to whom little is forgiven

The answer lies in the parable that precedes this verse. The one who was forgiven the most was the one who loved the most.

Many Christians (and those who falsely believe they are Christians) do not have a proper understanding of just how repulsive sin is to God. The greater our understanding of how bad a sinner we really are, the greater our appreciation of what Christ has done for us. If we don't think we are so bad, we don't think God has done much for us. We don't ascribe to God the Glory He is due, and we don't enjoy our Christian lives as much.

The more I know about scripture and God, the more I realize how little I really know and understand.

 

There are various ways this might be considered. Following is one way.


=======
Were her sins forgiven becasue she loved much, or did she love much becasue her sins were forgiven?
=======

She loved much, because her sins were forgiven, IMO

=======
What does it mean to whom little is forgiven, is this little is forgiven because little was confessed, repented of, or in the persons opinion there is little for them to be forgiven of?
=======

One person is not more saved than another, and if a person is saved, all their sin is forgiven. All do not have the same measure of faith and conversion, IMO.

=======
What does it mean to whom little is forgiven, is this little is forgiven because little was confessed, repented of, or in the persons opinion there is little for them to be forgiven of?
=======

Some see as if through a less translucent glass than others, IMO. Therefore, as I understand it, in their own opinion they do not see the depth of their own sin, but that does not make them less saved. If such a thing were so, it would not be reason for spiritual pride in the one imagining they were the greater sinner, the wisest etc.

=======
I guess I mean like, repenting, but not of all their sins, so some are not forgiven.
=======

According to light given, a person confesses their sin, if they are saved. IMO, If they do not see the depth of their sin, but confess what they do see, there sins are all forgiven. If any sins are not forgiven, the person is not saved.

Proverbs 28:13 (KJV) He that covereth his sins shall not prosper: but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.

1 John 1:8 (KJV) If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

=======
Does this say if for whatever reason the sin is not forgiven (whether unrepentant or whatever) that person has less love for God?
=======

Love for God is manifest by a life of obedience. Being rebellious does not show love. Love is not simply a feeling but is an act of the will, therefore love is shown by actions. I’m not able to judge a mans heart, but I am able to see their actions and make judgment based on that. Harbouring sin for any reason is rebellion, IMO, and quenches love. One person is able to have more love for God than another, IMO. Such a thing is subject to change.

By grace,
Bob Krajcik
Mansfield, Ohio

 

That is right! It does not have to dissolve into an unbiblical focus upon ourselves and our sin, but on Christ and what He has done. Paul proclaims He was the worst of all sinners. Does that mean he did more evil deeds than anyone else in the world? No! It meant he realized how bad his sin was; that his sin of persecuting (killing the saints) the church was an attack upon Christ Himself. There is no greater sin. And yet, he was shown mercy. His love for God could not be contained and He poured out his life for the cause of Christ in continuous gratitude for the grace that had been shown to him. He that has been forgiven the most will love the most. Jesus said if you love me will keep my commandments. May it be so with all of us.

 

Very good post. This has always been my understanding of this passage. It is one I love very much because it brings home to me my state before God saved me.

I especially appreciate your last statement. I recently taught a Sunday School class of men, ages 60-85. This was a thought that was often expressed in that class.

 

Thank you. Let me add: "the more I realize how little time I have to learn."

 

The Pharisee didn't think God needed to do much for him.

The publican KNEW he had much to be forgiven of.


Luke 18:9-14

And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:

Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men [are], extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as [his] eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

I tell you, this man went down to his house justified [rather] than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

 

Amen to that! But like that old song says "we will understand it better by and by."

 

Some of the best people I know are like the Pharisee. They can't seem to bring themselves to admit that we are all like the publican.

 

I think she was forgiven because she loved.
The bible says, over and over, that the 2nd greatest commandment is to love.

Besides, it uses the word, "for," which translates as "because". She was forgiven because she loved much.

Because she obeyed that so well, she was forgiven greatly.

 

Amen! The publican had it right.There is noe righteous no not one.

 

TexasSky

Your view is simply inconsistent with the parable Jesus had just spoken. She was forgiven because God had mercy. She responded in love. That is the point of the parable.

 

JD,

It isn't a parable, and the context, in fact, IS "You loved little, she loved much."

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. 45 Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet. 46 My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment. 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.

 

TexasSky

Luke 7:36-50 is the context of the remarks. The parable is clearly used to express to Simon the reasons for the actions of the woman, and Jesus's acceptance of her loving acts. In verse 48, Jesus tells her, "your sins have been forgiven". This is a past tense statement. It had already occurred. In verse 50, Jesus says, "Your faith has saved you; go in peace." This is a past tense statement, it has already occurred. He didn't say, your love has saved you. He makes no statement whatsoever about obedience. Jesus is telling Simon the reason she is showing so much love is that she had many sins that were forgiven.

This woman is probably Mary Magdeline, who is mentioned as supporting His ministry in chapter 8, (just two verses later) where scripture says Jesus had cast seven demons out of her (past tense). This incident, or one very similar, is mentioned in Matthew 26:6 as well, but the parable is not mentioned there and she annoints His head for burial.

The reason it is important to see the distinction here is that the way you phrased your previous statement, "She was forgiven because she loved much. Because she obeyed that so well, she was forgiven greatly." indicates you believe Jesus forgave her based on her obedience to the love command. That is simply not true, not of this passage or anywhere else. It logically leads to a belief in a works based salvation. I don't know if that was what you intended or not, but regardless, that is what you said.

