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.”

ABSTRACT

This article delves into the dramatic events at Simon’s feast in Bethany, where Mary’s profound worship contrasts with Simon’s partial faith and Judas’s greed, unveiling Christ’s timeless lessons on forgiveness, love, and true devotion that echo eternally.

“And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you.” (Ephesians 4:32, KJV)

CONTEXT OF CRISIS!

The air in and around Jerusalem was thick, not just with the dust of a thousand sandaled feet, but with a volatile mixture of hope, fear, and murderous intent. It was the week before the final Passover of Christ’s earthly ministry, a time when the Holy City swelled with pilgrims, their hearts primed for a miracle, a sign, a revolution. The atmosphere was a powder keg, and the match had just been struck in the quiet, nearby village of Bethany. This village, whose name can mean “house of misery,” had become for Jesus a “house of refuge,” a place of rest among his dearest friends: Martha, Mary, and Lazarus. But now, it was the epicenter of a miracle so profound, so undeniable, that it had forced the hand of a corrupt and desperate religious establishment. The topic is the tense context surrounding Jesus’ miracle in Bethany. Assertion: The miracle in Bethany heightened the religious leaders’ desperation. Evidence: The resurrection of Lazarus created widespread belief in Jesus. “Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead.” (John 12:1, KJV) “Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.” (Matthew 26:2, KJV) “The priests and rulers saw that Christ was extolled above them in the affections of the people. They tried to find some cause for putting Him to death.” (The Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 3, p. 69, 1878) “The news of the raising of Lazarus had spread far and wide. Many who had not seen the miracle believed on Jesus because of the testimony of those who had.” (The Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 3, p. 83, 1878) Commentary: This event polarized the people and leaders, setting the stage for conflict. But how does this tension manifest in personal encounters with Jesus?

The context for the intimate dinner scene we are about to enter is not one of peace, but of imminent, calculated violence. The Passover feast was approaching, a sacred time that drew the faithful from across the land. The Scripture states, “And the Jews’ passover was nigh at hand: and many went out of the country up to Jerusalem before the passover, to purify themselves. Then sought they for Jesus, and spake among themselves, as they stood in the temple, What think ye, that he will not come to the feast?” (John 11:55-56, KJV). This was no idle speculation. For the crowds, it was a question of messianic expectation: Would the Prophet who had just raised a man from the dead finally declare His kingdom? For the religious leaders, it was a question of tactical opportunity. Their simmering hatred had boiled over into a formal, public decree. “Now both the chief priests and the Pharisees had given a commandment, that, if any man knew where he were, he should shew it, that they might take him” (John 11:57, KJV). This transformed every citizen into a potential informant and every act of hospitality toward Jesus into a capital crime. The topic is the anticipation and danger surrounding Jesus at Passover. Assertion: The Passover created opportunities for both hope and plot against Jesus. Evidence: The leaders issued a command to capture Jesus. “And the chief priests consulted that they might put Lazarus also to death; Because that by reason of him many of the Jews went away, and believed on Jesus.” (John 12:10-11, KJV) “And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine.” (Mark 11:18, KJV) “The news of the raising of Lazarus had spread far and wide. Many who had not seen the miracle believed on Jesus because of the testimony of those who had.” (The Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 3, p. 83, 1878) “The priests and rulers saw that Christ was extolled above them in the affections of the people. They tried to find some cause for putting Him to death.” (The Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 3, p. 69, 1878) Commentary: This decree turned hospitality into risk, highlighting the cost of faith. But what sparked this extreme response from the leaders?

The catalyst for this final, desperate measure was the resurrection of Lazarus. This was not a subtle healing or a private teaching; it was a public defiance of death itself, a miracle that could not be spun or ignored. The effect was immediate and decisive. As Ellen G. White chronicles, “The priests and rulers saw that their hold upon the people was still weakening, and their rage against Jesus grew more bitter… A council of the priests and Pharisees was called. Since the raising of Lazarus the sympathies of the people were so fully with Christ that it would be dangerous to seize upon Him openly” (The Desire of Ages, p. 558). Their response to this irrefutable display of divine, life-giving power was not awe or repentance, but a deeper commitment to death. In a chilling extension of their logic, “The Sanhedrin therefore decided that Lazarus also must die” (The Desire of Ages, p. 558). They would rather murder the evidence than confront the truth it represented. The topic is the impact of Lazarus’ resurrection on leaders. Assertion: The miracle provoked murderous intent in the leaders. Evidence: The council decided to kill both Jesus and Lazarus. “Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles.” (John 11:47, KJV) “Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death.” (John 11:53, KJV) “The raising of Lazarus was the crowning miracle of Christ’s ministry. It sealed His doom.” (The Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 3, p. 79, 1878) “The priests and rulers were filled with indignation. They saw that Christ was extolled above them.” (The Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 3, p. 69, 1878) Commentary: Their rejection showed a hardened heart against divine power. But how did this cosmic conflict play out in a simple dinner?

This reaction reveals a spiritual state so decayed that it had become a perfect earthly channel for the great adversary. The very leaders entrusted with revealing God to the world had, as the inspired record testifies, “become agents of Satan for its destruction”. They were enacting on a human scale the cosmic conflict between Christ and Satan, between the Prince of Life and the author of death. It is within this super-charged environment, under the shadow of a state-sanctioned death warrant, that a man named Simon decides to host a dinner. This feast is not merely a social gathering; it is a public declaration, a line drawn in the sand. It is on this battlefield, in a humble home in Bethany, that three human hearts—a grateful but misguided Pharisee, a repentant and loving woman, and a covetous, critical disciple—will be laid bare by the presence of the Son of God. The topic is the spiritual decay of leaders and the setting for the feast. Assertion: The leaders’ reaction embodied the cosmic battle. Evidence: They became tools for destruction instead of revelation. “For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.” (2 Corinthians 11:13, KJV) “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.” (Matthew 23:15, KJV) “The Jewish rulers were filled with bitter hatred against Christ. They read His character aright, and refused to believe in Him and to receive His words.” (The Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 3, p. 10, 1878) “Satan was working through the religious leaders to carry out his purposes against Christ.” (The Spirit of Prophecy, vol. 3, p. 68, 1878) Commentary: This decay made the feast a battlefield of hearts. But what flaws does Simon’s heart reveal in this battle?

