Who is Simon the Pharisee? Not necessarily a bad man. We associate
whatever is odious in hypocrisy or base in craft with the name Pharisee,
while really it was the most distinguished title among the Jews. Many of
the Pharisees were hypocrites; not all of them. The name is significant
of profession, not of character. He could not have been an unprincipled,
villanous man, or he would never have tendered to Jesus the
hospitalities of his house. Indeed, Christ allows him, in the sense of
moral indebtedness, to owe but fifty pence. He was probably a rich man,
which might appear from the generous entertainment he made. He was a
respectable man. The sect to which he belonged was the most celebrated
and influential among the Jews; and when not debased by positive crime,
a Pharisee was always esteemed for his learning and his piety. He had
some interest in Christ, either in his mission or his character,--an
interest beyond mere curiosity, or he would not have invited him to dine
with him. He betrays a sincere friendliness, also, in his apprehension
lest Christ should suffer any religious contamination.

The third person in the scene is Christ, who, to speak of him not as
theology has interpreted him to us, but as he appeared to the eyes of
his contemporaries, was the reputed son of Joseph and Mary, the
Bethlehemites; who by his words and deeds had attracted much attention
and made some converts; now accused of breaking the Jewish Sabbath, now
of plotting against the Roman sovereignty; one who in his own person had
felt the full power of temptation, and who had been raised to the
grandeur of a transfiguration; so tender he would not bruise the broken
reed, so gentle his yoke was rest; raying out with compassion and love
wherever he went; healing alike the pangs of grief and the languor of
disease; whom some believed to be the Messiah, and others thought a
prophet; whom the masses followed, and the priests feared;--this is the