Karl Snow
8 December 2018
Luke 3 Exegesis
The purpose of this literary work is to respectfully attempt to review the 3rd chapter of Luke from an historical criticism. W. Randolph Tate states that background studies are an indispensable prerequisite for the explication of plausible textual meaning; that is, historical, cultural, generic, grammatical, ideological, and even geographical studies are prerequisites for a successful interpretation of a text.[1] From the 3rd chapter of Luke, this paper will delve into the historical figures and their relevance in the narrative of John the Baptist’s prophetic introduction into the story of the Messiah. Next, this paper will engage the prophetic relevance of former prophets of Israel who faithfully awaited and proclaimed the coming kingdom among men. Finally, this paper will unpack the message of repentance and reconciliation from its historical understanding and its meaning for those of us today.
Introduction
The beginning of this paper will utilize the text of Luke 3:1-10 (NIV). The first section Luke 3:1-2 focuses on the historical characters and significance of the period of this text. Verses 2-6 focus on the ancient significance of the prophetic words of Isaiah and its geographical importance in this text. Finally, verses 7-10 focus on the message and its impactful meaning to the hearers in the narrative.
In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar—when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, his brother Philip tetrarch of Iturea and Traconitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene—
2 during the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness.
3 He went into all the country around the Jordan, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
4 As it is written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet:
“A voice of one calling in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.
5 Every valley shall be filled in,
every mountain and hill made low.
The crooked roads shall become straight,
the rough ways smooth.
6 And all people will see God’s salvation.’”[a] Isaiah 40:3-5
7 John said to the crowds coming out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? 8 Produce fruit in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham. 9 The ax is already at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.”
10 “What should we do then?” the crowd asked.[2]
Political Figures in Authority
W. Randolph Tate states that behind every literary text, there lies a view of life, a view which has been conditioned by the author’s real world.[3] The opening of Luke 3:1-2 immediately introduces Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate, Herod, his brother Philip and Lysanias. These historical figures represented the governmental and politically influential powers at the time of John’s prophetic entrance in the scriptures. Luke also included the high-priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, with a reference to John’s priestly father Zechariah, which represented a heavenly authority which was active at the time of John’s prophetic entrance. Luke then introduces the prophetic literary text of Isa 40:3-5 as a solidifier to the religious authority represented in his opening of the beginning of John’s ministry. Clint Burnett, Eschatological Prophet of Restoration (2013), points out that Luke employs chronological markers to date his narratives, in a very similar fashion as the ancient Greek and biblical historiographers. Burnett states that Luke reconstructs John’s ministry with seven historical figures from the first century that demonstrated that John’s ministry transpired in and around Roman-occupied Palestine.[4]
Tiberius Iulius Caesar Augustus reigned (42 B.C.E.-37 C.E.). Tiberius was adopted by Augustus Caesar in 4 C.E. and ascended to the throne after Augustus’s death in (14 C.E.).[5] David Shotter, Tiberius Caesar (2004), describes Tiberius as one who did not make extraordinary demands of Rome’s’ provincial subjects, nor did he demand ‘worship’ of himself. Per Shotter, Tiberius desired above all the reputation for having governed the empire well.[6] Tiberius seemed to hold a different vision from Augustus. Augustus was known for his desire to bind together his empire by a rapidly rising provincial status and self-esteem. During Tiberius’ rule there was very little warfare or territorial expansion. Shotter states that Tiberius held a traditional ‘patronal’ interest in the prosperity of his subjects, which, though it may not have appealed to the more progressive instincts of an emperor such as Claudius, none the less secured the appreciation of the subject-populations.[7]
Pontius Pilate was the fifth prefect of the Roman province of Judaea. He was appointed by Emperor Tiberius from (26-35 C.E.). Pilate is known for his judicial role in adjudicating the trail and crucifixion of Jesus. Pilate’s military forces were small, and he was subjected to his commanding legate of Syria if more forces were needed. As the governor of Judea, Pilate utilized small auxiliary forces from local recruited soldiers that were stationed in Caesarea and Jerusalem, which numbered about 3,000 men. Pilate’s eventual death was at his own hand on orders from the Emperor Caligula.[8]
In the biblical text, Pilate often appears by himself and as one who stood on the side of Jesus. This may have resulted from his wife Procla’s preference to practice Judaism with the Jews, which held influence over Pilate’s persuasions. Giorgio Agamben, Pilate and Jesus (2015), notes that Tertullian wrote that Pilate was forced to have Jesus crucified by violent pressure of the Jews but “now in fact a Christian in his own convictions”, he had informed the emperor with a letter about Jesus’s miracles and resurrection.[9] While Tertullian’s reference to Pilate’s letter cannot be corroborated, it does paint an image of certainty that Procla’s connection to the Jewish community, and her disturbing dream concerning Jesus, held a certain amount of influence on the disposition held by Pilate during the trial and execution process of Jesus in Pilate’s court before the Jews.
