Bible Commentaries
Luke 7

Verses 1-50

VII 1-40 The Centurion’s Servant —(Matthew 8:5-15, not in Mk; affinities with John 4:46 ff., but probably different incident). The incident well suits Lk’s aim of showing how the Gospel benefits are extended to the Gentiles. This Gentile centurion is presented in a particularly favourable light even at the expense of Israel: his humanity towards a slave, his religious spirit and kindness to Judaism, the reverence and humility he shows towards Jesus, and finally his ’great faith’. The Church uses his humble confession daily in the administration of Holy Communion. What is the faith on which he is congratulated by our Lord, a faith such as Jesus had not yet found among his fellow-Jews (even the Apostles are not excepted)? Note that from now on Lk begins to record examples of faith; cf. 7:50; 8:25, lack of faith; 8:48, 50. The centurion argues from his own situation to that of our Lord, with all that it implies. He is one fixed ta??µe??? in a system of authority having superiors above and inferiors below. Whoever Jesus may be, the centurion recognizes him as one set in a system of authority of which the head and source is God, and Jesus has power to exercise this authority to do such a thing as here suggested. In other words the centurion admits our Lord’s special relationship to God and the. divine character of his mission, a thing that the Jews refuse to do. At the same time he admits his unworthiness as a Gentile to profit by close contact with this Jewish thaumatprge; his Jewish friends doubtless left him in no doubt about the essential holiness of Israel and the essential sinfulness of Gentiles; cf.Galatians 2:15; Ephesians 2:1-3; Luke 6:32-33 with Matthew 5:47. The incident is surely the same both in Mt and Lk despite the differences, e.g. that in Mt the servant is called a ’boy’, that he is a paralytic, that the centurion comes himself to ask for the cure; such differences, which St Augustine reconciles, do not militate against the identity. Mt has drawn the conclusion in 8:11-12 which we might have expected Lk to draw; but his parallel to Matthew 8:11-12 comes much later, 13:28-30.

11-17 Widow of Naim —Only in Lk. The Gentile centurion had recognized in Jesus a person endowed with the mysterious power belonging to God alone, therefore one coming from God. The incident at Naim ends with the same conclusion on the part of Jews: ’God hath visited his people’; cf. 1:68, 78; Acts 15:14. In these last two incidents Lk may be said to sum up what any honest witness might have gathered from the life and actions of Jesus. Naim lies about 8 m. SE. of Nazareth and not far from Sunam where Elias raised the dead boy to life, 4 Kg 4, a fact which is enough to make the rationalist critics throw doubt upon Lk’s incident. But neither Elias nor any other prophet had raised a dead person to life by a word; note the extraordinary labours of Elias in 3 Kg 17 and 4 Kg 4. Plummer remarks that most of the recorded cases of the raising of the dead in Scripture were for the sake of women; cf.Hebrews 11:35.

13. Note ’the Lord’ a sudden appearance of the phrase after the constant use of ’Jesus’; doubtless Lk’s witness to early Christian usage. Here Lk forsakes his usual reserve in speaking of our Lord and says he was’ moved with compassion’ (not, mercy) ?sp?a????s??, a word used only of Jesus in the Gospels and only here applied by Lk to him (but see 10:33 and 15:20).

17. Judaea again, perhaps used in its restricted sense in view of the sequel; John’s disciples come from the south where their master is in prison at Machaerus, Herod’s castle lying east of the Dead Sea.