PHARISEE’S PERILOUS FAITH!

To understand the drama that unfolds at the feast, we must first understand the host. Simon of Bethany is a complex and tragic figure, a man who stands as a stark warning against a faith that is transactional rather than transformational. He is not an overt enemy of Christ; on the contrary, he is one of the few religious elites who has publicly aligned himself with the Nazarene. The record states, “Simon of Bethany was accounted a disciple of Jesus. He was one of the few Pharisees who had openly joined Christ’s followers” (The Desire of Ages, p. 557). Yet, this discipleship was fatally flawed. The inspired commentary clarifies the nature of his belief: “He acknowledged Jesus as a teacher, and hoped that He might be the Messiah, but he had not accepted Him as a Saviour. His character was not transformed; his principles were unchanged” (The Desire of Ages, p. 557). Simon represents the profound danger of an intellectual or utilitarian faith—a faith that appreciates what Jesus does without surrendering to who Jesus is. The topic is Simon’s incomplete faith. Assertion: Simon’s faith was intellectual but not transformative. Evidence: He acknowledged Jesus as teacher but not Savior. “And Jesus answering said unto him, Seest thou these great buildings? there shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” (Mark 13:2, KJV) “For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” (Mark 8:36, KJV) “There are many who profess to believe in Christ; but they will never become overcomers while they cherish doubt and unbelief.” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, p. 546, 1855) “The faith that is unto salvation is not a casual faith, it is not the mere consent of the intellect, it is belief rooted in the heart.” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, p. 512, 1855) Commentary: This partial faith risks eternal loss. But what motivated Simon to host despite the danger?

Simon’s motivation for hosting this perilous feast stems from a genuine sense of gratitude. “Simon had been healed of the leprosy, and it was this that had drawn him to Jesus. He desired to show his gratitude” (The Desire of Ages, p. 557). Christ had saved him from a living death, a condition that rendered him a social and religious outcast. His gratitude, however, was incomplete. It was a gratitude that led to a social obligation, a public display of honor, but not to a revolution of the soul. He believed he was bestowing an honor upon Jesus by inviting the controversial prophet to his home, a subtle but telling sign of his spiritual pride. He saw himself as the benefactor in this social transaction, a man of standing graciously acknowledging a great deed done for him. He had not yet grasped that he was the true debtor, not merely for his physical healing, but for his very soul. The topic is Simon’s incomplete gratitude. Assertion: Simon’s gratitude was social but not soul-deep. Evidence: He hosted out of obligation, not transformation. “For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.” (Romans 8:5, KJV) “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” (James 1:17, KJV) “Gratitude, rejoicing, benevolence, trust in God’s love and care—these are health’s greatest safeguard.” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, p. 443, 1885) “The soul that is transformed by the grace of Christ will admire His divine character.” (Steps to Christ, p. 64, 1892) Commentary: Incomplete gratitude limits spiritual growth. But how did this internal coldness show externally?

The evidence of this cold, incomplete heart is not found in what Simon did, but in what he failed to do. In the culture of the day, certain courtesies were standard for an honored guest. They were the outward expressions of inward esteem. Simon provided none of them. Jesus Himself would later catalogue these omissions with surgical precision: “I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet… Thou gavest me no kiss… My head with oil thou didst not anoint” (Luke 7:44-46, KJV). These were not minor slips of etiquette. They were the clear, external indicators of an internal deficiency of love. He performed the bare minimum required by his invitation—providing a meal—but offered none of the spontaneous warmth that flows from a heart truly overcome with love and appreciation. His was a religion of propriety, not passion. The topic is evidence of Simon’s cold heart. Assertion: Simon’s omissions revealed lack of love. Evidence: He neglected customary hospitality rites. “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.” (James 4:17, KJV) “But whoso hath this world’s good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him?” (1 John 3:17, KJV) “The grace of Christ changes the whole man, making that which was coarse and rough, gentle and refined.” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 4, p. 550, 1875) “True politeness is not put on for occasions but is the outgrowth of a genuine heart culture.” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 4, p. 488, 1875) Commentary: External actions reflect internal state. But what happens when an unexpected guest exposes his judgment?

It is when the unexpected guest arrives that Simon’s true spiritual condition is laid bare. As Mary of Bethany enters and begins her stunning act of worship, Simon’s internal monologue is one of pure judgment. “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” (Luke 7:39, KJV). His pride is a poisoned well with two streams. First, he judges the woman, seeing her not as a seeking soul but as a permanent sinner, forever defined by her past. Second, he judges Jesus, concluding that Christ’s tolerance of her touch must be due to ignorance. He is utterly confident in his own perception, his own righteousness, and his own spiritual standing, a perfect embodiment of Christ’s indictment: “ye also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within ye are full of hypocrisy and iniquity” (Matthew 23:28, KJV). The topic is Simon’s judgment when Mary arrives. Assertion: Simon’s judgment exposed his pride. Evidence: He questioned Jesus’ prophetic insight. “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment.” (John 7:24, KJV) “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.” (Matthew 7:5, KJV) “Hypocrisy is not devotion. Unholy desires, unlawful ambitions, that are cherished and indulged, lie at the bottom of all hypocrisy.” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, p. 531, 1889) “The greatest deception of the human mind in Christ’s day was that a mere assent to the truth constitutes righteousness.” (The Desire of Ages, p. 309, 1898) Commentary: His confidence masked hypocrisy. But what hidden connection made his judgment tragic?

