Luke 7:29-30

Vers. 29 and 30. Retrospective Survey of the Ministry of John. “ And all the people that heard Him, and the publicans, justified God, being baptized with the baptism of John. 30. But the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against themselves [the Pharisees and scribes rendered God's design vain in their case. M. Godet's trans.], being not baptized of him. ”

These verses form the transition from the testimony which Jesus has just borne to John, to the application which He desires to make to the persons present. He attributes to the ministry of John a twofold result: a general movement amongst the lower classes of the people, Luke 7:29; an open opposition on the part of the rulers who determine the fate of the nation, Luke 7:30. Several interpreters (Knapp, Neander) have been led by the historical form of these verses to regard them as a reflection of the evangelist introduced into the discourse of Jesus. But such a mention of a fact interrupting a discourse would be unexampled. In any case it would be indicated, and the resumption of the discourse pointed out in Luke 7:31; the formula, And the Lord said, at the commencement of this verse, is not authentic. Had John been still at liberty, the words all that heard might, strictly speaking, have referred to a fact which had taken place at that time, to a resolution which His hearers had formed to go and be baptized by John that very hour. But John was no longer baptizing (Luke 3:19-20; Matthew 11:2). These words are therefore the continuation of the discourse. The meaning of Jesus is: John's greatness (28b is only a parenthesis) was thoroughly understood by the people; for a time they did homage to his mission, whilst (δέ, Luke 7:30) the rulers rejected him. And thus it is that, notwithstanding the eagerness of the people in seeking baptism from John, his ministry has nevertheless turned out a decided failure, in regard to the nation as such, owing to the opposition of its leaders. The object understood after all that heard is John the Baptist and his preaching. To justify God is to recognise and proclaim by word and deed the excellence of His ways for the salvation of men. The expression: they have annulled for themselves the divine decree, signifies that, although man cannot foil God's plan for the world, he may render it vain for himself.

On this conduct of the rulers, see Luke 3:7. The indirect reproof addressed by Jesus to the Pharisee Nicodemus (John 3:5) for having neglected the baptism of water, coincides in a remarkable manner with this passage in Luke.

In place of these two verses, we find in Matthew (Matthew 11:12-15) a passage containing the following thoughts: The appearing of John was the close of the legal and prophetical dispensation; and the opening of the Messianic kingdom took place immediately after. Only, men must know how to use a holy violence in order to enter into it (Luke 7:12-13). John was therefore the expected Elijah: Blessed is he who understands it (Luke 7:14; Luke 7:13)! These last two verses occur again in Matthew 17:12, where they are brought in more naturally; it is probable that some similarity in the ideas led the compiler to place them here. As to Luke 7:12-13, they are placed by Luke in a wholly different and very obscure connection, Luke 16:16. According to Holtzmann, it would be Matthew who faithfully reproduces here the common source, the Logia; while Luke, not thinking the connection satisfactory, substitutes for this passage from the Logia another taken from the proto-Mark, which Matthew introduces at Luke 21:31-32. Since, however, he was unwilling to lose the passage omitted here, he gives it another place, in a very incomprehensible context, it is true, but with a reversal of the order of the two verses, in order to make the connection more intelligible. Holtzmann quite prides himself on this explanation, and exclaims: “All the difficulties are solved....This example is very instructive as showing the way in which such difficulties should be treated” (pp. 143-5). The only thing proved, in our opinion, is, that by attempting to explain the origin of the Syn. by such manipulations we become lost in a labyrinth of improbabilities. Luke, forsooth, took the passage Matthew 5:12-15 (Matthew) away from its context, because the connection did not appear to him satisfactory, and inserted this same passage in his own Gospel, Luke 16:16, in a context where it becomes more unintelligible still! Is it not much more natural to suppose that Matthew's discourse was originally composed for a collection of Logia, in which it bore the title: On John the Baptist, and that the compiler collected under this head all the words known to him which Jesus had uttered at different times on this subject? As to Luke, he follows his own sources of information, which, as he has told us, faithfully represent the oral tradition, and which furnish evidence of their accuracy at every fresh test.

Gess endeavours, it is true, to prove the superiority of Matthew's text. The violent (Matthew 11:12) would be, according to him, the messengers of John the Baptist, thus designated on account of the abruptness with which they had put their question to Jesus before all the people. And Jesus declared this zeal laudable in comparison with the indifference shown by the people (Luke 7:31-35). But, 1. How could Jesus say of the disciples of John that they were forcing an entrance into the kingdom, whilst they frequently assumed a hostile attitude towards Him (Matthew 9:14; John 3:26)? 2. There would be no proportion between the gravity of this saying thus understood, and that of the declarations which precede and follow it upon the end of the prophetic and the opening of the Messianic era.