§5 The Preaching of John the Baptist (Luke 3:1–20)
In Luke 3:3 John’s preaching begins on a note significantly different from Matthew’s account. Unlike Matt. 3:2, where reference to repentance and the nearness of the kingdom is the first thing uttered by John, in Luke the reference is to repentance and forgiveness of sins, with no mention of the kingdom. (Even though in Mark’s account neither does John make reference to the kingdom, Jesus does so right at the beginning of his ministry in 1:15.) By way of contrast, in Luke’s account the emphasis of John’s preaching falls more heavily on the ethical requirements, though there are eschatological and messianic elements (see 3:8–14). Another unique feature in Luke’s account is the longer quotation from Isaiah. Whereas Matthew (3:3) and Mark (1:2–3) quote only Isa. 40:3 (Mark also includes a portion of Mal. 3:1), Luke (3:4–6) extends the quotation to include Isa. 40:4–5 (see note below). The reason for this longer quotation is found in the last verse of the Isaiah passage: And all mankind shall see God’s salvation! (Luke 3:6). The call to repentance, seen more clearly in the first part of the Isaiah quotation (Prepare the way for the Lord …), now has a universal application (“all mankind”), a major theme in Lucan theology (see Introduction). By extending this quotation Luke verifies that at the very inauguration of the messianic era the call for repentance and preparation for the Messiah is not extended to the Jews only.
3:7–17 / Because of his interest in matters pertaining to the law of Moses and the oral traditions of the Jewish teachers, Matthew (3:7a) states that “many of the Pharisees and Sadducees” came to John’s baptism. By introducing John’s speech this way (which begins at 3:7b), the sharp words of condemnation (“You brood of vipers!”) are directed against Israel’s religious leadership. Luke, however, refers to the crowds (3:7a) and thereby makes John’s call for repentance more general in application. John wants the people to produce fruit in keeping with repentance (v. 8a). He is not interested in a change in theology or in religious rituals but in a changed way of living. His statement in v. 8 warns the people that physical descent from Abraham is no substitute for genuine repentance and a changed life. The implication (seen in v. 9) is that failure to make a sincere change will result in judgment. John reminds them that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham (v. 8b). If God can create the world out of nothing, if he can create a nation out of two aged and infertile people (Sarah and Abraham), then God can create for himself a people who will love and obey him. John’s words strike at the very heart of the presumption held by many of the religious of Israel, and because of this they provide a fitting introduction for Jesus, whose teachings will likewise explode cherished but erroneous views.
John’s statement that the ax is already at the root of the trees (v. 9a) not only points to the urgency of the moment, but recalls popular prophetic imagery in which judgment is also in view (see Isa. 6:13; 10:33–34; Jer. 6:6); furthermore, it anticipates similar aspects of Jesus’ teaching (Luke 13:6–9). The warning that the tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire (v. 9b) is the same warning as in v. 17 in which the Messiah (see v. 15) will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire (see also John 15:1–6). These grim warnings were readily understood, and so the crowd asked, “What should we do then?” (v. 10). John replies by giving two specific examples that illustrate the general principle of compassion and generosity: providing food and clothing to those without (v. 11).
This reply, as those in vv. 13–14, reflects Luke’s concern with the use of wealth and possessions. The question of the tax collectors furthers the development of this theme (v. 12). Often dishonest and rich and viewed as a collaborator with Israel’s Gentile oppressors, the tax collector was one of the most despised persons in Israel (see Luke 18:9–14; 19:1–10). Because they acquired much of their wealth by gouging their fellow citizens, John tells them to collect only what is required (v. 13; see note below). Others who were in position to take advantage of people were the soldiers (i.e., Jewish policemen), who could use their authority and power to their own advantage (v. 14). John tells them to be content with their pay. Interestingly, both groups (i.e., the tax collectors and the soldiers) have problems with greed and are in positions of authority that enable them to satisfy this greed. All of John’s answers contribute significantly to Luke’s views about possessions and wealth. According to Luke, the evidence of true repentance is chiefly seen in the ethics of contentment and generosity.
