no one greater than him. The point is about the radical inversions of the kingdom of heaven, in which someone as insignificant as an innocent little baby may be considered ‘greater’ than John (who is still part of the kingdom, and no doubt the greatest one in it); the innocent little baby is the paradigm of excellence.”99
In Taylor’s assessment, 7:31–35 is a protest of Jesus against the people who rejected his and John’s prophetic call.100
John P. Meier’s critical analysis of the historical Jesus examines the pericope in discussing the relationship between the Baptist and Jesus.101 In outlining the secondary nature of the exact narrative setting, Meier discusses the complex tradition history that would have influenced the placement of a similar saying of Jesus in different contexts (Matt 11:12–13 // Luke 16:16).102 He presumes “certain points” generally accepted by most scholars regarding the authenticity of the Baptist tradition and repeatedly argues in favor of the historicity of the account.103 Meier downplays the often heard claim that most of the pericope has been developed by the early church in its polemic against the Baptist sectarians. According to Meier, the Baptist seems to be revising his previous view about the “coming one” given the shift of emphasis in the message of Jesus. “John’s question is therefore a genuine, tentative probe, allowing that he might have to revise his hopes in order to avoid giving them up entirely.”104
In Meier’s opinion, the indirect answer of Jesus and the concluding beatitude is a tacit exhortation to John to recognize in him the realization of the plan of God.105 Jesus balances his appeal to John with a high praise that extols the Baptist as more than a prophet and the greatest of those born of women with a statement that may hold a veiled contrast to Herod Antipas, who executed John.106 For Meier the main focus of the entire unit is the relationship of John to the eschatological message of Jesus.107 The thrust of the pericope shows respect for John, emphasizes a new eschatological situation, and draws a parallel between John and Jesus.
Ulrich B. Müller also addresses portions of the passage in his presentation of John the Baptist. For him, the words of Jesus about the Baptist belong to an old tradition.108 In his praise of the Baptist, Jesus shows his solidarity with him, who as an eschatological messenger breaks with the scheme of OT prophecy, but remains subordinated in regard to the new order.109 Müller grants considerable historical credibility to the words of Jesus: “Das ganze Wort ist so sehr von Jesu Verständnis von der mit der Gottesherrschaft anbrechenden eschatologischen Heilswende geprägt, dass hier keine nachösterliche Gemeindebildung vorliegt, sondern der historische Jesus selbst zu Worte kommt.”110 The words are missionary in character, but not of a later date.
According to Müller, during the life of the Baptist, or probably shortly after his death, Jesus was trying to persuade the people to accept the message of the kingdom of God.111 In the proclamation of Jesus, the admiration for the Baptist is relativized by the broaching of the kingdom of God. For Müller the introductory parable of the children originally belonged together and formed a unit with the words of Jesus about the Baptist. In this parable the similarities and differences between Jesus and the Baptist are underscored. Both are rejected by their contemporaries, but both messengers of God stand in contrast with each other: the Baptist is the ascetical preacher of conversion and Jesus the proclaimer of the message of jubilation.112 Luke portrays the Baptist as a significant prophet, but without saving efficacy.113 John is for Luke the precursor and forerunner of Jesus.114
Recently, Catherine M. Murphy has also undertaken an analysis of the passage in her investigation of the life and ministry of John the Baptist. Murphy seeks to decipher the role of John by taking into consideration the purification movements in first-century Judea and their notions of “purity and pollution.” She studies the redaction of fifteen different vignettes, four of which are part of Luke 7:18–35.115 Although in her analysis Murphy weighs the possibility that Jesus’ affirmation of John may be a process of reflection in the early church rather than Jesus’ own words, she ultimately accepts the historical reliability of the account.116 For Murphy, the episode recounts the concern of the Baptist, who has not seen the fulfillment of his messianic prophecy of judgment, regarding the healing and preaching ministry of Jesus.117 The testimony of Jesus about John means that the Baptist stands between the Law and the Prophets on the one hand, and the kingdom of God on the other. Based on the awkwardness of the statements from the point of view of the early Christian community and on the attribution of the tradition to Q, Murphy also accepts the authenticity of the parable of the children in the marketplace, which she uses to establish the ascetic lifestyle or lack thereof in the lives of the Baptist and Jesus.118
To summarize, the historical studies of John the Baptist raised new questions regarding the reliability of Luke 7:18–35. Greater awareness about the origin and diversity of the Synoptic accounts regarding the role of the Baptist results in a protracted debate about the authenticity of the story. Consequently, fewer commentators resort to harmonization in order to explain the apparent contradictions between the passage and other testimonies in the Gospels. They are also less constrained at attributing real ignorance or doubt to the Baptist, and eager to find in the prehistory of the text echoes of the controversies between John’s followers and the early Christian community. Many of these authors emphasize the difficulties that Jesus’ contemporaries faced in understanding the role of the Baptist in light of the messianic expectations of Second Temple Judaism.
Commentaries
The new perspective brought about by modern methods of exegesis in commentaries is exemplified by Paul Schanz’s interpretation of 7:18–35 in his commentary on the Gospel of Luke. Schanz, whose commentary represents a greater scholarly awareness of the Synoptic problem, believes that Luke has taken the language of this passage from Matthew.119 For him the episode deals with the relationship of Jesus with different classes of people, particularly the Pharisees, and serves to characterize the unresponsiveness and the opposition of the Jews.120 Neither the delegation of the Baptist nor the testimony of Jesus about John can be described as favorable recommendations, because the answer of Jesus is not clear and his speech about the Baptist is in response to Jews’ rejection. John, along with the rest of the Jews, expected another movement and other messianic signs, because they anticipated a different manifestation of the kingdom.
According to Schanz, John is the forerunner and stands as such over all the prophets. However, as a forerunner the Baptist also stands behind the members of the kingdom. Schanz regards 7:29–30 either as a Lukan addition or an insertion based on Matthew 21:31–32, because the speech overrides the preceding address of Jesus that resumes in v. 31.
