Luke 5:30

5:30 But ¹  the Pharisees ²  and their experts in the law ³  complained ⁴  to his disciples, saying, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?” ⁵ 

Luke 7:34

7:34 The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look at him, ⁶  a glutton and a drunk, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ ⁷ 

Luke 7:39

7:39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, ⁸  he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet, ⁹  he would know who and what kind of woman ¹⁰  this is who is touching him, that she is a sinner.”

Luke 15:2

15:2 But ¹¹  the Pharisees ¹²  and the experts in the law ¹³  were complaining, ¹⁴  “This man welcomes ¹⁵  sinners and eats with them.”

Luke 18:9-14

The Parable of the Pharisee and Tax Collector

18:9 Jesus ¹⁶  also told this parable to some who were confident that they were righteous and looked down ¹⁷  on everyone else. 18:10 “Two men went up ¹⁸  to the temple to pray, one a Pharisee ¹⁹  and the other a tax collector. ²⁰  18:11 The Pharisee stood and prayed about himself like this: ²¹  ‘God, I thank ²²  you that I am not like other people: ²³  extortionists, ²⁴  unrighteous people, ²⁵  adulterers – or even like this tax collector. ²⁶  18:12 I fast twice ²⁷  a week; I give a tenth ²⁸  of everything I get.’ 18:13 The tax collector, however, stood ²⁹  far off and would not even look up ³⁰  to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, be merciful ³¹  to me, sinner that I am!’ ³²  18:14 I tell you that this man went down to his home justified ³³  rather than the Pharisee. ³⁴  For everyone who exalts ³⁵  himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Matthew 9:11

9:11 When the Pharisees ³⁶  saw this they said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” ³⁷ 

Matthew 21:28-31

The Parable of the Two Sons

21:28 “What ³⁸  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, ³⁹  ‘I will not.’ But later he had a change of heart ⁴⁰  and went. 21:30 The father ⁴¹  went to the other son and said the same thing. This boy answered, ⁴²  ‘I will, sir,’ but did not go. 21:31 Which of the two did his father’s will?” They said, “The first.” ⁴³  Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, ⁴⁴  tax collectors ⁴⁵  and prostitutes will go ahead of you into the kingdom of God!

[5:30]  ¹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “but” to indicate the implied contrast present in this context.

[5:30]  ² sn See the note on Pharisees in 5:17.

[5:30]  ³ tn Or “and their scribes.” See the note on the phrase “experts in the law” in 5:21.

[5:30]  ⁴ 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]  ⁵ 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.

[7:34]  ⁶ tn Grk “Behold a man.”

[7:34]  ⁷ sn Neither were they happy with Jesus (the Son of Man), even though he was the opposite of John and associated freely with people like tax collectors and sinners. Either way, God’s messengers were subject to complaint.

[7:39]  ⁸ tn The word “this” is not in the Greek text, but is implied. Direct objects were frequently omitted in Greek when clear from the context.

[7:39]  ⁹ tn This is a good example of a second class (contrary to fact) Greek conditional sentence. The Pharisee said, in effect, “If this man were a prophet (but he is not)…”

[7:39]  ¹⁰ sn The Pharisees believed in a form of separationism that would have prevented them from any kind of association with such a sinful woman.

[15:2]  ¹¹ tn Here καί (kai) has been translated as “but” to indicate the contrast present in this context.

[15:2]  ¹² sn See the note on Pharisees in 5:17.

[15:2]  ¹³ tn Or “and the scribes.” See the note on the phrase “experts in the law” in 5:21.

[15:2]  ¹⁴ tn Or “grumbling”; Grk “were complaining, saying.” The participle λέγοντες (legontes) is redundant in contemporary English and has not been translated.

[15:2]  ¹⁵ tn Or “accepts,” “receives.” This is not the first time this issue has been raised: Luke 5:27-32; 7:37-50.

[18:9]  ¹⁶ tn Grk “He”; the referent has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[18:9]  ¹⁷ tn Grk “and despised.” This is a second parable with an explanatory introduction.

[18:10]  ¹⁸ sn The temple is on a hill in Jerusalem, so one would go up to enter its precincts.

