Jump to a section
Two men go up to the same temple, address the same God, and leave in different relations to Him.
One brings an impressive record. He is not an extortioner, an adulterer, or an unjust man. He fasts more often than the law requires and tithes with unusual care. The other names no good work, makes no promise of reform, and offers no reason God should receive him. He calls himself a sinner and asks for mercy.
Jesus says the second man went home justified.
The statement is familiar enough that its strangeness can escape us. The Pharisee is the morally serious man in the story; the publican belongs to a class widely despised as dishonest and compromised. Yet Jesus says the publican went down to his house justified rather than the other.
What happened to him? Did God pronounce a favorable verdict that corresponded to no real change? Did the publican become morally righteous during the few moments between his prayer and departure? Or does justified describe a change in his relation to God—a sinner who came with no righteous standing of his own and went home standing right before the rightful Judge?
Luke supplies the answer through the whole movement of the parable: where each man placed his confidence, what each asked God to recognize, and where Jesus said each finally stood.
Two Men Go Up; One Comes Down Justified
“And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:
“Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.
“The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.
“And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.
“I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted” (Luke 18:9–14).
The parable is about justification before the word itself appears. Jesus addresses people who “trusted in themselves that they were righteous.” Their confidence had a definite location: it rested upon themselves. Contempt for “others” exposed the standard by which they had judged themselves right. They knew where they stood by looking down upon someone else.
The posture soon becomes visible. The Pharisee stands and compares. The publican stands afar off and confesses. One presents evidence meant to confirm a standing he already claims; the other abandons every favorable claim and appeals to God. Jesus then announces where each actually stands.
Placement language runs through the scene. Both men go up to the temple and stand. The publican will not lift his eyes up to heaven. Jesus tells us which man goes down justified, then warns that the one who lifts himself up will be brought low while the one who brings himself low will be lifted up.
Taken together, these movements enact the question justification answers: Where does this person truly stand before God? The Pharisee enters confident that he occupies the higher position. The publican takes the lowest position he can. God’s judgment reverses the human arrangement.
Luke also frames the conflict with three members of the same Greek word family. The hearers trust that they are δίκαιοι—righteous or right. The Pharisee thanks God that he is not like ἄδικοι—unrighteous or unjust people. Jesus then says that the publican has been δεδικαιωμένος—justified. English translations necessarily distribute those related words among righteous, unjust, and justified, but the Greek keeps the question of rightness before the reader from beginning to end. The Pharisee claims the right category, identifies the wrong category, and assigns each man accordingly. Jesus does not dispute that categories exist; He overturns the Pharisee’s authority to place himself within them.
The Righteous Man Who Trusted Himself
Luke’s Greek is unusually concrete: πεποιθότας ἐφ’ ἑαυτοῖς—those whose confidence had come to rest upon themselves. Their claim to righteousness rested upon a foundation they supplied.
The Pharisee was not openly irreligious. He went to the temple, addressed God, and began with thanksgiving. Nothing in the parable suggests that he lied. He may indeed have avoided extortion and adultery, fasted twice each week, and tithed everything he acquired. The question is what he thought those acts proved.
He presents them as evidence for a verdict he already believes: I am righteous. God is addressed, but the judgment is settled. “God, I thank thee” immediately becomes a catalogue of I: I am not; I fast; I give. The prayer asks God to ratify a conclusion reached under the authority of the self.
Comparison supplies his governing standard. He is not “as other men are”—certainly not “as this publican.” The publican becomes the lower line against which the Pharisee measures his own height. Contempt is not incidental to his self-righteousness; it helps sustain it.
Another sinner, however, cannot supply the standard of righteousness. One man standing higher than another does not establish that either stands right before God. A crooked line does not become straight because another line is more crooked still.
A longer catalogue of virtues would not repair the prayer. A self-established tribunal remains illegitimate even when much of its evidence is accurate. The rebel authority may reproduce the rightful King’s laws almost perfectly and still stand wrong because its rule arises from the wrong source. In the same way, the Pharisee borrows God’s moral vocabulary while reserving to himself the final authority to say what his obedience establishes. His error reaches deeper than choosing too low a moral standard: he has treated the self as the court in which his relation to God is decided.
