The preaching of John the Baptist in Luke 3
The Lord's day gospel lectionary reading for Advent 3 in Yr C is Luke three.seven–17, and information technology follows closely on from last week's reading; verse begins 'Hetherefore said to the crowds…' which some English translations omit. The content of his teaching raises some fascinating issues near repentance, judgement, and discipleship, and the way in which the didactics of the kingdom is (or is not!) radical and revolutionary.
It is not completely clear whether the linking 'therefore' points us dorsum to the verses from Isaiah that Luke has merely quoted, or the fact that John 'preached a baptism of repentance…' In any example, the two are closely linked together; as we noted last week, Isaiah's bulletin was that the ane who prepared the way for the visitation of God to his people was to make the crooked direct, a metaphor for change and straightening of life.
John's greeting to the oversupply hardly looks encouraging! Linguistic communication of 'brood of vipers' introduces a persistent theme in this section, that of fruitfulness. The language of 'brood', γέννημα, refers to 'that which is produced', the offspring, sometimes called 'the fruit of the loins'; verses like Deut 28.four link this with other kinds of 'fruit', of loins, of country, and of livestock. Whether yous are the offspring of vipers, or of Abraham, will exist shown by what your offspring is in terms of the kind of life y'all pb. The play on this idea continues right to the end of our passage, in that the language of 'fruit' in the New Attestation includes reference to the grain of the harvest, which sounds odd to our ears. Only in this way the question of who is our true 'father', what kind of life nosotros lead, and how we will fare on the day of judgement are all linked together.
The term translated 'viper', ἔχιδνα, has entered English language equally the name of the spiny anteater, echidna, through an error of etymology—just is in fact a full general term for ophidian which does not permit us to identify a species. In the Jewish and canonical context, snakes are associated with the work of Satan as primeval opponent of God, all the mode from the Garden of Eden to the Book of Revelation (see Rev 12.9 which uses the alternative for snakeophis); in a Greco-Roman context, the thought of animal physiognomy would imply that, because a snake slithers on the ground, a snake-like person is 'savage, harmful, insidious…, terrible when information technology decides to be, quick to abscond when afraid, gluttonous… Such men are… devoted to evil doing' (cited in Parsons,Paideia on Luke, p 66). Either mode, it is hardly flattering!
There is some irony in his question 'Who told to flee the coming wrath?' because, in a sense, information technology is John who has done so! It suggests that the proclamation of the kingdom of God by John and Jesus is both good and bad news, in that it both proclaims liberty to captives only also sentence for those who have non turned to God'due south ways, where we, in gimmicky discussion, often care for it as an unqualified blessing. Luke's gospel is oft pointed to as a narrative where sentence has been excised or postponed, particularly in relation to Jesus' and then-called 'Nazareth manifesto' in Luke four—however it is in this gospel that the fall of Jerusalem is about unambiguously associated with the judgement of God on his people for failing to evidence the repentance and response that John calls for here (meet Luke 19.44).
(We should note, in passing, that the New Testament writers never depict God every bit 'being angry' with anyone; the linguistic communication of 'wrath' as a substantive signifies God's steadfast holy opposition to all that is sinful, rather than being an emotion directed towards people with whom God is cantankerous.)
The language of verse viii makes it clear why the verse 7 began with a 'therefore'; John is here expounding what his 'baptism of repentance' actually means. It is no mere rite, just is a visible sign of a alter of heart and heed, leading to a alter in life. (The idea that anyone 'whether Christian or not, everyone has the right to inquire their local parish church building to provide baptism' is a theological nonsense; spiritual life is not a medicine that tin exist doled out, as if the church was like the NHS!) Producing fruit is non and so much about showing virtues or qualities, as much as acting in item ways. That is truthful hither only equally much as it is in the well-known verses in Gal 5.22; the list there is of item ways of bear, as is shown past the contrast with the preceding list of the 'works of the mankind' ('acts of the sinful human nature') in Gal 5.nineteen–21. The New Attestation is consequent in portraying judgement as being on the basis of actions—note the repeated refrain in Rev 2 to 3, 'I know your works'—since it is a changed life which is the unequivocal evidence of a changed heart. There is no separation here between the inner and the outer life, as if you could believe something without acting in a way that did not limited it.
