Luke 7:39 - How was Luke informed

[Eoghan]

Now when the Pharisee who had invited Him saw this, he said to himself, “If this man were a prophet He would know who and what sort of person this woman is who is touching Him, that she is a sinner.”

Firstly the english requires clarification, this is not something he was muttering under his breath but was thinking in his head. The KJV in e-sword clarifies this. Given it was something he was thinking how did Luke come to know his thoughts. Was there a briefing after the event where Jesus explained what was going on?

Sadly there are no parallel passages in the other gospels, so my more detailed commentaries on Mathew, Mark and John cannot be used.

 

[Tom Hart]

I haven't given it a great deal of thought, but I've guessed that the gentleman in question, perhaps a convert, when Luke popped by with his queries, simply told him over a cup of tea.

 

[Taylor]

I don't mean this to sound snarky, but could not have Luke received this information the same way other biblical inspired writers received information otherwise impossible to discover—namely, through divine revelation? We cannot forget that the human author is not the primary Author of Scripture.

 

[Pergamum]

I believe Luke interviewed eye-witnesses when he went to Jerusalem with the Apostle Paul. I think he even interviewed Mary. He was a historian and took notes and sought after witnesses, guided in all by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Eoghan]

I assume that Jesus spent time explaining things to the Apostles and that His knowledge of what was in mens hearts was transmitted as an oral tradition. It also seems to be a peculiar idiom to Luke "within himself"

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

Luke was inspired by the Holy Ghost to write his account. It's really neither here nor there whether he was guided to write the thoughts of the Pharisee by the Holy Ghost directly, or whether he was told by either Jesus or the Pharisee.

 

[Jack K]

Was there a briefing after the event where Jesus explained what was going on?

That seems likely. It's not a stretch to figure Jesus might have discussed the incident with his disciples—whom he was, after all, discipling.

The theory that Luke interviewed Simon is also reasonable, especially since Luke refers to him by name.

It also seems quite possible to me that what Simon was thinking was evident to anyone who was there. The fact that Jesus figured out what Simon was thinking does not necessarily mean this happened by special prophetic revelation, or even because of Jesus' especially keen insight. It could be that the incident was so outlandish, and Simon's thoughts about it so predictable, that anyone paying attention would have a reasonable chance of correctly deducing what was going through his mind.

 

[Von]

Sometimes we can read someone's thoughts by just looking at their faces. I'm sure Pharisee's utter disgust was showing clearly on his face. Someone might've told Luke afterwards.

 

[Scott Bushey]

I would concur w/ the answers given.

 

[JP Wallace]

Luke used a variety of sources for his Gospel:

Luke 1:1-4 ESV Luke 1:1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things that have been accomplished among us, 2 just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word have delivered them to us, 3 it seemed good to me also, having followed all things closely for some time past, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught.

He identifies three sources:

1) he could have got this information for one or more of the "many" who have undertaken to compile a narrative of these things. One of the "many" may have been the man in question, or someone who knew him.

2) eyewitnesses - those who had "been there" or spoken to the man or, again perhaps even the man himself.

3) Luke's own investigations - possibly even interviewing the man.

I think there's a real possibility the Pharisee was later converted and reported this himself - remember he had invited Jesus to dine with him, so he was not wholly hostile to Jesus to begin with, and was rather respectful to him, calling him "Teacher".