Luke’s phrase “prayed thus with himself” may describe the Pharisee standing apart or emphasize the self-contained character of the prayer. He plainly addresses God, so the phrase need not mean that he literally prayed to himself. Still, the prayer never escapes the self’s orbit: the evidence, the comparison, and the favorable conclusion all arise from the same source.
Outward correspondence and rightful source have now come apart. The Pharisee may perform actions commanded by God while using those actions to establish a standing independent of God’s judgment and mercy. His conduct can resemble righteousness while the authority governing his verdict remains misplaced. He comes into God’s presence already justified in his own eyes.
The Sinner Who Brought No Case
By contrast, the publican never looks sideways. He does not answer the Pharisee, accuse him of pride, or offer evidence that he is better than his profession suggests. He stands “afar off,” lowers his eyes, strikes his breast, and speaks one sentence: “God be merciful to me a sinner.”
His posture earns him nothing. Standing at a distance is not a religious work superior to fasting, and beating his breast is not payment for acquittal. He does not ask God to notice how humble he has become. Instead, he abandons every attempt to establish a favorable verdict for himself.
Where the Pharisee says what he is not, the publican says what he is. The Greek is slightly more pointed than ordinary English comfortably reproduces: τῷ ἁμαρτωλῷ, literally “the sinner.” He need not mean that he is the only sinner present. The force is personal. He is not discussing sinners as a class or measuring his share of guilt against someone else’s. Before God, the sinner whose case concerns him is himself.
By confessing his sin, he agrees with God’s judgment. He neither excuses his conduct nor lowers the standard. Yet accurate self-condemnation is not justification. If the story ended there, he would be an honest sinner still standing afar off.
His appeal therefore goes beyond himself: “God, be merciful to me.” The Pharisee brings his verdict to God for ratification. The publican accepts God’s verdict against him and depends upon God for any favorable outcome. His confession aligns his judgment with the truth, but the action that changes his standing must come from God.
“God Be Merciful to Me”
The Greek plea is ἱλάσθητί μοι. Ἱλάσθητί is an aorist passive imperative, second person singular, from ἱλάσκομαι. English versions commonly render it “be merciful to me” or “be propitious to me.” It belongs to a family of words used for dealing with sin through propitiation or atonement; the publican asks for more than sympathetic feeling.
Although ἱλάσθητί is morphologically passive, ἱλάσκομαι ordinarily appears in middle or passive forms. Its voice does not imply that an unnamed third party acts upon God. The publican addresses God directly, asking Him to be propitious toward him—to deal mercifully with him in relation to his sin. The form alone cannot yield an entire theory of atonement, but the petition itself is clear. He needs God to address the obstacle his sin has created.
The temple setting reinforces that resonance. Here sin, sacrifice, forgiveness, and access to God were visibly joined. Luke names no offering and does not say that a sacrifice was occurring at that exact moment. Even so, mercy for sinners within the order God established was never mere indifference toward sin.
Having confessed the accusation as true, the publican does not ask God to pretend otherwise or move the standard until his conduct fits beneath it. Neither does he turn remorse into leverage: “Justify me because my repentance is sincere.” A guilty man may see his guilt clearly and grieve deeply while remaining guilty. This man asks God to deal with the guilt he cannot answer.
Two later texts clarify the biblical field to which this vocabulary belongs. Hebrews 2:17 uses the same verb for Christ’s making propitiation for the sins of the people; Romans 3:25 uses the related noun ἱλαστήριον as Paul explains how God can be “just, and the justifier” (Romans 3:26). The shared word family does not make the passages interchangeable. It does place the publican’s prayer within a field in which sin is righteously dealt with rather than merely ignored.
Luke gives us the temple, confession, and appeal for propitiatory mercy. He does not yet explain imputation, union with Christ, or the relation of Christ’s death and resurrection to justification. The ground is invoked without being expounded. The man asks for neither fiction nor indulgence, but for God to provide the answer to the very judgment he has confessed.
