# Question about Luke 18:14



## Bill The Baptist (Oct 31, 2016)

I was at the Expositor's Summit at Southern Seminary last week, and Dr. Mohler preached on the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector. It was an excellent message, however when he came to verse 14:

"I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

Dr. Mohler argued that this refers only to Jesus, and not the tax collector, and to say otherwise is to teach moralism. I certainly agree that the ultimate application is to Christ and his work on the cross, but it seems to me that to say that there is no application to the tax collector seems a bit forced. Is repentance really moralism? What do you think about this?


----------



## Ed Walsh (Oct 31, 2016)

Bill The Baptist said:


> Dr. Mohler argued that this refers only to Jesus, and not the tax collector,



That is a strange view - Very strange indeed. Jesus is only the omniscient observer and not in the parable at all as far as I can see.

Note: This is one of my favorite commentary excerpts, and that from a Lutheran, R. C. H. Lenski - It is long so don't feel you need to read it all if you are not that interested. I don't always read all of a long post.

9) Moreover, also to some who had been resting their trust on themselves that they were righteous and were treating the rest with contempt he spoke this parable.

Neither the preceding parable nor the one that is now introduced deal with prayer as such; prayer is only the vehicle in both. So the connection is not from prayer to prayer. The first parable deals with the kind of faith Jesus wants the disciples to have, one that is constantly longing and asking for his return; the second parable adds the true humility of faith, of that faith which alone justifies. It may well be possible that this parable followed the other promptly. Since εἶπε πρός is constantly used to mean “he said to” the persons who are then named, we cannot have it here mean “he said regarding” absent persons.

Those who are addressed are characterized by a perfect and a present participle: such as “have been trusting in themselves” and continue to do this and such as now “go on condemning the rest.” The substance of the trust is “that they are righteous,” the present tense matches the perfect participle, δίκαιοι (as always) is used in the forensic sense. These men were convinced that they had God’s verdict in their favor; but the only ground on which they were resting this conviction was “themselves” (ἐφ expresses the basis). The result of this self-righteousness was that they were considering others as nothing; in their estimation they alone amounted to something—and that just about everything—before God. Who were they? Not Pharisees although the description fits them. Luke would most likely have inserted this word. That leaves other Jews who have the Pharisaic spirit or followers of Jesus who are still infected with that spirit.

10) Two men went up into the Temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

This occurred at one of the regular hours for prayer, and τὸ ἱερόν is the entire Temple complex. Into the court of the men these two came for their act of prayer-worship (aorist). The Pharisees are described in 5:17; the publicans in 3:12. These two constituted the extremes in Judaism, the one stood at the pinnacle of holiness, the other was a wicked outcast. The scene is laid in the Holy City itself, in the very court of the Temple, and thus in the presence of God. Jesus is showing the men he is addressing a photograph of what they really are and a companion photograph of what they ought to be. It is a Pharisee but may just as well be anybody else who thinks like this Pharisee speaks and acts; it is a publican but this one represents, not publicans as a class, but all men who think as he speaks and acts.

11) This is a parable—we are allowed to enter with these men and to see and to hear all that reveals them as they are. The Pharisee took a stand and went on praying these things for himself: God, I thank thee that I am not like the rest of men, robbers, unrighteous, adulterers, or ever as this publican! I fast twice during the week; I tithe all whatever I acquire.

The picture is not overdrawn in the least. The Jews had fixed prayers just as we teach our children to pray: “Now I lay me down to sleep,” etc. But free prayers were also spoken. The point is that the parable lets this Pharisee pray the real thought of his heart. In this prayer we see what a case of full-grown self-and work-righteousness looks like. The type is Jewish, but while it is thus individualized it can easily be translated into other types. We are shown only the heart of the prayer; “he went on praying” (imperfect) means that he said much more, for the Pharisees loved to make long prayers. This man may have spoken many other words in his prayer, words from the psalms, words from the prophets, the most godly words in the world—many hypocrites and self-righteous men love to use them; but his heart is truly revealed only in words such as these which the parable puts into his mouth.

“He took a stand” right up in front, next to the stone balustrade which divided the priests’ court from that of the men. Πρὸς ἑαυτόν does not mean “to himself” in the sense of “silently,” “under his breath,” as some think, who add even that he would not have dared to say these things out loud. He not only dared this but was admired by those who heard what he could say. The phrase is to be construed with the verb (not with the participle) and means that he prayed these things “for himself,” “in favor of himself,” using πρός of direction which may be either hostile (“against”) or friendly or neutral; it is here the second. He boasted about himself—that was his praying. He thought that was in his favor with God.

It is held against him that he said only ὁ Θεός—the nominative with the article is used as a vocative—but everything is trimmed down in a parable, and so “God” is enough. “I thank thee” makes this prayer a thanksgiving, but only in form—it names not one thing that God has done for this man. For when he adds: “that I am not like the rest of men” and names three vicious kinds and then the publican on whom his eyes fell, his meaning is not that God’s grace has made him different, but that he has made himself righteous, yea, vastly better. And he, indeed, could not thank God for what he had become, for God’s grace never made him what he was, never turned out self-righteous boasters.