Agamben points out the conversation between Pilate and Jesus concerning authority coming “from above”, as compelling factor in Pilates determination of Jesus’s innocence. It is written that Pilate tried to release Jesus, but the Jews cried out, “If you release this man, you are no friend of Caesar. Everyone who claims to be a king sets himself against Caesar” (John 19:12).[10] Pilate found himself in the position that compelled him to hand over Jesus to persecution and death, even if it were against his own conscience. Agamben pulls from Karl Barth’s insights on this “handing over” as holding theological significance. The Jewish leaders handed Jesus over to Pilate to judge him because their laws did not permit them to execute anyone. Pilate realized that he was unable to hand Jesus back over to them began to question Jesus, and he began with the question of authority. Pilate asked Jesus if he was the King of the Jews, and Jesus replied that his kingdom was not of this world; his kingdom was from another place. Pilate then returned to the Jewish leaders and declared that he had found no coalition against Caesar from Jesus. Pilate then found a window of escape for himself by offering the Jewish leaders, according to their legal tradition, to exchange punishment by exchanging prisoners. This is how Pilate was able to hand over Jesus back to the will of the Jewish leaders. Barth references that this handing over of Jesus corresponds with the heavenly tradition expressed by Paul: “God did not withhold his own Son but handed him over for all of us” (Romans 8:32).[11] It is compelling to note this precession of “handing over”, by pointing out that Judas handed over Jesus, the Jews handed over Jesus, Pilate handed over Jesus, God handed over Jesus, and even Jesus handed over his own spirit in the end.
Augustus Caesar installed Herod Antipas as the tetrarch “ruler of a quarter” over Galilee and Perea in 4 C.E. Later, Herod Antipas was removed from his position and exiled in 39 C.E. Augustus also installed Philip as tetrarch of Batenea, Trachonitis, Auranitis, Gaulantis, and Panias in 4 C.E., who was son of Herod the Great, and Herod Antipas’s half-brother. Philip was also known as Herod Philip II. King Herod, although he was never referred to with the title of King in the New Testament, officially ruled Galilee and Perea as a client state of the Roman Empire. Herod presided over construction projects at Sepphoris and Betharamphtha, and the construction of his capital Tiberias on the western shore of the Sea of Galilee. The city was named in honor of the emperor Tiberius, and later became a center for rabbinic learning. Herod Antipas divorced his first wife Phasaelis, and married Herodias, who had previously been married to his half-brother Herod Philip II.[12] John the Baptist not only called for repentance from the masses, but he also addressed those in government to repent. John’s message had now become political. Darrin Belousek, The Advent of Salvation in the Gospel of Luke (2014), calls John’s admonishment of Herod’s sinful actions as, ‘a prophet speaking truth to power, calling rulers and authorities to account’.[13] Herod Antipas became the frequent recipient of John’s call to repentance, and was clearly non-appreciative of being publicly exposed for his sin. “So, with many other exhortations, he [John] proclaimed the good news to the people. But Herod the ruler, who had been rebuked by him because of Herodias, his brother’s wife, and because of all the evil things that Herod had done, added to them all by shutting up John in prison” (Luke 3:18-20).[14] With John’s political public rebuke to Herod, Herod’s record of evil doing was “added to” by imprisoning John. Herod was known for silencing his political enemies and eliminating any threats to his authority, including a troublemaking prophet. The end result was the beheading of John the Baptist by the hand of Herod, and the will of Herodias.