18-35 Jesus and John the Baptist —(Matthew 11:2-19, cf. Luke 16:16). One of the first cares of our Lord’s disciples was to determine and record the relationship of their Master to John the Baptist, and therefore what attitude they should adopt to John’s followers. That a lack of understanding between the two groups sometimes survived is proved by Acts 18:24-26; Acts 19:1 ff., where as late as a.d. 54-5 persons claiming to be disciples of John appear to be ignorant of the necessity of Christian discipleship. Mk, writing for Roman Christians, has no need to clear up this point and omits this incident narrated by Lk and Mt. In a certain way John the Baptist had overshadowed Jesus by appearing in the traditional garb of a prophet, frightening people with thundering denunciations like a prophet, attracting them by his courage and burning enthusiasm; while Jesus appeared in a very modest manner, quietly preaching in the synagogues; cf. 11:28-30; 12:15-21. It was necessary then to record the fact that John, great as he was, had his raison d’être in his relationship to Jesus; in the designs of God, as in fact, he pointed to d Jesus; cf. John 1:6-9, John 1:15, John 1:26, John 1:29, etc. But this incident fulfils another purpose in Lk, at one with his theme of Jesus as the manifestation of the goodness and mercy of God. To understand the sense of the question put to Jesus by John’s disciples it is necessary to refer to John’s preaching, in which he had announced ’a Coming One’, ? ????µe??? who was to baptize with the Holy Ghost and fire, who was to separate the wicked from the good. To escape the formidable judgement that was foreshadowed men had to change their lives by penance (µeta???a ’conversion’), for the Coming One was pictured with an axe in his hand to cut down unfruitful trees. As indicated above, the mission Jesus seems to bear no relation to such a grim foreboding. Indeed there is more than a suggestion here that, if Jesus is the Coming One, why does he not save his witness from prison and death? cf.John 11:37. Traditional exegesis is not inclined to admit that John himself is in doubt; his question is for the sake of his followers in view of his coming death, so that he may pass them on to Jesus. It must be confessed that at first sight the Gospel seems to give the opposite. impression. But there is a third explanation based on the difference between the method of John and that of Jesus, of which we have just spoken. In other words John, as Matthew 11:2 says, having heard while in prison of the miracles of Jesus which serve to confirm what has been revealed to himself of the person and mission of Jesus, feels a certain surprise and perhaps impatience. Why does Jesus hesitate to declare himself and to use his mighty power to cleanse the threshing floor in the vigorous way that John has foretold? At any rate the reply of Jesus, addressed be it noted to John, seems to suppose that such was the sense of John’s question. God’s work must be done only in God’s way. What that way is has already been indicated in 4:16 ff.

20. The question is not whether Jesus is the Messias; John had never used the word of him. But although ’the Coming One’ was not a current name for the Messias it certainly suggests a Messianic significance. Hence, although 22 is generally made a fulfilment of Isaian Messianic prophecies in 35:5, 61:1, it may be noted that there is not much identity between these texts and 22. Moreover these texts were not traditional Messianic texts for the Jews; hence 22 must be read in the light of 21, a Lucan addition. Jesus bids his questioners not to form their conclusions from what they see in his appearance, 23, but from his works which, as they might know from the Scripture, manifest the benign hand of God working in the world. This is Lk’s thesis, and Jn’s too: ’If you will not believe me, believe the works’. The answer seems also to indicate that Jesus has not come as the executor of divine vengeance, which the preaching of John might seem to indicate. The same is gathered from the sermon at Nazareth, 4:18-21, which refers to the same texts in Isaias. In a word, John had announced Jesus as the one through whom the Spirit of God should be poured out upon the world; our Lord replies that his works prove that this is now taking place in his person; cf.In 7:39. Lk reproduces with great similarity the panegyric of John as in Mt. This is the Church’s answer to the disciples of John: John was great because he was the forerunner of a greater: the greatest of the prophets because nearest to Christ, who was the raison d’être of all the prophets; cf. 16:16. (See commentary on Mt for exegesis of these verses.)

