Читать книгу Luke - Diane G. Chen - Страница 11

Baptism of John (3:1–20)

The narrative is fast-forwarded by several decades as John, the prophet of the Most High, reenters the narrative stage. Among the prophetic books of the OT, God’s prophets are often introduced by a formulaic statement, “the word of the lord came to [Prophet A] during the reign of [King B].”78 Identifying the sitting monarch allows the reader to situate the proclamation of the prophet within the history of Israel and the people’s spiritual condition in that period. Luke reflects this convention in 3:1–2 by listing seven names that belong to the powers that be. Collectively these figures of authority contribute to the tension-filled picture of the religio-political landscape in the Jewish milieu of John and Jesus.

Tiberius succeeded Augustus as Roman emperor in 14 CE, so the fifteenth year of his reign would be 29 CE when John began his baptizing activities.79 After the death of Herod the Great in 4 BCE, his territory was divided between his sons. Both Herod Antipas and his half-brother Herod Philip II were minor princes carrying the title of tetrarch. Antipas ruled over Galilee until 39 CE and Philip over Trachonitis and Iturea until 34 CE. One of Antipas’s claims to infamy was his beheading of John (3:19; cf. Josephus Ant. 18:116–19).80 Lysanius controlled Abilene. Herod Archelaus, another son of Herod the Great, was ethnarch of Judea for ten years until he was deposed in 6 CE. After that Rome sent procurators to oversee the region, among whom was Pontius Pilate, who became governor or prefect of Judea in 26 CE. In extrabiblical Jewish and Roman writings of the time, Pilate was described as greedy, unjust, hot-tempered, and oblivious to Jewish sensitivities. He was finally recalled to Rome in 36 CE.81 On the religious front, Luke’s mention of “the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas” (3:2; cf. Acts 4:6) requires some clarification, for at any given time there could only be one high priest. Caiaphas held this office from 18 to 37 CE, but his father-in-law, Annas, who was high priest from 6 to 15 CE, continued to exert tremendous influence after leaving office.

Together these seven names represent the political, religious, social, and economic setting in which the remainder of the narrative is situated. Palestine was an insignificant outpost at the far reaches of the Roman Empire. Those invested with political and religious responsibilities were marked by cruelty and incompetence on the one hand, and manipulation and self-interest on the other. The temple leadership and pro-Roman Jewish vassal kings colluded with the Romans to maintain a delicate symbiotic relationship of mutual benefit. In spite of the piety exhibited by Zechariah, Elizabeth, Mary, Joseph, Simeon, and Anna in the first two chapters, we must not be naïve about the negotiations and compromises behind the scenes. The families of Annas and Caiaphas must have exhibited a high level of political prowess to stay in power for three decades, holding the Romans at bay while solidifying their dynastic base among the Jews. The power struggle at the top resulted in oppression of those at the bottom. Such was the world of suffering and tension that John encountered as he emerged from his years of seclusion to begin proclaiming “a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” in the region near the Jordan (1:80; 3:3).

Luke identifies the voice crying in the wilderness in Isaiah with John who “[prepares] the way of the lord” (3:4; Isa 40:3). In the context of Isaiah, “the lord” refers to YHWH, for Israel is expecting God to return to Zion. Luke transfers the reference onto Jesus, as John is the forerunner of the Messiah. Whereas the Isaianic quotation ends with 40:3 in Mark 1:3 and Matt 3:3, Luke includes two more verses, culminating in the declaration that “all flesh shall see the salvation of God” (3:5–6; Isa 40:4–5). This extended citation brings out Luke’s universalism and echoes Simeon’s prayer that God’s salvation is for Israel and the nations (2:31–32; cf. Acts 1:8).

The substance of John’s proclamation implies that Israel is far from ready to receive the Messiah. This prophet must issue an urgent call to repentance like his predecessors of old.82 Presenting oneself to be baptized constitutes a public admission of sinfulness, a humiliating thing to do in a status-conscious society that elevates honor and denigrates shame. A penitent person would assume this posture of humbleness and receptivity to be baptized by John.

The purpose of baptism is explicitly stated, but how baptism is a fitting ritual to signify repentance and forgiveness of sins is less obvious. The notion of baptism is related to washing and cleansing. In the OT, washing signifies repentance (Isa 1:16–17; Jer 3:14) as well as God’s cleansing of a person from sin (Ps 51:5; Ezek 36:25, 33). The Jews practice cleansing for purification (Lev 14–15), but these rites are performed repeatedly whereas John’s baptism seems to be a one-time event. John himself cannot dispense forgiveness, since it is a divine prerogative, but he can at least prepare those who are willing to receive God’s forgiveness and salvation when the Messiah comes.

