The Parables of Jesus; A Verse-by-Verse Commentary

By David Dorius

The Parables of Jesus is a verse-by-verse commentary of Jesus's parables found in the synoptic gospels. Each Bible verse is replicated, making it easier to compare the scriptures to the comments in the commentary without needing the Bible at one's side. In a thorough, well-organized, thought-provoking manner, the book weaves together historical context, linguistic connotations, the wisdom of other scholars, and the author's own compelling observations. The Parables of Jesus answers numerous questions including, why did the foolish virgins lack oil for their lamps at midnight, and what does this imply for those trying to follow the Savior's path today? What does the return of the prodigal son reveal about God's expectant love for the House of Israel and the prospect of hope and healing for each of His children? How can the Ten Commandments be reduced to the two commandments, the great commandment to love the Lord thy God and the second unto it, to love thy neighbor as thyself? This is an excellent reference volume for study and a source to teach the parables of Jesus.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Covenant Books, Inc.
• Release date: Feb 6, 2019
• ISBN: 9781643003702

Book preview

Introduction

It is difficult to gain a solid foundation of the parables of Jesus without an understanding of the Old Testament. As one can tell from reading them, our Lord’s parables are deeply immersed in the culture of His mortal ministry and are influenced heavily by the Law and the prophets of the Old Testament. In His parables, Jesus speaks to the doctors of the Law, the pastoral people in His audience, and to our generation. Illustrations in His parables are found in the everyday life of the people. It is, in part, the purpose of this commentary on the parables of Jesus to shed light on the culture and influence of the Old Testament and to express when appropriate the exegesis of the original Greek. Uncovering the Greek meaning of words shows subtlety not seen in the English translation of the original Greek. For example, in the parable of the ten virgins, five were wise, and five were foolish. The Greek word mōrós (μωραὶ) rendered foolish is the root of the English word moron or moronic. These virgins were characterized as dull in understanding, nonsensical (moronic). Christ was the Jehovah of the Old Testament. He prophesied that He would speak in parables, I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old (Psalm 78:2). First Corinthians 10:4 makes it clear that the rock of the Old Testament is Christ. And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. Christ knew every aspect of the scriptures. If He wasn’t the author of the scriptures, He was at a minimum the editor. Matthew 7:29 says, "For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes. In many cases, the message of His parables is esoteric and is disclosed only to the chosen few and to them only as they were able to bear it" (John 16:12). The things of God were made plain and easy to understand to those willing to be taught and at the same time more difficult and obscure to those who were willingly ignorant. Parables, dark sayings, whispered hints, and many-sided proverbs were among the forms by which He led His disciples to truth. Once they had a command of the truth, they were to shout from the housetops for all to hear (Matthew 10:27). The heavens are not closed. His apostles and seventies received continuous revelation. As advances in science and advances in providence are made, the kingdom will, at fitting times, be laid open to all who are willing to be taught.

There is so much more I want to tell you, but you can’t bear it now (John 16:12, New Living Translation).

What I tell you now in the darkness, shout abroad when daybreak comes. What I whisper in your ear, shout from the housetops for all to hear (Matthew 10:27, New Living Translation)!

The behavior of the priest and Levite in the Parable of the Good Samaritan was the very reason that the offices of priest and Levite would soon no longer exist. In less than half a century, that house, the glory and the joy of Israel, would be utterly destroyed, not to be raised again.

For extra emphasis and to catch His audience’s attention, Jesus exhibited a wonderful sense of humor. He picked midnight, a somewhat untenable hour to be interrupting a friend at night for a few loaves of bread.

He recited a number of the parables with different story lines, but they emphasized the same doctrine or principle of the Gospel. For example, the parable of the Friend at Night and that of the Unjust Judge form a couplet teaching the same lesson with reference to distinct spheres of life or experience. That is, men ought always to pray and not grow fainthearted when the answer to prayer is long delayed.

The Lord refused to be caught up in ruling on civil affairs. (Luke 12:14 says, And he said unto him, ‘Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you?’) Civil affairs according to Mosaic Law were left to the magistrate. There is no doubt that Christ could settle civil affairs, but He came to preach the Gospel to bring people to a willingness to do right. Had Jesus acted as a magistrate rather than as a religious teacher, He would have vitiated His spiritual message.