“Having Been Justified”
Jesus’ announcement is precise:
κατέβη οὗτος δεδικαιωμένος εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ
“This man went down to his house having been justified.”
As a perfect passive participle of δικαιόω, δεδικαιωμένος presents the publican as receiving the action. He does not justify himself, as the lawyer attempts to do in Luke 10:29 or the Pharisees do before men in Luke 16:15. God is the implied actor: the man addressed God, asked God for mercy, and leaves in the condition Jesus says resulted. The decisive judgment comes from outside the sinner.
The perfect form directs attention to the resulting condition. Jesus reports more than a favorable sentence spoken during the prayer: the act lies behind the publican, and he goes home as one who has been justified. The participle does not establish permanence or eternal security by itself; it does show that justification accompanies the man home as his present condition.
Luke narrates no moral renovation between the prayer and departure. He tells us nothing here about restitution, abandoned corruption, or the man’s later character. Such changes would matter as the fruit of repentance and the work of sanctification; δεδικαιωμένος does not describe them in this sentence.
The change is one of standing before God. He enters naming himself as a sinner with no favorable case of his own; he leaves justified by God. Neither moral perfection nor an empty relabeling has occurred. The passive identifies the authority who establishes his standing, while the perfect presents that standing as the condition in which he returns home. Justification here describes a real, divinely established relation without naming a moral transformation in the subject.
“Rather Than the Other”
The manuscripts preserve a variation in Jesus’ comparison. The modern critical text reads παρ’ ἐκεῖνον, naturally translated “rather than that one.” The Textus Receptus underlying the KJV reads ἢ ἐκεῖνος, reflected in “rather than the other.” Either reading distinguishes the publican from the Pharisee. “This man” goes home justified; “the other” does not.
Read in the flow of the parable, the contrast is categorical rather than scalar. The publican is not more justified because he is more humble while the Pharisee receives a smaller measure. One possesses the better reputation, the more disciplined practice, and the stronger case before ordinary observers. The other possesses nothing he can present in his defense. Yet the man who claims the higher standing does not receive it.
Jesus explains why:
“For every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.”
Spatial language returns. The Pharisee lifts himself above “other men” and “this publican.” The publican takes no elevated place. Even the final placement is not self-assigned: the one who exalts himself “shall be abased,” and the one who humbles himself “shall be exalted.”
Humility is not a subtler instrument of self-justification. A reader may imitate the publican’s posture and secretly congratulate himself for not being like the Pharisee. Then the Pharisee’s comparison has simply been carried into the publican’s prayer. The publican’s humility is not a superior claim but the relinquishment of claim. He accepts God’s adverse judgment and depends upon God for the favorable one.
Jesus’ comparison reveals which judgment governs reality. The Pharisee’s self-verdict—though supported by real acts and spoken in religious language—cannot establish his standing before God. God’s judgment concerning the publican is authoritative because God is the rightful Judge, and true because His mercy has dealt with the sinner’s real guilt.
Luke Continues the Argument
The immediate setting begins before verse 9. In Luke 18:1–8, a widow repeatedly appeals to an unjust judge: “Avenge me of mine adversary.” The judge finally acts, though he neither fears God nor regards man. Jesus contrasts him with God: “Shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him?” The widow cannot enforce her own judgment; she must appeal to the one who occupies the judicial position. If even an unjust judge eventually answers, God will certainly do right.
That scene prepares the question of authority in verses 9–14. The widow seeks a judgment from outside herself. The Pharisee arrives with judgment already in hand—both for himself and for the publican. The publican, like the widow, brings his need to God. Their situations differ: she asks for vindication against an adversary, while he confesses that the adverse judgment against him is deserved. In both cases, the needed judgment must come from the judge.
Jesus closes the widow’s parable with a question: “Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” The next scene opens with people who trust upon themselves. Luke has moved from faith in God’s justice to confidence resting on the self. The transition sharpens the publican’s unspoken reliance: unlike the Pharisee, he approaches God as the only source from whom a right judgment and merciful answer can come.
