior's life. However, some exegetes (Hug, Ewald, Bleek, etc.), relying on external analogies, have tried to conflate it with the anointing at Bethany (cf. Matthew 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9; John 12:1-11). In both cases, they say, the host is named Simon; moreover, during both meals, a woman reverently anoints Jesus' feet and dries them with her hair; finally, each time, someone present is scandalized by this extraordinary homage. Three objections to which it is easy to reply. 1. It is true that both hosts bear the name Simon; but this name was very common in Palestine at that time, so it would be unreasonable to attach importance to its reappearance. In the writings of the New Testament, it designates nine distinct figures, and up to twenty in those of the historian Josephus. Moreover, epithets carefully noted by the narrators prove that it is indeed a question of two distinct individuals: here we have Simon the Pharisee, there, on the contrary, Simon the Leper (Matthew 26:6). 2. Why should an event that is in perfect conformity with ancient and modern Eastern customs not have been repeated twice with regard to Our Lord Jesus Christ in different circumstances? The homage that a profound feeling of faith and charity had inspired in a pious woman could very well have been repeated under the impulse of an identical sentiment. Now, the circumstances are truly different. Here we are in Galilee, in the first period of Jesus' public ministry; there it is the last week of his life, and the scene takes place in Judea, near Jerusalem. Here, the heroine of the episode appears heartbroken by repentance; there, she comes driven by gratitude. Thirdly, if the conduct of Jesus' holy friends is criticized on two occasions, it is not in the same way: the complaint of the miserly Judas is far from resembling that of the Pharisee Simon. And then, what numerous divergences exist in the content and form of the narratives, in the lesson drawn from them, etc. It is therefore surprising to see talented men (for example, Hengstenberg) expend prodigious amounts of intellect and argument in favor of a thesis as untenable as that of the identity of the two anointings.

Luke 7.³⁶ A Pharisee having asked Jesus to eat with him, he went into his house and sat down at the table. Neither the time nor the place is specified, and it is impossible to determine them with certainty. However, regarding the first point, we can say that the meal at Simon's house must have followed quite closely the great miracle at Nain and the message of St. John the Baptist. This, at least, is what emerges from the narrative as a whole. As for the second, exegetes have variously named Bethany, Jerusalem, Magdala, Nain, and Capernaum. This invitation seems surprising at first, because the Pharisees, as St. Luke has sufficiently demonstrated, were already in open conflict with Our Lord. However, Jesus had not yet completely broken with them, and it is unclear why there would not have been, even within their ranks, some individuals well-disposed toward him. Moreover, subsequent events will prove that Simon's reception was marked by reserve and coldness. It seems this man was hesitant about Jesus, and that he invited him precisely to have the opportunity to observe him closely. – The divine Master agreed to dine at Simon the Pharisee's house just as he had agreed to dine at Levi's. He did not seek out these kinds of feasts, but neither did he avoid them, for he accomplished the work of his heavenly Father there just as well as elsewhere. – For the rest of the narrative, the reader should remember that the feast was held in the Eastern style. The posture of the guests "was somewhere between lying down completely and sitting: the legs and lower body were stretched out at full length on a couch, while the upper body was slightly raised and supported on the left elbow, which rested on a pillow or cushion; the right arm and hand were thus left free so that they could stretch out and eat." The table, towards which the heads of the guests were turned, was in the center of the semicircle formed by the couches: each one therefore had their feet outside («behind», v. 38), on the side of the space reserved for the servants.

Luke 7.³⁷ And behold, a woman who was leading a dissolute life in the city, having learned that he was reclining at table in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster jar full of perfume, – And here… this «here is» perfectly highlights the unexpected, unforeseen nature of the appearance. She led a disorderly life. She was a sinner. This signifies a life of lust. It is in vain that various authors have tried to reduce guilt to a merely worldly life: they have against them "the constant opinion of all the ancient authors" (Maldonatus), and the analogous use of the word "sinner" in all classical languages. St. Augustine, Sermon 99: "She approached the Lord, so that she might return purified of her defilements, healed of her illness." Simon would not have been so troubled by the charitable welcome she received from Jesus if she had made people forget her former condition through long penance; her life of sin was her present life and not a past life from which she had turned away. What, moreover, would be the meaning of the absolution that Jesus gives her? It was therefore only very recently that she had decided to change her life, and she was coming, at this very moment, to ask the Savior for forgiveness. Perhaps she had been deeply impressed by one of Jesus' last words, particularly the "Come to me, all you…" (Matthew 11:28 ff.). The rigid customs of the West make us find, at first glance, such a free-spirited approach strange. But it fits quite well with the more familiar customs of the East. One cannot deny, however, that there was a holy audacity and noble courage in the sinner's act. "You have also seen a woman famous, or rather infamous for her debauchery throughout the city, boldly entering the dining room where her doctor was and seeking health with holy shamelessness. If her entrance bothered the guests, she nevertheless came quite opportunely to claim a favor." (St. Augustine, 11). "Because she looked at the stains of her depravity, she ran to wash them at the fountain of…" mercy, without feeling shame before her friends, for, blushing to see herself in this state, she did not think she had to be ashamed of the judgment of others.” St. Gregory the Great, Hom. 33 in Evang. – An alabaster vase. Cf. Matthew 26:7, the commentary.

