Luke 7

CHAPTER VII

Luke reports only one of the miracles that followed on the great Sabbath in the early morning of which Jesus preached the Sermon on the Mount. Matthew (8:1, etc.) reports this and much more.

Luke 7:1

1 When he completed all his utterances for the hearing of the people he went into Capernaum (Matt. 8:5) and there wrought this miracle. There was nothing more to be uttered on that great occasion. The distance to Capernaum was not far, and it was here that the slave of the officer was healed.

Luke 7:2

2 Now a centurion’s slave, being ill, was about to die, who was precious to him.

In times of peace the Romans quartered no troops in Capernaum. This officer was in the pay of Herod Antipas, whose troops were made up of foreigners (Josephus, Ant. 17, 8, 3) of various nationalities. In the narrative, too, this man appears as a Gentile. A centurion commanded a hundred men or less; a cohort had six centuries, and a legion ten cohorts. The fact should be noted that all the centurions mentioned in the New Testament act in the most honorable manner; Polybius states that the best men in the army were selected for this position. The one mentioned here seems to have been a proselyte of the gate (v. 4, 5). He had his permanent residence in Capernaum.

Luke writes δοῦλος, “slave,” whereas Matthew has παῖς, the term for “servant.” These terms are like the German Bursche and the English “boy.” The clause which states that this slave was so valuable to his master explains why he went to so much trouble in the sick man’s behalf. Ἔχειν with an adverb means “to be”: “being ill,” literally, “having it bad.” Though Luke was a physician, it is Matthew who names the disease, which was paralysis. But Luke at once states that the sick man “was about to die,” the imperfect of μέλλω with a present infinitive to express what is impending. The condition of the slave explains why no effort was made to bring him to Jesus; moreover, this seems to have been a Sabbath.

Luke 7:3

3 Now when he heard concerning Jesus he sent to him elders of the Jews requesting him that, having come, he bring his slave safe through.

The centurion, who knew about Jesus, heard that he had returned to the city. Matthew says nothing about these intermediary Jewish elders whom the centurion sent to Jesus. Therefore a discrepancy is found by some although Luke, too, says that the centurion was ἐρωτῶν, “requesting” Jesus, namely through the elders. Matthew omitted the detail about the elders. What a man does through agents he really does himself. Another point is Luke’s independent source of information. Matthew himself was present with Jesus and also knew all the details, but Luke did not secure them from Matthew but obtained them elsewhere.

Although the centurion was a proselyte, he feels his unworthiness in the presence of the great Jewish teacher and worker of miracles and thus requests his Jewish friends, who are important persons in the city, to intercede for him, which they do most readily. Army officers, as a rule, bear themselves proudly and feel their dignity, yet this commander shows the deepest and most honest humility. He drops not only every presumption of military rank but likewise every presumption of connection with the synagogue and of his great benefaction to the local Jews.

The verb ἐρωτᾶν expresses dignity, it requests, it does not merely ask. Both Matthew and Luke bring out fully the fact that the centurion did not expect Jesus to enter his house, which would be defiling to a Jew. That means that ἐλθών, “having come,” is not to be stressed as requesting Jesus to enter the house where the slave lay. All that is meant is that Jesus is to come to the house. Ὅπως is used after a verb of requesting (R. 995), and the verb compounded with διά means that Jesus is to bring the dying man safely through and back to life and health. The very request shows great faith: Jesus is to help a dying man. Since it was offered in such humility it certainly touched the heart of Jesus deeply.

Luke 7:4

4 But they, having come up to Jesus, began beseeching him earnestly, saying, Worthy is he for whom thou shalt do this, for he loves our nation and himself built the synagogue for us.

In v. 3 there is stated what the centurion wanted the Jewish elders to say, but there is now recorded what they really said. They did more than to present the centurion’s request, they went on beseeching Jesus earnestly on their own behalf for this man who was their benefactor. When they say that he is “worthy” they do not mean that he has deserved miraculous help but that, compared with others whom Jesus helped, this centurion was worthy of consideration. In ᾧπαρέξῃ we have a complementary relative clause in the subfinal sense (R. 996), the future tense indicates contemplated result: “for whom thou shalt do this”—not “should,” which expresses obligation—for the elders feel certain that Jesus is going to do this. The verb is the future middle of παρέχω: erweisen, “to render.”

Luke 7:5

5 The reason for deeming the man worthy of favorable consideration on the part of Jesus is certainly notable: “for he loves our nation,” the Jewish nation as such although he is of a different nationality. And now a particular benefaction is pointed out: “the synagogue he himself did build for us”; the object is placed forward: no less than the synagogue. The article refers only to the synagogue of these elders and cannot be stressed to mean the only or the greatest synagogue in Capernaum. The subject, too, is emphatic, αὐτός, “he himself,” which implies that he built it entirely out of his own means. That certainly says a great deal. Although it implies wealth on the centurion’s part it implies also a devout desire to apply his wealth in the way that would please God most.

The site of Capernaum is not certain. Some stone capitals have been uncovered where Capernaum is supposed to have been located, and we were asked to believe that they belonged to this centurion’s synagogue, for they had the seven-branched candlestick carved upon them. But they and other stones have been proved to be of much later date, and more than ruins of a late synagogue are necessary to determine a site.

Luke 7:6

6 Now Jesus proceeded to go with them. But while he was already not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying to him: Lord, stop troubling thyself, for I am not sufficient that thou shouldest enter beneath my roof; wherefore I did not deem myself worthy to come to thee. But say a word, and healed shall be my servant. For I myself, too, am a man set under authority, yet having under myself soldiers, and I say to this one, Go! and he goes; and to another, Be coming! and he comes; and to my slave, Do this! and he does it.

Jesus expressed his readiness to go to the centurion’s house (Matt. 8:7), and Luke shows him on the way. Both παρεκάλουν (v. 4) and ἐπορεύετο are imperfects and imply that something definite is to follow. It does as ἔπεμψε, the aorist, shows: the centurion sent out friends to stop him from coming any farther. Word must have been hurried to the centurion that Jesus intended to come. It reached him when Jesus was already close to the house. This would not do; Jesus must not come into this Levitically unclean house.

It was improper for any Jew to go under the roof of a Gentile and most certainly for a great and holy Jew like Jesus. The centurion had not meant that Jesus should come into his house but should come only near enough to heal his slave. How he imagined that Jesus would do this he states in v. 7. He did not, of course, instruct the elders to say this to Jesus, for that would have made the impression that he wanted to prescribe to Jesus how he should proceed—a thought that was farthest from the centurion’s mind.

Note the problem: a slave in a Gentile’s house, who is dying and cannot be moved; and Jesus who as a Jew cannot enter this ceremonially unclean house and hasten to the slave’s side. But Jesus is already near and ready to enter into this unclean house. It occurs to the centurion that something must be wrong, that the Jewish elders perhaps went too far in urging Jesus, or that Jesus was under some misapprehension in regard to the kind of house he is about to enter. So the centurion hastily sends a few of his friends to stop Jesus and not to let him go too far. Luke again represents the centurion himself as doing the speaking, which fully justifies Matthew’s account which omits mention of the friends.

The address Κύριε receives its weight from the entire context, especially from v. 9, from the man’s great faith. “Lord” thus means “divine Lord” and not merely “sir.” In many connections the present imperative in negative commands means that one is to stop an action already begun (see R. 851, etc.); it does so here; μὴσκύλλου (present middle) means “stop troubling thyself,” i. e., in coming as far as under my roof. Why is Jesus to halt? “I am not sufficient (not fit, ἱκανός) that thou shouldest enter beneath my roof”—thus delicately referring to the Levitical uncleanness of his house. The ἵνα clause is equal to an infinitive after ἱκανός, R. 992, 1076.

Luke 7:7

7 But what did this officer mean by sending for Jesus? He feels that he must now say what he would not have said when sending his appeal, now that, to his astonishment, Jesus is coming, actually coming to enter his house. He first explains why he himself had not hastened to Jesus. As a Gentile he felt himself too unworthy to come to Jesus with a petition. He felt that a Gentile had no such right, and that Jesus would likely turn away from him. So he had sent the Jewish elders in his place, Jews and elders whom Jesus would certainly regard.

How did the centurion think that Jesus, if he came to help, would proceed? He states it by putting it into the form of a request, namely that on his arrival before the house Jesus would just say a word, just a word of some kind, and that the servant would then be healed. It is thus that the humble mind really honors Jesus by thinking highly of him. Others thought that Jesus would have to touch the sufferers before he could heal them, but this man was sure that Jesus needs to speak only “a word.” Two important texts have the aorist imperative ἰαθήτω, “let him be healed,” instead of the future passive ἰαθήσεται. And the centurion now uses the more affectionate ὁπαῖςμου, which is explained above.

Luke 7:8

8 The centurion explains to Jesus how he came to think that Jesus would proceed in such a way and speak only a word to heal his servant. He feels that he must do this lest Jesus think him rather presumptuous for saying how he might proceed under the peculiar circumstances. The centurion’s explanation again does him great credit, for it reveals his degree of faith. The emphasis is on καὶἐγώ, “I myself also,” and τασσόμενος merely explains the kind of man he is, one who is set or ranged under authority. In the king’s service he is under the king’s authority, is probably the ranking officer in Capernaum. Though he is under another he has still others who are under his command, to whom he needs to say but a single word in order to secure its instant execution. The thought is: “If I myself, a subaltern, am able to have my will done by a mere word, how much more thou, Jesus, who art the king and ruler thyself?”

The καί should not be stressed to mean that Jesus, too, is “a man set under authority,” for that would damage the inference of the argument. “I myself also” means I like other officers. The argument is from the less to the greater. If even a man who is under authority is instantly obeyed by those under him, how much more will Jesus be obeyed, who has all powers and all agencies under his command! The illustration is not a double one, namely that the centurion knows obedience both by himself obeying the authority over him and by having his own authority obeyed by those who are under him. If that were the sense, he would illustrate his own obedience in the way in which he illustrates the obedience of the soldiers and of his slave. “A man set under authority” humbly brings out the inferior position of the centurion over against the high eminence of Jesus.