He thanked God that he was not like “robbers,” etc., but he really had nothing to thank even himself for on that score, for the Pharisee that he had made of himself was worse in God’s eyes than a robber and most certainly much harder to save as witness the publican. This man was merely what Jesus charges in 16:15. He was measuring with a wrong human rule and not with the rule of God’s Word, and doing this right in God’s Temple which had been dedicated to God’s Word. By the ἄδικοι he refers to all such as have no righteousness in men’s eyes, who cannot face an earthly judge. With καί he does not include “also” this (derogatory οὖτος, R. 697) publican but tops the pile with him as being the worst of all—glance at 3:12.

12) First, self-absolution from all sins—not one to confess to God; then, merit, even supererogation, doing even more than God had commanded. “God, see in me no sin, all pure merit!” This man keeps fasting twice a week (genitive of time within). In the Greek, both in the singular and in the plural, “Sabbath” is used for our “week” and means the group of days that is bounded by the Sabbaths. God’s law prescribed only one day of fasting in the year, the Day of Atonement, Lev. 16:29, etc.; 23:27, etc. The nation itself had established four other fast days. But private fasting had been introduced since the exile, and the Pharisees practiced this as a special mark of holiness and used Monday and Thursday for this purpose. The Jews of the present time have 28 fast days. So this Pharisee claimed high merit for his fasting but knew nothing of such fasting as Isa. 58:4–7 describes.

He also tithed every last thing he acquired (κτῶμαι, not “possess”). The emphasis is on the πάντα ὅσα, “everything whatsoever”; he did not make the common exemptions but included even that which Jesus mentions in 11:42—more works of supererogation. On tithing for Christians compare the notes on 11:42. Jesus puts just enough into the parable to bring out its point. So he stops with a mention of these works—the Pharisees boasted of more.

13) But the publican, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to the heaven but was striking his breast, saying, God, let thyself be propitiated in regard to me, the open sinner!

He is the complete opposite to the Pharisee. He, too, stands as was customary in the Temple, but he has not taken a special stand. The Greek says “from afar” and measures from the object to the person; we say “far off” and measure in the opposite way. He stood as far off from the Sanctuary as he could, at the rear of the court of the men. He felt that he was too unworthy to go nearer. Nor did he have the will to lift up his eyes to heaven in the face of the Sanctuary, the imperfect ἤθελεν includes the entire time that he was in the court. He was utterly ashamed before God. Over against what he did not do ἀλλά states what he did do, strike his breast in the Oriental way of showing great sorrow like the wailing women do in 8:52, the weeping women on the Via Dolorosa in 23:27, and the children at play in Matt. 11:17. This act symbolizes the publican’s contrition. We add his confession of sin when he calls himself ὁ ἁμαρτωλός, “the open and notorious sinner,” right here in God’s house. True contrition is always expressed by honest confession. R., W. P. scores a point in pointing out that the article is so often overlooked. The main point lies in the article. The Pharisee thought of others as being sinners; the publican thinks of himself alone as being the sinner and not of others. This is a mark of true contrition. It finds no comfort at all in the fact that there are many other and even greater sinners; it sees only itself before God, only itself as “the” sinner who is unable to answer to God for his sins.

The publican, too, cries only ὁ Θεός as is explained in v. 11. If blame attached to the Pharisee for saying only “God” it would extend also to the publican. But how dare a gross sinner approach God, and that right in God’s Temple? Because there is forgiveness with God, his Temple is open to sinners, he has provided expiation for their sins, and this is applied to sinners in his Temple, and his Word declares all this and seals the forgiveness. This publican was a Jew who knew all this and was now acting upon it. It was this gospel provision of the old covenant that drew him in the first place. The Pharisee disregarded all gospel, made the whole Old Testament law, and thus prayed as he did. The publican knew the true law that condemns sin, came smitten and crushed by that law, but, thank God, knew also the gospel in the Old Testament, the gospel in all the sacrifices for sin in the Temple, and made his prayer thus.

The translation “be merciful to me” which is found in our version and in others is unfortunate. The verb used is not ἐλεεῖν, “to be merciful or to show mercy,” which is properly translated thus in all the instances where the sick cry for help (e. g., 17:13). This translation leaves out the very essential that Jesus put into the publican’s mouth, without which God cannot pardon and justify, namely the expiation for sin. So this translation is either misapplied as though God justifies without expiation, or the explanation is given that because of the limitations of parables the expiation is omitted. But this verb is the very one which shows the expiation and is used here for that very purpose: ἱλάσθητί μοι, “be propitiated in regard to me”; or, taking the passive in the middle sense: “let thyself be propitiated in regard to me.”

In ἱλάσκομαι there lies ἱλασμός, “propitiation,” which, where sin is involved, is an expiation or atonement. C.-K. 517–521 on the verb and the noun. The publican prays that God may let the sacrifices which he ordained for sin in the old covenant blot out his sin so that God can again extend his grace and favor to this poor sinner. Such a prayer can be made only to a gracious God, to him who has provided an expiation, and only by one who makes that expiation his sole refuge in contrition, makes it by putting all his faith and trust in this divine expiation. That is the sense of the publican’s prayer. All that we need to remember is that it rests on the Old Testament sacrifices for sin, which typify the final sacrifice of Christ on the cross and have their efficacy for the old covenant in and through the promised sacrifice of Christ, Isa. 53:2–7.