What Simon could not know, and what makes his judgment so profoundly tragic, is the hidden history that connected him to this very woman. The inspired record reveals a stunning piece of backstory not present in the biblical text: “He himself had led into sin the woman he now despised… Mary… had been led into sin by Simon of Bethany” (The Desire of Ages, p. 566). This single fact re-frames the entire encounter. Simon’s silent condemnation is not the righteous indignation of a holy man; it is the defensive, hypocritical judgment of a guilty man projecting his own unconfessed sin onto his victim. He despises her because her presence in his home is a living, breathing monument to his own transgression. His thought, “if he were a prophet, he would have known,” drips with a terrible irony. He challenges Christ’s prophetic insight, completely blind to the fact that Jesus knows not only Mary’s past, but Simon’s as well, including the secret sin that bound their histories together. His coldness toward Jesus, his failure to perform the rites of hospitality, can now be seen as a defense mechanism. To fully embrace the love and light of Christ would require him to confront the darkness of his own heart and his grievous sin against the very woman he scorns. This reveals a timeless spiritual principle: a self-righteous, judgmental spirit is often a mask for deep, unacknowledged guilt. The topic is the tragic irony of Simon’s hidden sin. Assertion: Simon’s judgment was hypocritical projection. Evidence: He had led Mary into sin. “For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.” (Matthew 7:2, KJV) “Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.” (Romans 2:1, KJV) “Hypocrisy is left to accumulate upon the soul until it is gross and open and bold. It is astonishing how soon the whole being becomes corrupted.” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, p. 532, 1889) “Those who have not a living connection with God do not realize the responsibility that rests upon them. They do not see the sins that bind them in Satan’s snare.” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, p. 435, 1885) Commentary: Unconfessed guilt fuels self-righteousness. But how does Mary’s love shatter this cold propriety?

SINNER’S SACRED SACRIFICE!

Into this room, charged with unspoken judgment and calculated propriety, steps a love that refuses to be contained. Mary of Bethany, a woman whose life had been transformed by Christ’s power, shatters the tense quiet with an act of extravagant, abandoned worship. Her every action serves as a powerful, silent rebuke to the coldness of her host and a testament to the life-altering power of grace. Where Simon’s faith was partial, Mary’s was total. Where his gratitude was measured, hers was boundless. The topic is Mary’s uncontained love. Assertion: Mary’s worship rebuked Simon’s coldness. Evidence: Her act testified to grace’s power. “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8, KJV) “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Romans 5:1, KJV) “The grace of Christ in the soul is like a spring in the desert, welling up to refresh all, and making those who are ready to perish eager to drink of the water of life.” (The Desire of Ages, p. 195, 1898) “Grace takes all undeserved rebuke and misrepresentation and turns it into joy.” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 6, p. 312, 1901) Commentary: Transformed lives produce boundless devotion. But what made her offering a profound sacrifice?

Her offering was not a token gesture but a profound sacrifice. The scripture records, “Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment” (John 12:3, KJV). The value of this gift was not lost on the observers. Judas Iscariot, the group’s treasurer, quickly appraised it at “three hundred pence” (John 12:5, KJV), a sum equivalent to a year’s wages for a common laborer. This was likely Mary’s most precious earthly possession, perhaps her dowry or her entire life’s savings. The costliness is central to the lesson. It demonstrates the immeasurable value she placed on the forgiveness she had received. To her, Christ was priceless, and therefore her gift reflected that conviction. She was giving her all to the One who had given His all for her. The topic is the sacrifice of Mary’s offering. Assertion: The gift’s cost showed her valuation of forgiveness. Evidence: It was worth a year’s wages. “I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.” (Romans 12:1, KJV) “For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.” (2 Corinthians 8:9, KJV) “The offering of Mary was in marked contrast with that which Judas was secretly cherishing in his heart.” (The Desire of Ages, p. 563, 1898) “The value of the gift is estimated by the love that prompts the giver.” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 3, p. 397, 1875) Commentary: Sacrificial giving mirrors Christ’s sacrifice. But what did her posture teach about humility?

Her posture and her actions were a sermon in humility and love. She approached from behind, positioning herself at His feet, the lowest place of honor. Luke’s account is rich with tender detail: “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” (Luke 7:38, KJV). Each component of her act is a direct counterpoint to Simon’s neglect. He had failed to provide a basin of water; she provided a flood of repentant tears. He had offered no towel for dusty feet; she unbound her hair, a woman’s glory, and used it as a towel of love. He had offered no kiss of welcome; she humbled herself to kiss the feet that had walked miles to bring salvation to her and her family. Her love was not a silent, internal feeling; it was a lavish, physical, and deeply personal demonstration that broke every social convention of the day. The topic is Mary’s humility in worship. Assertion: Her actions countered Simon’s neglect with love. Evidence: She used tears, hair, and kisses for hospitality. “He that humbleth himself shall be exalted.” (Luke 18:14, KJV) “Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.” (James 4:10, KJV) “Humility, meekness, and lowliness of heart are conditions of success and victory.” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, p. 87, 1882) “The soul that sees Jesus by living faith, repudiates his own righteousness.” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, p. 88, 1882) Commentary: Humility expresses true love. But what fruit did this devotion bear from her transformed life?

