The Pulpit Commentary — Luke — Volume 1 — Section 179

his C'nd to be withmit honour: how le he 11 acarcely likely that the appo.rently well- 111m,l,pr, ci Rmnng the children of God, and 0 known oourte11Gn of the touching 1tory WM his lot la smong the s•ints I" (Wied. v. 4, 5). a demoniao. ",. ,ua_, h,, qnit.e sur,, that "in the fiery furnace Go<l wslk<>d ";tt, his servant, so that The earlieat writers 11&y nothing respect. l,is spirit was not ham1e<l, Rnrl having thus ing the identity of the two. Gregory the n1111en lerl his nnture t-0 th~ utmost that this Great, however, stamped the theory with <>nrth !'t\ll do, he took him hastily awRy and hie direot e.ssertion, and tl1at the Westem J'lac,•d him amo11g tho glorifie<l in heaven" Church generally accepted the identification (ln·ing, quok<l by Farrar). Y<•r. 34.-The Son of mania come eating of the two is clear from the seleation of this and drinking ; and ye aay, Behold a glut- nnrr:ttive of St. Luke o.s the portion of tonous man, and a winebibber, a friend of Scripture e.ppoint.ed for the Gospel for the publioans and sinners! The reproach be- Foast of St. Mary Magdalene (this was one 1, ,n,:!',l to the gen<'ral way of our Lord's way of the feasts omitted by the English Re- nf li,·ing,oonsorting e.s he did with men and women in the common e\'eryrlay life of man, formers from the calendar of the Prayer- sharing in their joys as in their sorrows, in book of 1552). tlwir fcst.inty e.s in their mourning. But It is impossible to decMe the qnestion tb~ word,; specially refer to his ta.king part positively. One modem commentator of in such scenes as the feast in the house of distinction quaintly plea.de for Gregory the Matthew the publican. Gree.t's rather arbitrary theory, by sug- Yer. 35.-But wisdom is justi11ed of all her children. One of those bright, wise sayings gesting that there is no snffloient ree.son to of the Son of man which belong not to the disturb the ancient Christian belief which society of Capernaum and Jerusalem, hut has been consecrated in so many glorious wi,ich a.re the heritage of o.ll a.gee. The works of art; but, in spite of this, the word, find their fulfilment in all those holy opinion which considers " the woman which a.nd humble men of bee.rt-rich as wdl as poor-who ~joice in goodneBB and purity, in was a ainner" the same person as " the self-denying love and bright faith, whether Magdalene," is really based on little else it be preached or advoca.t.ed by • Fene1on than on a medimval tradition. or a Wesley. St. Luke a.lone relates this touching story. We can oonceive the joy of Paul when thie Vera. 86-50.-The nameler, - toho " memory of the Master" came aoroBB him. 10,1 a ,inner, and Simon the Phari•ee. AB It so admirably illnstre.tes what this great re~a.rds the incident a.bout to be t.old, some teacher felt was his Mester's mind on the oomment&tore have believed the.t the anoint- all-important subject- the freeness arid ing was identical with the.t related by St. unif!ersality of salvation. John as having ta.ken place at Bethany very It seems likely enough that Dean Plump- shonly before the Crucifixion. Without de- tre's interesting conjecture respecting this tailing the several points of difference in scene in the Pharisee Simon's house is cor- the two recit.a.ls, it will be sufficient surely rect. "Oceuning, as the narrative doea, in to call attention to tlie cuaracter of the St. Luke only, it is probable enough that Bethany family, Lazarus and his sisters, the • woman which was a sinner' became the intimate friendii of J eBU8, to show how known to the oompe.ny of devout wome-a moDBtrous it would be to attempt to connect named in the following che.pter (viii. 1-3), the poor soul who followed the Me.ster t.o and that the evangelist derived his know- Simon's house with the sweet Mary of ledge of the fact from them. His reticence Uethe.uy. A widely spread and, in the -probably their retirence-as to the name We.km Church, a very generally received was, under the circumstances, e.t once natural tradition identifies this woman with Mary and considerate." No specie.I note of time Cl of llfogdala-the Mary Magdalene men- of the locality is appended. If this sinntt' tioned in eh. ix. 2, and again after the we.s one and the se.me with the Magdalene, Crucifixion, in oompany with the band of the11 the city implied is certainly Magde.la, ],olv women (eh. uiv. 10). Out of Mary the m°'t1r11 mud village of El-Mejdel, hut Magdalene, we learn, had been cast seven at that 'time a populous wealthy town on devilB. This, however, givee 118 no clue to the Lake of Galilee. If, as we believe, the identify the two; rather the oonbaq. It two were n.ot identicol, the oit7 i1 mon on. vu. 1-60.) TIIE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. LUKE. 177