Man knows not what time shall come upon him and that he must leave his wealth to others and die. He cannot be ransomed or be redeemed by wealth. It is through the atonement of Christ alone that man’s soul can be redeemed from the grave. The glory of a rich man ceases with his death. If one does not follow His teachings, abstract confession of Christ is pointless. We become wise builders for eternity by building our house on a rock foundation of Jesus Christ and not on one of sand. May the Lord make us wise builders for eternity.

At the onset of His mortal ministry, the leaders of the Jews watched His every move, attempted to entrap Him, and sought to destroy Him and His work. They desired at once to put a stop to dangerous language that Jesus might be the Messiah. Such language would threaten their standing as leaders of the Jews. They thought that their role as leaders of the Jews might be forfeited to the Romans.

Parables as a teaching method served a number of purposes:

To illustrate truth in an interesting and memorable manner to His audience. The truth was conveyed with beauty and sublime imagery.

To convey some offensive truth, some pointed personal rebuke to the leaders of the Jews that would prick their conscience, if they had a conscience, without giving them cause to arrest Him. Nathan delivered this type of parable to David (2 Samuel 12:1–7). Likewise, many of our Savior’s parables addressed to the Jews carried a similar message.

To fulfill prophecy and to conceal from one part of his audience truths which he intended others should understand. For example, Matthew 13:13–15, "Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them."

It is hoped that this commentary on the parables of Jesus stay in the reasonable bounds of Jesus’s intent and is presented in the spirit of the parables’ purpose. It is with gratitude that modern technology and a rich resource of scholarly writings is easily available.

Through an analysis of each verse and a study of the background verses initiating Jesus’s response through His parables, one may find many exciting nuances not available from a cursory reading of His parables. For example, in the Parable of the Two Debtors, one discovers that an important message Jesus gives is that a man’s love of God will be in proportion to the obligation he feels toward God for forgiveness of his sins. All are equally insolvent. To their eternal peril, some feel no obligation. Others feel deeply indebted to the Savior for His atoning sacrifice.

The Parable of the Two Debtors

Luke 7:36–50

The overriding message of the Parable of the Two Debtors is this:

A man’s love of God will be in proportion to the obligation he feels toward God for forgiveness of his sins. All are equally insolvent. To their eternal peril, some feel no obligation. Others feel deeply indebted to the Savior for His atoning sacrifice.

Luke 7:36: And one of the Pharisees desired him that he would eat with him. And he went into the Pharisee’s house, and *sat down to meat.

*Greek κατεκλίθη, 2625, reclined. That is, as it was customary, Jesus and any other guests reclined at the table to eat.

This narrative of the Parable of the Two Debtors is peculiar to St. Luke and well illustrates the free gift of grace (see Luke 7:42).

The Bible scholar Ellicott offers his opinion why the Lord accepted the **invitation to eat with the Pharisee and explains the Pharisee’s possible motivation for inviting Jesus. Ellicott’s remarks have been paraphrased:

One may reasonably assume this Pharisee had a measure of respect for our Lord’s teaching, and was hesitantly inclined to acknowledge Him as a ***prophet (See John12:42 and Luke 11:37 below). There is something very suggestive in our Lord’s accepting the invitation. He did not seek such feasts, but neither would He refuse them, for there might be an opening for doing His Father’s work.

And sat down to meat.—Literally, He lay down. This was the usual position in the East and in this case we have to remember it in order to understand the narrative. We learn from Luke 7:49 that there were other guests present. The Pharisee had probably invited his friends and rich neighbors, and thought that he conferred an honor on the Prophet of Nazareth by asking Him to meet them. (Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers)

**Truly, we could love Him as a friend. Luke gives us a glimpse of an aspect of Jesus’s personality and why He may have accepted Simon’s invitation:

In Lk.’s pages Jesus dines with Pharisees also, here and on two other occasions. This is a distinctive feature in his portraiture of Jesus, characteristic of his ****irenical cosmopolitan disposition. It has often been maintained that this narrative is simply the story of Mary of Bethany remodeled so as to teach new lessons. But, as will appear, there are original features in it which, even in the judgment of Holtzmann (H. C.), make it probable that two incidents of the kind occurred. (Expositor’s Greek Testament)

***Nevertheless among the chief rulers also many believed on him; but because of the Pharisees they did not confess him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue. (John 12:42)

And as he spake, a certain Pharisee besought him to dine with him: and he went in, and sat down to meat. (Luke 11:37)

****(irenical) tending to promote peace or reconciliation

The Pulpit commentators lend credence to the idea that the hostility toward Jesus had not yet risen to the point of Christ being labeled a public enemy and blasphemer, but the Cambridge scholars are less charitable than Ellicott in their assessment of the motivation of Simon’s invitation. Simon had not taken any notice of some of the usual ceremonies of respect (see Luke 7:44–46), which almost any guest and especially so great a guest might well have expected.