This torrent of devotion was the direct fruit of a transformed life. Mary’s heart was overflowing because it had been filled with grace. Sr. White connects her actions to a threefold salvation: “In His mercy, Jesus had pardoned her sins, He had called forth her beloved brother from the grave, and Mary’s heart was filled with gratitude” (The Desire of Ages, p. 559). Elsewhere, she is identified as Mary Magdalene, from whom Christ had cast seven demons ( The Desire of Ages, p. 568). She had been delivered from the power of Satan, her sins had been forgiven, and her family had been rescued from the grief of death. Her worship was a response to the totality of Christ’s saving work in her life. She had also been listening intently to His words and understood, in a way the other disciples did not, that He was facing death. “She had heard Jesus speak of His approaching death, and in her deep love and sorrow she had longed to show Him honor” (The Desire of Ages, p. 559). The topic is the fruit of Mary’s transformed life. Assertion: Devotion flowed from multiple salvations. Evidence: Pardon, resurrection, deliverance. “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” (2 Corinthians 5:17, KJV) “And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” (Romans 12:2, KJV) “The religion of Christ transforms the heart. It makes the worldly-minded man heavenly-minded.” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, p. 172, 1882) “When the grace of God reigns within, the soul will be surrounded with an atmosphere of faith and courage and Christlike love.” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, p. 168, 1882) Commentary: Grace fills hearts to overflow in worship. But what prophetic depth did her love unwittingly reveal?

Herein lies one of the most profound lessons of the entire scene. Mary, acting purely from a heart of love and gratitude, performs an act that Jesus Himself endows with deep prophetic meaning. He would later declare, “she is come aforehand to anoint My body to the burying” (Mark 14:8). Yet, Mary herself did not grasp the full import of her actions. As Sr. White explains, “Mary knew not the full significance of her deed of love. She could not answer her accusers. She could not explain why she had chosen that occasion for anointing Jesus. The Holy Spirit had planned for her, and she had obeyed His promptings. Inspiration stoops to give no reason. An unseen presence, it speaks to mind and soul, and moves the heart to action. It is its own justification” (The Desire of Ages, p. 560). This reveals that a heart fully surrendered to God, a heart motivated by pure, uncalculated love, can become a direct instrument of the Holy Spirit. Such a heart can perceive and act upon truths that the most educated intellect, even that of the disciples who had walked with Jesus for years, has not yet grasped. Mary’s devotion was prophetically ahead of the disciples’ theology. The topic is the Holy Spirit’s role in Mary’s act. Assertion: Love made Mary an instrument of the Spirit. Evidence: She acted on promptings without full understanding. “For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.” (Romans 8:14, KJV) “But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.” (1 Corinthians 2:14, KJV) “The Holy Spirit is the breath of spiritual life in the soul. The impartation of the Spirit is the impartation of the life of Christ.” (The Desire of Ages, p. 805, 1898) “The Holy Spirit is the source of all genuine success.” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 7, p. 231, 1902) Commentary: Surrendered hearts access divine truths. But how does Judas’s criticism contrast this sacred moment?

TRAITOR’S TREACHEROUS TIRADE!

The sacred atmosphere of worship, thick with the fragrance of spikenard and tears, is suddenly pierced by a voice of sharp, cynical criticism. It is the voice of Judas Iscariot, and his words reveal a heart that is the complete antithesis of Mary’s. Where her heart overflowed with selfless love, his was a shriveled vessel of selfishness and greed. The scene exposes how a single, cherished sin—in his case, avarice—can poison perception, twist noble sentiments into weapons, and set a soul on the path to ultimate betrayal. The topic is Judas’s critical heart. Assertion: Judas’s criticism revealed greed’s poison. Evidence: His objection masked theft. “For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” (1 Timothy 6:10, KJV) “No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” (Matthew 6:24, KJV) “Avarice, the desire of gain, had become a ruling passion in his life.” (Education, p. 92, 1903) “The love of mammon was Judas’s besetting sin.” (Early Writings, p. 172, 1882) Commentary: Cherished sin warps reality. But how did his deception spread?

Judas’s objection was masterfully deceptive, cloaked in the language of social concern and fiscal prudence. “Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, which should betray him, Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?” (John 12:4-5, KJV). This question was insidiously effective. It sounded so reasonable, so righteous. It appealed to the disciples’ sense of responsibility and their memory of Christ’s own teachings about caring for the needy. The logic was so compelling that it quickly infected others at the table. Matthew’s account records that it was not just Judas: “But when his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saying, To what purpose is this waste?” (Matthew 26:8, KJV). This demonstrates the dangerous power of a critical, faithless spirit within the church. Judas’s plausible-sounding argument swayed even those who should have been defending Mary’s act of devotion. The topic is the deceptive nature of Judas’s objection. Assertion: His concern was a deceptive cloak. Evidence: It swayed the disciples to indignation. “The words of his mouth are smoother than butter, but war is in his heart: his words are softer than oil, yet are they drawn swords.” (Psalm 55:21, KJV) “But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.” (2 Timothy 3:13, KJV) “Criticism and censure of the brethren are not inspired by the Spirit of Christ.” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, p. 59, 1882) “The spirit of criticism is one of the chief devices of Satan to hinder the work of God.” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, p. 592, 1889) Commentary: Deception spreads like infection in the church. But what revealed the rotten core of his argument?