The two aorist commands, πορεύθητι and ποιήσον, have the true military ring and snap whereas the present ἔρχου and the three present tenses to state the obedience of each command are also aoristic (R. 856, 865), meaning punctiliar: “be coming on the instant!” So are the indicatives: “he goes on the instant”—“he comes instantly”—“he does the thing at once.” Note that “go” and “come” are military marching commands and are thus issued to soldiers; but the δοῦλος is the officer’s personal servant, and the orders he gets and obeys are according.

The request to save the servant from death, and, because of the Levitical uncleanness, doing that by merely expressing his will by a word imply divine omnipotence in Jesus. The centurion thus reveals his conception of Jesus and of any word of command that may come from his lips. This answers the question as to the agencies which would execute the divine will of Jesus. Different suggestions are offered. Yet a man who thinks like this centurion regarding Jesus, a man who is so devoted to Judaism as to build a synagogue for the Capernaum Jews, could have in mind only the angels of God. And this the more since the Old Testament represents them as being an army that is ready to execute commands, 2 Kings 6:17; Ps. 103:20; 68:17; 34:7; compare Matt. 26:53.

Luke 7:9

9 But on hearing these things Jesus marvelled at him and, having turned to the multitude following him, said, I say to you, not even in Israel did I find so great faith. And those sent, having returned to the house, found the slave well.

Only twice did Jesus praise faith as being great, here and in the case of the Canaanite woman. This makes his doing so the more noteworthy. “Not even in Israel” implies that the centurion was a Gentile. Yet the implication is that Jesus found great faith also in Israel even if it was not as great as that of this Gentile. The Greek is satisfied with the aorist εὗρον, a statement of the past fact as such, whereas we use the perfect “have I found” to note the relation of the time, R. 844.

The greatness of the centurion’s faith is apparent in its humility. Though the man is a high military officer and a great benefactor of the Jews he deems himself utterly unworthy. In the second place this man’s faith centers in the word of Jesus, the very thing that Jesus had so much difficulty in attaining among the Jews. Of himself, merely from what this man had heard about Jesus, without further experience and teaching, he shows absolute trust in Jesus’ word and in its power; compare the court officer mentioned in John 4:50 for an example of one who arrives slowly at faith in Jesus’ mere word. A word is enough, Jesus does not need to be present in person.

Thirdly and as the basis of this humble confidence in the mere word, the centurion has a proper conception of the exalted person of Jesus. His word that is spoken outside the house works with omnipotence to save from death. It is an ill comment on Jesus’ estimate of the centurion’s faith to suggest that he had some pagan conception of how the power of Jesus would work the healing, yet that this did not affect the nature and the value of the faith. Any pagan conception would vastly reduce, if it would not make void, this Gentile’s faith. The remarkable feature of the man’s faith was the fact that it accorded so fully with the truest Israelite teaching and was wholly free from pagan conceptions.

Luke 7:10

10 Did Jesus, or did he not, say a word that healed the dying man? Did Jesus, perhaps, overtop the officer’s faith and heal the slave by mere volition, without even a word? Luke does not answer these questions. But he implies that the miracle was wrought when he states that “those sent” (elders and friends), on returning, found the slave well. Not only was he brought back from the verge of dissolution but was completely freed from the paralysis and was “well” again like any other man, the present participle indicates his condition.

Luke 7:11

11 And it came to pass in the time soon after he went to a city called Nain, and there were going with him his disciples and a great multitude.

On ἐγένετο plus a finite verb without a connective see 1:8. The reading with τῷ (supply χρόνῳ) is preferable to τῇ (supply ἡμέρᾳ); in either case the adverb ἑξῆς is used as an adjective. Nain probably lay south-west of Capernaum, about two miles west of Endor, on the slope of Little Hermon and south of Mt. Tabor. Luke tells us who went with him.

Luke 7:12

12 Now as he came near to the portal of the city, lo, there was being carried out one dead, a son only-begotten to his mother, and she was a widow. And a goodly crowd of the city was with her.

The situation that Jesus encountered is sketched effectively so as to let us feel the full pathos of the scene. Jesus, the Prince of Life, here meets death, carrying away his helpless prey. Looked at thus, the scene becomes dramatic in a supreme way. The city was walled and was entered through a great portal in the wall. The aorist means that Jesus drew near, and the following imperfect that the dead man was in the act of being carried out. Jesus and his great following stopped, and the large funeral procession came toward him and then also stopped.

The imperfect pictures how the dead man was carried out. Καί before ἰδού introduces the apodosis and is not translated because we lack this idiom (B.-D. 442, 7). The surprise occasioned by the meeting of these two bodies of people is marked by “lo.” It seemed purely accidental but was the hand of providence. The masculine perfect participle τεθνηκώς is used like a noun, but its tense indicates a condition that set in and continues just as the perfect of the verb itself means “to be dead.”

“A dead man” is distressful enough; but there are other features that are still more so, such as make this one of the saddest of cases. The man who was being carried out was not only his mother’s only son but the only one she had ever had as “only-begotten” states. We know what sorrow this was for this mother. Τῇμητρί is the dative of relation. “And she was a widow” adds the third point, which raises the grief to the highest degree. They had once before carried out a dead man for her—that was her husband. She then had one comfort left, her son. But he was now being carried out also, her last consolation and, since he had grown up, her only support and provider.

No wonder that “a goodly crowd” of the city went with her out to the burial. But how was this general sympathy to offset her terrible loss?

Luke 7:13

13 And when the Lord saw her he was filled with compassion for her and said to her, Stop sobbing! And having come forward, he touched the bier; and those bearing it stopped. And he said, Young man, to thee I say, rise up! And the dead sat up and began to speak. And he gave him to his mother.

Jesus was walking in front of all those that followed him and met the funeral procession as it was coming in the opposite direction and was about to pass him and his followers on one side. He at once saw the one mourner, who, according to custom, walked either in front of or behind the bier. In that climate the ordinary dead are buried the same day they die, or if they die too late for that, then on the following morning.

It is to be noted that Luke uses ὁΚύριος, “the Lord,” to designate Jesus. He will do so again frequently. This designation had its beginnings during the earthly life of Jesus and developed rapidly into a fixed usage after his resurrection. It is this usage that we see in Luke. It designates Jesus as the divine Lord and Ruler who is over all and in a special sense, namely as the divine Messiah, over all believers. It is not intended as the personal name of God, the equivalent of Yahweh, for it designates Jesus in his office of Ruler; but it always designates him in his deity as our Messiah-Ruler in whom we trust, whom we obey, who is the source of our salvation, and whom we worship. It may be that Luke begins this use of “the Lord” because of the greatness of this miracle.

The verb σπλαγνίζομαι seems to be “a coinage of the Jewish Dispersion”: “to be moved as to the σπλάγχνα, the nobler viscera, heart, lungs, and liver, which are here conceived in the Hebraic sense as the seat of the affections” (cf., M.-M. 584 on the verb and the noun, see the latter in 1:78). All the tender pity of Jesus for this stricken widow is revealed. We have the finite verb “was filled with compassion for her” and not a mere circumstantial participle which would denote something that is merely subsidiary. Jesus and the widow stood side by side, each had the procession behind them, and thus without a further word Jesus turns to her and says, “Stop sobbing!” It is the present imperative negatived, which so often means to stop what has been begun or what one is doing; and κλαίειν is schluchzen, audible weeping, δακρύειν, to shed tears, weep silently.

It is not necessary to offer the explanation that Jesus secured the information about this sad case from one of the people, say one of the mourning women. Jesus himself saw enough—one lone, elderly woman as the mourner, no husband, no other child, her heart breaking with sobs, poorly clad, and all this multitude from the city, and the body, as its form showed, that of a youth. If Jesus needed any more information, it was at his command through his supernatural insight, which always gave him what he needed for his work. It is a command to stop sobbing (though not a peremptory aorist), and yet in that command there lies the most astounding promise. For when Jesus commands he always enables us to obey his commands.

Luke 7:14

14 When men preach on this section they often mar this scene by dwelling on this command and presenting it as if the woman stood surprised and shocked at Jesus’ ordering her to cease her sobbing. But it was all done in a moment—Jesus stepped to the bier, stretched out his hand and touched it so that the bearers stopped forthwith—and then there rang out the second command, which is now indeed a most peremptory aorist: “Young man, to thee I say, rise up!”

In Homer σορός was used to designate the urn or vessel that held the ashes or the bones of the dead; then it meant a coffin, sarcophagus, etc., for a dead body; and then the funeral couch or bier on which a wrapped body was carried. And this last is the sense here, for the Jews did not use coffins (2 Sam. 3:21) because they did not bury in the soil but in chambers that had been hewn in the rock. Lazarus was laid away in this fashion, Joseph was preparing a tomb for his family, in which Jesus was laid, and the demoniac wandered among the tombs, Matt. 8:28. It was the sandapila, Totenbahre, which was used for common people; prominent people were carried out in the lectica, Saenfte, litter (Georges, Woerterbuch). We do not know whether it was carried on the shoulders. The author saw a Jewish funeral procession at Jerusalem. It was a great procession that was composed entirely of men, and among them was the bier, two long poles with bands across, and the wrapped body was borne by the bearers’ hands.

Jesus speaks to the dead youth as if he could hear and obey. And his command again carries with it the power to obey. Very important is λέγω, “I say.” It is like θέλω, “I will,” in Matt. 8:3. Jesus calls the dead to life by his own will and power; the apostles wrought “in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth,” Acts 3:6. Jesus treats the widow’s son as if he were only asleep (8:52). For him to wake the dead is no more than to arouse one who sleeps. The passive of ἐγείρω is used also intransitively as it is here. The young man is to rise up from his death sleep and to return to life.