Up to this period the relations between our Lord and the dominant parties in the capital had not reached a state of positive hostility. The Pharisees, as the chief among these parties in the state, had taken the initiative, and were sharply watching One whose influence among the people they more than suspected was hostile to them. But they had not as yet declared him a public enemy and blasphemer. This wealthy Pharisee, Simon, was evidently, like others of his sect at this time, Wavering in his estimate of Jesus. On the one hand, he was naturally influenced by the hostile views entertained at head-quarters concerning the Galilaean Teacher; on the other, personal intercourse with the Master, the acts he had witnessed, and the words he had heard, disposed him to a reverential admiration. Simon evidently (ver. 39) had not made up his mind whether or not Jesus was a Prophet. His soul, too - this we gather from ver. 42 - had received some great spiritual good from his intercourse with the Master. But though he invited him to be a guest at his house, and evidently loved him (ver. 47) a little, still he received his Divine Guest with but a chilling and coldly courteous reception. Not unlikely Simon the Pharisee knew he was watched that day, and that among his guests were men who would report every action of his on that occasion to the leaders of his party in Jerusalem. His cold courtesy, almost lack of courtesy, towards the Master was thus probably the result of his fear of man and of man’s judgment. And sat down to meat; literally, reclined. The Jews at that time followed in their repasts the Greek (or Roman) custom of reclining on couches; the guest lay with his elbows on the table, and his feet, unsandalled, stretched out on the couch. (Pulpit Commentary)

The invitation was clearly due to a patronizing curiosity, if not to a worse and hostile motive. The whole manner of the Pharisee to Jesus was like his invitation, ungracious. But it was part of our Lord’s mission freely to accept the proffered hospitality of all, that He might reach every class. (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges)

Luke 7:37: And, behold, a *woman in the city, which was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee’s house, brought an **alabaster box of ointment.

Benson’s and Poole’s characterizations indicate that the woman’s sins were grievous. This explains the reason why she expressed much gratitude to the Savior when she was forgiven of her sins:

This character given of her renders it probable that she had formerly been a harlot. But her conduct on this occasion proves that she was now awakened to a sense of her sin and folly. She is said to have lived in the city, namely, Capernaum, which is often described in that general way. (Benson Commentary)

And, behold, a woman in the city, which was a sinner; that is, a remarkable sinner; it is a word generally so used, and, applied to women, signifies a prostitute, or at least one of an ill report as to chastity. (Matthew Poole’s Commentary)

*The record does not give the woman’s name. Luke’s reticence—as to the woman’s name was, under the circumstances, an act of being considerate toward the woman.

**Brought an alabaster box of ointment. Pliny mentions alabaster as the best material for pots or vessels intended for these precious ointments. It was softer than marble, and easily scooped into pots or bottles. These costly unguents and cosmetics were much used by the wealthy Roman ladies. The precious ointment poured over the Redeemer’s feet had probably been originally procured for a very different purpose. The word μύρον, translated ointment, was used for any kind of sweet-smelling vegetable essence, especially that of the myrtle. (Pulpit Commentary)

Luke 7:38: And stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment.