Religious Figures in Authority
Annas, a son of Seth, was appointed as the first High Priest in the Roman province of Ludaea by the Roman legate Quirinius in 6 A.D. Annas served as High Priest for 10 years and was known as one of the nation’s most influential political and social individuals. Annas’ used his five sons and his son-in-law Caiaphas as puppet High Priest. Jesus was brought before the High Priest Annas prior to being brought before Pontius Pilate. Annas and Caiaphas were figure heads of the Sadducees, and Luke references them (16:28) in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man with five brothers, and their religious certainty that was their ultimate demise.[15] It is recorded that Jesus was originally taken to the house of Caiaphas the High Priest (Matt 26:57), where the scribes and elders were gathered. It was in the middle of the night, that Jesus was taken to the High Priest, where all the chief priest and the elders gathered, then another consultation was held among the priest the next morning (Mark 14:53; Mark 15:1). Luke, (22:54), recounts that it was the night visit before Caiaphas that Jesus was first beaten. Then in (22:66) the next day, Jesus was led away to the chief priest and scribes’ council. From the accounts of John (18:12-14; 18:24-28), Jesus was taken to Annas, the former High Priest, by Caiaphas to potential seek approval for his actions in the matter of Jesus. Following this event, Caiaphas handed Jesus over to Pontius Pilate.
As Jesus was being questioned by the Sanhedrin, he refused to answer in defense of himself. This is where the high priest demanded a response and soon began to mock, blindfold him, and beat him. They are recorded as blindfolding Jesus, then slapping him, while asking him to guess who hit him (Matt 26:62). With no evidence against Jesus, the chief priest soon began to conjure up false witnesses against Jesus to solidify their right to prosecute him (Mark 14:55-59). It is noted that the high priest’s attempt to verify a false claim against Jesus was inept due to the conflicting testimonies against him. The high priest finally found their foothold for guilt when they asked Jesus if he was the Son of God. Jesus replied saying, “You say that I am” (Luke 22:67), which affirmed the title Son of God. At this, the high priest tore his robe and accused Jesus of blasphemy, citing a grievance against the Mosaic Law (Leviticus 21:10). With this omission from Jesus there was the tenant for their legal claim before Pilate, which indicated rebellion against Caesar, for there is no King but Caesar. To indicate a direct challenge to Roman authority, was sufficient for a case to be brought forward, and eventually lead to the death of Jesus.
Zechariah, the father of John the Baptist, belonged to a priestly order and was married to Elizabeth, a relative to the Virgin Mary, and Elizabeth was a descendent of Aaron, the first priest of Israel (Luke 1:5).[16] Darrin Belousek, The Advent of Salvation in the Gospel of Luke (2014), describes Zechariah as a priest that was consecrated to serve in the presence of God, having been trained to perform ritual duties within the temple. He, along with his wife Elizabeth, were “righteous before God, living blamelessly according to all the commandments and regulations of the Lord” (v. 6).[17] Luke describes Zechariah, performing his priestly duties one day, as he entered “the sanctuary of the Lord”, offering incense with the assembly of people praying outside in the court (vv. 9-10). It was then that an angel of the Lord appeared standing at the right side of the altar of incense. Zechariah was overwhelmed with terror, and fear overwhelmed him (vv.11-12). The angel of the Lord declared that Zechariah’s prayer for a son was heard, and Zechariah was going to have a son, and his name would be John. The angel then describes John would be great in the sight of the Lord, and filled with the Holy Spirit, even before his birth (vv.14-15). The angel went on to say that John would bring back many of the people of Israel to the Lord, and he would go before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the parents to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous—to make ready a people prepared for the Lord (vv.16-17).