Information technology is not present in the Greek text hither, merely backside John's linguistic communication there might exist a pun on the linguistic communication of 'sons' and 'stones', since in Hebrew a 'son' isben and a 'stone' iseben. But the dissimilarity of the ideas remains, in that sons or children are living people who come from the fruitful life of the parent, whereas stones are the paradigm of lifelessness. God who is the source of life is able to bring life from that which is lifeless.
Just John here raises a crucial outcome most explicitly expounded by Paul in Romans two: in contrast to what nosotros might expect (from a certain manner of reading the Old Testament), it is the response to the grace of God in repentance and obedience which truly determines your membership of the 'offspring of Abraham', and not your ethnic identity per se. In fact, this should not surprise us at all, since it is a repeated theme of the prophets; it explains why some of Israel are excluded from the promises of God, whilst many who are not part of Israel ethnically are included.
The image of the ax existence set to chop down the tree is some other picture of judgement which reinforces the language of 'wrath' earlier; though no agent is mentioned explicitly, it is clear that God is the i who judges and so is the i who also wields the ax. This images connects both with Jesus' later language in the parable of the fig tree in Luke thirteen.6–nine, which in Matt 21.xviii–22 and Marking 11.12–25 is enacted by Jesus, equally well as Jesus' teaching in John 15 about branches that do not bear fruit being cut off and burnt.
Luke characteristically recounts the education to groups of people in the form of a dialogue, with the crowds responding to John's provocative proclamation with the question 'What, then, should we practice?' A like questions is repeated past the toll collectors in Luke 3.12, the soldiers in Luke 3.14, a lawyer in Luke 10.25, a rule in Luke 18.xviii, the Jerusalem audience in response to Peter'due south preaching in Acts two.37, the jailer in response to Paul's miraculous deliverance in Acts 16.thirty, and a zealous Jew in Acts 22.10. The activity of the Spirit and the preaching of the kingdom consistently provokes a personal crunch which leads to the question of response; 'the redemptive visitation of God demands response' (Joel Dark-green, NICNT on Luke, p 177).
Neither translations 'tunic' or 'shirt' actually piece of work for χιτων—which referred to the garment worn by women and men next to the skin, over which something heavier might be worn in colder times—but considering habits of dress have changed. The betoken is not nearly the particular garment, but about the need to share with others anything beyond the simple necessities of life. In the aforementioned manner, the language ofbroma signifies food in full general, and is used interchangeably with the term for 'bread' in the 'bread of life' discourse in John 6.
Jesus doesn't have a beef with the Inland Acquirement; we demand to read the (traditional) language of 'tax collectors' in its social context. Taxes on land and on people nether Roman rule were actually nerveless by local Jewish councils; thetelones mentioned hither were responsible for collecting what we might call indirect revenue enhancement—customs duties on goods, tolls and other duties. This would be particularly important on merchandise routes and at borders, so it is no surprise that they characteristic here by the Hashemite kingdom of jordan and on the shores of Lake Galilee. The right to collect these tolls and duties was 'privatised' past the Romans, who gave the license to the highest bidders, so that there was both dominance and motivation to exploit the situation equally much every bit possible and charge the maximum. (Isn't it a good chore that, in the aware times we live in, such decadent practices as giving such roles to the highest bidders would not be countenanced in a democracy…?)
The role and the way it was assigned made cost collectors hated every bit both wealthy and exploitative, besides as making them collaborators with the occupying power. Still Luke's focus on the 'inclusive' nature of the gospel means that the wealthy, compromised and corrupt are included in the gracious phone call of God to receive forgiveness and to meliorate their way of life.
There is no detail reason to recollect of the 'soldiers' mentioned here as Romans; they might as well be Jews in the service of Herod Antipas, who ruled this region of Perea. John'southward response fits the general temptations of those with (military) power who are able to take advantage of the local populace to their ain personal reward. (This kind of exploitation was such a trouble that, according to Josephus, Julius Caesar had to issue a decree forbidding soldiers from extorting money from those living in the territories of the Jews;Antiquities 14.204 and 14.392, cited in Parsons,Paideia p 67). It is perhaps striking that John'south primary rebukes here relate to the misuse of power—financial, social, and military.