But both Scripture and the inspired record pull back the curtain to reveal the rotten core of his argument. The apostle John, writing under inspiration, gives a blunt and damning assessment of Judas’s motive: “This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein” (John 12:6, KJV). Had the ointment been sold and the money placed in the treasury bag, the poor would have received no benefit; Judas would have simply pilfered it for himself. He was a perfect illustration of the psalmist’s warning: “The words of his mouth were smoother than butter, but war was in his heart: his words were softer than oil, yet were they drawn swords” (Psalm 55:21, KJV). Sr. White confirms that this was not a momentary lapse but the fruit of a long-cultivated character flaw: “He had fostered the evil spirit of avarice until it had become the ruling motive of his life. The love of mammon overbalanced his love for Christ” (The Desire of Ages, p. 716). The topic is the revelation of Judas’s true motive. Assertion: Judas’s concern was feigned for personal gain. Evidence: He was a thief stealing from the bag. “A false balance is abomination to the Lord: but a just weight is his delight.” (Proverbs 11:1, KJV) “The getting of treasures by a lying tongue is a vanity tossed to and fro of them that seek death.” (Proverbs 21:6, KJV) “Avarice leads to envy, hatred, and revenge.” (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 496, 1890) “The love of money leads to the violation of the commandments of God.” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, p. 551, 1855) Commentary: Feigned piety hides sin. But what history led to this culmination of greed?

This act of criticism was not an isolated incident but the culmination of a long history of disappointment and greed. The inspired record provides a detailed psychological profile of the traitor. Judas joined the disciples with worldly ambitions, expecting a high position in a temporal kingdom. He was therefore consistently offended by Christ’s teachings about a spiritual kingdom and the necessity of the cross. He cultivated a disposition to criticize and accuse, seeing himself as a superior manager and a sharper businessman than the other disciples, and even wiser than Christ Himself ( The Desire of Ages, pp. 717, 719). The small sums of money that passed through his hands as treasurer were a “continual temptation,” and he developed a habit of paying himself from the meager fund, inventing excuses that satisfied his own conscience but which in God’s sight made him a thief (The Desire of Ages, p. 717). His story is a chilling case study in how one un-surrendered sin can warp a person’s entire reality, causing them to see the Son of God not as a Savior to be adored, but as a failing investment to be liquidated for a paltry sum. The topic is Judas’s history of greed. Assertion: Greed culminated from long-cultivated flaws. Evidence: Worldly ambitions led to criticism and theft. “Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.” (Proverbs 16:18, KJV) “Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.” (1 Corinthians 3:18, KJV) “The indulgence of one known sin will cause the soul to lose its tender sensibility.” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 2, p. 457, 1868) “One sin cherished is sufficient to work the degradation of the character, and to mislead others.” (Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 452, 1890) Commentary: Unsurrendered sin leads to betrayal. But how do these hearts represent clashing value systems?

The scene at Simon’s feast, therefore, presents a dramatic clash of three distinct value systems. Mary operates according to the economy of heaven, where the object of her love, Christ, is of infinite worth, making any sacrifice seem small. Her gift is pure worship, not a transaction. Judas, in contrast, operates on the economy of hell, a system that is purely materialistic and self-serving. He assigns a monetary value to everything—300 pence for the ointment, 30 pieces of silver for the Messiah. His every calculation is based on personal gain. Simon the Pharisee represents a third system, a common earthly economy of debts and credits. He was healed, so he owes a feast. The feast confers social honor. It is a balanced ledger, but one utterly devoid of love. This contrast forces a vital question upon all who would follow Christ: which economy governs our hearts? The topic is clashing value systems. Assertion: The scene contrasts heavenly, hellish, and earthly economies. Evidence: Mary sacrifices, Judas calculates gain, Simon balances debts. “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven.” (Matthew 6:19-20, KJV) “For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” (Matthew 6:21, KJV) “The principles of the world and the principles of Christ are distinctly opposite.” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, p. 530, 1855) “The economy of heaven is one of liberality, and those who are not imbued with the spirit of Christ, but who claim to be Christians, cannot be saved.” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, p. 549, 1855) Commentary: Hearts reveal governing economies. But how should this contrast examine our own giving?

EXAMINING OUR OWN GIVING

The stark contrast between Mary’s lavish gift to the living Christ and Judas’s selfish calculations forces us to turn the lens of inquiry upon our own hearts and our own patterns of giving. It compels us to ask whether our support of God’s cause is characterized by the joyful abandon of a forgiven soul or the grudging calculus of a covetous one. Sr. White issues a powerful challenge against the kind of thinking that would hoard resources in this life with the vague intention of bequeathing them to the cause after death. She…source as His stewards, they would have the satisfaction of doing their duty. By becoming their own executors, they could meet the claims of God themselves, instead of shifting the responsibility upon others” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 4, p. 487). Mary of Bethany is the perfect embodiment of this principle of living benevolence. She did not save her precious gift for a memorial after Christ’s death; she poured it out upon His living form, giving Him the comfort and assurance of her love in His hour of impending trial. The inspired record makes this exact point: “Joseph of Arimathaea and Nicodemus offered not their gift of love to Jesus in His life. With bitter tears they brought their costly spices for His cold, unconscious form… But Mary, pouring out her love upon the Saviour while He was conscious of her devotion, was anointing Him for the burial” (The Desire of Ages, p. 560). This prompts a deeply personal reflection: Are our gifts to God—of our time, our talents, and our financial resources—given with the spirit of Mary, as a joyful and immediate response to His goodness? Or do we find ourselves operating with the spirit of Simon, giving only what is socially proper, or worse, with the spirit of Judas, always calculating the cost to ourselves and murmuring at the “waste” of true devotion? Do we see our possessions as our own, to be doled out grudgingly, or as God’s, to be returned to Him with overflowing gratitude? The topic is examining personal giving patterns. Assertion: Contrast forces self-examination on giving. Evidence: Mary’s living gift vs. posthumous ones. “Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.” (2 Corinthians 9:7, KJV) “Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.” (Malachi 3:10, KJV) “Liberality is a duty on no account to be neglected; but let not rich or poor suppose that their offerings to God are accepted if they cherish a mean spirit toward their fellow men.” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 4, p. 621, 1875) “The Lord requires us to be submissive to His will, subdued by His Spirit, and sanctified to His service.” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 4, p. 145, 1875) Commentary: Joyful giving reflects forgiven hearts. But how does Jesus teach forgiveness through a parable?