Luke inserts the appeal of Isaiah after his mention of the corrupt religious leadership of Jerusalem found in Annas and Caiaphas’s authority. The reference offered by Luke comes from the book of Isaiah 40, that was given dating from the time of the Israelites’ exile in Babylon.
Isaiah 40: 3-5
“A voice of one calling in the wilderness,
‘Prepare the way for the Lord,
make straight paths for him.
Every valley shall be filled in,
every mountain and hill made low.
The crooked roads shall become straight,
the rough ways smooth.
And all people will see God’s salvation
This prophetic declaration describes the entrance of John the Baptist as the forerunner for the coming of the Messiah. John’s anointed and predestined call was to prepare the hearts of the people for their visitation from God. Luke began by naming the political governing authority during the time of John’s ministry, then Luke inserted the religious authority present during this same time. Luke then follows his historical placement of characters in his narrative by following it with a divinely prophetic declaration from the prophet Isaiah, that foretold this day and its significance to all the characters involved. Isaiah’s holy declaration was also utilized as a reminder and a rebuke to the corruption that had enveloped Israel through foreign invasion, and religious piety that had sullied the priesthood of Israel at its highest levels. Luke’s placement of characters and Isaiah’s ancient decree is a revelatory and damning pronouncement of the lost state the children of Israel had found themselves enveloped.
John’s Purpose
Salvation and Repentance! This was the road that John the Baptist came to pave. Belousek states that the corporate character of salvation carries over into the plural language used to describe the benefits of salvation. In redeeming his people, God will “feed his flock,” “gather his lambs,” “carry them,” “lead the mother sheep” (Isa 43:11).[18] Luke speaks of a “reward” and “recompense” (40:10), that is paired with the concept that God’s salvation punishment, because as the prophet declared “the time of their suffering and oppression is now at an end” (Isa 40:12). The path being blazed by John the Baptist is the signal for the people to prepare their hearts to receive the salvation of the Lord. Belousek delineates the language of “the flock” as a statement of a collective group of people, not just individuals. God’s plan of salvation has come to set all thing right between his people and Him. The salvation that has come to men is the work of the Lord, by His strength, and His purpose, through His grace. This concept is contrary to that of the world, and sadly enough that of the high priest that were given to bridge the gap between the people and God in his holy temple. The call of John toward the people was a call of response to the coming grace of the Lord. Belousek states to this manner that the good tidings that the herald is to proclaim is addressed “to the cities of Judah (v. 9), the cities of the people who are called by the name of Jacob/Israel. Yet this salvation has a broader scope than these cities alone; the redemption of Zion/Jerusalem has universal meaning for the peoples of all nations (Isa 40:3-5).[19]
John the Baptist declares to those who have come to be Baptized that they must produce fruit in keeping with repentance. He even addresses them as a brood of vipers, and he ponders who warned them of the coming wrath for those who resist repentance. John clarifies that their repentance must come from a genuine place, and he warns that they shouldn’t fool themselves with the idea that Abraham is their father, and all is well. This is where John declares that God is able to raise up children for Abraham from the stones beneath their feet. (vv. 7-8). With this admonishment, the crowd cried aloud asking “what should we do then?” (v. 10). Belousek comments that John’s position here was that claiming one’s inheritance of salvation promises through the faith of past generations without bearing fruit simply will not do. Those who fail to “bear fruit” put themselves in jeopardy of being severed from God’s people: “Even now the ax is lying at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire” (3:8-9).[20] Jesus repeats this same analogy in the parable of the barren fig tree, “If it bears fruit…well and good; but if not…cut it down” (Luke 3: 6-9). John the Baptist and other prophets used this imagery of a vineyard to represent the nation of Israel, and God their caretaker (cf. Ps 80:8-18; Jer 2:21). Isaiah also uses the imagery of the vineyard to paint the picture of God bringing judgement on an unrepentant Israel that is bearing forth corruptible fruit (Isa 5:1-7).