Luke 7:15

15 The miracle is again described in the simplest and most natural way: “he sat up and began to talk” exactly as if he had been asleep. There are movement and speech. And now the full satisfaction of that compassion in Jesus: “he gave him to his mother.” He himself united mother and son in their nameless joy. “He gave”—and such a gift—and how he loves to do such giving! Luke writes as if he had witnessed the scene, for he certainly had received all these precious details from an eyewitness.

Luke 7:16

16 But fear took all; and they began to glorify God, saying, A great prophet did rise up among us, and, God did look upon his people. And this account concerning him went out in whole Judea and in all the region round about.

The fear took hold of all of them suddenly, at that moment, as the aorist states. To see a dead man who was on the way to his tomb raised to life by a word would today strike every one of us with a fear that would make us quake. We need not reduce the word to mean only awe and reverence. He who snatches its prey from the monster death exhibits a power that must make us tremble. The imperfect goes on to describe what began and continued after the people began to think a little and the first shock had subsided sufficiently. They started to glorify God, and Luke has preserved two of their significant and typical expressions. The one is about Jesus, and the other about what God was doing through him.

It is a pity that they rise no higher in their estimate than that Jesus is “a great prophet” and as such “did arise among us,” the passive intransitive as in the command of Jesus to the dead youth. They see in him only a great prophet like those who lived in the great times of their nation. They failed to see that he was vastly more than any prophet, and that this miracle revealed that fact. In the second word of praise they acknowledge that God “did look upon” his people, ἐπεσκέψατο (as in 1:68, 78), i. e., came to visit them and to help them with his grace (C.-K. 999). Since the Jews looked for a visitation of this kind at the time of the coming of the Messiah they use this expression with reference to what Jesus is doing. The idea is not that they think that he is the Messiah, but that he is a prophet who was sent in advance of the Messiah, and that God thus once more visited his people, i. e., Israel. So great the miracle—so ineffective the effect!

Luke 7:17

17 But the account of it spread far and wide. How can anyone say that ὁλόγος refers only to the words of praise that are just recorded? These words of praise could not be understood apart from the miracle that called them forth, and ὁλόγος refers to the entire account that is set down by Luke. Though Nain was only a small town and is not to be mentioned again in the New Testament, this story about the raising of the widow’s son became known throughout entire Palestine and even in the adjacent regions. Nain is in Galilee, hence “Judea” is used here as it was in 1:5 as a name for the entire Jewish land; and the contention that it refers only to the southern province as distinct from Samaria and Galilee cannot be maintained. Since Nain was in Galilee, that province would be first to hear the news.

The story spread just as all reports spread, not by travellers’ at once going to the far points mentioned but by the word’s being passed along in ever-widening circles. The reference of some to 6:17 is out of place since those people came to stay with Jesus and did not hurry home after the miracle, which tended the more to hold them.

Luke 7:18

18 Now to John his disciples reported concerning all these things.

In 6:33 (Matt. 9:14) we have met the disciples of John in the following of Jesus yet as a distinct group who had not become thorough disciples of Jesus like John and James and Andrew and Peter. They were still only disciples of John. Moreover, we see here that they retained personal contact with John, who languished in prison in the fortress Machaerus (3:29), visited the prisoner from time to time, and thus reported to him “concerning all these things,” which cannot be restricted to the miracle at Nain but must extend to all that Luke reports from 4:14 onward, the entire activity of Jesus (τὰἔργα, Matt. 11:2).

Luke 7:19

19 And having called certain two (R. 742) of his disciples, John sent to the Lord, saying, Thou, art thou the One coming, or shall we be expecting another? Now having come to him, the men said, John the Baptist has sent us to thee, saying, Thou, art thou the One coming? or shall we be expecting another?

Luke does not indicate just when John sent this commission. There is no connection in time with the preceding miracle. The connection is an inner one. In v. 16 Jesus is regarded only as a great prophet; but in the present narrative Jesus shows that John is the greatest prophet of all, and that he, Jesus, is still greater, beyond whom we are to expect no one. Note that it is John who calls two of his disciples to him (πρός in the participle), it is John who sends them, and it is John who asks the double question. And this fact that Jesus is throughout dealing with John is emphasized again in v. 20 in the same pointed way.

John’s question and the unindicated reason for sending a commission to have it answered have perplexed many interpreters. The only opinion worth considering is whether John doubted, and, if so, in what way and what degree he doubted. When we answer we cannot separate the two parts of the question and then lay undue emphasis on the first part. ὉἘρχόμενος, “the One coming,” undoubtedly signifies the Messiah and is used regularly in that specific sense, especially also by the Baptist, 3:16, etc.; Matthew 3:11; Mark 1:7; John 1:27. This designation was derived from Ps. 118:26 and Ps. 40:7, which appears from the acclaim of the multitude on Palm Sunday, Matt. 21:9 (23:39), and from the use of Ps. 40:7 in Heb. 10:5–9. We take it that “the coming One” was generally understood by the Jews and was used by them.

The second part of the question with its verb “shall we go on expecting” matches this designation, for men expect one who is coming. The present participle is timeless, and its substantivization means that coming characterizes this person. “Thou (emphatic σύ), art thou the One coming?” has its complement in the addition “or shall we be expecting another?” ἄλλον, for which Matthew has ἕτερον. The latter may imply one who is different, the former one like thee, although we should remember that both were often used without distinction. “Like thee” (ἄλλος) after all implies “somewhat different from thee” (ἕτερος) and not just an exact duplicate.

The fact that John sends messengers to Jesus for an answer proves John’s faith in Jesus. This answers those who think that John had lost confidence in Jesus and doubted as our moderns doubt—with disbelief. In that case John would not have sent his question to Jesus, nor would Jesus have sent an answer, especially not such an answer as he did send. John’s doubt was of an altogether different kind; it was induced by a difficulty that his faith met—it was a doubt that was due to faith. God had pointed out to him that Jesus was the Messiah, John 1:33, 34. Jesus was to do all the great Messianic works, first those of grace (3:3–6), then those of judgment (3:9).

Thus John believed, preached, and expected. But as Jesus went on with his work, this seemed to be nothing but grace without even one signal act of judgment. This is what perplexed the Baptist when he heard all about what Jesus was doing. Where was the work of judgment, the swinging of the winnowing shovel, the cutting of the ax? They were absent. How was this to be explained—would another one follow, another who would perform these works of judgment?

We should remember that throughout the old prophecies just as in the Baptist’s proclamation concerning Jesus one thing is left unrevealed by God: the interval of time between the first coming with grace and mercy and the second coming with judgment. The prophetic picture is wholly without perspective as to time; grace and judgment are simply predicated, and the point of time is left with God (Acts 1:7). So the Baptist’s question was not far from the facts; he asked whether another was to come, or whether there was to be only another coming of the same one. The form προσδοκῶμεν is durative, “go on expecting,” and may be either an indicative in an ordinary question for information: “Are we expecting another?” or a subjunctive in a question of deliberation: “Shall we be expecting another?” (R. 934). Psychologically the second seems in place.

Luke 7:20

20 The matter is grave; and that is the reason the arrival of the messengers is reported, and John’s question is repeated in full and in its original form.

Luke 7:21

21 In that very hour he healed many from diseases and scourges and wicked spirits, and many blind he graciously granted to see.

The messengers arrive at an opportune time, one of those that is filled with the works of grace and mercy like those recorded in 4:40; 5:17; 6:18, 19. “Scourges” are fearful and painful afflictions; see 4:33 on possession. “To see” is the object, and the present tense indicates permanent ability to see.

Luke 7:22

22 And answering he said to them: Having gone, report to John what you saw and heard: blind are getting back sight; lame are walking; lepers are getting cleansed; and deaf are hearing; dead are rising up; beggarly ones are having the gospel. And blessed is whoever shall not be trapped in connection with me.

John’s deslegates had perhaps to wait until they could present John’s question to Jesus. Ἀποκριθείς is used as it was in 1:19 and marks importance. This answer is typical of Jesus: strongly suggestive yet reticent, decisive in substance yet not direct as far as the form of the question is concerned. “Having gone, report to John,” says Jesus. This settles the contention which is traditional in some quarters that John himself had no doubts and perplexities, that these existed only in the minds of his disciples, that John had sent them to Jesus not on his own account but on their account.

This view assails the integrity of John who would then ask a question as if he himself desired an answer when the answer was in reality intended for his disciples. Still worse, it assails the integrity of Jesus who says, “Go, report to John,” and thus keeps up the pretense as if John wanted to know when only John’s disciples were in doubt. In trying to save the honor of John as being far beyond doubt the honor of both John and Jesus is sacrificed. 1 Pet. 1:10, 11 states plainly how the prophets themselves searched their own prophecies, especially in regard to the time of the sufferings and of the glory of Christ. John was now doing that, and he went to the right source.

The mastery of the answer lies in the fact that it takes John right back into the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah, which had caused his perplexity. The reference to the blind, the deaf, and the lame is adapted from Isa. 35:5, 6. To this passage Jesus adds the miracles that were being performed on the lepers and the dead, works of grace that are even greater than those that were promised by the prophet. Then, as the climax of all, Jesus cites from Isa. 61:1 the preaching of the gospel to the beggarly (see 6:20, πτωχοί), those who have come to realize that they are spiritually wholly empty and destitute. Although the gospel is preached to all, only those who realize their need of it receive it so that it is preached to them in a special sense. The verb εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, which is generally active, is here and in Heb. 4:2, 6 passive: the beggarly “are being evangelized,” all the present tenses indicate repeated actions.