SAVIOR’S STIRRING SERMON!

With the lines of conflict clearly drawn in the room—Mary’s love, Simon’s judgment, Judas’s greed—Jesus, the master teacher, steps into the fray. He does not engage in a direct, harsh rebuke, which would only have hardened the hearts of his critics. Instead, He employs a masterful combination of divine insight and parabolic teaching to disarm pride, defend the penitent, and deliver one of His most profound lessons on the relationship between forgiveness and love. The topic is Jesus’ teaching method. Assertion: Jesus used insight and parable to teach. Evidence: He responded to unspoken thoughts. “But Jesus did not commit himself unto them, because he knew all men.” (John 2:24, KJV) “The Lord knoweth the thoughts of man, that they are vanity.” (Psalm 94:11, KJV) “Jesus knew their thoughts and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation.” (Matthew 12:25, KJV) “Christ knew the character of the men who were plotting against Him.” (The Desire of Ages, p. 406, 1898) “Jesus read the soul as an open book.” (The Desire of Ages, p. 162, 1898) Commentary: Divine knowledge enables gentle correction. But how did He use a parable to lead Simon to self-judgment?

First, Jesus demonstrates His divinity by responding directly to Simon’s unspoken thoughts. The Scripture is precise: “Now when the Pharisee… spake within himself… And Jesus answering said unto him, Simon, I have somewhat to say unto thee” (Luke 7:39-40, KJV). In the very moment Simon doubts Christ’s prophetic ability, Jesus proves He is more than a prophet by reading his host’s mind. As Sr. White notes, “To this unspoken thought the Saviour answered” ( The Desire of Ages, p. 566). This act immediately invalidates Simon’s internal accusation and prepares the ground for the lesson to come. The topic is Jesus’ response to unspoken thoughts. Assertion: Jesus proved divinity by mind-reading. Evidence: He addressed Simon’s doubt directly. “Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure.” (Isaiah 46:10, KJV) “Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off.” (Psalm 139:2, KJV) “Jesus knew the secrets of the soul.” (The Desire of Ages, p. 353, 1898) “Christ read the hearts of men as an open book.” (The Desire of Ages, p. 162, 1898) Commentary: This invalidated doubt. But how did the parable spring the trap?

Next, Jesus deploys a parable, a story designed to bypass Simon’s defenses and lead him to pronounce judgment upon himself. This was the same brilliant technique the prophet Nathan used to bring King David to repentance. The story is simple and its logic inescapable: “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. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most? Simon answered and said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, Thou hast rightly judged” (Luke 7:41-43, KJV). Christ conceals His “home thrust under the veil of a parable,” throwing upon Simon “the burden of pronouncing sentence upon himself” ( The Desire of Ages, p. 566). By getting Simon to agree to the principle first, Jesus treats him not as a “scorner” who would hate reproof, but as a “wise man” who, when rebuked, might learn to love (Proverbs 9:8, KJV). The topic is the parable’s logic. Assertion: The parable led Simon to self-judgment. Evidence: Simon agreed to the principle of greater forgiveness leading to greater love. “And Nathan said to David, Thou art the man.” (2 Samuel 12:7, KJV) “Open rebuke is better than secret love.” (Proverbs 27:5, KJV) “The parables of Jesus are full of truth and beauty.” (The Desire of Ages, p. 298, 1898) “Christ’s method alone will give true success in reaching the people.” (The Ministry of Healing, p. 143, 1905) Commentary: Agreement to principle enables personal application. But how did Jesus apply it with precision?

With the trap sprung, Jesus applies the parable with devastating precision, forcing a complete reversal of Simon’s perception. He turns His attention to the woman, but His words are for Simon: “Seest thou this woman?” (Luke 7:44, KJV). The question is profound. Simon has looked at the woman and seen only her past, her reputation, her sin. Jesus challenges him to truly see her as she is now: a forgiven, loving, worshipful soul. Jesus then draws the sharp contrast between Simon’s cold neglect and Mary’s lavish affection, concluding with the theological core of the lesson: “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” (Luke 7:47, KJV). Simon saw himself as the creditor (the righteous one) and Mary as the great debtor. Jesus reveals that both are insolvent debtors before God. By his own lack of expressed love, Simon is proving that he feels his own debt of sin is small, or perhaps non-existent. He is blind to his own desperate need for the very grace Mary is celebrating. The topic is the parable’s application. Assertion: Jesus reversed Simon’s perception. Evidence: Contrast of actions showed degrees of love and forgiveness. “And when ye stand praying, forgive, if ye have ought against any: that your Father also which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses.” (Mark 11:25, KJV) “But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” (Matthew 6:15, KJV) “Forgiveness of sin is promised to him who repents and believes; the crown of life will be the reward of him who endures to the end.” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 1, p. 454, 1855) “The sense of being forgiven makes the child of God love more deeply.” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 3, p. 98, 1872) Commentary: Perceived forgiveness determines expressed love. But why is careful exegesis crucial here?

