# Luke 7:47, for, because, since?



## py3ak (Aug 26, 2006)

All right, Greek gurus. Can anyone give me some clear examples of a place other than Luke 7:47 where oti is well translated by 'since'?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Aug 27, 2006)

> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> All right, Greek gurus. Can anyone give me some clear examples of a place other than Luke 7:47 where oti is well translated by 'since'?


oti is a very common conjunction. It is found well over 1000 times in the NT (closer to 1300 X). BDAG Greek lexicon devotes over an entire page to its uses. It is a "workhorse" connector. "Because" "that" "for" since" -- these are just a few of the ways that the word is commonly rendered, (as can be determined from _New Englishman's Gk Concordance_) as well as "how that" "concerning that" and possibly many, many more glosses (depending on the translation).

As for Lk. 7:47.
It is evident that "because or (since) she loved much" is a perfectly straightforward rendering of the text. The exegetical question is: what did Jesus mean? And following that, is such an English gloss the best rendering, or open to the least abuse or misunderstanding?

Did Jesus mean to intimate that her great love was the _cause of_ her sins being forgiven? Most exegetes would say "no." And most of our translations (be that KJV, NKJV, ASV, RSV, NIV e.g.) also use a word such as "for" instead of "because" or "since" (even though those English words are also capable of a sense other than strict, linear causation).

In this passage (which we can take from v. 36) Jesus is invited to eat at a Pharisee's house. The gathering is evidently put on as a *spectacle* of hospitality. Jesus (the guest) is treated fairly shabbily (see verse 44). The public stands around the venue, observing, admiring the host's little show. One woman spectator, however, is unable to maintain etiquette, and steals forward to shed tears on Jesus' feet, kiss them, and dry them with her hair.

The scene must have been stunning to the other guests and spectators. Is this part of the show? Does Jesus know her? Does the host? For Jesus makes no move to halt or rebuke her, or appeal to the host for relief.

Instead he reads the man's inner thoughts (v. 39) that reveal his contempt for both Jesus and the woman, and strikes up a new conversation with him. It begins with a parable. And it ends with Jesus asking: "Which of the forgiven debtors loved more?" to which Simon, the host, answers, "I guess the one who was forgiven more."

Jesus then takes Pharisee Simon's own judgment and exposes his hypocrisy. He proves he _is_ a prophet, knowing both Simon's inner thoughts as well as the woman's character. He says (in effect) "Simon, you hardly love me at all--did you even give me a basic welcome-wash? No. You didn't. A host-kiss? No. Not even a drop of oil for my head for the sake of your own nose.

"And yet, this lady hasn't stopped in her devotion, in a most self-abasing, and conspicuous manner. She's showing you up, Simon.

"I tell you the truth, just like my parable revealed to you which debtor felt greater love from the forgiveness he received, so also this woman proves that she has been greatly forgiven as well. _Because,_ as you can plainly see, *she loved much.*"


----------



## py3ak (Aug 27, 2006)

Thanks, Bruce. The question came up because of A.B. Bruce's dismissive comment that older Protestant exegetes had made _hoti_ equivalent to _dio_ in this passage. But Godet gives 3 good reasons why it cannot be taken in a causal sense (Bruce doesn't think it can be: he thinks it has to be connected with "many"). So I was looking for a clear example where the since, the evidential meaning, was plain.
And the 1187 (I think it was) occurrences that Gramcord pulled up made me wonder if someone had already fished through them and found the perfect cross-reference.


----------



## MW (Aug 28, 2006)

I would only add to Bruce's fine post that the word is introducing an explanatory statement regardless of what it is translated as; but I would commend those versions which insinuate some disjunction by placing a semicolon after the first statement, and then soften the explanation by use of the word "for."

The concluding statement, "but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth much," is a contrasting parallelism; so it provides the proper connection of the two statements which it is parallelling. Reading back this proper connection, we discover that Jesus was in fact saying "the woman is forgiven much as is evident from the fact that she loveth much."


----------

