Luke 5:29-32

5:29 Then ¹  Levi gave a great banquet ²  in his house for Jesus, ³  and there was a large crowd of tax collectors and others sitting ⁴  at the table with them. 5:30 But ⁵  the Pharisees ⁶  and their experts in the law ⁷  complained ⁸  to his disciples, saying, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?” ⁹  5:31 Jesus ¹⁰  answered them, “Those who are well don’t need a physician, but those who are sick do. ¹¹  5:32 I have not come ¹²  to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” ¹³ 

Luke 7:29

7:29 (Now ¹⁴  all the people who heard this, even the tax collectors, ¹⁵  acknowledged ¹⁶  God’s justice, because they had been baptized ¹⁷  with John’s baptism.

Luke 13:30

13:30 But ¹⁸  indeed, ¹⁹  some are last ²⁰  who will be first, and some are first who will be last.”

Ezekiel 18:27

18:27 When a wicked person turns from the wickedness he has committed and does what is just and right, he will preserve his life.

Matthew 9:10-13

9:10 As ²¹  Jesus ²²  was having a meal ²³  in Matthew’s ²⁴  house, many tax collectors ²⁵  and sinners came and ate with Jesus and his disciples. 9:11 When the Pharisees ²⁶  saw this they said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” ²⁷  9:12 When ²⁸  Jesus heard this he said, “Those who are healthy don’t need a physician, but those who are sick do. ²⁹  9:13 Go and learn what this saying means: ‘I want mercy and not sacrifice.’ ³⁰  For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”

Matthew 21:28-31

The Parable of the Two Sons

21:28 “What ³¹  do you think? A man had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ 21:29 The boy answered, ³²  ‘I will not.’ But later he had a change of heart ³³  and went. 21:30 The father ³⁴  went to the other son and said the same thing. This boy answered, ³⁵  ‘I will, sir,’ but did not go. 21:31 Which of the two did his father’s will?” They said, “The first.” ³⁶  Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, ³⁷  tax collectors ³⁸  and prostitutes will go ahead of you into the kingdom of God!

Romans 5:20

5:20 Now the law came in ³⁹  so that the transgression ⁴⁰  may increase, but where sin increased, grace multiplied all the more,

Romans 5:1

The Expectation of Justification

5:1 ⁴¹ Therefore, since we have been declared righteous by faith, we have ⁴²  peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,

Romans 1:15

1:15 Thus I am eager ⁴³  also to preach the gospel to you who are in Rome. ⁴⁴ 

[5:29]  ¹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “then” to indicate the implied sequence of events within the narrative.

[5:29]  ² sn A great banquet refers to an elaborate meal. Many of the events in Luke take place in the context of meal fellowship: 7:36-50; 9:12-17; 10:38-42; 11:37-54; 14:1-24; 22:7-38; 24:29-32, 41-43.

[5:29]  ³ tn Grk “him”; the referent (Jesus) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[5:29]  ⁴ tn Grk “reclining.” This term reflects the normal practice in 1st century Jewish culture of eating a meal in a semi-reclining position. Since it is foreign to most modern readers, the translation “sitting” has been substituted.

[5:30]  ⁵ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “but” to indicate the implied contrast present in this context.

[5:30]  ⁶ sn See the note on Pharisees in 5:17.

[5:30]  ⁷ tn Or “and their scribes.” See the note on the phrase “experts in the law” in 5:21.

[5:30]  ⁸ tn Or “grumbled”; a term often used in the OT for inappropriate grumbling: Exod 15:24; 16:7-8; Num 14:2, 26-35; 16:11.

[5:30]  ⁹ sn The issue here is inappropriate associations (eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners) and the accusation comes not against Jesus, but his disciples.

[5:31]  ¹⁰ tn Grk “And Jesus.” Here καί (kai) has not been translated because of differences between Greek and English style.

[5:31]  ¹¹ sn Jesus’ point is that he associates with those who are sick because they have the need and will respond to the offer of help. A person who is well (or who thinks mistakenly that he is) will not seek treatment.

[5:32]  ¹² sn I have not come is another commission statement by Jesus; see 4:43-44.

[5:32]  ¹³ sn Though parallels exist to this saying (Matt 9:13; Mark 2:17), only Luke has this last phrase but sinners to repentance. Repentance is a frequent topic in Luke’s Gospel: 3:3, 8; 13:1-5; 15:7, 10; 16:30; 17:3-4; 24:47.