It is here that a careful exegesis is crucial. A surface reading of the phrase “Her sins… are forgiven; for she loved much” can be tragically misinterpreted to mean that her love earned her forgiveness, promoting a subtle but deadly works-based salvation. This interpretation, however, is directly contradicted by the logic of the parable itself, where the creditor forgives the debtors before they have a chance to express their love. Their love is the result, not the cause, of their pardon. Jesus Himself clarifies the true order of salvation in his final words to the woman: “Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace” (Luke 7:50, KJV). Therefore, the word “for” (Greek: hoti) in verse 47 must be understood in its evidential sense. Christ is saying, “Her sins, which are many, are forgiven, and the proof of this fact is that she loved much.” Her great love is the beautiful, fragrant evidence of the great forgiveness she has already received by faith. This is the heart of the gospel: we are not saved by our love for God; we love God because we have been saved by His grace. The topic is exegesis of forgiveness and love. Assertion: Love evidences, not earns, forgiveness. Evidence: Parable shows forgiveness precedes love. “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” (Ephesians 2:8-9, KJV) “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Romans 5:1, KJV) “We are not forgiven because we forgive, but as we forgive.” (Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 247, 1900) “The ground of all forgiveness is found in the unmerited love of God.” (Christ’s Object Lessons, p. 251, 1900) Commentary: Grace initiates, love responds. But what does this measure reveal about our love?

Character Trait	Simon the Pharisee	Mary of Bethany	Judas Iscariot
Primary Motivation	Transactional Gratitude; Social Propriety; Self-Righteousness	Overwhelming Love; Deep Gratitude; Repentance	Avarice; Self-interest; Worldly Ambition
View of Jesus	A Prophet/Healer; A means to social honor	Savior; Lord; Worthy of all	A means to power; A political failure; A commodity
View of Sin	A problem for others; A hidden personal guilt	A personal, forgiven debt of immense size	An opportunity for criticism and personal gain
Expression of “Faith”	Perfunctory hospitality; Cold neglect	Extravagant, sacrificial worship	Hypocritical concern for the poor; Murmuring
Christ’s Response	Gentle, corrective rebuke; A teaching parable	Commendation; Forgiveness; An eternal memorial	Exposure of motive; A final, unheeded appeal
Governing Principle	Self-Righteousness	Self-Sacrifice	Selfishness

MEASURE YOUR LOVE!

Christ’s declaration that “to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little” serves as a timeless spiritual barometer. It invites us to measure the temperature of our own devotion not by our doctrinal correctness or our outward service, but by the warmth and intensity of our love for Him. If our love has grown cold, if our worship feels more like a duty than a delight, if our gratitude is a fleeting emotion rather than a constant state of being, Christ’s words suggest a diagnosis: we have lost sight of the magnitude of our forgiven debt. We have perhaps, like Simon, begun to feel that our debt was not so large after all. We have forgotten the pit from which we were rescued. True gratitude is not passive; it is an active spiritual discipline. As Sr. White powerfully states, “Nothing tends more to promote health of body and of soul than does a spirit of gratitude and praise. It is a positive duty to resist melancholy, discontented thoughts and feelings—as much a duty as it is to pray” (The Ministry of Healing, p. 251). A complaining spirit, like that of Judas, is spiritually toxic. A heart that, like Mary’s, is perpetually overflowing with thankfulness for an immeasurable pardon will find its love for Christ growing ever deeper and more expressive. What, then, does the current state of our love for Jesus reveal about our appreciation of His grace? The topic is love as forgiveness barometer. Assertion: Love measures sensed forgiveness. Evidence: Cold love indicates forgotten debt. “Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves.” (2 Corinthians 13:5, KJV) “O give thanks unto the Lord; for he is good: for his mercy endureth for ever.” (Psalm 136:1, KJV) “Gratitude, rejoicing, benevolence, trust in God’s love and care—these are health’s greatest safeguard.” (The Ministry of Healing, p. 281, 1905) “The soul that is conscious of its guilt will find no rest until it has yielded to the subduing influence of the love of God.” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, p. 634, 1889) Commentary: Gratitude actively combats toxicity. But how does the climax bestow eternal honor on Mary?

VERDICT OF VICTORY!

The climax of the encounter in Simon’s house arrives as Jesus moves from teacher to judge, delivering a divine verdict that stuns the other guests and bestowing upon Mary an honor that would outlast empires. In these final moments, Christ reveals His true identity, confirms the source of salvation, and immortalizes an act of simple, heartfelt love. The topic is the climax and verdict. Assertion: Jesus judged and honored in the climax. Evidence: He declared forgiveness and memorial. “Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.” (Luke 10:37, KJV) “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you.” (John 14:27, KJV) “Christ’s words of approval upon acts of benevolence or mercy are more precious than the gifts themselves.” (The Desire of Ages, p. 649, 1898) “The deeds of love and self-sacrifice for Christ’s sake will live forever.” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 2, p. 681, 1868) Commentary: Heartfelt love gains eternal recognition. But how did He claim divine authority?

Having explained the principle of forgiveness to Simon, Jesus turns to the woman and speaks with divine authority: “And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven” (Luke 7:48, KJV). This was no mere comforting assurance; it was a declaration of judicial pardon. The other guests immediately understood the staggering implication of these words. Their internal reaction was one of shock and disbelief: “And they that sat at meat with him began to say within themselves, Who is this that forgiveth sins also?” (Luke 7:49, KJV). They correctly recognized that the authority to forgive sins belongs to God alone. In this single sentence, Jesus moved the scene from a moral lesson about gratitude to a direct revelation of His divine identity. He was claiming the prerogative of Jehovah. The topic is Jesus’ divine pardon. Assertion: Jesus claimed God’s authority to forgive. Evidence: Guests questioned who forgives sins. “For thou, Lord, art good, and ready to forgive; and plenteous in mercy unto all them that call upon thee.” (Psalm 86:5, KJV) “To the Lord our God belong mercies and forgivenesses, though we have rebelled against him.” (Daniel 9:9, KJV) “Jesus has power to forgive sins on earth as in heaven.” (The Desire of Ages, p. 266, 1898) “The forgiveness of sin is a divine prerogative.” (The Desire of Ages, p. 806, 1898) Commentary: This revealed His divinity. But what is the mechanism of this pardon?

