In Kümmel’s opinion, it is difficult to affirm with certainty that the Baptist did not waver in his end-of-time expectation given the limited information that we have about the relationship between John and Jesus. Kümmel underscores that the question of the Baptist (7:19) bears Semitic (Aramaic) characteristics. The origin of the answer in the primitive community cannot rely on the claim that it is based on an Isaian text and therefore not authentic because the passage bears the characteristics of a freely redacted Semitic statement.195 On the other hand, Jesus’ answer agrees with a similar tradition in Luke 10:23–24 and makes the challenge of its authenticity problematic. Moreover, the proclamation of the good news to the poor fits with Jesus’ announcements to the poor elsewhere (Luke 6:20; 10:21). Therefore, the final warning of the pericope is completely appropriate because the friendly attitude of Jesus toward groups despised by the Jewish people (e.g., toll collectors and sinners) would have ignited opposition against him.
Another author who approaches the passage in his study of the narrative unity of Luke-Acts is Robert C. Tannehill. He focuses on specific roles in the story and, by detecting many of the complex internal connections, seeks to highlight their function within the broader context of the narrative.196 Tannehill notes that the statements of Jesus about the Baptist in 7:26–27 depict him as a prophet who prepares the way of the Lord.197 This portrayal has been foreshadowed in the words of Zechariah (1:76–77), which are a forecast of John’s role in Luke. Tannehill points out the rhythmic form of Jesus’ response to the question of the Baptist and discusses the purpose of its Isaian allusion, which signals that the salvation promised in those texts has arrived.198 He notes the connection of the passage to previous parts of the narrative related to the Baptist (e.g., 3:16) and points out that the response of Jesus helps to integrate his healing ministry with his messianic role.199 Tannehill emphasizes that a shift in the passage from joyous announcement to a potential rejection fits a pattern that can also be observed in the scene in Nazareth. “Jesus offended the people of Nazareth, and it remains true that he can only be accepted as the coming one by those who can face and accept his offensiveness.”200 The parable of the children in the marketplace is a commentary of Jesus on the accusations leveled against him for eating with toll collectors and sinners (5:29–32).201 Tannehill notes that some of the marginal groups to whom Jesus ministers (7:22) also appear as fictional characters in some other parables (e.g., 14:21), a feature that helps to create thematic unity among separate scenes.202
John A. Darr is another commentator who examines the passage in his study of characterizations in Luke. Darr deals with character and characterization as they unfold in the author’s rhetorical presentation as well as in the audience’s interpretation of the narrative.203 Through the characterization lens, Darr considers John’s inquiry in 7:19 as the “correct question,” since his ignorance is in accord with what thus far has happened in the narrative. The gaps that the audience experiences regarding the reaction of John to Jesus’ statement are answered by the narrator, who portrays John as the paradigm of the “right” kind of Jew, open-minded and prepared to embrace the plan of God. The Baptist and his disciples and the toll collectors and sinners are characterized as those who have responded appropriately to that plan, while the Pharisees and scholars of the Law have not.204
In his investigation of the role of the Baptist in the theology and ethic of Luke, Peter Böhlemann also comments on the passage. Focusing on the Luke-Acts texts that allude to the relationship of the Baptist and Jesus as well as their respective followers, Böhlemann seeks to prove that the whole of the Lukan work is influenced by his dispute with groups sympathetic to the Baptist. According to Böhlemann, this argument shapes the theology and ethic of Luke.205 Hence, he argues that the placement of 7:18–35 after the resuscitation of the son of the widow from Naim shows that Luke uses the mighty works of Jesus as proof of his power and superiority over the Baptist.206 Emphasizing a more theological perspective than a historical one, Böhlemann highlights the motifs found in the passage. For instance, he notes that the references to the “greater” and “smaller” in 7:28 as well as to the children of wisdom in 7:35 are part of larger theological theme that Luke develops in his polemic with the followers of the Baptist.207
Another study that deals with the passage in its analysis of characterizations of people and/or groups of people in Luke-Acts is the work of S. John Roth. For Roth the point of departure is that there are in Luke 4:18 and 7:22 two programmatic statements that allow the readers to evaluate other texts related to the characters mentioned in these passages.208 According to Roth, the people mentioned therein function as types that have to be interpreted within the context of the Lukan narrative and the LXX. Analyzing the passage under that perspective, Roth highlights the rhetorical features of the passage and points out how it makes an issue of the downtrodden and outcasts in their relationship to Jesus and John.209 Roth argues that the passage clarifies the narrative logic of the Gospel. “The scene with John’s disciples (7:18–23) recaps Jesus’ ministry to this point and connects it to Jesus’ reading in the synagogue.”210 The characterization of Jesus, John, the Pharisees, the scholars of the Law, the toll collectors, and the people occur around two subplots: (1) the doubt of John about Jesus; and (2) the antagonism by members of “this generation” against John and Jesus. Luke tries to reshape the audience’s understanding of the relationship of the Messiah to sinners using a response to the inquiry of the Baptist that has great persuasive value to convince the audience that Jesus is God’s unique eschatological agent of salvation.
Christoph Gregor Müller also analyzes the text in his work about the characterization of John the Baptist in the Gospel of Luke. Taking his cue from the stylistic features of Greek literature, Müller argues that Luke constructs an extended implicit comparison (synkrisis) between Jesus and the Baptist.211 He notes that the embassy of the Baptist renews the narrative about John and Jesus (see Luke 1:39–56).212 For Müller the passage that portrays John “as more than a prophet” connects the forerunner motif with the speech about his paramount importance.213 Müller uses the passage to corroborate what has been said earlier in the narrative about the ascetic dressing and eating habits of the Baptist.214 Based on these characteristics of the Baptist, Müller draws a parallel between John and Jesus, which he extends to their prophetic role.215 In 7:29–30, Müller highlights the theme of the rejection of the Baptist’s message by which he becomes a prototype of Jesus.