The Jews regarded disease as the effect of sin. Once healed of a disease, the sin was regarded as forgiven. See Luke 5:13, Luke 7:15, John 9:2, and James 5:14–15. The Samaritan leper glorified God after being made whole. Likewise, whatever this woman had been, Christ had affected her heart with His words to the multitudes and filled her heart with the pure love of Christ. With her display of affection, she glorified God for being set free of guilt and made whole. The Bible scholar Poole details her worship of the Savior:

And kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment. The kiss is a symbol of love, and not of love only, but of subjection and worship; by this she both showed her love to Christ, and also her subjection to him, she kissed Christ in the psalmist’s sense, Psalm 2:12. It was not a kiss of love only, but of reverence and subjection, like Joseph’s kiss to Jacob, Genesis 50:1, Moses’s kiss to Jethro, Exodus 18:7; nay, of the highest reverence, for such was the kiss of the feet. And to testify her adoration of him . . . Washing and anointing with oil, was a common compliment they used in those countries for cleansing and cooling the feet. She had been a great sinner, she now shows the profoundest sorrow, greatest love, humility, subjection, &c. (Matthew Poole’s Commentary)

And he put forth his hand, and touched him, saying, I will: be thou clean. And immediately the leprosy departed from him. (Luke 5:13)

And one of them, when he saw that he was healed, turned back, and with a loud voice glorified God, And fell down on his face at his feet, giving him thanks: and he was a Samaritan. And Jesus answering said, Were there not ten cleansed? but where are the nine? There are not found that returned to give glory to God, save this stranger. And he said unto him, Arise, go thy way: thy faith hath made thee whole. (Luke 7:15–19)

And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? (John 9:2)

Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord: And the prayer of faith shall save the sick, and the Lord shall raise him up; and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. (James 5:14–15)

Luke 7:39: Now when the Pharisee which had bidden him saw it, he spake within himself, saying, This man, if he were a prophet, would have known who and what manner of woman this is that *toucheth him: for she is a sinner.

To Simon in his pharisaic legal coldness and conceit believed that Jesus could not be a prophet, for He allowed Himself to be defiled by this unclean woman’s touch. The Bible scholar Barnes explains,

He spake within himself. Thought.

If he were a prophet. The word prophet here means, not one who predicts future events, but one who knows the hearts of people. If Jesus had been sent from God as a prophet, he supposed that he would have known the character of the woman and would have rebuked her.

Would have known . . . Because Jesus did not rebuke her and drive her from his presence, he inferred that he could not be acquainted with her character. The Pharisees considered it improper to hold communion with those who were notorious sinners. They judged our Savior by their own rules, and supposed that he would act in the same way; and Simon therefore concluded that he did not know her character and could not be a prophet. Jesus did not refuse the society of the guilty. He came to save the lost; and no person ever came to him so sure of finding a friend, as those who came conscious that they were deeply depraved, and mourning on account of their crimes.

That toucheth him. The touch of a Gentile, or a person singularly wicked, they supposed to be polluting, and the Pharisees avoided it. See Matthew 9:11. (Barnes’ Notes on the Bible)

And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners? But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. (Matthew 9:10–13)

*Greek ἅπτω, 681 touch, to fasten to, lay hold of, cling. For example, most translations of John 20:17 render the same Greek word ἅπτω in the more assertive form: to cling or to hold. The Cambridge scholars express the opinion that she clung to Him. These scholars also expose the self-righteousness of this Pharisee:

That toucheth him] Rather, who is clinging to him. Simon makes a double assumption—first that a prophet would have known the character of the woman, and next that he would certainly have repelled her. The bearing and tone of the Rabbis towards women closely resembled that of some mediaeval monks. They said that no one should stand nearer them than four cubits. But Jesus knew more of the woman than Simon did, and was glad that she should shed on His feet the tears of penitence. A great prophet had declared long before that those which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me, for I am holier than thou, were a smoke in my nose. Isaiah 65:5. (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges)

Jesus said to her, Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God.’ (John 20:17, NASB)

Luke 7:40: And Jesus answering said unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And he saith, Master, say on.

By implication in the use of the words, I have something to say to thee, Christ was about to tell Simon that You have been thinking evil of me. Christ had, through a parable, the further intent to dissuade any misconception Simon may have had of his own righteousness.

Luke 7:41: There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty.

Ellicott explains that this parable has a resemblance to the one found in Matthew 18:23.

The parable has some points of resemblance to that of the Two Debtors in Matthew 18:23. Here, however, the debts, though different, are not separated by so wide an interval as are the ten thousand talents and the hundred pence. The debts are both within the range of common human experience. The pence are, of course, the Roman denarii, worth about sevenpence-halfpenny each. The application of the parable treats the woman as a greater debtor than the Pharisee. She had committed greater sins. Each was equally powerless to pay the debt—i.e., to make atonement for his or her sins. Whatever hope either had lay in the fact that pardon was offered to both as a matter of free gift and bounty. (Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers)

Luke 7:42: And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most?