The other works receive their value from this last one. We have no reason to allegorize the blind, etc., for “what you saw and heard” (aorists whereas we use perfects) cannot apply to spiritual recovery of sight, etc. Jesus is speaking of his miracles of grace and says nothing about the “vengeance” (Isa. 35:4) and the judgment, a highly significant omission, exactly as he did in 4:17–19. John is to leave that work in the hands of him who is gloriously fulfilling the prophecies regarding the Messianic works of grace.

Luke 7:23

23 That is why a gentle touch of warning is added at the end. Its gentleness lies in its form, it is a beatitude: “Blessed is,” etc., but has a negative explanation. Jesus does not want John to lose the treasures and the joys that make up this blessedness; see 6:20 on μακάριος. Hence he gives a negative description of the blessed man: “whoever is not trapped in regard to me.” The figure in σκανδαλίζω is that of a trap with a crooked stick (σκάνδαλον or σκανδαλῆθρον) to which the bait is affixed, and which, when it is touched, springs the trap and catches the victim and kills it. The point in this verb is the fact that the trap is fatal, the victim is killed. The verb has nothing to do with stumbling, for one may stumble many times and even fall and yet not be killed.

As regards the metaphorical “to offend,” this would have to be an offending that destroys faith and spiritual life. Compare M.-M. 576, and C.-K. 994, etc., where in the case of both the noun and the verb the idea is always to produce destruction, Verderben. The danger to which Jesus points John is mortal—blessed he who escapes it. John is not to let the absence of certain works blind him to the glorious presence of the works that are now in full progress. Let him be satisfied with these and trust that in due time the others will follow just as these are now being done.

With the exception of the order to report to John the answer of Jesus is couched in general terms. Jesus states only what occurs to the blind, etc., and leaves it to John’s disciples to add that Jesus causes all this to occur. This omission of his own name and person marks the humility of Jesus. The final statement is also general: “anyone and thus also John is blessed, whoever,” etc. John’s disciples are to apply this dictum to themselves as are also all others who heard it.

Luke 7:24

24 Now, the messengers of John having gone away, he began to say to the multitudes concerning John: What did you go out into the wilderness to behold? A reed being swayed by wind? Well, what did you go out to see? A man clothed about in soft robes? Lo, they in gorgeous attire and luxury stay in the royal places. Well, what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I say to you, and far beyond a prophet!

Luke says that John’s messengers had gone, Matthew that they were in the act of going. Jesus does not laud their great master in their presence lest they misunderstand the motive and the purpose of the laudation. But immediately after their departure Jesus spoke to the multitudes, the implication being that they knew what had transpired. Lest any persons draw wrong conclusions concerning John, Jesus takes him as his topic, and “began to say” indicates the weightiness and the length with which Jesus spoke. He pronounces his great estimate of John. The fact that John was now perplexed about the works of Jesus in no way discounts that estimate.

This is comforting to us who today may meet a perplexity in the Scriptures. But Jesus aims at the heart of the multitudes, and what he says “concerning John” becomes an indictment of these people who were satisfied with neither John nor Jesus (v. 31–35).

When John was active “in the wilderness,” the uninhabited deep gorge of the Jordan, thousands from Galilee flocked out there. If we construe the infinitives with the three primary questions we translate “what … to behold,” etc. If the infinitives are construed with the secondary questions, the three τί would mean “why?” But the latter would place entirely too great an emphasis on the verbs, hence we prefer the first construction.

Jesus asks what they went out to see. They are themselves to answer. Jesus merely wishes to help them with his question. He repeats his question three times. He probes for the answer but always in such a way that the people may give it. Each of these questions is followed by another, and these are arranged so as to form a climax, which at last states what the crowds really went out to see and then confirms this as the reason for their going out.

Did they want to see “a reed swayed by wind”? This expression symbolizes a man who yields to popular opinion, veers with it, and has no solid convictions of his own. The usual interpretation is that John seems to show himself as such a reed by having sent the question that he did; and that Jesus is saving his reputation among the people. But this is evidently a misunderstanding. Jesus is not worried about the impression which John’s question may make in regard to himself or in regard to John. He is thinking and speaking only of the past (ἐξήλθετε three times) and of what the people saw then.

It would be strange, indeed, for Jesus by means of the swaying reed to refer to the question just asked by John and then by reference to the soft clothing to jump to something else. No; all the questions form a grand whole. All of them show what John was in the wilderness and most certainly imply that he has never been or is anything else. All this asked about John is not said in John’s interest as if his reputation needed shielding but in order to stir up and to rebuke these callous people who, having had John and now having Jesus himself, obeyed neither.

There is no special reason behind the use of θεάσασθαι over against the two ἰδεῖν except that there is a touch of irony in the idea of going out miles into the wilderness “to behold or to view” a reed swayed hither and thither by wind as if it were a great phenomenon. The shores of the Lake of Galilee had plenty of reeds like that—why run down to the lower reaches of the Jordan for a view like that? The fact that Jesus is referring to John is evident. What drew the people to go out to him was the fact that he was the very opposite of such a reed. The entire Jewish land was filled with men who were unstable, were like reeds that were swayed by the wind of the opinions of the day. But here in the wilderness there was a man of a different type.

At this very moment he lay in prison because he would not compromise one of God’s commandments. Herod’s sin was passed by in silence by all the Jewish authorities and the whole Jewish nation but never for a moment by John. He stood against it as a rock. Well, that merited that men should go out into the wilderness to see such a man. But was that really the reason why you went out to him? Jesus asks these people.

He leaves the answer to them.

Luke 7:25

25 The German commentators have ἀλλά mean sondern (B.-P. 59; B.-D. 448, 4), which is little better than the translation “but” in our versions; but read R. 1185, etc. All that ἀλλά does is to turn to a new point, it has nothing adversative about it. Its force is: “Well now, if that is not what you went out to see, what was it that you did want to see?” The suggestion that what attracted them was “a man clothed about in soft robes” (the perfect participle ἠμφιεσμένον with its present implication: having been and thus still clothed about, ἀμφιέννυμι, used with reference to the lilies in Matt. 6:30) carries the thought of the swayed reed a step farther. A man who yields to popular opinion, who bends to the will and the word of the influential and the mighty, will be rewarded by them, given a high place and the finest of garments. The adjective “soft” (i. e., to the touch) conveys the idea of the finest and the most costly material. It is exactly the proper word and brings out the strong contrast to the rough, harsh, cheapest kind of material in the coat of camel’s hair that was worn by John. The point of this reference to clothing is the fact, that if John had sought to please and to gain favor he could have worn a courtier’s rich robes and could have basked in royal favor.

The exclamation “lo” with the statement that people who wear clothing “stay (ὑπάρχοντες with εἰσί) in the royal palaces,” marks this as being far more than a piece of ordinary information. Luke has the fuller statement: “They in gorgeous attire and luxury.” Now that kind of attire and luxury is found also outside of royal courts. Besides, the people of Galilee could see finely robed courtiers in their own Herod’s palace in Tiberias without going to the lower Jordan. This peculiar specification about softly and luxuriously robed gentlemen being “in the royal places” (neuter plural), meaning royal courts, undoubtedly intends to convey the idea that John was now, indeed, in the royal house of Herod, the fortress of Machærus facing the Dead Sea, but not as a handsomely dressed courtier but as a wretched prisoner, who wore the same old, rough burnoose of camel’s hair. So the question implies: “When you went out, did you intend to see a man who knew how to secure the royal rewards and favor? You would not need to have gone far to do that.” But no; you went out to see a man who had the courage to rebuke even a king, who could be bought by no royal favors, who showed absolute fidelity to God and to his Word.

Yet Jesus asks: “Did you really go out to see such a man?” He again leaves the answer to them. “To see” does not mean merely “to look at”; ἰδεῖν, the aorist, is used in an intensive sense as it is in John 3:3; Acts 2:27; follow the word through, for instance, in Young’s Concordance. The usual view is that ἰδεῖν is here less than the preceding θεάσασθαι, but it is more. These aorist infinitives are constative, R. 857.

Luke 7:26

26 Jesus once more asks the same question, but now with the addition “a prophet?” the intensive force of ἰδεῖν is certainly plain here. Jesus does not mean “merely to look at a prophet’” but “to see him so as to get into personal touch with him,” i. e., to hear him and his proclamation with their own ears, to let him move them to repentance and the baptism for the remission of sins. Did they really go out for that purpose? The infinitives used in these verses denote purpose and belong in the first of each pair of questions.

Although Jesus puts this final question as he did the others so that the people will give their own answer—did they really intend to regard John as a prophet of God?—he at once and most emphatically gives his own answer: “Yea, and far beyond a prophet!” “Yea” affirms on Jesus’ part that John is a prophet, and καί adds an estimate that goes beyond that. We may regard the comparative περισσότερον as a neuter: “something beyond a prophet,” or as a masculine: “one beyond a prophet.”

Luke 7:27

27 Jesus at once establishes this estimate of John. This is he concerning whom it has been written, Lo, I myself commission my messenger before thy face, who shall make ready thy way in front of thee.

John is the one prophet whose activity was predicted. This made him more than a prophet. John was the ἄγγελος or messenger who not only, like the other prophets, announced Christ’s coming but actually prepared the way for him and was immediately followed by him. This, too, made him more than a prophet. Mal. 3:1 is introduced as a direct question with the usual perfect γέγραπται with present force: “has been written” and stands so now. Jesus cites the original Hebrew and not the LXX.

His translation is usually called “free,” but it is not free at all; it does vastly more than to give the general sense of the original. The translation is interpretative, and the interpretation is most exact and is preserved also in Matt. 11:10; Mark 1:2. Jehovah addresses the Israelites, who are expecting “the Lord” (Ha’adon), “the Messenger of the Covenant” (Maleach Habberith), i. e., the Messiah. Even Malachi distinguishes between Jehovah and this Lord and Messenger just as does Ezekiel 34:11, etc., compared with 34:23, 24. This is what Jesus makes plain with ἐγώμου (Jehovah) and the three σου (the Messiah). Jehovah himself will come to his people, but in the person of the Messiah.

