Matthew 9:10-11

9:10 As ¹  Jesus ²  was having a meal ³  in Matthew’s ⁴  house, many tax collectors ⁵  and sinners came and ate with Jesus and his disciples. 9:11 When the Pharisees ⁶  saw this they said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” ⁷ 

Matthew 11:19

11:19 The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look at him, ⁸  a glutton and a drunk, a friend of tax collectors ⁹  and sinners!’ ¹⁰  But wisdom is vindicated ¹¹  by her deeds.” ¹² 

Matthew 18:17

18:17 If ¹³  he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. If ¹⁴  he refuses to listen to the church, treat him like ¹⁵  a Gentile ¹⁶  or a tax collector. ¹⁷ 

Matthew 21:31-32

21:31 Which of the two did his father’s will?” They said, “The first.” ¹⁸  Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, ¹⁹  tax collectors ²⁰  and prostitutes will go ahead of you into the kingdom of God! 21:32 For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him. But the tax collectors and prostitutes did believe. Although ²¹  you saw this, you did not later change your minds ²²  and believe him.

Luke 15:1

The Parable of the Lost Sheep and Coin

15:1 Now all the tax collectors ²³  and sinners were coming ²⁴  to hear him.

Luke 18:13

18:13 The tax collector, however, stood ²⁵  far off and would not even look up ²⁶  to heaven, but beat his breast and said, ‘God, be merciful ²⁷  to me, sinner that I am!’ ²⁸ 

Luke 19:2

19:2 Now ²⁹  a man named Zacchaeus was there; he was a chief tax collector ³⁰  and was rich.

Luke 19:7

19:7 And when the people ³¹  saw it, they all complained, ³²  “He has gone in to be the guest of a man who is a sinner.” ³³ 

[9:10]  ¹ 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]  ² tn Grk “he”; the referent (Jesus) has been supplied in the translation for clarity.

[9:10]  ³ tn Grk “was reclining at table.”

[9:10]  ⁴ 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]  ⁵ sn See the note on tax collectors in 5:46.

[9:11]  ⁶ sn See the note on Pharisees in 3:7.

[9:11]  ⁷ 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.

[11:19]  ⁸ tn Grk “Behold a man.”

[11:19]  ⁹ sn See the note on tax collectors in 5:46.

[11:19]  ¹⁰ 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.

[11:19]  ¹¹ tn Or “shown to be right.”

[11:19]  ¹² tc Most witnesses (B² C D L Θ Ë¹ 33 Ï lat) have “children” (τέκνων, teknwn) here instead of “deeds” (ἔργων, ergwn), but since “children” is the reading of the parallel in Luke 7:35, scribes would be motivated to convert the less colorful “deeds” into more animate offspring of wisdom. Further, ἔργων enjoys support from א B* W (˹³) as well as early versional and patristic support.

[18:17]  ¹³ tn Here δέ (de) has not been translated.

[18:17]  ¹⁴ tn Here δέ (de) has not been translated.

[18:17]  ¹⁵ tn Grk “let him be to you as.”

[18:17]  ¹⁶ tn Or “a pagan.”

[18:17]  ¹⁷ sn To treat him like a Gentile or a tax collector means not to associate with such a person. See the note on tax collectors in 5:46.

[21:31]  ¹⁸ 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]  ¹⁹ tn Grk “Truly (ἀμήν, amhn), I say to you.”

[21:31]  ²⁰ sn See the note on tax collectors in 5:46.

[21:32]  ²¹ tn Here δέ (de) has not been translated.

[21:32]  ²² sn The word translated change your minds is the same verb used in v. 29 (there translated had a change of heart). Jesus is making an obvious comparison here, in which the religious leaders are viewed as the disobedient son.

[15:1]  ²³ sn See the note on tax collectors in 3:12.

[15:1]  ²⁴ tn Grk “were drawing near.”

[18:13]  ²⁵ tn Grk “standing”; the Greek participle has been translated as a finite verb.

[18:13]  ²⁶ tn Grk “even lift up his eyes” (an idiom).

[18:13]  ²⁷ 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]  ²⁸ 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.

[19:2]  ²⁹ tn Grk “And behold.” Here καί (kai) has been translated as “now” to indicate the introduction of a new character. The Greek word ἰδού (idou) at the beginning of this statement has not been translated because it has no exact English equivalent here, but adds interest and emphasis (BDAG 468 s.v. 1).

[19:2]  ³⁰ sn This is the one place in the NT the office of chief tax collector is noted. He would organize the other tax collectors and collect healthy commissions (see also the note on the word tax collector in 3:12).

[19:7]  ³¹ tn Grk “they”; the referent is unspecified but is probably the crowd in general, who would have no great love for a man like Zacchaeus who had enriched himself many times over at their expense.

[19:7]  ³² tn This term is used only twice in the NT, both times in Luke (here and 15:2) and has negative connotations both times (BDAG 227 s.v. διαγογγύζω). The participle λέγοντες (legonte") is redundant in contemporary English and has not been translated.

[19:7]  ³³ sn Being the guest of a man who is a sinner was a common complaint about Jesus: Luke 5:31-32; 7:37-50; 15:1-2.