As the crowds flock to John in droves, the prophet confronts them with a two-pronged challenge. To those who will not repent, John warns of impending judgment. To those who do, he gives practical exhortations on what it means to “bear fruit worthy of repentance” (3:8a). John pulls no punches when it comes to those who rely on their Abrahamic ancestry for absolution of guilt (3:7, 8b). Calling the Jews “a brood of vipers” is highly inflammatory as far as invectives go. We think fearfully of vipers because they are poisonous, hence the metaphor gives an impression of danger, evil, and threat.83 Ancient Greeks and Romans believed that vipers killed their mother when they were born, rendering the offspring of vipers especially contemptible.84 If the coming of God or his Messiah signals the day of judgment to those who do not repent,85 and these vipers think they can slither away unscathed by virtue of their Abrahamic ancestry, then they are deceiving themselves. If God so chooses, even the inanimate stones strewn all over the wilderness can be raised up to take their place as Abraham’s children and God’s elect. Their status as Abraham’s offspring gives them no immunity when it comes to the need for repentance (cf. John 8:33–39).

The analogy of the fruit tree drives home the points of urgency and judgment (3:9). Healthy trees naturally bear good fruit, and those that do not are cut down and burned.86 Similarly, genuine repentance should produce behavior that befits one’s claim to be a bona fide child of God. Otherwise, destruction by fiery judgment is imminent and inescapable, as depicted by the picture of an ax ready to strike at the bottom of a dead tree.87 The fact that the unproductive tree has not yet been cut down offers a glimmer of hope at the eleventh hour. There is still time to repent, even for “the brood of vipers.”

In response to the crowd’s request for specific instructions, John lays out practical examples of fruit-bearing (3:8, 10). Justice, charity, and honesty must characterize communal life. In spite of sparse resources, people must care for one another with a spirit of generosity, sharing clothing and food (3:11). God has always instructed the Jews to care for the poor and needy among them, and they should continue to do so.88

More unexpected is the willingness of tax collectors and soldiers, people marked by their exploitative behaviors, to respond positively to John’s call (3:12, 14). In those days, there were two types of taxes, direct and indirect taxes. Direct taxes (head and land taxes) were collected by the Jewish authorities. The collection of indirect taxes (for customs, tolls, and duties) were farmed out to local tax collectors. Whoever had the highest bid would advance the money to the Romans to earn the right to assess the value of goods and determine how much to tax. Not only did a tax collector have to collect enough from his fellow Jews to recoup the outlay, he would also demand extra to cover his expenses and make a profit.89 A fine line lay between legal taxation and unjust practice. Operating with Roman authority, a greedy Jewish tax collector could line his pockets living off the backs of the common folks. Needless to say, tax collectors were hated and despised as unclean and traitorous because of their dealings with the Romans and their exploitation of their own people.90 John does not order the tax collectors to change their profession, but he challenges them to “collect no more than the amount prescribed” (3:12–13). After all, Rome will still demand taxation, but reformed tax collectors can effectively penetrate a corrupt system with justice and integrity, until the idea of an honest tax collector is no longer an oxymoron.

To soldiers John directs an exhortation not to “extort money . . . by threats and false accusations, and be satisfied with [their] wages” (3:14). Although it is unclear what type of soldiers these are, those paid meagerly may be tempted to bully others to get what they want.91 Again, honesty and contentment are expected of a life oriented toward God, especially when it is so easy for a soldier to intimidate others with their strength and weapon.

John must have left quite an impression on his hearers, for messianic speculation quickly surrounds him (3:15). While many Jews expected the Messiah to be of royal Davidic pedigree (1:32–33; 2:10–11),92 others envisioned a Messiah to be a prophetic figure like Moses or Elijah.93 John’s denial redirects the crowd’s focus on the real Messiah who is to come (3:16–17). First, John highlights the power differential between him and the Messiah in the most emphatic of terms. He construes his relationship to the Messiah as that of a slave before his master. By claiming that he is unworthy to untie the thong of the latter’s sandals, John places himself lower than the lowest, for this demeaning task is normally left to gentile slaves (b. Qidd. 22b). That which Luke implies in the step-parallel pattern of the birth narratives, that the Son of the Most High is far greater than the prophet of the Most High, is now made explicit in John’s admission.94

Second, John’s baptism pales in comparison to the Messiah’s baptism. While this is not meant to devalue the significance of John’s baptism, it anticipates the greater impact of Jesus’ baptism with the Holy Spirit and fire (3:16). An outpouring of the Spirit upon God’s people is a sign of the last days.95 In the Greek, there is only one preposition governing both nouns, en pneumati hagiō kai puri (“with the Holy Spirit and fire”), so one single baptism is in view. But is this a baptism of judgment or of blessing?