Luke 7.³⁸ And standing behind him at his feet, weeping, she began to sprinkle them with her tears and to wipe them with the hair of her head, and she kissed them and anointed them with perfume. The description is picturesque. No sooner had the sinner entered the banquet hall than she recognized the Savior's place. There she was, standing at the lower end of the couch, near the sacred feet of Jesus, which the narrator mentions three times in succession, as if to better emphasize thehumility of her heroine. No doubt, her intention had been to proceed immediately with the anointing; but suddenly, overcome by the feeling of her profound repentance, she burst into tears. “She shed tears, the blood of her heart,” St. Augustine. However, what a fortunate turn of events she would make of this very circumstance. Kneeling, she began by watering his feet with her tears (Jesus’ feet were bare, in the Eastern manner); she dried them with the hair of her head; she kissed his feet; finally, she was able to perform the pious anointing that she had so greatly intended. She did not utter a single word; but what eloquence in her entire conduct! Her various actions were entirely natural: any other contrite and loving heart could easily have invented them. Moreover, one can find similar details in each of them, borrowed from the customs of antiquity, which make them seem even more natural. “After removing their sandals, they perfume their feet,” wrote Quintus Curtius Rufus (8, 9) of the Indian monarchs. Livy, 3, 7, shows us, in a time of great distress, women "Sweeping the temples with her hair" in the hope of appeasing the angry gods. All the marks of respect shown to Jesus by the sinner were sometimes also directed towards famous Rabbis.

Luke 7.³⁹ At this sight, the Pharisee who had invited him said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would know who and what kind of woman this is who is touching him, and that she is a sinner."« – A striking psychological contrast. We mentioned earlier that this Pharisee seems not to have had a firm opinion about Jesus at that time. His nascent faith, assuming it existed, was subjected to a severe test at that moment. He had witnessed the preceding scene with utter astonishment. His reflection proves that he had understood absolutely nothing of a spectacle which the angels from heaven had been raptured. He discusses the case like a true disciple of those Pharisees for whom the question of purity and impurity, all external things, took precedence over all others. – The woman who the touch This technical expression was bound to appear here. After all, when asked, «How far should one keep from a prostitute?» hadn’t the pious and learned Rabbi Chasada clearly replied, «Four cubits»? And yet, Jesus wasn’t afraid to let himself be touched by such a woman. «Ah! If a woman like her had approached the feet of this Pharisee, he would undoubtedly have said what Isaiah attributes to these proud men: «Keep away from me, beware of touching me, for I am pure.»” (St. Augustine, Sermon 99). Simon therefore concluded that Jesus did not deserve the glorious title that public opinion was then so pleased to bestow upon him (cf. 7:16). The reasoning that crossed his mind consisted of the following dilemma: Either Jesus is unaware of this woman's true nature, and therefore he does not possess the gift of discerning spirits, which is usually the mark of God's messengers; or he knows who is touching him, and therefore he is not holy, otherwise he would shudder at her profane touch. This reasoning was based on belief, supported by various biblical facts (cf. Isaiah 11, 3, 4; 1 Kings 14, 6; 2 Kings 1, 3; 5, 6; etc.) and almost general among the Jews contemporary with Jesus (cf. John 1, 47-49; 2, 25; 4, 29, etc.) that every true prophet could read in the depths of hearts.