14) I tell you, this one went down to his house as having been justified rather than that one; because everyone exalting himself shall be humbled, but he humbling himself shall be exalted.

It is the voice of authority which announces the verdict: “I tell you!” “Went down” to his house is proper because the Jews always regarded the going to the Temple as a going up. The Temple was not built on the highest hill of the city, yet all went up, and all came down. The perfect participle δεδικαιωμένος is predicative to οὖτος: “this one as having been justified”; and the tense states that God justified him prior to his going down to his house or home, and that this justification was valid now and indefinitely. The agent involved in the passive is “God” to whom he prayed.

But the sense of this participle is of the utmost importance. Δικαιοῦν is always forensic, in the LXX, etc., also in a secular sense, in the New Testament in a religious sense and only with a personal object. God acquits, as the Judge he delivers and pronounces the verdict that frees from guilt and punishment. Look at the exhaustive finding in C.-K. 317, etc.; also at the cognate terms; also at the synonymous expressions and at the antonyms. The word never means to make righteous or just but always forensically to declare so. Since justification by faith is the central doctrine of the Scriptures, the sinner’s one hope of salvation, the word in which this doctrine centers must be properly understood.
The reading should be παρʼ ἐκεῖνον in preference to ἢ ἐκεῖνος, and certainly not ἢ γὰρ ἐκεῖνος as a question. The sense is that the publican alone was justified by God, the Pharisee was not, namely in comparing the two with each other. The view that the one was justified more than the other is in itself impossible since no degrees are possible in justification—the judge pronounces the acquittal or refuses to pronounce it and leaves the sinner in his sin, guilt, and condemnation. Nor should we confuse the matter by bringing in the sinner’s conviction or feeling of having been justified by God. The divine act takes place in heaven, outside of, apart from, and only in regard to the sinner who is on earth. His knowledge, conviction, and feeling (all of which are subjective) are derived from the Word, in which the acquittal of every repentant sinner is recorded.

The reason the publican was acquitted and the Pharisee was not is stated in the form of an axiom or self-evident proposition, one that is used repeatedly by Jesus in 14:11; Matt. 23:12, and in other forms elsewhere. He that exalts himself shall be humbled, every last one; but he that humbles himself shall be exalted—both passives have God as the agent. The Pharisee put himself up high in a totally false way and contrary to God. God had to puncture his arrogance; he could not let the lie endure, especially also since God had provided a true righteousness for sinners, and this man spurned it, manufactured a sham righteousness of his own instead, and tried to pass that off on God. The facts had to be brought to the light, and then the exaltation turned into the very opposite. But the publican humbled himself by letting God’s law fill him with contrition for his sins and lead him to confess his sin to God. He turned only to God in faith and to the expiation God provided for him. God could not but lift him up on high by justifying him and accepting him as his own. How can God pour anything into a full vessel? But the one that his law empties, that his grace can and does fill.

Lenski, R. C. H. (1961). The Interpretation of St. Luke’s Gospel (pp. 898–906). Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House.


----------



## Toasty (Oct 31, 2016)

Bill The Baptist said:


> I was at the Expositor's Summit at Southern Seminary last week, and Dr. Mohler preached on the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector. It was an excellent message, however when he came to verse 14:
> 
> "I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."
> 
> Dr. Mohler argued that this refers only to Jesus, and not the tax collector, and to say otherwise is to teach moralism. I certainly agree that the ultimate application is to Christ and his work on the cross, but it seems to me that to say that there is no application to the tax collector seems a bit forced. Is repentance really moralism? What do you think about this?



There is a contrast between the tax collector and the Pharisee. The tax collector was justified, not the Pharisee.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Oct 31, 2016)

I should clarify a bit. What Dr. Mohler said was that the one who humbled himself and was exalted was Christ and not the tax collector. His point was that we are justified by the work of Christ and not anything from ourselves. Of course I agree with this, but I would not consider repentance to be a work and the construction of the verse in question seems to imply a cause and effect relationship between the tax collectors asking God for mercy and him being justified.


----------



## MW (Oct 31, 2016)

I can't offer an opinion on this particular speaker, but there is a trend today to make everything redemptive historical and to overlook the redemptive moral aspects of revelation. This is short-sighted, and fails to see the moral overtones of what has been accomplished by the Saviour of sinners. Even those who say that we MUST believe Jesus has done all in our place are setting forth a doctrine with moral implications.

With regard to the specific example, it seems obvious to me that the publican humbled himself in order to seek mercy. He did not seek mercy on account of humbling himself, but the humbling of himself was part of the process by which he sought mercy.

At the very least, receiving the righteousness of Christ requires us to empty ourselves of our own righteousness, which is an act of humbling ourselves in God's sight. This is why the gospel cannot be concerned with justification only. In the act of justifying a sinner God also plants all the seeds of grace and new life which will spring up to produce fruits of righteousness in the justified person.


----------