[7:29]  ¹⁴ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “now” to indicate the parenthetical nature of the comment by the author.

[7:29]  ¹⁵ sn See the note on tax collectors in 3:12.

[7:29]  ¹⁶ tn Or “vindicated God”; Grk “justified God.” This could be expanded to “vindicated and responded to God.” The point is that God’s goodness and grace as evidenced in the invitation to John was justified and responded to by the group one might least expect, tax collector and sinners. They had more spiritual sensitivity than others. The contrastive response is clear from v. 30.

[7:29]  ¹⁷ tn The participle βαπτισθέντες (baptisqente") has been translated as a causal adverbial participle.

[13:30]  ¹⁸ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “but” to indicate the contrast present in this context.

[13:30]  ¹⁹ tn Grk “behold.”

[13:30]  ²⁰ sn Some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last. Jesus’ answer is that some who are expected to be there (many from Israel) will not be there, while others not expected to be present (from other nations) will be present. The question is not, “Will the saved be few?” (see v. 23), but “Will it be you?”

[9:10]  ²¹ tn Grk “And it happened that while.” The introductory phrase καὶ ἐγένετο (kai egeneto, “it happened that”) is redundant in contemporary English and has not been translated.

[9:10]  ²² tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been supplied in the translation for clarity.

[9:10]  ²³ tn Grk “was reclining at table.”

[9:10]  ²⁴ tn Grk “in the house.” The Greek article is used here in a context that implies possession, and the referent of the implied possessive pronoun (Matthew) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[9:10]  ²⁵ sn See the note on tax collectors in 5:46.

[9:11]  ²⁶ sn See the note on Pharisees in 3:7.

[9:11]  ²⁷ sn The issue here is inappropriate associations. Jews were very careful about personal associations and contact as a matter of ritual cleanliness. Their question borders on an accusation that Jesus is ritually unclean.

[9:12]  ²⁸ tn Here δέ (de) has not been translated.

[9:12]  ²⁹ sn Jesus’ point is that he associates with those who are sick because they have the need and will respond to the offer of help. A person who is healthy (or who thinks mistakenly that he is) will not seek treatment.

[9:13]  ³⁰ sn A quotation from Hos 6:6 (see also Matt 12:7).

[21:28]  ³¹ tn Here δέ (de) has not been translated.

[21:29]  ³² tn Grk “And answering, he said.” This is somewhat redundant and has been simplified in the translation. Here the referent (“the boy”) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[21:29]  ³³ tn The Greek text reads here μεταμέλομαι (metamelomai): “to change one’s mind about something, with the probable implication of regret” (L&N 31.59); cf. also BDAG 639 s.v. The idea in this context involves more than just a change of mind, for the son regrets his initial response. The same verb is used in v. 32.

[21:30]  ³⁴ tn “And he”; here δέ (de) has not been translated.

[21:30]  ³⁵ tn Grk “And answering, he said.” This is somewhat redundant and has been simplified in the translation. Here δέ (de) has not been translated. Here the referent (“this boy”) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[21:31]  ³⁶ tc Verses 29-31 involve a rather complex and difficult textual problem. The variants cluster into three different groups: (1) The first son says “no” and later has a change of heart, and the second son says “yes” but does not go. The second son is called the one who does his father’s will. This reading is found in the Western mss (D it). But the reading is so hard as to be nearly impossible. One can only suspect some tampering with the text, extreme carelessness on the part of the scribe, or possibly a recognition of the importance of not shaming one’s parent in public. (Any of these reasons is not improbable with this texttype, and with codex D in particular.) The other two major variants are more difficult to assess. Essentially, the responses make sense (the son who does his father’s will is the one who changes his mind after saying “no”): (2) The first son says “no” and later has a change of heart, and the second son says “yes” but does not go. But here, the first son is called the one who does his father’s will (unlike the Western reading). This is the reading found in (א) C L W (Z) 0102 0281 ˹ 33 Ï and several versional witnesses. (3) The first son says “yes” but does not go, and the second son says “no” but later has a change of heart. This is the reading found in B Θ Ë¹³ 700 and several versional witnesses. Both of these latter two readings make good sense and have significantly better textual support than the first reading. The real question, then, is this: Is the first son or the second the obedient one? If one were to argue simply from the parabolic logic, the second son would be seen as the obedient one (hence, the third reading). The first son would represent the Pharisees (or Jews) who claim to obey God, but do not (cf. Matt 23:3). This accords well with the parable of the prodigal son (in which the oldest son represents the unbelieving Jews). Further, the chronological sequence of the second son being obedient fits well with the real scene: Gentiles and tax collectors and prostitutes were not, collectively, God’s chosen people, but they did repent and come to God, while the Jewish leaders claimed to be obedient to God but did nothing. At the same time, the external evidence is weaker for this reading (though stronger than the first reading), not as widespread, and certainly suspect because of how neatly it fits. One suspects scribal manipulation at this point. Thus the second reading looks to be superior to the other two on both external and transcriptional grounds. But what about intrinsic evidence? One can surmise that Jesus didn’t always give predictable responses. In this instance, he may well have painted a picture in which the Pharisees saw themselves as the first son, only to stun them with his application (v. 32).

