In Luke 18:9-14, Jesus gives us the parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector:
And He also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt: "Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. "The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: 'God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. 'I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.' "But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, the sinner!' "I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted." (NASB)
This pericope is often taken as evidence of justification by faith alone. However, this is eisegesis.
Firstly, let us note the following commentaries that provide us with the background to this parable:
Perhaps oddly, this parable about two men of contrasting backgrounds leads to a hearer to the Savior. How so? Because he effectively sits in judgment on the two men and their attitudes about how to approach God. It is he who renders judgement about “certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous”; it is he who through the telling of the story pronounces a verdict against those who “despised others” (18:9); it is he who declares the publican “justified” before God; and it is he who knows the one “that humbleth himself” (18:14). By sitting as judge when rehearsing the parable, Jesus not only lifts up to view his current role as the judge of a person’s attitudes and direction of life but also discloses his eventual office as judge of all, a function of the end-time which the earlier section of Luke’s record happens to address (see 17:22-18:8).
As is his custom, the Savior seizes an illustration from the workaday world that ever surrounds him and others, and turns it on its head, creating a memorable story, yes, but in a more important sense, drawing his hearers into a captivating world inhabited by the less fortunate, the despised and helpless, the weak and vulnerable. The widow in the prior parable is such a character (18:1-6), as is the hero of the story of the Good Samaritan (see 10:25-37). Even though Pharisees are known for their spite of others who do not share their ideals about tithes and foods, by some accounts they enjoy a notable measure of respect within the larger Jewish community. Hence, in some circles, for Jesus to make a Pharisee into his anti-hero goes against a social and religious grain. But he does not do so simply to make a nifty point. He is aware of their social and religious attitudes, and he levels genuine criticisms against them when opportunity arises (see 7:40-47; 11:37-44; 14:1-14; 17:20-21).
For Jesus to make a publican into an exemplary hero, of course, will surprise most of his hearers. But Jesus comes to reach out to those who stand on the shorelines of the populace as well as those who stand in the middle of the streambed, as his raising of the widow’s only son illustrates (see 7:11-17). Who better to demonstrate God’s willingness to listen to the earnest prayers of his children than a publican who draws scorn and alienation at every turn? To be sure, as Jesus and his audience will know, this publican, or any publican, is obliged to restore anything gained improperly, as Jesus’ later encounter with Zacchaeus demonstrates (see 19:8). Even so, by framing the story as he does, Jesus invites to his side any and all who are genuinely humble, any and all who are in need of his mercy, because “the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost” (19:10).
Luke alone preserves this account. As in other reports, he locates Jesus’ words in the realm of timelessness, not recording a time or place. But the story’s emphasis on prayer surely ties back to the earlier parable of the unjust judge and the widow, perhaps showing why Luke places the narrative here. But its thicker, stronger link runs forward, into the following stories that deal with a person’s proper actions within the kingdom, that is, with discipleship. Hence, although the publican may yet have much to do to fulfil his desire to become a part of God’s work on earth, his humble attitude when approaching God, in contrast to the pompousness of the Pharisee, is worthy of our emulation.
One element that might encourage us to see Jesus rehearsing this parable late in his ministry has to do with Jesus, through Luke’s eyes in this case, spelling out the purpose of the parable before narrating it: “he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others” (18:9). We meet this approach in an earlier verse: “he spake a parable unto them to this end, that men ought always to pray, and not to faint” (18:1). Then, in a subsequent setting, we read that he speaks “a parable . . . because they [his audience] thought that the kingdom of God should immediately appear” (19:11). Further, in a meaningful reversal, we see later a crowd’s response at the end of Jesus’ recounting of the parable of the wicked husbandmen. In presenting this story, Jesus does not hide his main point by speaking in parables so “that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not understand” (8:10). Instead, he makes his point so clear that, almost in unison, the crowd “said, God forbid” (20:16). What do we make of Jesus’ three efforts to announce the purpose of his parable and, in a fourth, to take the varnish off another parable so that hearers grasp his point immediately? One answer is that, at the end of his ministry, Jesus grows more blunt and becomes entirely clear about his purposes. He knows that time is running out, and he is reaching out to his audience in a strong, sharp effort to bring them to a decision about himself. If this reading is at all correct, then the statement of purpose in 18:9 may fit the last days of Jesus’ life and thus locate the parable of the Pharisee and publican about where Luke sets it down in his report. (S. Kent Brown, The Testimony of Luke [Brigham Young University New Testament Commentary; Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University Studies, 2015], 820-22)
The Navarre Bible offers the following comments:
18:9–14. Our Lord here rounds off his teaching on prayer. In addition to being persevering and full of faith, prayer must flow from a humble heart, a heart that repents of its sins: Cor contritum et humiliatum, Deus, non despicies (Ps 51:17), the Lord, who never despises a contrite and humble heart, resists the proud and gives his grace to the humble (cf. 1 Pet 5:5; Jas 4:6).