Luke 7.⁴⁰ Then Jesus spoke up and said to him, «Simon, I have something to tell you.» «Teacher, speak,» he said. – Jesus discerned the innermost thoughts of his guest («the Lord heard the Pharisee’s thoughts,» St. Augustine, Sermon 99), and it is to these that he responds. He will thus demonstrate to the skeptical Pharisee that he is capable, like the greatest prophets, of scrutinizing the secrets of souls. Simon… What sweetness in this reprimand! Moreover, kindness will erupt until the end of the story. Jesus nevertheless had to speak in a grave and penetrating tone. Master, speak…Simon could not have given Jesus a more polite reply. The title of Rabbi, which he uses without hesitation, is full of respect.

Luke 7.⁴¹ A creditor had two debtors, one owed five hundred denarii and the other fifty. ⁴² Since they had no way to pay their debt, he forgave them both. Which of them will love him more?» – What Jesus had to say to his guest was first a parable, verses 41 and 42, under the guise of which he would delicately present a profound truth; then, in verses 44-47, the application of this same truth in clear and direct language. – The parable of the two debtors is not without analogy to the one cited by St. Matthew, 18:23-35; but, besides the fact that the latter is much more developed, the moral of the two parables is not at all the same, and most of the details differ entirely. Two debtors. The debts varied in a ratio of ten to one. Both were relatively small, since the silver coin the Romans called a denarius was worth a day's wages. Both debtors are equally insolvent. They didn't have enough to pay their debt. A perfectly sound idea, because the fishermenThose who, by their very nature, embody God's will never be able to repay him on their own, no matter what they do. But the creditor is infinitely merciful: he forgives each person their debts. – Conclusion: on whose side will the greatest gratitude come?

Luke 7.⁴³ Simon replied, "I suppose the one to whom he forgave the larger sum." Jesus said to him, "You have judged correctly."« – Thus challenged, Simon decides on the case that Our Lord proposed to him. Did he suspect that, in the interrogator's mind, he was one of the debtors of the parable, and that an argument would be drawn against him from his answer?

Luke 7.⁴⁴ And turning to the woman, he said to Simon, «Do you see this woman? I entered your house, and you did not pour water on my feet, but she has wet them with her tears and wiped them with her hair. – Jesus then goes on to apply the parable. Turning towards the woman is picturesque. The sinful woman was still behind Jesus (v. 38), and the Savior had not yet looked at her: he now turns toward her; then he begins with an expressive statement (you see this woman), and continues with a striking contrast, established between Simon's conduct toward her and that of the humble woman. – First element: You have not given me water for my feet… The host had dispensed with this first duty of Jesus.hospitality Eastern, to which a certain importance was attached in this dusty region where sandals are generally the only footwear (cf. Genesis 18:4; 19:1; Judges 19:21; 1 Samuel 25:41; 2 Thessalonians 5:10). She watered my feet with her tears… The sinful woman washed Jesus’ feet with her tears, and she dried them with her hair.

Luke 7.⁴⁵ You didn't give me a kiss, but she, ever since I came in, has kept kissing my feet. – Second element: You didn't give me a kiss. This has always been, even between men, the customary greeting in the East. This kiss became, depending on the circumstances, a sign of affection or respect. Simon had also stopped giving it to Jesus. But, on the other hand, She… never stopped kissing my feet.

Luke 7.⁴⁶ You did not anoint my head with oil, but she anointed my feet with perfume. – Third element: You didn't anoint my head…Another ancient and modern practice of the East. Cf. Psalm 22:5; 44:7; 65:5, etc. The few drops of olive oil that had been refused on Jesus' head were more than compensated for by the precious perfume that a friendly and generous hand had just poured on his feet. How successful this entire juxtaposition is! It was impossible to better demonstrate, in Simon's calculated reserve, the complete lack of affection, and, in the stranger's delicate attentions, the signs of a burning charity.

Luke 7.⁴⁷ Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven her, because she loved much; but he who is forgiven little loves little.» This verse is famous in the history of exegesis because of the heated controversy it sparked between Catholics and Protestants. For the latter, who maintain that faith alone justifies, it contains an extremely troubling statement., Many sins are forgiven her because she loved much. They have therefore done everything to remove its natural meaning; but in vain, for it is perfectly clear. Jesus could not have said in more evident terms that the sinner had merited his forgiveness through the perfection of her love. Cf. Bellarmine, De Poenit. Lib. 1, c. 19. Moreover, the same doctrine is expressed elsewhere just as clearly. Cf. 1 Peter 4:8. Today, the discussion has notably calmed down, and several Protestant commentators interpret this passage exactly as we do. See in Maldonat, in hl, how the two sides formerly appropriated it. It is true that the conclusion, "Her many sins are forgiven because she loved much," initially causes some surprise, because it is not quite what one expects. According to verse 42, the manifestation of a more fervent charity would seem to be the consequence and not the motive for a more complete forgiveness. To circumvent this difficulty, the following meaning has sometimes been proposed: She received the remission of a considerable debt, which is why she showed great love. But this interpretation, which is hardly compatible with the laws of grammar, has generally been abandoned. In essence, the difficulty is more apparent than real, and, as Mr. Schegg aptly puts it, it was the exegetes themselves who created it, gratuitously assuming that Our Lord intended to follow here step by step the parable he had previously presented, to rigorously and anxiously link the application to the example, whereas he proceeds, as always, with the breadth and freedom of the East. Moreover, a little reflection is enough to convince oneself that the connection of thought is perfect. Jesus has just described the touching acts that fervent charity combined with profound repentance had inspired in the humble woman kneeling at his feet: was it not natural and logical that, when announcing the remission of sins, he should indicate its most meritorious cause? He did so to console and instruct us. Thus, love precedes forgiveness as a motive that powerfully affects the heart of God; on the other hand, love follows forgiveness as a perfectly legitimate consequence, being stirred in our hearts by the contemplation of divine mercies. It is thus understandable that the ardor of charitySurrounding sin on all sides, they eventually consume its malice; but it is not clear how the mere rays of faith could produce this happy result. The one to which the least… A serious “Nota bene” that falls squarely on Simon, although Jesus, in his goodness, gave it a general form. “The Savior, in stating this maxim, had in mind that Pharisee who imagined he had few or even no sins… If you love so little, O Pharisee, it is because you imagine that you are forgiven little; it is not that you are actually forgiven little, it is that you imagine it.” St. Augustine, Sermon 99. By moving from the concrete fact to the axiom, Our Lord also reverses his thought, to give it more force in this new aspect. But the truth expressed is indeed the same, for the phrase: He who is forgiven little loves little, does not differ essentially from this other phrase: He who loves little is forgiven little. We frequently find in the wisdom books of the Bible (Job, Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes,  Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus) similar interversions, intended to better highlight an idea.

Luke 7.⁴⁸ Then he said to the woman, "Your sins are forgiven."« – For the first time since the beginning of this scene, Jesus speaks directly to the sinful woman. He does so to give her the solemn assurance of his complete forgiveness. Your sins are forgiven. Earlier, Jesus had added the epithet "numerous" to "sins"; he delicately removes it in his direct formula of absolution.

Luke 7.⁴⁹ And those who were at the table with him began to say to themselves, "Who is this who even forgives sins?"« – In themselves : each in their own heart. There was no exchange of thoughts between the guests, at least not immediately. Who is this, who forgives sins?…«These words can be interpreted in two ways, one good and the other bad. The good way is to say that those present… are admiring here the fullness of the power of Jesus Christ, who can also forgive sins. This man must not be a mere prophet, because not only does he raise the dead, but he also forgives sins (Grotius and others). The bad way is to say, in a spirit of criticism: This man is a blasphemer. Who can forgive sins if not God?» Calmet, hl. Everything suggests that this second meaning is the true one. Cf. 5:21; Mark 2:7.