John is Jehovah’s “messenger” who is to prepare the way of the divine Messiah, “in front of thee,” as the Messiah’s immediate forerunner; the relative ὅς with the future tense denotes purpose, R. 960. The meaning of Mal. 3:1 is thus brought out by showing how this prophecy was fulfilled in John and in Jesus, which thus revealed also the greatness of John.

Luke 7:28

28 Jesus adds his own declaration to this prophetic word concerning John: I say to you, greater among women-born than John there is no one; yet he that is less in the kingdom of God is greater than he.

“I say to you” is the voice of authority. “Women-born” evidently goes back to Job 14:1; 15:14; 24:4; Ps. 51:5, and thus strongly emphasizes the sinfulness and the mortality of men. John is one of these, but in his career and his work he is so great that in comparison with his fellow mortals no one is found greater than he. Jesus speaks of John as of one whose great work is completed; soon, too, his life will be ended. Did these people realize who and what John was when they went out into the wilderness?

It is the height of paradox when Jesus adds in the same breath: “yet he that is less in the kingdom of God is greater than he.” We cannot accept the interpretation that in spite of his high office John’s doubt was of such a nature as to lower him beneath any common believer in Jesus. John asked Jesus to solve a perplexity, and such an action, which showed complete confidence in Jesus, could not and did not lower the estimate that Jesus had of John. Some think that Jesus compares himself with John. Because he had submitted to John’s baptism Jesus is thought to call himself the one who is now less than John, who shall, nevertheless, presently appear as one who is far greater than John, namely as the King in the kingdom. This view contradicts 3:15–17; John 1:26–34; 3:28–36; and when Jesus was baptized, it was John who yielded to Jesus as being the greater.

Though the Greek places no emphasis on the phrase “in the kingdom of God,” some have everything turn on this phrase, and that in the sense of “the Messianic kingdom” over against “the old theocracy.” The sense would then be: all those in the new covenant are greater than even the greatest in the old covenant, and thus graphically show the vast superiority of the former. Yet “the kingdom of God” (see 4:43) is never restricted to the new covenant but goes back to eternity. To say that “it comes” always means that it existed long before the time of its coming. John was in the kingdom, for faith admitted him to it as it did all other believers. The supposition that John belonged to the old covenant is contradicted by Jesus himself who describes him as an object of Old Testament prophecy which ended with Malachi; Jesus thus combines John with himself as opening the promised new covenant.

He that is littler or less than John in the kingdom is one who has no office or has one that is less than John’s. He can be called greater than John in the kingdom for one reason only. That is not because of personal faith, of which the context has no hint, nor does Jesus ever present John as being a weak believer. The greatness of those who are officially less than John consists in the great treasures of revelation given to them by God. Read 10:23, 24. Jesus is speaking of the time now in progress.

In his prison John could not see the great miracles Jesus was doing. He would soon give up his life and could not see the consummation of Jesus’ work (death, resurrection, etc.). All believers who witnessed these things were thereby ahead of John. Note how Jesus again turns from John to his hearers. They neither prized John as they should nor understood what Jesus was now offering them. Yet by receiving all that he was presenting to them they would be even greater than John, blessed with greater treasures and gifts.

Luke 7:29

29 This and the next verse prepare for the striking illustration that is to follow. The fact that Jesus is still speaking, and that Luke is not interjecting something of his own in these two verses, is so plain that it needs no proof. And all the people, after they heard, and the publicans justified God by being baptized with the baptism of John. But the Pharisees and the lawyers nullified for themselves the counsel of God by not being baptized by him.

This is the result that John achieved in his work. “All the people and the publicans” are one class, and these justified God. The hyperbole in “all the people” is that of ordinary speech and here refers to the great mass of common people. “The publicans” (see 3:12) are mentioned especially as if to say: “even these great sinners.” The aorist participle ἀκούσας, “after they heard,” refers to the preaching of John. But since the publicans are really included in “all the people” and are mentioned only as examples of great sinners they, too, heard. This is also true with regard to the other aorist participle βαπτισθέντες which refers to the people and the publicans together. They all heard, and they were all baptized. Τὸβάπτισμα is the accusative of the cognate object, which is retained after the passive (R., W. P.)

It is by this latter act that all these people “justified God.” Δικαιοῦν is always forensic; see the exhaustive survey in C.-K., 317, also that of the cognate terms. Any deviation from this forensic significance in the interpretation of this verb and its cognates is due to dogmatical bias. The thought expressed here is that all these people acted the part of judges when God and the provision he had made for their salvation in John and in John’s baptism came before the judgment bar of these judges; by accepting this baptism gaben sie Gott recht (C.-K., 324), declared and pronounced God right, just, and justified. He had omitted nothing, he had provided everything that men might repent, believe, be baptized, and be saved. No other verdict could be rendered.

But we shall see in a moment that Jesus is pointing this out to his hearers in order to condemn them. What he means is this: You all justified God by being thus baptized; but that verdict which you rendered most justly now falls back on yourselves because you did not prove true to that baptism and the preaching that went with it. Behold your verdict on John, v. 33!

Luke 7:30

30 So the bulk of the people made only a pretense. Their leaders, the Pharisees (see 5:17) and the lawyers, men who made the exposition of the law (Old Testament) their profession, refused John’s baptism and thus from the start “nullified” (ἀθετέω), made void the counsel of God for themselves. This counsel (βουλή) is what the will of God fixed and planned; it was exhibited in John and in his work. They made it void and ineffective εἰςἑαυτούς, which is the equivalent of a dative of disadvantage, “for themselves,” as far as they were concerned.

Luke 7:31

31 Jesus now presents his striking illustration. To what, therefore, shall I liken the men of this generation? and to what are they like? They are like to children, to those sitting in the market place and calling to each other, who say, We piped to you, and you did not dance; we wailed, and you did not weep.

Jesus is speaking of the generation then living who had seen and heard John. When Jesus asks twice to what he shall liken this generation and to what they are really like he pauses to give his hearers a moment to think; the two τίνι are neuter because the likeness refers to all that these children did. The parable is plain and simple if we leave it so instead of inverting it, or instead of derailing the tertium comparationis by making this generation like two sets of children.

The large, open market places were convenient playgrounds for the children of the neighborhood when the market was not in progress; they were much more roomy than the narrow streets with their bazaars—and they are narrow. Jesus had in mind a group of such children, such as he had occasionally watched. This group tried to direct the play first to one game and then to another as their mood and fancy dictated. They expected all the other children to be swayed accordingly; when these did not comply, they pettishly called out and blamed them.

Luke 7:32

32 They are like “to children” (no article), the attributive participles (with the article) state to which children, “to those sitting,” etc., and ἐνἀγορᾷ is a set phrase. At one time these children insisted on playing wedding. So they copied what they had seen their elders do, they piped or fluted by imitating the flutes that were used for wedding processions by blowing little whistles they had made or by merely whistling with their lips. They were determined that all the other children should forthwith join in by hopping and skipping in a procession like those did who followed the pipers at a wedding. But the other children did not want to play this game just then, they refused to skip after the whistlers. So these complained and blamed them: “We piped to you, and you did not dance!” They wanted to have their way and acted ugly when they could not. Jesus purposely selects a joyful game and then the opposite, a sad game.

These children suddenly want to play funeral. So they again copy their elders. They start the loud wailing of the professional wailing women who were hired for funerals (Matt. 9:23; Eccles. 12:5; Amos 5:16). They wanted all the other children to act as the bereaved always acted, “to weep,” and, as Matthew states it, to beat themselves on the breast, head, hips, etc. But these other children refused to join in, and then the group that was determined to lead complained: “We wailed, and you did not weep.” This sad game is purposely chosen as being the opposite of the glad one. The point lies in the fact that this one group of children assumed the leadership in the games and veered as the notion struck them from one game to its opposite and then made loud complaint when they could not have their way. This generation, Jesus says, is exactly like this group of children.

Luke 7:33

33 For John the Baptist has come not eating bread nor drinking wine, and you say, He has a demon. The Son of man has come eating and drinking, and you say, Lo, a glutton of a man and a wine-bibber, of publicans a friend and of open sinners. And justified was wisdom from all her children.

“For” introduces the reason the parable of the wilful children describes this generation so aptly. This γάρ has led some into having the piping and mourning children represent Jesus and John (the one eating, etc., the other not), and the other children who refused to dance and to weep represent the unresponsive Jewish people. But the parable has this pointed heading: “To what shall I liken the men of this generation?” and not “liken myself and John.” Then the parable goes on: “They are like,” etc. Nor does Jesus picture himself and John as veering from one extreme to another and then complaining that people are not ready to veer with him.

Moreover, the piping is put first in the parable, the wailing second, but the stern Baptist came first and is also named first by Jesus, and he himself came second. This shuts out the interpretation that Jesus and John did the piping and the wailing. The reverse is true: John and Jesus would not accommodate themselves to the fickle multitudes with their moods and notions. The parable is not trying to explain the small success of Jesus but pictures the silly, childish way in which this generation, which had both John and Jesus before their eyes, passed judgment on both. The two opposite games do refer to Jesus and to John, but the arrangement in the parable and in the application is not parallel like this=but chiastic like this X: piping and Jesus eating and drinking—first and last and in between wailing and John not eating.

These Jews were like silly children who understood the times in which they lived and the signs of these times so little that they wanted to pipe and to have everybody dance when God sent them the Baptist. And when he refused to join them in such a game, they called him morose, intolerable, and turned from him aggrieved and disappointed.

These people likewise failed to understand the golden days of Jesus, which God sent them. They insisted on the game of funeral, on fasting (5:33), the rigorous traditional Sabbath, etc., the very things for which they had no use in the case of John. “Not eating bread nor drinking wine,” i. e., the way in which men freely did, describes John’s asceticism, who lived as a Nazarite. His whole appearance was a rebuke to his generation. Instead of taking that rebuke seriously many said: “Something is surely wrong with a man who lives like that—a demon must have upset his mind!”