For the vineyard of the Lord of host
is the house of Israel,
And the people of Judah
are his pleasant planting;
He expected justice,
but saw bloodshed;
Righteousness,
but heard a cry!
Belousek brings into focus that both Jesus’s and John’s preaching spoke of judgement and repentance, and the admonishment was to establish that the people were to keep faith with God by deeds of justice and righteousness for their neighbor, or they would be uprooted and disinherited from God’s promise. This call to repentance is for all of God’s people, which no one can escape, nor claim a superior righteousness that will grant them special immunity.[21] The crowd’s response of ‘what should we do then?’ began collectively, where John admonished them to share with one another in their needs and burdens (v. 11). Next the tax collectors came and asked this question, and John admonished them not to collect more than they were require by law (v. 13). Then the soldiers came and asked John what they should do. John responded, admonishing the soldiers to not extort money and accuse people falsely—be content with their pay (v. 14). These soldiers were most likely commissioned officers from the Roman army, possibly local recruits, or perhaps those serving in the temple police force under the authority of the Jewish council, or Herod’s security force. They might even have been hired swords paid by the Romans to escort tax collectors, per Belousek.[22] From here Belousek helps expound on the stage of reality that may have been present in the lives of these soldiers. Belousek asks what might drive these soldiers to extortion and false accusations, and he suggest that it is their dissatisfaction with their wages, found in John’s reply. The message of repentance to the soldiers addresses their need to repent of their ‘striving’, which uses violence to satisfy their greed.[23] There were possibly many opportunities for those serving in Herod’s court to take advantage of Herod’s paranoia and his propensity to imprison or behead troublesome people like John the Baptist. Here a soldier could easily extort money from someone with the promise of naming them a traitor to Herod’s advisor if they didn’t. A temple guard could also utilize the fear of the priesthood among the people, by extorting someone with the threat of informing the priest that they were upsetting the status quo of the temple or even blasphemy, like they did to Jesus. Belousek states that these scenarios of extortive violence are not explicit violence of a drawn sword, but the implicit violence of an unjust system. The repentance to which John calls these soldier is not merely a renunciation of personal violence and the greed that drives it, but also a call to them to cease profiting by the systemic violence of abusive authority.[24] John’s admonishment was also toward those in higher authority, such as Herod. John eventually lost his life for challenging the abuses of power found in Herod’s corrupt rule.
Belousek brings the Roman expansion into a closer view in this narrative from Luke through the words of Plato, The Republic, a Greek philosophical treatise on political justice, we read how social phleonexia leads to one city robbing its neighbor, which provokes retaliation and results in war (372e—373e):
Plato considers how a luxurious city comes to be, then the need to enlarge it ensues. This healthy city is not sufficient, but must at this point be swollen in bulk and multitude with things which do not exist in cities for the sake of what is necessary…And the territory sufficient to sustain them then will now be insufficient and too small…So we must slice off some of our neighbor’s land, if we are going to have enough for plow and pasture—and they in turn must take ours, if they also give themselves over to unlimited acquisition of wealthy, overstepping the bound of the necessary…The next thin is… we will be at war.[25]
Belousek points out from Plato’s assertion that imperialist expansion is driven by this phleonexia, and after strong nations have conquered and occupied weaker nations, they want more, or worry that that they will lose to hostile forces that which they gained through the expense of blood and treasure. For this very reason Rome had conquered and occupied Galilee and Judea—to gain a “buffer zone” against potential threats from empires to the east, while extracting wealth from the land and the people’s labor through taxation. This Pax Roma was in fact a perpetual war.[26] When looking back at the mission focused words of John the Baptist and of Jesus to recognize the things needed for peace and the visitation from God, Luke’s story unveils a large portion of Israel rejecting the Prince of Peace. As a result of this rejection, the ax was laid to the root, which came in the form of Rome’s eventual violent siege on Jerusalem (Luke 19:41-44).[27]
Conclusion
This literary work has looked systematically into the historical criticism of Luke 3:1-10. In this historical criticism, a picture was painted of a mighty political force from a world stage that had engulfed the nation of Israel, descriptive of its main figures of authority and rulership. Following, were the pale images of a religious authority found corruptible and inept that were dishonoring to God and their nation. They had been overcome with a religious piety that allowed them to be swept up in the political machine of a corrupt system that departed from righteousness and godliness. However, there was a remnant from the house of Aaron that still remained to bring forth the prophetic words of Isaiah that declare the entrance of God’s salvation for mankind through His son Jesus. John the Baptist was corroborated as the legitimate fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy of the way made straight for the Lord to come.