The theme shifts in vv. 15–17 from ethics to messianic expectation. All of the crowd were wondering in their hearts if John might possibly be the Christ (v. 15), which leads very naturally to the Baptist’s explanation of his role as forerunner of the Messiah. Although his is a baptism of water, the baptism of the Messiah will be one of Holy Spirit and fire (v. 16). The mention of fire in v. 17 assures us that the fire of v. 16 has a sense of judgment (and not, e.g., like the reference to the “tongues of fire” of Pentecost in Acts 2:3; see note below). John is saying that those prepared and ready to receive the Messiah will experience a baptism of the Holy Spirit, but those who refuse him will undergo a baptism of fire.
Verse 18 is transitional; Luke summarizes the Baptist’s ministry and sets the stage for his imprisonment. John’s urging the people to repent leads to his conflict with Herod Antipas. Verse 19 explains why Herod found John’s preaching offensive. In condemning Herod’s marriage to his former sister-in-law, John no doubt invoked the command of Lev. 18:16: “You must have no intercourse with your brother’s wife, since she belongs to your brother” (Fitzmyer’s literal translation, pp. 477–78). Embarrassed and outraged, Herod had John put in prison (v. 20) and eventually had him executed (implied in Luke 9:7–9, but not actually reported anywhere in Luke). Josephus in his Antiquities (18.116–117) states that Herod had John the Baptist imprisoned and executed before his popular ministry could lead to an uprising. According to Josephus, Herod feared that the people would regard John as a messianic figure and revolt. The people’s speculation about John’s identity in v. 15 supports this suggestion. The reasons given by Josephus and Luke for Herod’s actions are not necessarily contradictory but may in fact complement one another. The real reason Herod did away with John could be the reason cited by Luke, while the excuse cited by Josephus may represent the “official” justification (i.e., “national security” required the elimination of a potential trouble-maker).
Although John’s ministry was apparently quite brief, it was a ministry of immense importance and one, too, that had a lasting impact, as can be seen by the numerous references to him and to this ministry throughout the Lucan writings (Luke 5:33; 7:19, 22, 24; 9:7, 9; 16:16; 20:6; Acts 1:5, 22; 11:16; 13:24–25; 19:3–4).
3:1–2a / In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar: Tiberius became co-regent (i.e., co-ruler) with Augustus his father A.D. 11 or 12. If Luke means the fifteenth year since the co-regency, then the year that John appeared would be A.D. 26/27, when Jesus was about thirty years old (Luke 3:23), since he was born around 4 B.C. (see note on 2:1–2 above). Another attractive aspect about this date is that in all probability A.D. 26/27 was a Jubilee year (i.e., every fiftieth year when debts were canceled; see Lev. 25:10). Some scholars suspect that Jesus’ announcement of the “acceptable year of the Lord” (Luke 4:19) may have been intended to be an allusion to the year of Jubilee (see Marshall, p. 184, and commentary and notes on 4:14–30 below). If this is correct, then the A.D. 26/27 date receives added support. The chief difficulty with this date, however, is that normally the reigns of rulers are not dated back to co-regencies but to the year when the regent becomes sole ruler (see Fitzmyer, p. 455). Since Tiberius did not become sole ruler until A.D. 14, Luke’s date may refer to A.D. 29 (or 28, if 14 is counted as the first year). For a fuller discussion of the problems of dating see Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977), pp. 29–44.
Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea: After the exile of Archelaus in A.D. 6, Judea became a Roman province under the authority of Roman governors (or “prefects”; “procurator” not being used until after the time of Pilate). Pilate served as governor from A.D. 26 to 36, during which time he frequently outraged his Jewish subjects by forcing Roman customs and religion upon them (see Josephus, War 2.169–177; Antiquities 18.55–59). See also Luke 13:1 where reference is made to “the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.” It was by Pilate’s authority, of course, that Jesus was crucified (see Luke 23:1–7, 13–25). Pilate’s rule ended in A.D. 36 when Tiberius had him recalled. See HBD, pp. 796–98.