Luke 7:34

34 The two second perfects ἐλήλυθε, “have come,” imply that both are still here; the aorist would say only that they came at one time. When Jesus came “eating and drinking,” namely bread and wine like other men, the Jews were again dissatisfied. Jesus associated freely with men, ate and drank with them on all manner of occasions, always observed every propriety and the divine ceremonial law and yet was open and friendly. Instead of understanding the purpose of this difference between the messenger of repentance, who was sent in the spirit of Elijah, and the Messiah as “the Son of man” (see 5:24), who was made in the likeness of men and found in fashion as a man (Phil. 2:7, 8), the Jews abused also him. What they called for in the case of John they condemned in the case of Jesus; what they condemned in the case of John they demanded in the case of Jesus. They in reality condemned themselves by both actions.

With the same slanderous tongue that attributed a demon to John they viciously called Jesus ἄνθρωποςφόγος, “a glutton of a man,” the two nouns being used like one term, and “a winebibber,” one who ate and drank to excess. Wine was the common drink at meals and was used at the Passover and with sacrifices. The climax is stated in the addition “of publicans a friend and of open sinners” (5:29, 30; 15:1, etc.). The viciousness of the charges against both John and Jesus is apparent. Jesus scorns to enter into any kind of defense.

Luke 7:35

35 All he does is to add a pithy statement: “And justified was wisdom from all her children.” In Matthew the texts support the reading ἔργων, in Luke the reading τέκνων with πάντων. The difference may be due to the Aramaic term which, when it was written without the vowel points and even when it was pronounced, might mean either “works” or “children.” But ἀπό does not mean “by” as though the works or the children of wisdom pronounced the verdict of acquittal. This preposition indicates the source from which the acquittal is drawn: von ihren Werken her. There is no material difference, for the works of wisdom are always done by the children of wisdom. These children of wisdom are John and Jesus, the exponents of the divine wisdom which sent the Jews exactly what they needed in the actions of both John and Jesus.

The verb is placed forward for the sake of emphasis: “nothing less than fully justified was wisdom.” The aorist is in place since the action lies in the past. John’s career is ended, and the actions of Jesus which the Jews slandered were also past. This aorist is not timeless as R. 837 and also his translation (and that of our versions) would regard it; Jesus is stating a definite past fact. The agent back of the passive verb is most likely “the men of this generation.” When they slandered this wisdom in such childish fashion by drawing their slanders “from” the representatives of this wisdom, from John and from Jesus, their one slander contradicted the other and they rendered a verdict on this wisdom, they unknowingly justified, acquitted, pronounced this wisdom innocent of all blame. Here, as always, the verb is clearly forensic; review the exhaustive survey in C.-K. 317, etc. The statement is not ironical: “This is the silly way in which the wise men of this generation were justified from the treatment it accorded John and Jesus!”

Luke 7:36

36 Luke indicates no connection of either time or place between this section and the preceding one, which means that the connection is to be found in the significance of the events. This “glutton of a man and winebibber” accepts the invitation of a Pharisee to dine with him, but even then his sympathy is with a sinner, compared with whom his host, the Pharisee, appears in a bad light. Note also that this Pharisee does not consider Jesus a prophet but only a fallible rabbi though he is acclaimed by the people; the sinful woman, however, considers him her Savior from sin and guilt, something that in no way troubled the Pharisee.

Now one of the Pharisees was requesting him that he eat with him; and having gone into the house of the Pharisee, he reclined at table.

The imperfect ἠρώτα is simply descriptive and does not imply insistence; the following ἵνα clause is sub-final, almost an object clause, R. 1046, also 993. Beyond the man’s name “Simon,” a very common name, and the fact that he was a Pharisee we know nothing of this host of Jesus’ except what this narrative indicates. The idea that he was drawn to Jesus, that his heart felt an inner unrest or was troubled by some sin is foreign to Luke’s picture. He was a true Pharisee, and although he invites Jesus he omits the common forms of politeness that are shown a guest when Jesus enters his house to dine. The reason he invited Jesus is not stated, but the description leaves the impression that he merely wishes to have a good look at Jesus in order to confirm his derogatory opinion of this famous rabbi.

It is significant that Jesus accepted such an invitation. Although he was fully aware of his host’s attitude, the slights put upon him as a guest do not move him to retaliate. He is wholly sincere in his treatment of his host, yea, he rewards Simon’s lack of courtesy with the earnest effort to help the man’s soul. Too many invitations are extended and accepted in the spirit of Simon, “one of the Pharisees,” when every one of them should be in the spirit of Jesus, loving, long-suffering, truly kind, and sincere. The Jews reclined on broad couches. Each man rested on his left elbow, his feet extended away from the table, and several persons occupied one couch. When artists paint Jesus as sitting on a chair they conventionalize the scene but make it rather awkward for the woman to reach Jesus’ feet.

Luke 7:37

37 And lo, a woman, who was in the city, an open sinner; and having learned that he was reclining at table in the house of the Pharisee, after having taken an alabaster flask of perfume and having taken her stand behind beside his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with the tears, and with the hair of her head she was wiping them off and was kissing his feet fervently and was anointing them with the perfume.

An unexpected, surprising thing occurs which gives the visit of Jesus at this Pharisee’s house a significance of its own. “Lo, a woman!” is exclamatory, hence there is no verb. This expresses exactly what those present felt: their astonishment—“a woman” coming in here! They recognized her at once, for she was from the town itself. They knew more, that she was ἁμαρτωλός, one known as “a sinner.” A surprise, indeed, to see this person come in! No name is given; someone has said well: “Put your own name down for hers.”

Roman Catholic exegetes, especially the older ones, and also the older Protestants identify this nameless woman with Mary Magdalene. But there is no Biblical evidence for this identification. Mary Magdalene was a demoniac, possessed of seven devils which Christ drove out; there is not even a hint that she ever went wrong sexually. But this woman is of an entirely different type. It is exceedingly unfortunate that Mary is still forced to lend her name to repentant fallen women (“penitent Magdalene”), and that in the A. V. the chapter heading of Luke 7 countenances this error.

“A sinner” or “open sinner” is in apposition to “a woman” and states her character. Here, too, judgment is usually too severe by making the woman a prostitute who was known the town over as such and had plied her trade until a short time ago. It is a moral rule that we in charity think no worse of a person than we are compelled to do by the evidence. So here ἁμαρτωλός need mean no more than that this woman had at some time gone wrong and that her fall became publicly known and damaged her reputation ever after. We need not make her a common prostitute. But the expression “in the house of the Pharisee” shuts out the view that she was a member of Simon’s own household, and that she thus heard of Jesus’ presence at table. “In the city” also shows that she was known not only to Simon but also to the people generally.

Note the succession of participles antecedent to the main verb “began to wet” and leading up to this as the main act. Trench helps us to understand this woman’s entrance into a room full of dining guests by describing instances of the Oriental custom of permitting people to come in, sit down along the wall, and converse with those at table, especially when an entertainment was in progress. Our usual privacy is just the opposite. And yet this woman might well have hesitated—too many hesitate at critical moments in their spiritual life for inferior reasons.

It should be noted that although Luke describes all her other actions he does not say that she came in, for he does not regard that as being so exceptional. But he notes that she brought “an alabaster flask of perfume” in order to pour this upon Jesus’ feet. Ἀλάβαστρον is “a thing of alabaster,” i. e., a vessel or vial that is made of the semitransparent white or yellow stone (a carbonate of lime or sulphate of lime) called “alabaster” from the town in Egypt where it was chiefly found. It was carved into phials for costly perfumes and was usually cylindrical and like a closed rosebud at the top (Pliny), which top was broken off when the contents were used. It contained μύρον, the general term for this volatile “perfume.” The translation “ointment” leaves a wrong impression, and “oil” does likewise. This μύρον left no oily stain but evaporated rapidly like fine perfume. John 12:3; Matt. 26:7.

Luke 7:38

38 Rather few note στᾶσα, that the woman “stood” behind Jesus beside his feet, and that she stood thus “weeping.” The couch was low like the table, and the woman had to kneel or stoop very far to reach Jesus’ feet with her hair. She stood before she kneeled, which means that she hesitated to proceed—would Jesus understand, would he permit what she intended to do? Her alabaster phial indicated to all what she intended to do, and her weeping showed the feelings of her heart. Jesus made not the slightest move of objection, and so she kneeled and began to wet his feet with her tears. Note the durative imperfects that follow: “went on wiping—kissing—anointing”—the entire scene is like a moving picture that is unrolled before our eyes. The tacit consent of Jesus encouraged the woman’s fervor.

The feet at the outer edge of the couch were unsandaled but had not been bathed in the customary polite way by a servant when Jesus had entered—a significant slight on the part of this Pharisee. Tears now lave those dusty feet. Not with her garments but with her hair she wipes those tears from the feet—“exquisite veneration,” Bengel exclaims. The woman acted instinctively, not reasoning about her actions as we do now, and her instinct, which was led by the Spirit, was right. The sinner’s head belongs at Jesus’ feet. The hair is woman’s crown and glory.

It is often enough abused in vanity and pride but is here used in deepest humility and devotion. Our highest and best belongs in the dust at Jesus’ feet. To unbind and loosen the hair in public before strangers was considered disgraceful and indecent for a woman. But Mary of Bethany, the disciple, did that, and this unnamed woman, the sinner, here does the same. Jesus permitted and accepted both acts as what they were intended to be, acts of deepest self-humiliation and abnegation.