The theme of judgment looms large in the immediate context, as fruitless trees and chaff are about to be burned (3:9, 17). Since the Greek word for Spirit, pneuma, also means wind, the combination of Spirit, wind, and fire recalls Isaiah’s description of God’s judgment as a fiery wind (Isa 29:5–6). Whoever refuses water baptism for forgiveness of sins will have to face the Messiah’s baptism of judgment (12:49–53). Although the Holy Spirit judges the wicked, it also blesses the righteous through purification, refinement, and empowerment.96 For Luke, receiving the Holy Spirit is a gift from God (11:13; 24:49). From this angle, the baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire anticipates the outpouring of the Spirit in tongues of fire on the day of Pentecost, interpreted by Peter as a sign of the last days (Acts 1:5; 2:1–21).97

Perhaps it is best to let both positive and negative images of the Messiah’s baptism with the Holy Spirit and fire stand without privileging one over the other. According to Simeon, Jesus is “destined for the falling and the rising of many in Israel” (2:34). There will be a mixed reception. For those who welcome the Messiah, the baptism of Spirit and fire will be a guarantee of the Spirit’s empowerment now and an assurance of salvation in eternity. But for those who reject him, final destruction is their end.98

Third, using yet another farming analogy, John stresses the judging function of the Messiah (3:7–9, 17). John pictures a scene after the wheat harvest. Threshing is the process by which bunches of wheat are beaten with a flail so that the grains fall off the stems. Then a winnowing fork is used to toss the grains into the air, separating out the light, dry, but inedible chaff. The grains are then collected into the granary and the useless chaff is burned. Winnowing is a common image found in the OT for judgment.99 As God’s emissary, the Messiah will be the one to separate the righteous from the wicked, and the saved from the doomed. John’s message is clear: “This fire is unquenchable; it portends eternal torment. Repent before it is too late.”100

The section on John’s baptizing ministry closes with a fleeting mention of Herod Antipas’s imprisonment of John (3:19–20). Luke makes a cryptic reference to John rebuking the king concerning his brother’s wife Herodias. In brief, Herod did not appreciate John’s criticism of his adulterous actions in taking Herodias from his brother and marrying her (Mark 6:17–29).101 Although the ordering of events seems awkward, that Luke should speak of Herod throwing John into prison prior to his account of Jesus’ baptism by John, this inverted order allows the author to “remove” John from the narrative stage and shine the spotlight exclusively on Jesus in the next scene.

Baptism and Commissioning of Jesus (3:21–22)

In recounting the baptism of Jesus, Luke is more interested in the supernatural events that follow than the baptism itself. John’s baptizing of Jesus is not even described, but simply implied, to make way for this revelatory moment: “The heaven was opened, . . . the Holy Spirit descended” (3:21–22a). The reason why Jesus needs to go through a baptism that denotes repentance is not provided.102 Noting that “all the people were baptized” before adding that “Jesus also had been baptized” (3:21a), Luke situates Jesus’ baptism as the climax of John’s ministry.

Of the four Gospels, only Luke shows Jesus to be in prayer when the heavens open (3:21b). Aside from his baptism, prayer is also highlighted at various pivotal moments of Jesus’ life: before calling the Twelve (6:12), at the transfiguration (9:28), at the garden before his arrest (22:41–42), and on the cross (23:34, 46). For Luke, prayer is a key indicator for understanding the Father-Son relationship between God and Jesus.

The opening of the heavens is associated with visions of God or special revelations from God.103 The descent of the Holy Spirit upon Jesus “in bodily form like a dove” (3:22a) signifies Jesus’ empowerment and equipping for everything else Jesus will do from this point onwards (4:1, 14, 18; cf. Acts 10:38). Although Luke stresses the material nature of the Spirit’s anointing, we need not assume that the Holy Spirit appears literally in the shape of a dove. Regardless of its form, the Spirit’s presence upon Jesus is unmistakable.

The voice from heaven declares, “You are my Son, the beloved; with you I am well pleased” (3:22b). This is the Father’s commissioning of the Son of God and Messiah to his redemptive mission, endowing him with the authority and power of the Holy Spirit as the Father’s representative par excellence and agent of salvation. The declaration itself comprises a juxtaposition of Ps 2:7, Isa 42:1, and echoes of Gen 22:2, yielding rich layers of meaning that explain Jesus’ identity and mission.