John condemns certain practices of the price collectors and soldiers, merely does not follow the tradition of the Jewish prophets in condemning unjuststructures. Does that make his ethics compromised or conservative? Non at all:
John calls for a radical generosity in which everything across subsistence necessities is vulnerable to the claim of need. Jesus asks for no more than. He adds only the clarification that such generosity is non but for those of 1's own grouping, only shows its true nature especially in being extended to the enemy (Luke vi.35–36) (John Nolland, WBC on Luke, p 149 cited in Parsons, p 67).
John's announcement ensures that his baptism is understood every bit an assault on the status quo, that to participate in his baptism is to comprehend behaviours rooted in a radical realignment with God'due south purpose (Green, NICNT, p 173).
Only Luke includes here the speculation of the crowds (the third mention of crowds/the people) that John might be the promised, anointed (Christos) one who would bring God's deliverance to his people—simply their understanding of who this would be appears at this phase to be quite unformed. The clarification of what this 'Christ' would exercise becomes one of the themes of the gospel.
In that location are several significant images of eschatological sentence in John's response. Kickoff, the promise of the Holy Spirit existence poured out ('baptism' means being immersed in or overwhelmed past) is connect with 'the last days' in Joel 2.28. Although nosotros might naturally associate 'burn' with the tongues of flame at Pentecost in Acts 2, but in fact it is an prototype of judgement, every bit the phrase 'unquenchable burn down' makes clear. (Two interesting things to note here. Offset, the Greek term for 'unquenchable' isasbestos from which nosotros get, well, asbestos! Second, fire is primarily an paradigm of destruction, not torment.) John seems to look Jesus to be one who will bring the judgement of God to his people and to the wider earth.
In Luke's gospel, there is a sense that judgment is postponed until the end of Jesus' ministry, with an intervening period of grace creating an opportunity to answer. By dissimilarity, Matthew is less reluctant to record the language of judgement in the teaching of Jesus, and this is particularly noticeable in Jesus' vi-fold use of the phrase 'weeping and gnashing of teeth' in Matt eight.12, 13.42, xiii.l, 22.13, 24.51 and 25.thirty.
The coming of the kingdom of God ways the coming of the longed-for presence of God with his people. Merely that will also hateful a challenge to the reigning powers of this world, and the personal challenge to us: to whom do you owe your allegiance? Will you respond to the urge call to welcome what God is now doing, and alter your means and your priorities? And this challenge comes about sharply in the ministry of Jesus himself, who will 1 day render as judge and king over all the globe. For John'southward hearers, at that place is practical activity to exist taking as they wait to meet the coming of God—and for the states, too (as expressed consistently in the parables of Matt 24.36f and Matt 25), our patient waiting for the return of Jesus should exist marked not past 'looking for signs' but just past getting on with our Master's business (Matt 24.46).
John is right about judgement and Jesus, with 2 of import qualifications. The showtime is that this judgement is postponed—in the case of Israel until the devastation of the temple in 70AD, and in case of all humanity until the render of Jesus as judge at the end of the age. And the second qualification is that the ground of judgement shifts; for John it is avoided by repentance, baptism and the fruit of that alter in tangible change of life. In Jesus' instruction this is taken up into the question of decision about following him: sentence is no longer on the ground of being role of the ethnic Jewish people of God; nor on the footing of whether nosotros change and begin to obey God'south just commandments; but information technology is now on the basis of existence incorporated into the renewed people of God past accepting Jesus as Lord, and living a new life of holiness empowered by the Spirit. And all this is possible just because of Jesus' atoning death and resurrection for the states.
If you enjoyed this, do share it on social media (Facebook or Twitter) using the buttons on the left. Follow me on Twitter @psephizo. Similar my page on Facebook.
Much of my work is done on a freelance footing. If you lot have valued this mail service, you can make a single or repeat donation through PayPal:
Comments policy: Good comments that engage with the content of the post, and share in respectful contend, can add existent value. Seek first to sympathise, and then to be understood. Make the most charitable construal of the views of others and seek to learn from their perspectives. Don't view debate as a conflict to win; address the argument rather than tackling the person.
hemminglikeemence.blogspot.com
Source: https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/the-preaching-of-john-the-baptist-in-luke-3/
Post a Comment for "The preaching of John the Baptist in Luke 3"