The verb καταφιλεῖν means “to cover with kisses,” abkuessen, compare 15:20; Matt. 26:49; Acts 20:37. The intensity of the woman’s love for Jesus is displayed. To kiss the feet is to yield the most devoted obedience and subjection to the great person who is so treated. Simon had omitted the salutation of a kiss when Jesus entered his house as an invited guest. Last of all and to crown all the woman then broke the slender neck of the alabaster phial and let the fragrant perfume flow unstinted over the sacred feet. These alone she touched and felt unworthy to touch even these. It was her offering, which was intended to honor Jesus. This, too, Jesus accepted from her. Thousands of sinners have followed her example in spirit—tears of repentance and offerings of gratitude.

We see the deepest gratitude in the woman’s actions and yet must add the deepest humility and contrition. Those who would omit the contrition regard her tears as being those of gratitude. Her feelings were mixed, but her tears were due largely to the feeling of contriteness at the thought of her sins. We have only Luke’s description of her actions as our guide, and we cannot venture to build too much on this. The supposition that she had met Jesus personally before this time and had received his absolution at that time, and that she now came only to show her gratitude, seems to conflict with the absolution which Jesus formally bestows on her, v. 48. It is safer to say that she had been one of the publicans and sinners who were despised by the Pharisees and had yet been drawn to Jesus and found in his preaching and teaching the one comfort for their sin-laden souls.

She thus comes now to lay her repentant soul at his feet. She carries the phial of perfume with her because she feels that Jesus will not turn her away. We have noted her hesitation as she stood at his feet and then the release of her feelings in the silent acceptance she found in her hesitation. Jesus allowed all that she did; she could not have expected more.

Luke 7:39

39 But on seeing it the Pharisee who invited him spoke within himself, saying, This fellow, if he were a prophet, would know who and of what character the woman is who is touching him, that she is an open sinner.

The Greek mind needs no object after ἰδών, we must add “it,” i. e., what was taking place. The Pharisee saw only with the eyes of a Pharisee and thus not enough, and the rest he saw in the wrong light. The inwardness and the reality of what was going on he saw not at all; and the outwardness he thus judged altogether wrongly. As Trench puts it: Jesus either does not know the true character of this woman, in which case he lacks the discernment of spirits pertaining to a true prophet; or he does know and yet endures her touch and is willing to accept a service at such hands, in which case he lacks the holiness which is no less the mark of a prophet of God. But he will quickly find that Jesus does discern the thoughts in men’s hearts as a true prophet (Isa. 11:3, 4; 1 Kings 14:6; compare John 1:47–49; 2:25; 4:29), and that there is a holiness joined to grace of which he had never dreamed.

Οὗτος is derogatory: “this fellow.” The condition is one of present unreality, εἰ with the imperfect and the imperfect with ἄν, “if he were … he would know” (“would have” in our versions is incorrect, for it refers to the past and would thus require the aorist with ἄν). All conditions are subjective; they state the speaker’s deduction and that alone—whether the reality accords with it or not. The Pharisee concludes that, if Jesus were a prophet, he would know, but by showing that he does not know he is not a prophet.

This Pharisee had perhaps invited Jesus with the hope that he would discover something like this to prove fully to his mind that Jesus was only a pretender He now had what he wanted, and he surely felt repaid for his invitation. In his case it was not a question of the Messiah—on that point he was satisfied—but on the minor point whether Jesus were at least a prophet—and on that point, too, he is now satisfied.

This is a sample of the false reasoning which unbelief, skepticism, modernism, and all manner of errors regard to be so sound and unanswerable that these reasoners risk their souls on the conclusion. Rationalism sounds reasonable to the rationalist, but its use of reason and logic is the height of unreason, fallacious in its very premises. Though ἐγίνωσκεν is a secondary tense, the following verbs are primary because they are in oratio recta; ποταπή is the later form of ποία, “of what kind” or character, and defines τίς: “who, namely of what kind”; and we should not overstrain ἅπτεται, “is touching” or taking hold of him, not “is clinging to him.”

Luke 7:40

40 And answering Jesus said to him, Simon, I have something to state to thee. And he says, Teacher, state it.

On “answering” see 1:19 and note that it is used, as here, regarding statements that apply to a situation where no question precedes. On the infinitive as a dative see R. 1087. But note the punctiliar aorists εἰπεῖν and εἰπέ which do not mean “to say” and “say on” but “to state” and “state it,” namely this “something.” One must vividly imagine the scene in order to feel the dramatic element in it: not a word is spoken since the woman entered and began her demonstration, which was silent except for her subdued weeping. The first surprise was followed by a strain, an increasing tension, as the guests at table began to turn their disapproving eyes more and more from the woman to Jesus. Then at last Jesus “answered.” He turns directly to Simon and shows that he read the very thought that was in his host’s heart. We learn the man’s name here. “Teacher” is polite, but we know what Simon thought of this man as a teacher.

Luke 7:41

41 A certain moneylender had two debtors; the one was owing five hundred denarii, the other fifty. They not having (wherewith) to pay off, he graciously granted (the amount) to both. Which of them, therefore, will love him most? Answering, Simon said, I presume that he to whom he graciously granted the most. And he said to him, Rightly didst thou judge.

This is a Nathan’s parable. God is the creditor, men the debtors, sin the debt. We should note that the difference between 500 and 50 denarii is a proportion that is far different from 10, 000 talents and 10 denarii (Matt. 18:23, etc.). Your sins and mine against God never vary so much in amount as my sins against God and your sins against me. The denarius=17 cents., Standard Dictionary, under “coin,” 500=$85.00, and 50=$8.50.

Is Jesus saying that the more we sin, the more God has to forgive, and the more we have to love him and putting, as it were, a premium on the quantity of our sins? The difficulty vanishes when we observe that Jesus describes the debt of sin, not objectively, but subjectively; not as so many actual sins, but as so much consciousness of sin, which is never equal to the actual amount of our sins. They who sin least and least flagrantly often feel their sins far more than wicked men do. And sins like pride, selfishness, work-righteousness, hypocrisy, and unbelief are often not felt at all.

Neither debtor is able to pay, ἀποδοῦναι, “to give what is due,” the aorist implying complete payment. Only the fact is stated that this moneylender “graciously granted” the entire amount as a gift to each of the debtors. Bengel adds: “Hence the debt could not be cancelled by subsequent love and a willing mind,” in fact, subsequently there was no debt to cancel. The verb used recalls the grant of pardon which God makes to the sinner. The point of the parable is only this, that these two debtors had their debts cancelled by grace, and the imagery should not be extended beyond that.

Luke 7:42

42 The parable is so simple, and so natural is the question: “Which of them will love him most?” πλεῖον, “the more,” i. e., of the two. Here, too, ἀγαπο͂ν has its distinctive meaning, a love with intelligence and purpose (see 6:27) which appreciates the gift and purposes gratitude.

And so, since before that company of guests (v. 49) Simon could not evade the answer which was so obvious, he replied: “I presume he to whom he graciously granted the most,” τὸπλεῖον, literally, “the more.” But note how wary Simon is: he says ὑπολαμβάνω, “I presume,” and gives no direct answer. This sounds as if he were either on his guard or intended that the answer should sound in the ears of his guests as being carelessly given. The nominative antecedent is contained in the relative ᾧ.

Luke 7:43

43 But Jesus holds Simon. When he says: “Rightly didst thou judge,” both the meaning of the words and their order (the adverb being before the verb) make them emphatic. This is not mere presuming: Simon has rendered a verdict and a correct one as Jesus testifies. The Greek is content with the aorist to indicate something that has just been done, we use the perfect “thou hast judged.” Jesus now explains to Simon the verdict he has just pronounced so rightly.

44–46) And having turned to the woman, he said to Simon: Seest thou this woman? I came into thy house, water on my feet thou didst not give; but she with tears did wet my feet and with her hair did wipe them. Kiss thou didst not give me; but she, since I came in, did not cease fervently kissing my feet. With oil my head thou didst not anoint; but she with perfume anointed my feet.

Jesus draws the curtain aside and shows Simon the two debtors of whom Jesus was speaking and on whom Simon pronounced a finding. To his amazement Simon sees the woman as one of these debtors, and to his still greater amazement he sees himself as the other. Had Simon, perhaps, turned away from the woman? Jesus bids him look at her so that what he says may sink in more deeply.

Two points are brought out: this woman had done what Simon had failed to do; and she had exceeded all that Simon could have been expected to do. Simon gave him no water for his feet (Gen. 18:4; Judg. 19:21)—common politeness; offered no kiss of peace (Gen. 22:4; Exod. 18:7)—treatment of a friend; brought no oil (Ps. 23:5; 141:5; Matt. 6:17)—treatment of a festive guest. Instead of water the woman gave him tears, the blood of her heart (Augustine), of all waters most precious (Bengel); instead of a towel, the glory of her head, her hair (always plural in the Greek); instead of a kiss of friendship and welcome, showers of kisses of abject devotion upon the feet; instead of ordinary oil for the head (ἔλαιον), the far more costly perfume in alabaster (μύρον) upon the feet. We agree with R. 653 regarding ἀφʼ ἧς for ἀφὥραςᾗ as against R. 717, ἀφʼ ἡμέραςᾗ, “from the time when” not “from the day when” (ὥρα in the sense of time).

Luke 7:47

47 Thanks to which I say to thee: Dismissed have been her sins many because she loved much. But for whom little is dismissed, he loved little. And he said to her, Dismissed have been thy sins! And those reclining at table began to say within themselves, Who is this who even dismisses sins? But he said to the woman, Thy faith has saved thee; be going in peace.

The idiomatic phrase οὗχάριν uses χάριν, the adverbial accusative, like a preposition with the genitive of the relative, and the latter has only the previous context as its antecedent: “thanks to which,” which is often translated “wherefore.” Our versions punctuate correctly, many Greek texts do not. The opening phrase is to be construed with λέγωσοι: “Thanks to which I say to thee,” and not with the following: “Thanks to which the sins have been dismissed,” etc.; what Jesus says as the result of the preceding statements should be printed with a capital: I say to thee, “Dismissed have been,” etc. Aside from the question of style, the thought that the woman’s sins were forgiven because she did the acts that are praised by Jesus reverses the parable. Before either debtor did a thing, his debt was gratuitously remitted, and it was after this remission that Jesus wanted to know which of the two would show the greater love. What Jesus brings out is the thought that according to the remission we feel we have received, so is the manifestation of our love; not, that according to our love so is our remission.

