Malachi 3:1-4
Luke 1:68-79 (as a canticle)
Philippians 1:3-11
Luke 3:1-6
My apologies for some of you diligent readers, because this is my most lengthy post in a decade. I tried to put together an exhaustive exegesis and commentary on all three (not counting the psalm) readings of the day, and it ballooned to an unimaginable size. The longest section is on the Lukan reading at the end.
Comments are always welcome.
Stan
Malachi 3:1-4
The Coming
Messenger
1 See, I am sending my messenger[1] to prepare the way before
me, and the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple. The messenger
of the covenant in whom you delight—indeed, he is coming, says the Lord of
hosts. 2But who can endure
the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears? For he is like a
refiner’s fire and like fullers’ soap; 3he will sit as a refiner and
purifier of silver, and he will purify the descendants of Levi and refine them
like gold and silver, until they present offerings to the Lord in
righteousness. 4Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be
pleasing to the Lord as in the days of
old and as in former years.
Notes:
This text is traditionally taken out of its
Hebrew context and identified with John the Baptist. For centuries has been
read (along with Malachi 4:5) on this Sunday. However, it does have its own
integrity, and to keep faith with that integrity, the passage should be read
through to v.12.
About Malachi
himself (or herself, though that’s unlikely) we know next to nothing. Even its
name may not be a personal name, but a description of his function. The name,
“Malachi,” comes from mal'ak, ie.,
ambassador, deputy, angel, or messenger. So, v. 1:1, “the word of the Lord to Israel by Malachi (by mal’ak),” may be the same person referred
to in 3:1, “See, I sending my messenger
(my mal’ak) to prepare the way before
me....” We don’t know the precise situation of its writing, or precisely to
whom he was writing, but we can judge (tentatively) the date to be somewhere
shortly before Nehemiah’s first return in 445 b.c.e.
during
the reign of Artaxerxes I (465-424).[2]
By the way, on
the church’s historical identification of these verses (and Malachi 4:5-6,
which call for a new Elijah to come at the end of time) with John the Baptist,
it is interesting to note that on more than one occasion John himself is recorded
as having denied the connection (cf. John 1:21, “and they asked him, ‘what
then? Are you Elijah?’ he said, ‘I am not.’”).
Malachi’s short book has basically two messages:
1. God is ticked off about the
lack of piety in the temple community (the bringing of animals for sacrifice
that were blemished, or “taken by violence,” v. 1:13).
2. God is about to send a
messenger (a mal’ak) who will reunite
and purify Israel (3:1-4; 4:1-3), in a final righteous era.
The text begins
by Yahweh announcing the coming of a messenger who will come to the corrupted
temple. The messenger has been much anticipated and sought after. He is the
“messenger of the covenant in whom you delight” (3:1b).
(Side note: the messenger
who is coming is referred to as “the Lord” (‘Adōn).
But it’s important not to confuse him/her with the “Lord” (Yahweh),
who is speaking. The first is the messenger and the second is the God of
Israel. “Whatever else this title (“messenger of the covenant”) may represent,
it is surely a sign that the work of this messenger, this ‘Adōn, involves the life of the community of faith, for it is with
none other than the faithful people that Yahweh holds covenant.”[3]
)
But, while the
messenger of the covenant brings good news (he/she is one “in whom you
delight”), the messenger is also harsh: “who can endure the day of his coming?”
The messenger may be the one sought after by the people, but the news is of
judgment. He will be “like a refiner’s fire and fuller’s soap,” burning and
cleaning the descendants of Levi until they start presenting more righteous (or
“right,” cf. nrsv note) offerings
to Yahweh. By “descendants of Levi,” read, especially “priests, pastors,
clergy, ministers, preachers, rabbis,” etc., but it’s also likely that all of
Israel is included in the prophet’s condemnation. See, for example, “children
of Jacob,” v. 6.