[21:31]  ³⁷ tn Grk “Truly (ἀμήν, amhn), I say to you.”

[21:31]  ³⁸ sn See the note on tax collectors in 5:46.

[5:20]  ³⁹ tn Grk “slipped in.”

[5:20]  ⁴⁰ tn Or “trespass.”

[5:1]  ⁴¹ sn Many interpreters see Rom 5:1 as beginning the second major division of the letter.

[5:1]  ⁴² tc A number of important witnesses have the subjunctive ἔχωμεν (ecwmen, “let us have”) instead of ἔχομεν (ecomen, “we have”) in v. 1. Included in the subjunctive’s support are א* A B* C D K L 33 81 630 1175 1739* pm lat bo. But the indicative is not without its supporters: א¹ B² F G P Ψ 0220^vid 104 365 1241 1505 1506 1739^c 1881 2464 pm. If the problem were to be solved on an external basis only, the subjunctive would be preferred. Because of this, the “A” rating on behalf of the indicative in the UBS⁴ appears overly confident. Nevertheless, the indicative is probably correct. First, the earliest witness to Rom 5:1 has the indicative (0220^vid, third century). Second, the first set of correctors is sometimes, if not often, of equal importance with the original hand. Hence, א¹ might be given equal value with א*. Third, there is a good cross-section of witnesses for the indicative: Alexandrian (in 0220^vid, probably א¹ 1241 1506 1881 al), Western (in F G), and Byzantine (noted in NA²⁷ as pm). Thus, although the external evidence is strongly in favor of the subjunctive, the indicative is represented well enough that its ancestry could easily go back to the original. Turning to the internal evidence, the indicative gains much ground. (1) The variant may have been produced via an error of hearing (since omicron and omega were pronounced alike in ancient Greek). This, of course, does not indicate which reading was original – just that an error of hearing may have produced one of them. In light of the indecisiveness of the transcriptional evidence, intrinsic evidence could play a much larger role. This is indeed the case here. (2) The indicative fits well with the overall argument of the book to this point. Up until now, Paul has been establishing the “indicatives of the faith.” There is only one imperative (used rhetorically) and only one hortatory subjunctive (and this in a quotation within a diatribe) up till this point, while from ch. 6 on there are sixty-one imperatives and seven hortatory subjunctives. Clearly, an exhortation would be out of place in ch. 5. (3) Paul presupposes that the audience has peace with God (via reconciliation) in 5:10. This seems to assume the indicative in v. 1. (4) As C. E. B. Cranfield notes, “it would surely be strange for Paul, in such a carefully argued writing as this, to exhort his readers to enjoy or to guard a peace which he has not yet explicitly shown to be possessed by them” (Romans [ICC], 1:257). (5) The notion that εἰρήνην ἔχωμεν (eirhnhn ecwmen) can even naturally mean “enjoy peace” is problematic (ExSyn 464), yet those who embrace the subjunctive have to give the verb some such force. Thus, although the external evidence is stronger in support of the subjunctive, the internal evidence points to the indicative. Although a decision is difficult, ἔχομεν appears to be the authentic reading.

[1:15]  ⁴³ tn Or “willing, ready”; Grk “so my eagerness [is] to preach…” The word πρόθυμος (proqumo", “eager, willing”) is used only elsewhere in the NT in Matt 26:41 = Mark 14:38: “the spirit indeed is willing (πρόθυμος), but the flesh is weak.”

[1:15]  ⁴⁴ map For location see JP4 A1.