Because the word sinner appears 5 times in Matthew and 6 times in Mark but 18 times in Luke, Dwayne H. Adams believes the “sinner” was of special interest to Luke. For centuries Luke’s reference to the “sinner” has fascinated commentators. Adams begins his study of “sinner” in Luke by surveying the work of commentators as early as the church fathers. To these early writers, a “sinner” was one who was notoriously wicked.
As the centuries passed, rabbinic sources were used more frequently in interpreting the synoptics, and the identification of a “sinner” changed. The common people (am ha-ares), who failed to keep the ceremonial laws of the rabbis, were commonly understood to be the “sinner” in the Gospels. Israel Abrahams (1917) followed by Joachim Jeremias (1923) rejected the idea that the am ha-ares were the sinners in the Gospels; instead, the “sinner” was one who was dishonest, that is, anyone who followed a suspected and degrading occupation. This, they believed, is reflected in the phrase, “tax collector and sinner,” where Sharp’s rule can be seen (two nouns in the same case joined by και with one definite article). “The tax collector and sinner” is then understood to mean “the tax collector,” that is to say, “sinner.”
Adams then surveys the literature that may have influenced Luke’s use of “sinner.” He surveys the Hellenistic background of the word, its use in the Old Testament, intertestamental Jewish material, and rabbinic Judaism. He then examines Jesus’ attitude toward and relationship with sinners by a detailed examination of the passages where the word sinner appears in Luke.
Adams concludes that for Luke the term sinner is primarily used for a moral category, thus following the Old Testament definition. A “sinner” in Luke is guilty of transgressing the law and stands under the wrath of God, needing the forgiveness that comes through repentance and the acceptance of Jesus as Savior. “Sinner” in Luke is not used for the am ha-ares. Nor is it to be understood as merely a sectarian label used by the Pharisees. Nor should Abrahams’s and Jeremias’s list of despised trades be used to identify the “sinner” in Luke.
There is another approach in understanding Luke’s use of the word sinner not seen in Adams’s study. Luke may have been very much aware that he was looked upon as a sinner within the Jewish cultural context. First of all, he was a Gentile. Paul reflects the Jewish view of Gentiles in Galatians 2:15 when he wrote, “We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles” (KJV). However, we know that Paul had shed the Jewish/rabbinic point of view by the time he began his mission to win Gentiles to Christ. Peter also showed the Jewish bias toward Gentiles upon entering the home of Cornelius when he said, “ ‘You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation’ ” (Acts 10:28, NKJV). As a Christian, Luke was placed in close association with Jews and became aware of their cultural biases.
Second, Luke, faced the despised trades bias of the rabbis as well, for he was a physician, and physicians appear in one of Jeremias’s four lists of despised trades. Being a “sinner” by Jewish definition, Luke was deeply interested in Jesus’ attitude toward and relationship with sinners. He probably wanted to convey to Theophilus, who was also a Gentile “sinner,” that in Jesus the Jew and Gentile stand on level ground. Luke’s interest in how Jesus related to the “sinner” is seen in the original material found in his Gospel: (1) Jesus’ genealogy takes all ethnic groups back to Noah where they become one (Matthew’s genealogy stops at Abraham, father of the Jews); (2) the role of the shepherds in the birth narrative (shepherding was a despised occupation); (3) John the Baptist’s quote of Isaiah 40 that ends, “ ‘ “And all flesh shall see the salvation of God” ’ ” (NKJV), which cannot be found in Matthew and Mark; (4) his interest in the ministry of women to Jesus and the apostles; (5) the parables of the good Samaritan and (6) the prodigal son; (7) the healing of the Samaritan leper; (8) the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector; and (9) the story of Zacchaeus. These nine accounts cannot be found in Matthew and Mark. Without a doubt, Luke, the Gentile “sinner,” shows his interest in how Jesus relates to sinners by the context of his Gospel.