What is wrong
with the offerings to Yahweh? In the verses which follow (which were left out
by the Lectionary committee), God implies that by “turning aside from my statutes”
and withholding their “tithes and offerings,” they, “the whole nation of you,”
are in fact robbing God. They ask how that could be? And God responds, “bring
the full tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in my house, and
thus put me to the test, says the lord of hosts; see if I will not open the
windows of heaven for you and pour down for you an over flowing
blessing....then all nations will count you happy, for you will be a land of
delight, says the lord of hosts (Malachi 3:10, 12). They are robbing God by
retaining that which is rightfully God’s.
Philippians 1:3-11
Paul’s Prayer for
the Philippians
3 I thank my God every time I
remember you, 4 constantly praying with joy in every one of my
prayers for all of you, 5 because of your sharing in the gospel from
the first day until now. 6 I am confident of this, that the one who
began a good work among you will bring it to completion by the day of Jesus
Christ.[4] 7 It
is right for me to think this way about all of you, because you hold me in your
heart,[5] for all
of you share in God’s grace[6] with
me, both in my imprisonment[7]
and in the defense and confirmation of the gospel.[8]
8 For God is my witness, how I long for all of you with the
compassion[9] of
Christ Jesus. 9And this is my prayer, that your love may overflow
more and more with knowledge and full insight 10 to help you to
determine what is best, so that in the day of Christ you may be pure and blameless,
11 having produced the harvest of righteousness that comes through
Jesus Christ for the glory and praise of God.
Notes:
Paul’s letters
almost always start off with a formal Greek-style introduction (“From _____, to
____, grace and peace,” etc.), followed with a section on thanksgiving. The
thanksgiving section is found in every authentic Pauline letter except
Galatians. This particular statement of thanksgiving is marked by a closeness
to his readers in Philippi, probably because of their consistent support of
Paul in his ministry (see 2:25-30; 4:15-19). One commentator noted an
interesting piece of evidence for Paul’s closeness to the people in Philippi:
his uncommonly frequent use of the word koinonia,
in ways that imply bonding, partnership or sharing. He uses it twice in today’s
reading: “I thank my God...because of your sharing (koinonia “partnership” rsv)
in the gospel” (1:5), and “It is right for me to think this way about all of
you, because you hold me in your heart, for all of you share (sygkoinonoús, “partaking jointly of”) in
God’s grace with me (1:7 “are partakers with me” rsv).”[10] Cf.
2:1; 3:10; 4:15.
The thanksgiving section contains two themes that
are important to the rest of the letter:
Concerning the first theme,
the prayer fits well for Advent in that it refers to two eschatological “days”:
the “first day” (1:5), the initial reception of the good news of Jesus Christ,
and the “day of Jesus” (1:6, 10), the final day, toward which all of life is
directed. The great affirmation of this passage is in v. 6”...that the one
(God) who began a good work among you (at the ‘first day’) will bring it to
completion by (the last day) the day of Jesus Christ.” We, the church, occupy
the space in between the two days. The manger is to be kept separate from the
eschaton, no matter how much the popular culture would have us collapse the two
or ignore the second. The first day carries within it the seeds, the vision, of
the final culmination in the day of Jesus.
Note that this
is an activity, a promise, that was started and finished by God and not by
human beings. Though the days are far apart, Paul has the clear confidence that
the one who began the enterprise would also be the one to conclude it. God may
use humans to fashion the details of the work toward the final day, but each
step will be guided by God’s hands and not ours.
The second theme
begins with a petition that the love of the Philippians would overflow in
knowledge and insight (aisthesis, rsv: discernment, also: perception,
wisdom, judgment), and learn to “determine what is best” (1:9-10). In light of
the delay of the coming of the “day of Christ,” what he probably means here is
to sort out priorities, separate the wise from the unwise paths, in light of
the day that is eventually coming.