Christ allows Simon to be his own accuser much as Nathan did when he recited the parable of the ewe lamb (2 Samuel 11:1–7) to David:

Like Nathan with David, our Lord conceals His home thrust under the veil of a parable, and makes His host himself pronounce upon the case. The two debtors are the woman and Simon; the criminality of the one was ten times that of the other (in the proportion of five hundred to fifty); but both being equally insolvent, both are with equal frankness forgiven; and Simon is made to own that the greatest debtor to forgiving mercy will cling to her Divine Benefactor with the deepest gratitude. (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary)

This situation of the two debtors was not uncommon. The illustration was found in the everyday life of the people. The Pulpit commentators explain,

Verses 41, 42. There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty. And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. The illustration was from the everyday life of the people. This lending and borrowing was ever a prominent feature in the common life of the Jews. Pointed warnings against greed and covetousness, and the habit of usury, and the love of perpetual trafficking, we find in all the Old Testament books, notably in Deuteronomy, and then centuries later in the Proverbs, besides repeated instances in the prophetic writings and historical books. The character of the Jews in this respect has never changed from the days of their nomad life—from the times of their slavery under the Pharaohs to our own day. In this particular instance the two debtors were of the common folk, the sums in question being comparatively small; but in both cases the debtors could never hope to pay their creditors. They were alike hopelessly insolvent, both helplessly bankrupt. The larger sum, considering’ the relative value of money, has been computed only to have represented about £50 of our currency. And the two received from their creditor a free, generous acquittance of the debt which would have hopelessly ruined them. In the mind of Jesus the larger debt pictured the terrible catalogue of sins which the penitent woman acknowledged she had committed; the smaller, the few transgressions which even the Pharisee confessed to having been guilty cf. They were both sinners before God, both equally insolvent in his eyes; whether the debt was much or little was to the almighty Creditor a matter of comparative, indifference—he frankly forgave them both (better, freely, the Greek word ἀχαρίσατο signifies forgave of his generous bounty). The Revisers simply translate he forgave, but something more is needed to reproduce the beautiful word in the original. Frankly, in the sense of freely, is used by Shakespeare—

I do beseech your grace . . . now to forgive me frankly. (Henry VIII.,’ act 2. sc. 1.) (Pulpit Commentary)

Luke 7:43: Simon answered and said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged.

Simon self condemns himself as he tries to brush off Christ’s question, by saying, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most. Simon did not anticipate the chastening that was about to come. See the Cambridge scholars’ comments below:

I suppose: I imagine; I presume. The original word has a shade of supercilious irony (comp. Acts 2:15), as though Simon thought the question very trivial, and never dreamt that it could have any bearing on himself.

Rightly: There is a touch of gentle sarcasm in the use of this word, which involves Simon’s self-condemnation. It is the word so often adopted by Socrates as one of his implements of dialectic irony. (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges)

The Pulpit commentator summarizes the meaning of the parable:

Thou hast rightly judged. Come, now, I will show thee what I meant by my little story, in thine answer. Thou hast judged thyself. Thou art the man with the little debt of sin, as thou thinkest, and the little love given in return for the cancelled debt; for see how thou hast treated me thy Guest, and how she has made up for thy lack of friendship and courtesy. The following contrasts are adduced by the Master: Thou didst not provide me with that which is so usual to offer guests—I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet (in those hot dusty countries, after walking, water to wash the feet was scarcely a luxury, it was rather a necessity); in thy house the only water which has touched my feet was the warm rain of this sad woman’s tears. (Pulpit Commentary)

Luke 7:44: And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head.

Simon had paid no common courtesy or real respect to his guest in his invitation for Jesus to eat with him. He apparently felt that he overdid himself by simply offering the invitation to sit with his fellow Pharisees. See Ellicott’s interpretation:

Thou gavest me no water for my feet.—There had, then, been no real respect or reverence in the Pharisee’s invitation. It was hardly more than an act of ostentatious patronage. It was honor enough for the carpenter’s son to be admitted into the house. The acts of courtesy, which were due to well-nigh every guest (comp. Notes on Matthew 3:11; John 13:5; 1 Timothy 5:10), and which a Rabbi might expect as a thing of course, were, in his judgment, superfluous. Possibly the fact which afterwards drew down the censure of the Pharisees (Mark 7:8) had already become known, and may have influenced Simon. If the new Teacher cared so little about ablutions, why take the trouble to provide them for Him? (Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers)

Luke 7:45: Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet.