Immediately afterward, people bring infants to Jesus, and He says, “Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein” (Luke 18:17). The children bring neither religious accomplishments nor an argument for their worthiness. They are brought; the kingdom is received.
Then a ruler asks, “Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” When Jesus names the commandments, he answers, “All these have I kept from my youth up.” Like the Pharisee, he may be telling the truth. Yet when Jesus tells him to sell all, distribute to the poor, and follow Him, the ruler becomes sorrowful. His possessions expose what he cannot release in order to receive the kingdom.
The hearers ask, “Who then can be saved?” Jesus answers, “The things which are impossible with men are possible with God” (Luke 18:26–27).
The sequence has already answered the question. The publican presents no righteous record and asks for mercy: justified. The children offer no achievements and receive: of such is the kingdom. The ruler has obedience, position, and wealth but cannot relinquish the standing upon which he relies: sorrowful.
Neither helplessness nor failure earns God’s favor. The publican is not justified because failure is morally preferable to obedience, and the children do not enter because inability is virtuous. Salvation cannot arise from self-assessment, accumulated morality, or social standing. It comes from God and must be received.
The noun faith is absent from Luke 18:9–14, so the passage does not give a formal statement of justification by faith. The publican plainly relies upon God rather than himself, and Luke repeatedly connects such reliance with faith. Later texts will state that relation explicitly. Here the emphasis falls upon abandoned self-judgment, appeal to mercy, and justification by God.
What This Occurrence Establishes
Because Luke 18:14 is the first passage in this series, it must not become a definition imposed upon every occurrence that follows. Elsewhere wisdom will be justified, God will be justified, people will justify themselves, and evidence will figure in final judgment. Each context must supply its own controlling details.
Six observations belong in the record:
- The subject is an acknowledged sinner. The man identified as right has called himself “the sinner.”
- God is the implied justifier. The publican receives the action rather than creating or pronouncing his own standing.
- God’s judgment governs. The Pharisee measures himself against other people; Jesus announces the judgment that actually determines where both men stand.
- The perfect participle describes a resulting condition. The publican goes home as one who has been justified.
- The verb does not name moral transformation. It identifies his relation to God, not the production of virtuous qualities within him.
- The appeal is atonement-shaped. The temple and ἱλάσθητί place the plea in an atoning field, though the parable does not yet expound Christ’s work.
The evidence may be gathered into a single contextual description:
In Luke 18:14, God brings the confessed sinner into right standing before Him in answer to the sinner’s appeal for propitiatory mercy. The verb describes a real change of relation, not a moral transformation: the publican goes home standing right with God.
The publican’s confession aligns his judgment with the truth about his sin. His humility places him beneath God’s authority. His plea entrusts the answer to God’s mercy. None of these is itself the justifying act; together they show a sinner relinquishing every rival verdict and appealing to the One whose judgment governs.
He went up standing afar off. He went down standing right with God.
Notes
- The Greek text cited is from Michael W. Holmes, ed., The Greek New Testament: SBL Edition (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010), Luke 18:9–14. The Textus Receptus wording is represented by F. H. A. Scrivener, The New Testament in the Original Greek according to the Text Followed in the Authorised Version (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1894).
- On δικαιόω and ἱλάσκομαι, see Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., rev. and ed. Frederick William Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), s.vv. δικαιόω and ἱλάσκομαι.
- Kyle Scott Barrett, Justification in Lukan Theology (Ph.D. diss., Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2012), 27–59, esp. 47–58. Barrett treats the publican’s plea, the divine passive, and the sense of δικαιόω in this passage.
- Piotr Blajer, “Questi scese giustificato a differenza di quello. L’analisi narrativa illumina la parabola del fariseo e del pubblicano (Lc 18,9–14)”, The Biblical Annals 11, no. 3 (2021): 497–518, examines the comparative construction through narrative analysis.
- John J. Kilgallen, “The Importance of the Redactor in Luke 18,9–14”, Biblica 79, no. 1 (1998): 69–75, emphasizes the interpretive importance of Luke’s introduction in verse 9.