The parable presents two opposite types—the Pharisee, who is so meticulous about external fulfilment of the Law; and the tax collector, who in fact is looked on as a public sinner (cf. Lk 19:7). The Pharisee’s prayer is not pleasing to God, because his pride causes him to be self-centred and to despise others. He begins by giving thanks to God, but obviously it is not true gratitude, because he boasts about all the good he has done and he fails to recognize his sins; since he regards himself as righteous, he has no need of pardon, he thinks; and he remains in his sinful state; to him also apply these words spoken by our Lord to a group of Pharisees on another occasion: “If you were blind, you would have no guilt; but now that you say, ‘We see,’ your guilt remains” (Jn 9:41). The Pharisee went down from the temple, therefore, unjustified.
But the tax collector recognizes his personal unworthiness and is sincerely sorry for his sins: he has the necessary dispositions for God to pardon him. His ejaculatory prayer wins God’s forgiveness: “It is not without reason that some have said that prayer justifies; for repentant prayer or supplicant repentance, raising up the soul to God and re-uniting it to his goodness, without doubt obtains pardon in virtue of the holy love which gives it this sacred movement. And therefore we ought all to have very many such ejaculatory prayers, said as an act of loving repentance and with a desire of obtaining reconciliation with God, so that by thus laying our tribulation before our Saviour, we may pour out our souls before and within his pitiful heart, which will receive them with mercy” (St Francis de Sales, Treatise on the Love of God, book 2, chap. 20). (The Navarre Bible: Saint Luke's Gospel [Dublin: Four Courts Press, 2005], 153-54)
Now, let us address the issue of the soteriology of this parable. Firstly, it should be noted that this parable refutes the concept of “reflexive faith” as held by Luther et al. As Catholic scholar Paul Hacker noted:
Nowhere in Holy Scripture, neither in the Synoptics, nor in other writings of the New Testament, nor in the Old Testament, can any instance be found of a person obtaining remission of sin because of his firm belief in the sin being forgiven.
The sins of the paralytic of Matthew 9:2 are forgiven although he and those who have brought him to Jesus seek only his bodily recovery. It is in expectation of this recovery that they have faith in Jesus. Remission of sin is quite outside the range of their hopes. But the trust in the Lord’s person makes possible the gift that is infinitely more important than bodily recovery.
The sinful woman of Luke 7 comes to Jesus and serves him silently in acts expressive of reverence and humility and love, and, probably, repentance. There is no word in the text to indicate that she is sure of receiving forgiveness. But Jesus does forgive her sins, “for she loved much”; and the mental attitude expressed by her silent and humble service is interpreted by the Lord as the faith that has saved her. Her faith (v. 50) and her love (v. 47) are one.
The story of the centurion of Capernaum does not expressly speak of remission of sin. It is, however, relevant to our inquiry that the centurion does not consider himself worthy of inviting Jesus to come to him, and according to St. Luke’s version of the story he does not even presume to approach the Lord in person (Lk 7:7). There is no trace of the cheerful audacity and bold confidence which, according to Luther’s teaching, should characterize true faith. Nevertheless, the centurion is praised by Jesus for his unparalleled faith—a faith full of humility and reverence and trust.
The most important example is, of course, the tax collector in the parable of Luke 18:9ff. He does not even expressly ask for remission of sin. Overwhelmed by shame and fear, he keeps his distance and does not dare to raise his eyes up to heaven. It is inconceivable that he believed, as Luther’s doctrine would have it, that his sins were forgiven, in order that they might be forgiven. It is not even said that he was sure that God had heard his prayer, “O God, have mercy on me, sinner that I am,” whereas according to Luther’s teaching, lack of certitude would be equivalent to certitude of damnation. But the Lord says; “I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other,” namely, the Pharisee.