29-30. Proper to Lk; not a Lucan parenthesis, but a continuation of our Lord’s words; cf.Matthew 21:32. Therefore, and all the people hearing (John), even the publicans . . .’ . The meaning is that the despised common people (cf.John 7:49) and even publicans fell in with God’s benevolent designs for man’s salvation (for John’s baptism was part of the divine Messianic plan), while the religious leaders ’nullified God’s purpose in their regard’ by rejecting John’s baptism; cf. 20:1-8. 31-35. Parable and application as in Mt. (Omit ’and the Lord said’; not in Gk.) It is a parable, not an allegory, otherwise it would have to be turned round. It is the Pharisees who are like disagreeable children, finding fault whatever is proposed, whether it is John coming in ascetic manner to help them, or Jesus who comes to their aid leading a normal life. But happily there are others, more in harmony with God and divine wisdom, who therefore recognize the hand of God wherever it appears, whether in John fasting, or in Jesus eating and drinking with sinners. Thus ’wisdom is vindicated’ by all such, for they are her true children.

36-50 The Sinful Woman anoints Jesus —The similarities between this story and those recorded in Matthew 26:6-13; Mark 14:3-9; John 12:1-8, have led to the opinion that the four evangelists narrate the same incident. Latin tradition since the time of St Gregory the Great has been in favour of identity; the general tradition among the Greeks (except for Origen) is that Lk’s incident is altogether different and most modern Catholic commentators adopt this view. It must be admitted that the divergences seem irreconcilable. If Lk omits Mark 14:3-9 in his parallel place, that is only in accordance with his common practice of avoiding repetition of similar incidents. The impression is given that this is a woman of abandoned life and well-known as such, though the word ’sinner’ would not necessarily mean that for a Jew. Note the relation of this story to 7:29. If Lk omits to name her, that is only in harmony again with his delicate reserve. There is nothing in Lk which justifies identifying her with Mary of Magdala, 8:2, or Mary of Bethany, 10:38 ff. Greek tradition generally distinguishes them all.

38. She comes in to seek Jesus and render him this act of reverence and affection. Why? Presumably, especially in view of 29-35, because she is one of those who have ’justified God’ in recognizing Jesus as God’s minister for her salvation. She manifests the penance (µeta???a ’conversion’) to which he calls sinners; cf. 5:12. The pouring of sweet ointment on the head of an esteemed person was no extraordinary thing; it is noteworthy that she presumes only to put it on his feet; cf.Matthew 26:7, Mark 14:3.40-43. The application of the parable is certainly that love is consequent on forgiveness, though the opposite seems to be stated in 47a; hence the traditional interpretation that charity removes sin, despite the apparently opposite meaning of 50 which Protestant commentators have used to support the doctrine of justification by faith alone. But 47b shows that 47a cannot mean what it at first sight appears to mean, for in that case 47b would be without purpose. Hence 47a must mean, ’wherefore I say to thee, (it is manifest) her many sins have been forgiven because she (shows clear signs that she) hath loved much’. Note what is claimed here in a veiled manner: she was a sinner, Jesus declares her sins have been forgiven, the love she feels in return is shown to Jesus. At the least, then, she treats him as representing God. Note the significance of anointing in the OT, i.e. God’s elect, God’s representative, priest, king, prophet, Messias especially. A further conclusion Simon is left to draw for himself: he has treated the woman with contempt as one separated from God, cf. 18:9, but if Jesus may conclude from the woman’s behaviour that God has forgiven her, Simon too may conclude from his own bebaviour towards Jesus that God has not forgiven him. Lk again draws attention to the supernatural power of Jesus in reading thoughts, 40. Simon objects that Jesus must be ignorant of the woman’s character; Jesus replies that he knows very much about her, even that her sins have been taken away.

50. Faith here and elsewhere in Lk is not the mere intellectual assent to truths about God under the influence of the will, but an attitude of the whole man, mind and will and affections, towards God, a compound of faith, hope and charity; a belief in God not merely as existing, but as rewarding and full of solicitude for the good of man; cf.Hebrews 11:6. It also includes a certain attitude towards Christ as God’s representative at least; in a word, it sums up the thesis of Lk, God visiting his people in the person and work of Jesus to save them. That is the note on which the incident terminates.