The Cambridge scholars and the Bible scholar Ellicott explain the cultural significance of the kiss:

No kiss: The ordinary salutation of respect in the East, where the first thing when two friends meet and wish to do each other honor is to try to kiss each other’s hands. The kiss on the cheek is between equals and also to superiors. Absalom, to gain favour, kissed every man who came near him to do him obeisance (2 Samuel 15:5). The king kissed Barzillai (2 Samuel 19:39). Hence this was a natural signal of recognition for the traitor to give (Matthew 26:49. See Acts 20:37). Hence the *osculum pacis (Romans 16:16, &c). (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges)

*Kiss of Peace

Thou gavest me no kiss.—This also, as we see in the case of Judas (see Matthew 26:49), was a customary mark of respect to one who claimed the character of a Rabbi. So the disciples of Ephesus kissed St. Paul on parting (Acts 20:37). So the holy kiss, the kiss of peace, became part of the ritual of most of the ancient Liturgies (Romans 16:16; 1 Corinthians 16:20). (Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers)

Luke 7:46: My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment.

The Bible scholar Barnes discusses the Jewish custom of anointing with oil and ointment:

My head with oil. The custom of pouring oil upon the head was universal among the Jews. The oil used was sweet oil or oil of olives, prepared in such a way as to give an agreeable smell. It was also used to render the hair more smooth and elegant. See Ruth 3:3, 2 Samuel 12:20, 2 Samuel 14:2, Psalm 23:5.

With ointment. This ointment was a mixture of various aromatics, and was therefore far more costly and precious than the oil commonly used for anointing the head. Her conduct, compared with that of Simon, was therefore more striking. He did not give even the common oil for his head used on such occasions. She had applied to his feet a far more precious and valuable unguent. He therefore, showed comparatively little love. She showed much. (Barnes’ Notes on the Bible)

Luke 7:47: Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.

The Lord directed this comment to Simon. Since she repented of her sins, they were forgiven. Jesus delicately intimated that where there was no love of God, there was no forgiveness. A man’s love to God will be in proportion to the obligation man feels to God for forgiveness. The Bible scholar Barnes discusses,

Jesus said, in substance, to Simon, Grant that she has been as great a sinner as you affirm, and even grant that if she had continued so it might be improper to suffer her to touch me, yet her conduct shows that her sins have been forgiven. She has evinced so much love for me as to show that she is no longer such a sinner as you suppose, and it is not, therefore, improper that she should be suffered to come near me.

The meaning may be thus expressed: That her sins, so many and aggravated, have been forgiven—that she is no longer such a sinner as you suppose, is manifest from her conduct. She shows deep gratitude, penitence, love. Her conduct is the proper expression of that love. While you have shown comparatively little evidence that you felt that your sins were great, and comparatively little love at their being forgiven, she has shown that she felt hers to be great, and has loved much. (Barnes’ Notes on the Bible)

Luke 7:48: And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.

It should be noted that Jesus did not tell Simon the Pharisee that his sins were forgiven. See Jamieson’s and the Cambridge scholars’ comments:

The inference is plain—only one of the debtors was really forgiven, though in the first instance, to give room for the play of withheld feelings, the forgiveness of both is supposed in the parable. (Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary)

Both in the Old and New Testaments the readiness of God to forgive the deepest and most numerous sins is dwelt upon (Isaiah 1:18, Isaiah 55:7), and also the absoluteness of the forgiveness (Romans 5:20, 1 John 4:10, 1 John 4:19). (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges)

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. (Isaiah 1:18)

Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. (Isaiah 55:7)

Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins . . . We love him, because he first loved us. (1 John 4:10, 19)

Luke 7:49: And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also?

There were other Jews and perhaps other Pharisees that sat at Simon’s table with Christ and were listening to the discussion and observing the actions of the woman. These other guests thought in their minds or whispered among themselves, Only God can forgive sins.

One might wonder how Christ was able to get out of Simon’s house alive. Declaring oneself as God by forgiving sins