The result of this inquiry seems devastating to Luther’s position . . . We must therefore conclude that Luther has misinterpreted the passages he adduced. He overstrains the instrumentality of trusting faith. Faith is the way to, or the prerequisite of, salvation, but Luther makes it coincide with salvation itself. (Paul Hacker, Faith in Luther: Martin Luther and the Origins of Anthropocentric Religion [Steubenville, Ohio: Emmaus Academic, 2017], 67-69, 71; emphasis added)
Robert Sungenis notes some of the problems of appealing to his parable to support Sola Fide:
One of the assumptions Protestants make when they interpret Lk 18:14 is that the justification of the tax collector is the single point in his life that he was justified . . . The context of the parable does not support this interpretation, nor is it consistent with the rest of Jesus’ teaching. This is confirmed from several vantage points. Granted that, regarding works, the parable does not refer to works specifically, but then neither does it specify the word faith. Rather, the emphasis is on repentance, which implies both faith and works. The very next chapter in Lk 19:1-9 provides a shining example of how Jesus responds to such repentance in an incident with a real-life tax collector, Zacchaeus. In responding to Jesus’ invitation, Zacchaeus says, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.” Here is true repentance. Zacchaeus is not just believing that Jesus is his personal Savior, but he is seeking to make a work of restitution for his sins. The very law of Israel required such a work of repentance and Zacchaeus is going above and beyond that law by offering to give as much as half his possessions (cf., Ex 22:1-3; Lv 6:4-5; Nm 5:7; 2Sm 12:6). This is just what Jesus had told the Rich Young Man of Lk 18:22 in order to obtain eternal life, “Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven.” Although the account does not state this, we might say that the Rich Young Man stole from the poor indirectly and thus needed to make “restitution.”
Notice Jesus’ response to this repentant tax collector after he volunteers to pay back the money he stole: “Jesus said to him, ‘Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham...’” It is the faith in Jesus coupled with the works of restitution, amounting to a sincere repentance on Zacchaeus’ part, which in turn prompts Jesus to grant him salvation. We notice also that Jesus designates Zacchaeus as a “son of Abraham.” This does not merely mean that Zacchaeus was a Jew but that he was a “Jew inwardly” who “walked in the footsteps of the faith of Abraham” who was also justified by his “faith” and “works” (cf., Rm 2:29; 4:12, 16; Jm 2:24) . . . Though the Protestant polemic claims that the tax collector was “justified, therefore, not by any approval of works, but by gratuitous acquittal on the part of God,” is at best a half-truth. Inasmuch as we have already shown that the parallel, non-parabolic, account of Zacchaeus specifically mentions works that brought him salvation, and that repentance itself is a work, Jesus in Lk 18:14 is not dissociating works as an integral part in the justification process. The problem with the Protestant interpretation is that it takes a mere cross-section out of the life of this imaginary character and assumes that just because the parable mentions no specific work, one has license to make the blanket statement that works play no part in justification. This is very short-sighted exegesis. As noted above, the passage simply offers no evidence whether this is an initial justification or an ongoing justification. In any case, God does not demand that a specific work like feeding the hungry or clothing the naked be done on the spot by one seeking forgiveness of sin. This is especially true since the essence of the parable is to reveal the hearts of the individuals involved, not to give a dissertation on the so-called “legal imputation of Christ’s righteousness” that is forced upon the passage by the Protestant hermeneutic. Again, to conclude such is simply reading one’s theology into the text.
Simply put, this parable of Jesus illustrates a proud man and a humble man. The Pharisee is the proud man who, as Paul says, lives by a “written code,” not by the “heart” and the “Spirit” (Rm 2:29). He is a man who, because he does certain works, expects and even obligates God to favor him. He is one who wishes to receive justification as something owed for his work. He is operating in the system of law. On the other hand, the tax collector is the humble man who recognizes that God owes him nothing. Unlike the Pharisee, he brings his works before God with sincere faith and love. He repents, and in doing so, comes under God’s system of grace rather than law. Under grace, his works are accepted, not because he is obligating God to do so, but because God does so purely from his mercy. Moreover, God expects the tax collector, if he has stolen any money (probably a tax collector’s most prominent sin) will cease to do so and give back what he has stolen. Such is the ongoing work of repentance which he initiated in confessing his sin. If he sins again by stealing money, he will have to return to the temple and confess his sin, lest his justification be nullified. Moreover, no one will argue that faith and repentance are the beginning of salvation. Whether the respective tax collectors will continue to be faithful and endure to the end is a matter not addressed by Jesus. All in all, nothing in the passage proves a once-for-all imputed justification by faith alone. (Robert A. Sungenis, Not by Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification [2d ed.; Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2009], 180-81, 182, 183-84)
The parable does not support Sola Fide; yes, it refutes legalism and self-righteousness but does not refute good works, empowered by God’s grace, being meritorious. For more on this, see, for e.g.:
