John Calvin Commentary Luke 7:44

"And turning to the woman, he said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thy house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath wetted my feet with her tears, and wiped them with her hair." — Luke 7:44 (ASV)

And turning to the woman. The Lord appears to compare Simon with the woman in such a manner as to make him chargeable with nothing more than light offenses. But this is spoken only in the way of concession. “Suppose now, Simon,” he says, “that the guilt from which God discharges you was light,²⁴⁴ and that this woman has been guilty of many and very heinous offenses. Yet you see how she proves by the effect that she has obtained pardon. For what do those profuse tears, those frequent kisses of the feet, that precious ointment mean? What do they mean if not to acknowledge that she had been weighed down by an enormous burden of condemnation? And now she regards the mercy of God with a fervor of love proportioned to her conviction that her need had been great.”

From the words of Christ, therefore, we are not at liberty to infer that Simon had been a debtor to a small amount, or that he was absolved from guilt.²⁴⁵ It is more probable that, as he was a blind hypocrite, he was still plunged in the filth of his sins. But Christ insists on this single point, that however wicked the woman may have been, she gave undoubted proofs of her righteousness by leaving no kind of duty undone to testify her gratitude, and by acknowledging, in every possible way, her vast obligations to God. At the same time, Christ reminds Simon that he has no right to flatter himself, as if he were free from all blame, for he too needed mercy. He also reminds Simon that if even he does not obtain God’s favor without pardon, he ought to look upon this woman’s gifts, whatever her former sins might have been, as evidences of repentance and gratitude.

We must attend to the points of contrast, in which the woman is preferred to Simon. She moistened his feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head; while he did not even order water to be given, according to custom. She did not cease to kiss his feet, while he did not deign to receive Christ with the kiss of hospitality.²⁴⁶ She poured precious ointment on his feet, while he did not even anoint his head with oil.

But why did our Lord, who was a model of frugality and economy, permit the expense of the ointment? It was because, in this way, the wretched sinner testified that she owed all to him. He had no desire for such luxuries, was not gratified by the sweet odor, and did not approve of gaudy dress.

But he looked only at her extraordinary zeal to testify her repentance, which Luke also presents to us as an example. For her sorrow, which is the commencement of repentance, was proved by her tears. By placing herself at Christ’s feet behind him, and there lying on the ground, she revealed her modesty and humility. By the ointment, she declared that she offered, as a sacrifice to Christ, herself and all that she possessed.

It is our duty to imitate every one of these things; but the pouring of the ointment was an extraordinary act, which it would be improper to consider as a rule.²⁴⁷

²⁴⁴ “Mettons le cas, Simon, que le fardeau des pechez, desquels Dieu t’a descharge fust petit;” — “let us put the case, Simon, that the burden of the sins, from which God has discharged thee, was small.”;” — “let us put the case, Simon, that the burden of the sins, from which God has discharged thee, was small.”

²⁴⁵ “Et s’il avoit este absous de la condamnation qu’il avoit encourue;” —”and if he had been absolved from the condemnation which he had incurred.”;” —”and if he had been absolved from the condemnation which he had incurred.”

²⁴⁶ “En lieu que l’autre n’a pas mesme daigne le baiser par une facon commune de civilite;” — “whereas the other did not even deign to kiss him, according to an ordinary custom of civility.”;” — “whereas the other did not even deign to kiss him, according to an ordinary custom of civility.”

²⁴⁷ “A este un acte special et extraordinaire, duquel si on vouloit faire une reigle generale, ce seroit un abus;” — “was a special and extraordinary act, of which, if we wished to make a general rule, it would be a mistake.”;” — “was a special and extraordinary act, of which, if we wished to make a general rule, it would be a mistake.”