Luke 3:1-6
The Proclamation of John the Baptist
(Mt 3.1—12; Mk 1.1—8; Jn 1.19—28)
1 In the fifteenth year of the
reign[11] of
Emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was
ruler of Galilee, and his brother Philip ruler[12] of the region of Ituraea
and Trachonitis, and Lysanias ruler of Abilene, 2 during the high
priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word[13]
of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness.[14]
3 He[15] went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance[16] for the forgiveness[17] of sins,[18] 4 as it is written in the book of the words of the prophet Isaiah,[19]
3 He[15] went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance[16] for the forgiveness[17] of sins,[18] 4 as it is written in the book of the words of the prophet Isaiah,[19]
‘Prepare the way of the Lord,
make his paths straight.
5 Every valley[22] shall be filled,
and every mountain and hill
shall be made low,
and the crooked shall be made straight,[23]
and the rough ways made
smooth;
Comment:
The second
Sunday of Advent traditionally honors John the Baptist and this is the
quintessential passage for John. Like the Malachi and Isaiah 40 passages which
it quotes (incorrectly, actually), it has a life and integrity of its own, which
is sometimes lost in the seasonal fru fru about it.
Vss. 1-4 are
sometimes known as Luke’s “Second Prologue,” because the Gospel proper begins
here. There are several reasons for calling it that. First, the “First
Prologue” (Luke 1-2) is a complete stand-alone unit, a mini-musical complete
with songs and pageantry, and characters that never show up again. It was
probably added later after the Gospel was finished.[1] Second, note that here, in
chapter 3, John is introduced to readers as Zechariah’s son (v.2b) as though
they had never heard of him before, and had not just read of his birth, in
chapter 2. Third, notice too that Luke elsewhere in his writings refers to this
story, and not the earlier stories, as the arche,
the “beginning” of his gospel. See Acts 1:22, “‘So one of the men who have
accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among
us, beginning from the baptism of
John until the day when he was taken up from us—one of these must become a
witness with us to his resurrection.’” And Acts 10:37, “That message spread throughout
Judea, beginning in Galilee after the
baptism that John announced....” (I added the italics in case no one could tell).
Finally, the second prologue is probably the true beginning because it begins
where Mark begins: with John the Baptist.
The purpose of
the First Prologue, with all the birth stories, could be described as “Luke’s
summation of the OT, waiting for the fulfillment of the messianic promises.[2]
And the purpose of the second prologue is to “present John as the one called by
God to prepare for the inauguration of the period of salvation.”[3]
There are three
reasons (that I know of at least) for Luke beginning his [second] prologue the
way he does. First, he does it to situate the Advent of Jesus in concrete
historical time and place. He does so by listing historical political leaders
in a formal classical style. (For other prologues that begin like this second
prologue, see Jeremiah 1:1, Hosea 1:1 [“The word of the Lord that came to Hosea
son of Beeri, in the days of Kings Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah of Judah,
and in the days of King Jeroboam son of Joash of Israel.”], and Amos 1:1). Luke
has a profound sense of history, and his heilsgeschichte,
or “salvation history,” encompasses all people, not just Jews in Judea. Mark
subsumed all of history, even the words and deeds of Jesus, under the Gospel
kerygma. In Matthew, “Jesus was not presented as a figure in world history, but as its conclusion.”[4]
But for Luke, this is a story of history itself breaking forth. All of history
is taken up into the event of Jesus. He believes that a new age is breaking in
in world history. In a sense, Matthew and Mark do also, but for Luke, it breaks
in in stages (see the three stages below).
A second goal of
Luke’s was to write in such a way as to smash the sacred and profane abruptly
into each other almost for the shock value. Notice how the descriptions go from
the most powerful (who in God’s world are weak) to the most weak (who in God’s
world have the most power). “In the fifteenth year of...governor of...ruler of...ruler
of...during the high priest of...and of...the word of God came (not to them,
but) to John, son of nobody you’ve heard of, in the wilderness” (Luke 3:1-2). (Take that you
pompous despotic wind bags!) The word of God shows up (by design) in the most
unlikely passages and places. Placing the lowly John here proclaiming the word
of God also shows the reader just who exactly is in charge.
