7. Ibid., 166.
8. Ambrose (ibid., 167) considers the incredulity of the Baptist as Non igitur fide, sed pietate dubitavit, (“therefore, not the faith but his loyalty hesitated”) and Pietatis adfectus, non indevotionis est lapsus (“the loyalty of his affection, not lack of religiosity is sliding”).
9. Ibid., 172.
10. Ibid., 175–76.
11. Cyril, Luke, 156–69. Cyril glosses over 7:29–30.
12. Ibid., 158.
13. Cyril (ibid., 162) says: “. . . [T]he blessed Baptist is brought forward as one who had attained the foremost place in legal righteousness and to a praise so far incomparable. And yet even thus he is ranked as less than one who is least [in the kingdom of God].”
14. Ibid., 163.
15. Ibid., 164.
16. Ibid., 165–69.
17. Bede (Lucae, 163–64) also presumes the historicity and integrity of the passage. He refers constantly to NT and OT texts, including psalms and prophets, to support his interpretation. For instance, in his comment about the wisdom of the playing children’s metaphor, Bede recalls the book of Psalms (Ex ore infantium et lactantium perfecisti laudem [“out of the mouths of babes and infants you have perfected praise”], Ps 8:3) and the prophet Joel (. . . convertimini ad me in toto corde vestro in ieiunio et in fletu et in planctu et scindite corda vestra et non vestimenta vestra [“return to me with your whole heart, with fasting, and weeping, and mourning and rend your hearts, not your garments”], Joel 2:12–13).
18. Here, Bede (ibid., 159–60) recalls the Gospel of John 3:26: Rabbi qui erat tecum trans Iordanen cui tu testimonium perhibuisti ecce hic baptizat, et omnes veniunt ad eum (“Rabbi, the one who was with you across the Jordan, to whom you testified, here he is baptizing and everyone is coming to him”).
19. Bede (ibid., 161) interprets the reed shaken by the wind symbolically as the weak carnalis animus (“carnal intellect”), which he contrasts to the moral uprightness of the Baptist.
20. Ibid., 164.
21. Bonaventure makes a systematic theological exegesis of the passage, dividing and subdividing the different sections of the pericope and explaining the meaning of each particular statement. He makes frequent use of Scripture to support his interpretations, quotes previous authors, and allegorizes certain elements of the passage. Bonaventure also presumes the historicity and integrity of the passage and occasionally harmonizes some of its statements with other passages of Scripture. For instance, when commenting on 7:26, where Jesus identifies the Baptist as a prophet, Bonaventure recalls John 1:21, in which the Baptist rejects such characterization. But Bonaventure solves the apparent contradiction by stating, “Neither is there some contradiction here, but rather harmony. For a prophet foretells what is future and not present, but a voice openly declares what is present” (Bonaventure, Luke, 613).
22. Ibid., 596.
23. Ibid., 596–99. In a sense, Bonaventure implies that the disciples of the Baptist have taken as a question what was really a statement about the identity of Jesus. “Or shall we wait for another? As if to say: If you are the one, there is no need for us to wait for another, lest perhaps in expecting another, we receive not Christ but the anti-Christ” (598).
24. Ibid., 606.
25. Ibid., 609–12.
26. Bonaventure also suggests another possible interpretation for the “least in the kingdom of heaven”: the blessed (= angels) (ibid., 617).
27. Ibid., 617–20.
28. Ibid., 620–25.
29. Calvin, Commentaries, 4.
30. Ibid., 4.
31. For instance, when commenting on the Baptist’s delegation of his disciples to be instructed by Jesus, Calvin (ibid., 4) says: “Besides, the pastors of the Church are here reminded of their duty. They ought not to endeavor to bind and attach disciples to themselves, but to direct them to Christ, who is the only Teacher.”
32. Ibid., 5.
33. Ibid., 6.
34. Ibid., 8.
35. Ibid., 8–9.
36. Ibid., 9.
37. Ibid., 13.
38. Ibid., 14–15.
39. Ibid., 16.
40. Dibelius, Johannes dem Täufer, 7. However, because the words of Jesus seem to lack uniformity, Dibelius wonders whether they are based on a historical memory rather than the result of editorial composition. The proof of this redactional work is that both in Matthew (11:7–19) and Luke (7:24–35) these sayings, which in the original form belong to another place and form, have been framed in a different context (ibid., 6–7). Dibelius expresses doubts about the use of the title o9 ui9o\j tou= a0nqrw/pou (7:34) because it is used to depict Jesus in his daily life rather than in its original apocalyptic meaning. Similarly the use of the phrase th=| basilei/a| tou= qeou= (7:28) brings the