 

JD,

Christ himself stated that the greatest commandment was to love God, and the second greatest was to love yourself. Christ is God. The woman showed love to Christ. So when Christ says, "Because she loved greatly," He is also, by default, referring to her obedience to the will of God. Love ~is~ obedience.

You are trying far too hard to make the verse say something it does not say.

Christ's words were very simple and very straight forward. Why try to change them? Why can't you just accept them for what they are?

 

A text without a context is a pretext to a prooftext. You are taking the passage out of context to make it say something Jesus never meant for it to say.

 

AGAIN - it is NOT a parable. It is an accounting of an event that Simon and Christ experienced together.

So - right from the start, I know, absolutely KNOW that you have not read the scripture if you portray an actual event from the life of Christ as a parable. I rebuke you for that.

Let's read it IN context JD. Let's read God's word in context.

Luke 7:36 "Now, one of the Pharisees invited Jesus to have dinner with him, so he went to the Pharisee's house and reclined at the table."

Luke 7:37 - 38 "When a woman who lived a sinful life in the town learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee's house, she brought an alabster jar of perfume, and as she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them, and poured perfume on them."

STILL not a parable. STILL a historical accounting of Christ. Do you actually READ scripture JD?

Luke 7:39 When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him, and what kind of woman she is - that she is a sinner." (That Pharisee reminds me of you JD, and it is STILL not a parable.)

Luke 7:40 Jesus answered him, "Simon, I have something to tell you." (Are you listening JD?) Per the scripture, said, "Tell me, teacher," he said." (Are you listening to him too JD?)

HERE is your parable, that was given to the Pharisee:

Luke 7:41-42 "Two men owed money to a certain moneylender. One owed him 500 denari, the other 50. Neither of them had the money to pay him back, so he canceled the debts of both. Now wich of them will love him more?"
(Can YOU answer the question Christ asked, JD? Which debtor will love more, JD?)

Luke 7:43 "Simon replied, "I suppose the one who had the bigger debt canceled." (Wow, that took a lot of head work didn't it?)

Luke 7:43b "You have judged correctly." (Okay, Christ says, you got it. You figured it out.)

The parable is OVER JD.It really ended back in verse 42.

Now, verse 44, we are NOT in a parable anymore JD. Get out your bible and read it in context.

"Then he turned toward the woman and said to Simon. Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet. You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfum on my feet....." That is all Christ talking, and it is about the moment he lived, it was not a parable, it was TO the Phrasiee, JD.

Vs. 47: "Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven - for she loved much." Now, JD. Do not change the words of Jesus Christ. Do NOT twist the words of Jesus Christ. I, for one, will no longer stand for it on a board that proclaims to be Christian.

Don't remove "for she loved much," and substitue your own legalistic, blaspheme into it. Don't try to change "for she loved much," into "a parable."

Don't alter the words of Jesus Christ, JD.

And don't forget the rest of the verse. "But he who has been forgiven little loves little."

Luke 48: "Then Jesus said to her, "Your sins are forgiven."

She loved first.
She was forgiven AFTER she loved.
And notice folks, it never once says she asked for forgiveness.

She was forgiven, as Christ said, "Because she loved much."

Its there is God's word, and if you want to change God's word to fit your own "right to judge," you aren't much of a Christian.

Now, I'm going to tell you, that I rebuke you.
If you are a Christian, stop trying to twist the words of Christ.

If you are a Christian, stop trying to justify disobedience to the second greatest commandment.
If you are NOT a Christian, stop preaching.


This is NOT a parable, JD. This is CHRIST's LIFE.


I posted it IN context.
I posted the surrounding scripture.
In fact, from your first post, I gather you didn't even look it up, and had it confused with a different event. You called it a "parable". It was not a parable. It was an actual event in the life of Christ.

Now, let me put this in terms you legalists can understand.

To argue against the love of God is to blashpheme the Holy Spirit.

If you are a Christian, I rebuke you for that.

If you are not a Christian, I ask Christ to rebuke you from further false-teachings.

[ June 20, 2005, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: TexasSky ]

 

TexasSky

If you look at what I said in my very first post on this thread, I said the answer to the question was in the parable Jesus told prior. I have never said what the woman did was a parable.

The earlier parable clearly says the one who is forgiven the most is the one who loves the most. Jesus used that parable to instruct Simon.

(v47: "Her many sins (This is Jesus saying she had many sins, not me) have been forgiven-for she loved much.")

This is a past tense comment. That means it has already occurred! It is clear that her response of love is given by Jesus as evidence that her sins had already been forgiven.

"for she loved much" is not the reason she was forgiven, it is the reason she is showing Jesus so much love. This is clear (in context) by the rest of the verse, "But he who has been forgiven little, loves little." There is the cause and effect. The forgiveness comes first, the love comes afterward. I am not twisting or taking anything out of context.

Jesus turns to her and offers reassurance to her that her sins have already been forgiven. "your faith has saved you (past tense), go in peace". Jesus did not say her love had saved her, or her obedience saved her. Her faith had saved her.

Seeing this is context in no way negates the awesome love of God. It puts the focus where it should be, on God who has mercy, and not on man. I am not arguing against the love of God. I have simply tried to show the context of the passage.

Why are you so angry at that and why to you have to resort to name-calling?