Ἀφέωνται (compare 5:20) is the Doric Arcadian yet common perfect (R. 315) of ἀφίημι which is used with its strong present connotation: “have been and thus now stand as dismissed.” This is the great ἄφεσις of the Scriptures, the “dismissal” or “remission” of sins, which is fully explained in 1:77, which see. It always signifies the sending away of our sins so far and in such a way that even God cannot find them, and we appear before him as being free from all sin. Jesus assures this Pharisee that this woman’s sins, many as they are, have been sent away from her. “Many,” which is added with a second article, receives special stress. It does not mean that Simon’s sins or the sins of others were fewer. “Many” is inserted because this woman is pictured by the debtor of 500 denarii. She and others felt that she had many sins, but Simon and the others, who had just as many, felt none of them.

“Because she loved much” (ὅτι) does not state the reason or ground for which her sins were dismissed but, as the entire parable plus v. 50 show, the proof which shows to men that her sins were indeed forgiven. The difference between the reason for a thing and the proof for a thing is certainly important: It has rained, for it is wet. The rain caused the wetness, certainly not the wetness the rain; but the wetness is the visible proof that it has rained. So the woman’s love is not the reason or cause of forgiveness, but her showing this love proves in a visible manner that her sins are forgiven.

This answers the claim of the Romanists who use this passage as a locus classicus for their doctrine of the fides formata, faith that is full-formed and filled out by works of love and is thus effective for the forgiveness of sin as merited by human works. Luther writes to the point: “The Lord summarizes very exactly and beautifully: I say unto thee, her sins, which are many, are forgiven her. This is proved by that she loved much. But to you and your companions the sins are not forgiven; on the contrary, you are sticking in them above your ears and will die in them and perish. For one discovers no proper love in you, which love would necessarily follow if you deemed yourself sinners and believed that through me you would be free therefrom.” The aorist ἠγάπησε is in place to indicate the acts of love which Jesus has just recounted, and “much” refers to the intensity of those acts and the love they revealed.

If Jesus had added the full negative counterpart, that pictured by the debtor of 50 denarii, he would have said: “But nothing is dismissed for thee because thou didst love not at all.” That would be pronouncing a verdict of condemnation upon Simon, and the time for that had not yet come. Instead of rendering a personal verdict Jesus states the principle according to which all such negative verdicts will be rendered: “For whom little is dismissed, he loves little.” This is the rule that Simon and all other loveless men should apply to themselves. Have they no love, then that is evidence that they have no forgiveness. Have they some love, then that is evidence that they feel their sins in some degree and have assurance of forgiveness in some degree.

It is the height of psychological wisdom to present to Simon only the principle and to let him apply that principle to himself. If Jesus had made the application for him, Simon would have resented that on the part of his guest and would have hardened his heart the more in angry lovelessness. Jesus obviated that. His parable illustrated the principle so clearly that the principle would stick in Simon’s mind and, if not at once then perhaps later, open his eyes to what his lovelessness really meant. The wisdom appears also in the mitigation of the negative by not saying that nothing is forgiven to him who loves not at all but only that little is forgiven to him who loves little—just as the parable, too, is shaped in this way. This leaves it to Simon to carry the principle to its full negative form: no forgiveness—no love as evidence. Ἀγαπᾶν is the proper verb (see 6:27).

It should be plain that the Scriptures know of no partial forgiveness, no degrees of remission, and that Jesus teaches no such doctrine. In the parable and in its application Jesus presents, not the objective, but the subjective side of forgiveness as has already been shown above.

Luke 7:48

48 The woman had heard her absolution pronounced in what Jesus said to Simon; but this is not enough for Jesus in a matter that is so supreme, so decisive for time and for eternity; he turns to this poor sinner and absolves her in a direct address to her: “Dismissed have been thy sins!” No sweeter words have issued from those blessed lips, and how they delight to absolve (5:20)! “And he that believes these words has what they say and express, even forgiveness of sins.” Luther. “Have been,” of course, includes “are now” but goes back also to the moment when faith was first kindled in this woman’s heart. Then, in that instant, all her sins were sent away from her soul. That is, however, an act on the part of God in heaven, and we are here on earth. Therefore, so that we may know and be assured of it that act is put into the declaration of absolution that is spoken to us directly, to the woman by Jesus’ own lips, to us at his command, John 20:23. The point to be noted is that the divine act of pardon in the eternal heavens is timeless—we should not apply our clocks and calendars to it—and that this divine act itself reaches our consciousness in every word of absolution that is now pronounced to us at God’s behest on definite dates and in special hours here on earth. A kind of mental trickery would separate the act and the word by applying time to heaven and thus leave the absolution nothing but a piece of news. Every true absolution is a document that is signed and sealed in heaven and conveys to us then and there what it contains.

Luke 7:49

49 It now began to dawn on those at table with Jesus, most of them, no doubt, Pharisees, that Jesus was right here before their very eyes exercising the divine prerogative of remitting sins; καί = “even” and implies other great things that were assumed by Jesus. A sudden, new light thus fell on the parable that Jesus had just spoken. This “moneylender” who released his debtors so freely is not merely God as distinct from Jesus but God as being one with Jesus, the Son of God. The Pharisees began to see it when they asked in their hearts: “Who is this who even dismisses sin?” Note the force of the relative ὅς as expressing a consecutive idea, almost a result idea: “who even remits,” meaning: “so that he even remits,” etc. These men understood correctly that Jesus was actually remitting sins by his absolving word and not merely telling of a remission by someone else. But they all kept silence about their thoughts. No charge of blasphemy was voiced to break up the feast (see 5:21); and so Jesus, too, said nothing on this point.

It should be noted that Jesus names no agent for the passives “have been remitted” and “are remitted.” Who does this remitting? Nor does he name the object of the love. Who is this that is loved? This is undoubtedly done with a purpose. The parable describes Jesus as the one who is loved by the woman, and yet it is God who remits sins. But the conclusion that our love to Jesus is evidence that God has pardoned us seems to lack something.

These guests supplied that lack when they asked who Jesus really was and regarded him as the agent of the forgiveness. To love Jesus is to love God, for he and the Father are one; and to receive remission from God is to receive it from Jesus as God’s Son. These great realities, which were too great for this company, Jesus let lie under the surface for these guests themselves to discover. That would be a blessed discovery if they, too, would realize their sinful state and their need of pardon and then find it at last as this sinful woman had found it.

Luke 7:50

50 The work of Jesus is done, and he now dismisses the woman in his own beautiful way. He impresses upon her the fact that it is her faith that has saved her, her confidence in Jesus and his readiness to seek and to save, to pardon and to receive the penitent sinner. That faith had been wrought in her soul by the preaching of Jesus. It is neither a mere opinion nor a good work to merit grace; it is the empty beggar’s hand into which Jesus lays the prize for which he himself pays the bloody price. It is placed beyond question that faith, the living trust in Christ, saves and not our love to him. This love is only the evidence of the presence of faith.

We may see the love in its works, the faith in its reception of pardon we cannot see—God and Christ alone see it—but we can be sure of that faith where we see the corresponding love. The Scriptures, like Jesus, are never afraid to attribute too much to faith. Jesus declares, “Thy faith hath saved thee.” Yet he is the Savior. Faith is so mighty to save because faith embraces this Savior. Faith is like a cup, yet never an empty cup but always a cup that is filled with Christ and thus with his salvation. No greater damage can be done than to misconceive faith, to reduce it to something by itself, to give it a synergistic twist.

Faith saves because it is the confident acceptance of Jesus, our Savior, which is wrought in us by himself, his love, grace, and promises. All else that some might call “faith” is nothing of the kind.

The perfect tense “has saved” is the same as “have been dismissed.” The instant faith began in the woman’s heart she was saved. And σώζειν is one of the essential concepts of the Scriptures as are also its cognate terms, Savior, salvation, they that have been saved. This is “to save” from sin and all its consequences, guilt, curse, penalty, judgment, death, and damnation. “To save” means to rescue and deliver from mortal danger and includes both the act that saves and the subsequent state of safety. “Has saved” brings this out also by the tense just as the substantivized perfect participle, οἱσεσωσμένοι, denotes those who, once saved, are in this saved condition and continue thus. Salvation is remission of sin and all that this remission brings both in this life and in the life to come. Thus this sinful woman was now saved.

“Be going” is her kindly dismissal, the mild present imperative; the aorist would be too sharp. There is no need to have εἰς mean “into” when it is constantly used with the force of “in,” see the new grammars. Peace is not the goal which the woman is to reach but the possession which is hers as she goes. Εἰρήνη is both the condition of peace, when our sins are gone, salvation is ours, and God is our friend, and the feeling of peace that results from this condition. The feeling may fluctuate and even be absent at times, but the condition abides unchanged as long as faith and salvation abide. The feeling will blossom again and again out of the condition and grow in intensity. “In peace” assured the woman of the condition in which she could constantly enjoy the feeling. Thus she left.

What a change: once there lay before her the burning waste of sin’s course unto damnation; now the shining path of peace that leads upward to God. No wonder Paul wrote so joyfully: “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,” Rom. 5:1. These were questions for Simon and his guests: “Did they have faith, were they saved, could they go in peace?” For myself I want no more than what Jesus gave to this woman:

Ἀφέωνταίσουαἱἁμαρτίαι—

Ἡπίστιςσουσέσωκένσε—

ΙΙορεύουεἰςεἰρήνην.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner.

M.-M. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

B.-P. Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, etc., Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschem Handwoerterbuch, etc.