Herod tetrarch of Galilee: Herod refers to Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great (see Luke 1:5). When his father died (4 B.C.) Herod Antipas became a tetrarch (“ruler of a fourth-part”). He ruled Galilee and Perea until deposed and exiled by Emperor Caligula in A.D. 39 for asserting his right to be called “king” (see Mark 6:14 where Herod Antipas is called “king”). This is the Herod before whom Jesus was accused and mocked (see Luke 23:8–12).
his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis: Philip also received a fourth of his father’s kingdom and ruled from 4 B.C. to A.D. 34. After his death his realm became part of the Roman province of Syria. Luke’s reference is vague since it was (and still is) unclear just exactly what territory made up Philip’s realm. (Josephus refers to the districts of Philip twice, but his lists do not agree completely; see Antiquities 17.317–320 and 17.188–192.) According to Mark 6:17 and Matt. 14:3, Herodias was apparently the widow of Philip, but Luke says only “his brother’s wife” (see Luke 3:19), possibly because he was aware that Josephus (Antiquities 18.109–115) states that Herodias had been married to another Herod and not to Philip (see Fitzmyer, p. 477). With reference to Philip, Marshall states (p. 134): “He was reckoned the best of the Herodian rulers.”
Lysanius tetrarch of Abilene: Years ago some commentators felt that Luke had confused someone with a Lysanius who had ruled over parts of Syria decades earlier and who had been executed by Mark Antony in 36 B.C. Furthermore, it was argued that it was inappropriate of Luke to refer to rulers other than the four sons of Herod the Great as “tetrarch.” It has since been learned, however, that “tetrarch” had come to mean “ruler” in a general sense and could be applied to persons other than the four original tetrarchs of the Herodian family. Moreover, Josephus makes a few vague references to a Lysanius to whom belonged a “tetrarchy” (Antiquities 20.137–140) and who ruled the city of “Abila,” the capital city of Abilene (Antiquities 19.97–99; 20.137–140; see also War 2.214–217; 2.247–249). The question was finally settled decisively in favor of Luke’s accuracy when an inscription from ancient Abilene dating from A.D. 15 to 30 was found containing a reference to “Lysanius the tetrarch” (Fitzmyer, pp. 457–58; Ellis, p. 88; Marshall, p. 134). Nevertheless, why Luke mentions this particular ruler, one who would play no role whatsoever in the history of Jesus and the early church, remains unclear.
the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas: Although during the ministry of John and of Jesus Caiaphas was actually the high priest (A.D. 18–36)—for there was only one high priest at a time—Annas had been a high priest previously (A.D. 6–15), was Caiaphas’ father-in-law, and probably still exercised considerable influence (that Jesus was brought to him [John 18:13] is evidence of his influence). It may have been customary out of respect to refer to former high priests as “high priest” (as is Annas in John 18:13, 19; Acts 4:6; see Fitzmyer, p. 458). Luke mentions both probably because supreme religious authority was shared by both. See HBD, pp. 31, 149.
One final note regarding 3:1–2a is in order. Dating the year of John’s call by reference to the rule of various authorities is based upon an OT pattern that further underscores John’s place among the prophets (see Isa. 6:1; Jer. 1:1–2; Ezek. 1:1–3).
3:2b–6 / John son of Zechariah in the desert: There are several interesting points of comparison between John and the Essenes (i.e., members of the Dead Sea community located near Wadi Qumran): (1) Both the Essenes and John ministered in the desert; the Essenes near the Dead Sea, John near the Jordan River (see note on Luke 1:80 above). (2) Both the Essenes and John practiced baptism as a rite signifying cleansing from “sin” (so John) or “evildoing” (so the Rule of the Community [1QS] 5.13–14). John’s call for baptism centered around the demand for repentance and, although not employing the exact terminology, the Essene practice probably carried similar meaning. Fitzmyer (pp. 459–60) notes that from 150 B.C. to A.D. 250 there were numerous Jewish and Christian baptismal groups in Palestine. (3) Both the Essenes and John eagerly looked forward to God’s intervention in human affairs. In the Gospels and Acts John’s hope revolves exclusively around the Messiah who is to follow; but among the Essenes there is no clear and uniform concept of messianic expectation beyond the general fact that they awaited vindication and redemption. (4) In introducing the quotation from Isa. 40:3–5 Luke adds (v. 4) the word book (not found in Mark 1:2 or Matt. 3:3). This same quotation formula is found verbatim in several Essene writings (for examples see Fitzmyer, p. 460). (5) Not only is the quotation of Isa. 40:3–5 (or 40:3 in Matthew and Mark) linked with John’s ministry, but the Essenes themselves cite this OT passage as justification for their peculiar lifestyle. These parallels make it reasonable to suppose that John may have had some contact with the Essenes prior to his public ministry (Josephus himself in Life 2 claims to have spent some time with the Essenes). His call to preach a baptism of repentance to all of Israel would, however, signal a break with the Essenes who were reclusive and exclusivistic.