Luke 7.⁵⁰ But Jesus said to the woman, «Your faith has saved you; go in peace.» Without being troubled by these unjust protests, which he read in the depths of their consciences and which were probably also reflected in the faces of the guests, Jesus addressed the convert a second time, gently dismissing her. In telling her that it was her faith that had saved her, he did not contradict his assertion in verse 47; for it is not faith alone, but active faith in charitywho had accomplished the work of regeneration. The union of faith and love had been necessary for this. “It was faith that led the woman to Christ, and without faith no one would love Christ so much as to wash his feet with their tears, to wipe them with their hair, to anoint them with perfume. Faith began salvation; charity "The 'consummated'," Maldonat. – Such is this beautiful story, which has rightly been called a "Gospel within the Gospel." We now see that it had its rightful place in the pages of St. Luke, where the universality of salvation is so clearly proclaimed. See the Preface, § 5. Many painters have tried to depict it since our evangelist (in particular Jouvenet, Paolo Veronese, Tintoretto, Nicolas Poussin, Rubens, and Le Brun). St. Gregory, in the beautiful homily he dedicates to it, and where he begins by saying in such a moving way that at the memory of such a scene it would be easier for him to weep than to preach, makes an excellent moral application of it. The Pharisee represents those who presume upon their false righteousness. And the sinful woman who throws herself at the Lord's feet, weeping, represents the converted pagans. “She came with her alabaster jar, she poured out the perfume, she stood behind the Lord at his feet, she watered them with her tears and wiped them with her hair, and those same feet that she watered and wiped, she never ceased to kiss. Therefore, this woman truly represents us, insofar as we return with all our hearts to the Lord after having sinned and imitate the tears of his repentance.” – But who was this woman? We must quickly find out. Since that time, and thanks to the authority of St. Gregory the Great, who was the first to support this opinion in clear and formal terms, it has always been generally assumed in the Latin Church that the sinner of St. Luke, Mary Magdalene, and Married The sisters of Lazarus are one and the same person. The Office of Saint Mary Magdalene, as it has existed for centuries in the Roman liturgy (see the Roman Breviary and Missal, under July 22), clearly expresses this identity, and although the Church does not wish to be the infallible guarantor of all the historical details contained in its official prayers, it cannot be denied that this fact constitutes an argument worthy of our utmost respect. It is true that the tradition of the early centuries is often doubtful, confused, and sometimes even contrary to current belief. Origen, and later Theophylact and Euthymius, admit three distinct holy women, and this is still the view of the Greek Church, which celebrates separately the feast of the penitent sinner, Mary Magdalene, and... Married Sister of Lazarus. While St. John Chrysostom identifies the first and second, he clearly distinguishes the latter from the third. St. Ambrose hesitates: "She may not be the same," he says. St. Jerome is sometimes in favor of, sometimes opposed to, the identification. On the other hand, it is certain that the Gospel text seems at first glance more in line with the distinction. "St. Luke 7:37 (we are quoting Bossuet's reflections, On the Three Magdalenes, Works, Versailles edition, vol. 43, p. 3 ff.) speaks of the sinful woman who came to Simon the Pharisee to wash Jesus' feet with her tears, to wipe them with her hair, and to anoint them with perfume. He does not name her. In 8:3, two verses after the end of the preceding story, he names her, between women who followed Jesus, Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. 10:39, he says that Martha, who received Jesus into her home, had a sister named MarriedThese three passages seem to more readily identify three different people than the same one. For it is very difficult to believe that if the sinner were Mary Magdalene, he would not have named her first, rather than two verses later, where he not only names her but identifies her by what made her most recognizable: having been delivered from seven demons. And he seems to be telling us about MarriedMartha's sister, as a new person he has not yet spoken of. St. John speaks of Married, sister of Martha and Lazarus, 11, and 12. In these two chapters, he never names her except Married, like St. Luke; and yet in chapters 19 and 20, where he speaks of Mary Magdalene, he often repeats this nickname… It is therefore more in accordance with the letter of the Gospel to distinguish these three saints: the sinner who came to Simon the Pharisee; Married, sister of Martha and Lazarus; and Mary Magdalene.” This exegetical difficulty is very real, as the best exegetes agree (see in particular Messrs. Bisping, Schegg, Curci, and Patrizi). Consequently, it provoked a rather pronounced movement in France during the 16th and 17th centuries against the identity of the three holy women, a movement in which not only ardent and thoughtless men like Launoy and Dupin participated, but also scholars of the caliber of Tillemont, Estius, D. Calmet, and our great Bossuet himself, as we have seen above. We do not presume to resolve it, and we even confess that we have been very strongly influenced by it. Nevertheless, it seems to us that the following consideration can be quite successfully countered.

Between the sinner we have just contemplated at the feet of Jesus, and Mary Magdalene as represented in the Passion narratives and the ResurrectionThere is certainly a striking resemblance in character. On both sides, there is the same boundless devotion to the sacred person of the Savior, the same nature of soul and activity: thus, identification is easier in their case. But it is no less remarkable to see, when one studies the Gospel history of MarriedSister of Lazarus, in whom too is manifested a character analogous to that of the sinner and of Mary Magdalene. Her soul is likewise loving and generous, contemplative, calm, and holy enthusiasm; even her posture at the feet of Our Lord recalls that of the penitent woman at the house of Simon the Pharisee, that of Mary Magdalene at the tomb and of the risen Christ. – We will later have occasion to point out other exegetical arguments that also have their force.