The wording, su ei ho huios mou (“you are my Son”), in 3:22 is essentially the same as huios mou ei su (“my son you are”) in Ps 2:7 in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the OT. Since this psalm is recited at the coronation of a new monarch, the use of the father-son metaphor to describe the relationship between God and Israel’s king hearkens back to the Davidic covenant. In 2 Samuel, God promised David that a king from his line will always sit on Israel’s throne, and that God will be a father to the king and the king a son to God (2 Sam 7:14). As son of God (metaphorically), Israel’s monarch is responsible for leading the people, the children of God, to serve and obey their Father in heaven.

When applied to Jesus, Ps 2:7 takes on a double meaning. As we already know from the infancy narrative, not only is Jesus the messianic king from the line of David, he is also the divine Son by virtue of his conception by the Holy Spirit (1:32–35). The modifying phrase in 3:22, ho agapētos (“the beloved”), is reminiscent of Isaac’s description as Abraham’s beloved son (Gen 22:2). Given that Abraham factors prominently in Luke 1, this echo lingers in the background. Isaac was Abraham’s beloved son, yet Abraham was willing to sacrifice him in obedience to God (Gen 22:9–13). Might there be a hint of YHWH commissioning his Son to a saving mission knowing that it will culminate in the death of his beloved?

The last part of the heavenly declaration, en soi eudokēsa (“in you I am well pleased”), recalls the language that describes the servant of the lord in Isaiah: “Here is my servant, whom I uphold, my chosen, in whom my soul delights” (Isa 42:1a). The verb in Isaiah is prosdechomai (“to receive” or “to welcome”), not eudokeō (“to be well pleased”). Even though the verbs are different, both texts convey divine joy and approval. Moreover, the rest of the verse, “I have put my Spirit upon him; he will bring forth justice to the nations” (Isa 42:1b) fits the occasion of Jesus’ baptism, with the Holy Spirit descending upon the Son of God, who is commissioned to a kingly role to judge not only Israel but the nations as well.

Genealogy of Jesus (3:23–38)

Jesus is about thirty years old at this point of the narrative (3:23a). Joseph was thirty when he became Pharaoh’s second-in-command (Gen 41:46), and David was thirty when he began his reign as king in Hebron (2 Sam 5:4). This is the age of a fully grown man, appropriate for public service (Num 4:3, 23). Here Luke provides another validation of Jesus’ identity and status with an unusually formatted genealogy (3:23b–38). Typically, genealogies trace the lineage of families and legitimize the status of individuals or the kinship group as a whole. When social status is at stake, genealogies tend to put the family’s best foot forward by removing questionable members from the listing of generations.

Luke’s genealogy of Jesus reads very differently from the one in Matthew (Matt 1:1–17). The less problematic issue is the way in which Luke’s genealogy begins with Jesus and works its way up the generations, even though this is an unconventional format among biblical genealogies.104 More perplexing is any attempt to reconcile the details in Luke’s genealogy with those in Matthew’s. For starters, Luke has seventy-eight names compared to Matthew’s forty-two, because he includes names from Adam to Abraham as well. There is considerable overlap between the names listed from Abraham to David.105 While both genealogies pass through David, Luke identifies Nathan as a son of David (3:31), but Matthew has David as the father of Solomon (Matt 1:6). Beyond that, the names between David and Jesus are almost entirely different, so much so that Luke identifies Joseph’s father as Heli against Matthew’s Jacob (3:23; Matt 1:16). The majority of names in Luke’s genealogy are not mentioned elsewhere in the OT, making it impossible to verify the existence of these ancestors and their place in the family tree. Scholars have put forth various hypotheses to explain the differences, ranging from each genealogy representing the family line of Joseph and Mary respectively, to an appeal to levirate marriage as justification for moving through a different branch in the family tree. None appears satisfactory and free of conjecture.106

Historical conundrum aside, several observations point to the theological impulse behind Luke’s presentation of Jesus’ genealogy in this unusual manner. First, drawing from God’s affirmation of Jesus as the divine Son, the genealogy culminates, after a string of seventy-odd names, in a crescendo to hail Jesus as “son of Adam, [who is] son of God” (3:38). Second, the parenthetical note at the beginning of the list, that Jesus was “the son (as was thought) of Joseph” (3:23), makes a distinction between the reader’s knowledge of Jesus’ divine conception and the ignorance of many in the narrative (4:22). It is as though the author was winking at his readers, saying, “That’s what people think, but you know who Jesus’ real Father is!” Third, on the human level, in spite of the many unrecognizable names in Luke’s genealogy, the naming of Abraham and David supports both Jesus’ Jewish identity and his royal pedigree (3:31, 34). Finally, by taking the names beyond Abraham all the way back to Adam (3:38), Luke situates Jesus in the family of Israel within all humanity. This speaks to Luke’s universalism, that Jesus is Messiah of Israel and Savior of the world.