[18:10]  ¹⁹ sn See the note on Pharisees in 5:17.

[18:10]  ²⁰ sn See the note on tax collectors in 3:12.

[18:11]  ²¹ tn Or “stood by himself and prayed like this.” The prepositional phrase πρὸς ἑαυτόν (pros eauton, “to/about himself”) could go with either the aorist participle σταθείς (staqeis, “stood”) or with the imperfect verb προσηύχετο (proshuceto, “he prayed”). If taken with the participle, then the meaning would seem at first glance to be: “stood ‘by himself’,” or “stood ‘alone’.” Now it is true that πρός can mean “by” or “with” when used with intransitive verbs such as ἵστημι ({isthmi, “I stand”; cf. BDAG 874 s.v. πρός 2.a), but πρὸς ἑαυτόν together never means “by himself” or “alone” in biblical Greek. On the other hand, if πρὸς ἑαυτόν is taken with the verb, then two different nuances emerge, both of which highlight in different ways the principal point Jesus seems to be making about the arrogance of this religious leader: (1) “prayed to himself,” but not necessarily silently, or (2) “prayed about himself,” with the connotation that he prayed out loud, for all to hear. Since his prayer is really a review of his moral résumé, directed both at advertising his own righteousness and exposing the perversion of the tax collector, whom he actually mentions in his prayer, the latter option seems preferable. If this is the case, then the Pharisee’s mention of God is really nothing more than a formality.

[18:11]  ²² sn The Pharisee’s prayer started out as a thanksgiving psalm to God, but the praise ended up not being about God.

[18:11]  ²³ tn Here the plural Greek term ἀνθρώπων (anqrwpwn) is used as a generic and can refer to both men and women (NASB, NRSV, “people”; NLT, “everyone else”; NAB, “the rest of humanity”).

[18:11]  ²⁴ tn Or “swindlers” (BDAG 134 s.v. ἅρπαξ 2); see also Isa 10:2; Josephus, J. W. 6.3.4 [6.203].

[18:11]  ²⁵ sn A general category for “sinners” (1 Cor 6:9; Lev 19:3).

[18:11]  ²⁶ sn Note what the Pharisee assumes about the righteousness of this tax collector by grouping him with extortionists, unrighteous people, and adulterers.

[18:12]  ²⁷ sn The law only required fasting on the Day of Atonement. Such voluntary fasting as this practiced twice a week by the Pharisee normally took place on Monday and Thursday.

[18:12]  ²⁸ tn Or “I tithe.”

[18:13]  ²⁹ tn Grk “standing”; the Greek participle has been translated as a finite verb.

[18:13]  ³⁰ tn Grk “even lift up his eyes” (an idiom).

[18:13]  ³¹ tn The prayer is a humble call for forgiveness. The term for mercy (ἱλάσκομαι, Jilaskomai) is associated with the concept of a request for atonement (BDAG 473-74 s.v. 1; Ps 51:1, 3; 25:11; 34:6, 18).

[18:13]  ³² tn Grk “the sinner.” The tax collector views himself not just as any sinner but as the worst of all sinners. See ExSyn 222-23.

[18:14]  ³³ sn The prayer that was heard and honored was the one given with humility; in a surprising reversal it was the tax collector who went down to his home justified.

[18:14]  ³⁴ tn Grk “the other”; the referent (the Pharisee, v. 10) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

[18:14]  ³⁵ sn Everyone who exalts himself. See Luke 14:11. Jesus often called for humility and condemned those who sought honor.

[9:11]  ³⁶ sn See the note on Pharisees in 3:7.

[9:11]  ³⁷ 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.

[21:28]  ³⁸ tn Here δέ (de) has not been translated.

[21:29]  ³⁹ 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]  ⁴⁰ 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]  ⁴¹ tn “And he”; here δέ (de) has not been translated.

[21:30]  ⁴² 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]  ⁴³ 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]  ⁴⁴ tn Grk “Truly (ἀμήν, amhn), I say to you.”

[21:31]  ⁴⁵ sn See the note on tax collectors in 5:46.