To leave no doubt about the grounds for this divine pardon, Jesus then explicitly states the mechanism of her salvation. It was not her tears, her kisses, or her costly ointment that saved her. These were merely the fruits of her salvation. The root was something else entirely. “And he said to the woman, Thy faith hath saved thee; go in peace” (Luke 7:50, KJV). This statement is the capstone of the entire narrative. It confirms that faith is the hand that receives the gift of grace. Faith is the root, forgiveness is the divine act, and love is the beautiful, fragrant fruit that blossoms in the transformed life. This is the unchanging order of the gospel. The topic is salvation’s mechanism. Assertion: Faith receives grace’s gift. Evidence: Fruits follow root of faith. “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Romans 5:1, KJV) “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God.” (Ephesians 2:8, KJV) “Faith is the condition upon which God has seen fit to promise pardon to sinners.” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 4, p. 144, 1875) “The faith that is unto salvation is not a mere intellectual assent to the truth.” (The Great Controversy, p. 261, 1911) Commentary: Gospel order: faith, forgiveness, love. But what unprecedented honor did Jesus bestow?

Having defended her act and declared her pardon, Jesus then bestows upon Mary an honor unprecedented in its scope and permanence. He lifts her humble, criticized act of devotion out of the stuffy room in Bethany and places it at the very heart of His worldwide, eternal gospel. “Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached in the whole world, there shall also this, that this woman hath done, be told for a memorial of her” (Matthew 26:13, KJV). This is an astonishing prophecy and promise. The story of the cross and the story of the alabaster box are to be forever intertwined. The gospel of His sacrifice would be incomplete without the memorial of her love. As Sr. White beautifully observes, in giving her this eternal honor, Christ “gave her more than He had received” ( The Desire of Ages, p. 560). He repaid her gift of temporal value with a crown of eternal glory, ensuring that her simple, heartfelt response to His love would echo through the ages as a sermon on the nature of true worship. The topic is Mary’s eternal memorial. Assertion: Jesus immortalized Mary’s act in the gospel. Evidence: It would be told wherever gospel preached. “A good name is better than precious ointment; and the day of death than the day of one’s birth.” (Ecclesiastes 7:1, KJV) “The righteous shall be in everlasting remembrance.” (Psalm 112:6, KJV) “The deeds of kindness may have been done in secret, but the result upon the character of the doer cannot be hidden.” (Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing, p. 82, 1896) “Every act of love, every word of kindness, every prayer in behalf of the afflicted and oppressed, is reported before the eternal throne.” (Testimonies for the Church, vol. 5, p. 133, 1882) Commentary: Heartfelt worship endures eternally. But what lasting metaphor does the fragrance provide?

FRAGRANCE FOREVER!

The story of the feast at Bethany ends, but its central, sensory image lingers: “and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment” (John 12:3, KJV). This fragrance serves as a lasting metaphor for the influence of a life transformed by grace. The aroma of the spikenard physically filled Simon’s house, overpowering the smell of food and silencing the murmurs of criticism. In the same way, the story of Mary’s beautiful act of love has filled the spiritual house of God—the church—for two millennia, its sweet fragrance a perpetual testimony to the power of a grateful heart. The inspired record expands this metaphor, seeing in the broken alabaster box a type of Christ Himself: “As the alabaster box was broken, and filled the whole house with its fragrance, so Christ was to die, His body was to be broken; but He was to rise from the tomb, and the fragrance of His life was to fill the earth” ( The Desire of Ages, p. 560). For those engaged in the sacred work of ministry, this one dinner party in Bethany provides a complete curriculum for soul-winning. Our mission is to cultivate the heart of Mary in those we serve—a heart that understands its great debt and responds with extravagant, joyful love. We are called to gently but firmly correct the spirit of Simon that so often resides within the church: the spirit of cold, formal, self-righteous religion that is blind to its own need and quick to judge others. And we must be ever vigilant to identify and expose the destructive, self-serving spirit of Judas, which cloaks its avarice in the language of piety and despises the “waste” of true devotion. The topic is the fragrance metaphor. Assertion: Fragrance symbolizes transformed life’s influence. Evidence: It filled the house as Mary’s story fills the church. “For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish.” (2 Corinthians 2:15, KJV) “Let my prayer be set forth before thee as incense; and the lifting up of my hands as the evening sacrifice.” (Psalm 141:2, KJV) “The life of Christ was a life charged with a divine message of the love of God, and He longed intensely to impart this to others.” (The Desire of Ages, p. 330, 1898) “The influence of a holy life is the most convincing sermon that can be given in favor of Christianity.” (The Acts of the Apostles, p. 511, 1911) Commentary: Transformed lives fill God’s house eternally.

Ultimately, the goal of all our labor is to bring souls to the feet of the same Savior Mary found. It is to lead them to a faith that saves, a forgiveness that liberates, and a love that overflows. For in this sacred work, we have the blessed assurance that “he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins” (James 5:20, KJV). May the fragrance of such transformed lives, our own included, fill the house of God until the Master returns.

If you have a prayer request, please leave it in the comments below. Prayer meetings are held on Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday. To join, enter your email address in the comments section.

Search

Search