78. Jer 1:1–3; Ezek 1:1–3; Mic 1:1; Hag 1:1; Zech 1:1.

79. Tiberius co-ruled with Augustus starting 11/12 CE, so John could have begun his ministry as early as 26/27 CE (Garland 2011: 151). On Tiberius, see Grant 1975: 83–107.

80. Jesus calls Herod Antipas a fox (13:32). Antipas disrespected Jewish sensitivities, built the city of Tiberius on a graveyard (Josephus Ant. 18.36–38), and installed pagan images in public places (Josephus Life 65–66).

81. On Pilate, see Philo Embassy 299–305; Josephus Ant. 18.35, 55–62, 85–89; Tacitus Ann. 15.44.

82. Cf. Isa 31:6; Jer 15:19; Ezek 14:6; 18:30.

83. See Job 20:16; Isa 14:29; 59:5.

84. Keener 2005: 6–7.

85. See Zeph 1:14–15; 2:1–2; Mal 3:2–3.

86. Cf. Ps 1:1–3; Jer 17:7–8; Luke 6:43–44.

87. The image of a tree being cut down denotes divine judgment. See Isa 10:33–34; Ezek 31:10–12; Dan 4:14.

88. E.g., Isa 58:7; Ezek 18:7; Tob 1:17. Cf. Acts 4:34–35.

89. Corbin-Reuschling 2009: 71–72.

90. Tax collectors are often mentioned together with sinners (5:27–30; 7:29, 34; 15:1; 18:10–14; 19:1–10). Next to murderers and thieves, tax collectors represent the class that all Jews, even those of low status, would write off as disgraceful, unclean, and irredeemable. See Edwards 2015: 111–12.

91. Guesses include Jewish soldiers tasked to protect tax collectors or Herod Antipas (Nolland 1989: 150; Marshall 1978: 143), or non-Jewish troops from Syria working for the Romans (Keener 2014: 188).

92. See p. 21, n. 20.

93. Deut 18:18–19 (a prophet like Moses); Mal 3:1–3; 4:5–6 (an eschatological Elijah). See Collins 2010: 128–31.

94. See p. 22.

95. Isa 32:15; 44:3; Ezek 36:27; 37:14; Joel 2:28–29.

96. Isa 1:25; Zech 13:9; Mal 3:2–3.

97. Klassen-Wiebe (1994: 398) distinguishes between John’s traditional understanding of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and fire as an event at the end of time (Isa 4:4), and Luke’s interpretation that this eschatological event has been fulfilled when the Spirit is given at Pentecost (Acts 2:1–4).

98. Dunn 1972: 86.

99. Prov 20:8, 26; Isa 41:16; Jer 15:7; 51:2.

100. Webb (1991: 103–11) argues that the Greek noun ptuon refers to a winnowing shovel and not a winnowing fork (thrinax). The specific farming action in 3:17 is not winnowing (the separating of the grain from the chaff) but the clearing of the threshing floor afterwards. Even though the end result is the same, that the wheat will still go into the barn (salvation) and the chaff will be burned (destruction), this shift from a winnowing fork to a winnowing shovel makes Jesus the sweeper of the threshing floor and John the winnower of the grains. In my opinion, Webb is splitting hairs. Both the ministries of John and Jesus serve to separate the penitent from the impenitent. It is not necessary to insist that one holds the fork and the other the shovel.

101. Josephus claims that Herod imprisoned John to preempt a political unrest among John’s followers (Ant. 18.118).

102. Matt 3:13–15 implies that Jesus goes to John for baptism “to fulfill all righteousness,” as an act of solidarity with the penitent among Israel.

103. Ezek 1:1; Acts 7:56; 10:11.

104. The format of the Matthean genealogy, which starts from the ancestor going down the generations, is more common. Cf. Gen 5:1–32; 11:10–26; 1 Chr 1:1–42.

105. These names appear in both genealogies between Abraham and David: Isaac, Jacob, Perez, Hezron, Arni/Aram, Amminadab, Narshon, Sala/Salmon, Boaz, Obed, and Jesse.

106. Brown 1993: 84–94.