Bibliography
Tate, W. Randolph. Biblical Interpretation: an Integrated Approach. Baker Academic, 2013.
Kreitzer, Beth, Timothy George, and Scott M Manetsch, eds. 2015. Luke. Reformation Commentary on Scripture. New Testament, Iii. Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Academic, an imprint of InterVarsity Press.
Shotter, David. 2004. Tiberius Caesar (version 2nd ed.). 2nd ed. Lancaster Pamphlets in Ancient History. London: Routledge.
Agamben, Giorgio. 2015. Pilate and Jesus. Translated by Adam Kotsko. Meridian, Crossing Aesthetics. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Bible: New International Version. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2016.
[1] Tate, W. Randolph. Biblical Interpretation: an Integrated Approach. Baker Academic, 2013, 11.
[2] Bible: New International Version. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2016.
[3] Tate, W. Randolph. Biblical Interpretation: an Integrated Approach. Baker Academic, 2013, 15.
[4] Burnett, Clint. 2013. “Eschatological Prophet of Restoration : Luke’s Theological Portrait of John the Baptist in Luke 3:1-6.” Neotestamentica 47 (1): 1–24.
[5] Ibid., 6.
[6] Shotter, David. 2004. Tiberius Caesar (version 2nd ed.). 2nd ed. Lancaster Pamphlets in Ancient History. London: Routledge, 63.
[7] Ibid., 63.
[8] Burnett, Clint. 2013. “Eschatological Prophet of Restoration : Luke’s Theological Portrait of John the Baptist in Luke 3:1-6.” Neotestamentica 47 (1): 1–24.
[9] Agamben, Giorgio. 2015. Pilate and Jesus. Translated by Adam Kotsko. Meridian, Crossing Aesthetics. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
[10] Ibid., 37
[11] Ibid., 40.
[12] Burnett, Clint. 2013. “Eschatological Prophet of Restoration : Luke’s Theological Portrait of John the Baptist in Luke 3:1-6.” Neotestamentica 47 (1): 1–24.
[13] Belousek, Darrin W. Snyder. 2014. Good News : The Advent of Salvation in the Gospel of Luke. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 28.
[14] Bible: New International Version. London: Hodder & Stoughton, 2016.
[15] Burnett, Clint. 2013. “Eschatological Prophet of Restoration : Luke’s Theological Portrait of John the Baptist in Luke 3:1-6.” Neotestamentica 47 (1): 1–24.
[16] Belousek, Darrin W. Snyder. 2014. Good News : The Advent of Salvation in the Gospel of Luke. Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 16.
[17] Ibid., 16.
[18] Ibid., 3
[19] Ibid., 4.
[20] Ibid., 28c
[21] Ibid., 28j
[22] Ibid., 28o
[23] Ibid., 28o
[24] Ibid., 28o
[25] Ibid., 23.
[26] Ibid., 23.
[27] Ibid., 18
Thesnomanreport 