the way: Lit. “the way” or “the road” (from hē hodos). This part of the Isaiah quotation may have held special significance for Luke, who frequently refers to obedience to the gospel as following the “Way” (see Luke 20:21; Acts 9:2; 16:17; 18:26; 19:9, 23; 22:4; 24:14, 22).
all mankind: This does not imply the exclusion of the Jewish people. On the contrary, the expression is universal and inclusive. Jews and Gentiles alike will see God’s salvation. On the meaning of Isa. 40:3–5 in Luke and the NT see Klyne R. Snodgrass, “Streams of Tradition Emerging from Isaiah 40:1–5 and their Adaptation in the New Testament,” JSNT 8 (1980), pp. 24–45.
shall see God’s salvation: Recall Simeon’s praise: “my eyes have seen your salvation, which you have prepared in the sight of all people” (2:30–31). Simeon was among the first to see God’s salvation. John now announces that eventually all people will see it.
3:7 / crowds: According to Josephus, who also uses the word “crowds” with reference to John (Antiquities 18.118), the Baptist was very popular with the people.
“You brood of vipers!”: The viper was a deadly snake in Palestine. Astonishingly, despite calling people such names, John was popular. Of course, since he was regarded as a prophet, John’s colorful language would have been expected (see Isa. 59:5; for examples of the names that Jesus sometimes called his enemies see Luke 13:32; especially Matt. 23:14–33).
3:8 / Produce fruit: Lit. “make fruits.” The figurative expression is appropriate in light of v. 9. Luke has the plural “fruits” instead of “fruit” as in Matthew, probably because he is thinking of the various examples that will be given in 3:11–14.
3:11 / John’s ethical commands in this verse are quite similar to those found in Isa. 58:7.
3:12–13 / The paying of taxes (or tolls) frequently led to violence (e.g., the revolt of Judas the Galilean mentioned in Acts 5:37). Tax collectors were especially loathed because they were notoriously dishonest and were viewed as traitors and lackeys working for either Rome (which ruled Judea directly) or Herod (who ruled Galilee directly; see Luke 5:30; 7:34; 15:1 where “tax collectors and sinners” are considered virtually synonymous). For further discussion see John R. Donahue, “Tax Collectors and Sinners: An Attempt at Identification,” CBQ 33 (1971), pp. 39–61; HBD, p. 841.
3:14 / some soldiers: These were probably Jewish soldiers, in Herod’s or Rome’s hire, not Roman soldiers; Fitzmyer, p. 470; Tiede, p. 90.
Don’t extort money … be content with your pay: Josephus gave similar advice to his men: “I thanked them and advised them neither to attack anyone nor to sully their hands with rapine, but to … be content with their rations” (Life 47.244; from Lachs, p. 44).
3:16 / the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie: Among Jews the sandal was often a symbol of contempt (see Luke 9:5; Acts 13:51) and the unfastening of sandals was the task of a slave. Thus, in strongest language John is claiming to be utterly unworthy of the one who is to follow him.
3:17 / unquenchable fire: This expression probably echoes Isa. 66:24, a verse that appears in Mark 9:48, and may allude to the fires of “Gehenna,” the word used for hell (from the Valley of Hinnom where garbage was burned in Jesus’ time and where human sacrifice had taken place many centuries before).