The rest of the
world knew of none of this. Josephus’ references to John stress almost totally
John’s political background. Herod was afraid that John’s followers would rise
up “for it seemed that they might to go any length on his advice.”[5]
On the other hand, the gospels seem almost totally interested in his moral
teachings as the cause for his imprisonment.
Conzelmann,[6]
and others following him, divide Luke’s theological/historical understanding
into three epochs, or periods.
1. Promise (the time of the
Hebrew scriptures, up to chapter 3 of the gospel).
2. Jesus (the time of the
gospel itself).
3. Church (Acts).
He further divides the Jesus period (#2) into three
parts,
1. The struggle with Satan
(chs. 3:1-4:13 [up through the temptation and just before Jesus’ sermon in the
synagogue in Nazareth]),
2. The “satanless” time
(4:14-22:2, “When Satan had finished every test, he departed from him until an
opportune time” [Luke 4:13]).
3. The final struggle with
Satan (Luke 22:2-24:53, “Then Satan entered into Judas called Iscariot....”
[Luke 22:3 ff.]).
Today’s reading is, of course, from the beginning of
the “Jesus period” within the larger gospel, and the beginning of the “conflict
with Satan” period within that.
There are
three themes, important for the rest of the Gospel, found here.[7]
1. The word of God (rëma tou theou).
Here it is the initial presence of God with John, his prophetic call (prophetes, a “word speaker,” someone who
speaks on behalf of another more powerful one). Later it will mean the content of the call (Acts 2:14, 5:20). And
eventually more cosmically, the Gospel itself, the logos tou theou. There, it is the embodiment of the teaching of the
church (Acts 6:2, 12:24).
2. Repentance (metanoias). Part of the
critical, keywords in the phrase, “Baptism of repentance for the forgiveness
of sins,” John’s work and words not only prepare the way for Jesus, but also for
the future work of the church. “John’s action serves as the prototype of the
church’s preaching of baptism and its declaration that in Jesus, God forgives
human sins.”[8] He is
portrayed here as doing what they would later be charged to do. The message is,
“here, folks, is the model of how to proclaim Jesus. How ya doin’ on that
yourself?”
3. Salvation of God. (soterion). This is the
central theme of the Gospel: Salvation for all creation. Note especially the
lines of Zechariah in Luke 1:76-77, “And you, will be called the prophet of the
Most High; for you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways, to give
knowledge of salvation to his people
by the forgiveness of their sins.” And Lk 2:29-30 “‘Master, now you are
dismissing your servant in peace…for my eyes have seen your salvation.’”
In the context
of the Gospel, John is portrayed by Luke as the forerunner for Luke’s theology:
forgiveness and salvation. In the context of Advent, John tells Christians of
the need to be prepared for the re-presenting of the Christ: Prepare the
highways, make them serviceable, repair the things that are broken or get in
the way of his coming. Tear down the walls.
[1] So Joseph Fitzmyer (Gospel According to Luke: Anchor Bible Series,
Vol. 28, [Doubleday], 1981, p. 450) though Craddock (Harper’s Bible Commentary [New York: Harper and Row, Publishers,
Inc.], 1988, p. 1010) disagrees.
[2] Reginald Fuller, The Atonement (Doubleday, 1987), p.
95).
[3] Fitzmyer, op. cit., p. 452.
[4] Rudolph Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, Vol. 2, (Scribners
and Sons, 1935), p. 126).
[5] Josephus, Antiquities,18.5,2.
[6] Hans Conzelmann, The Theology of Luke, Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1974).
[7] Following Beverly Gaventa, Texts for Preaching (W/JKP, 1994), p.
18.
[8] Ibid., p. 18.
The Famous Isaiah
Misquote Story
Luke has John quote loosely
from Isaiah 40:3-5. Mark, his primary source, quotes both Isaiah and Malachi
(our first reading), while calling both of them “Isaiah.” Luke untangles the
quotation by removing Malachi, and then he goes on to use a larger portion of the
Isaiah passage. A careful read, however shows that he not only quotes it, but
misquotes it in an interesting way. All four Gospels cite the Isaiah passage
and all make the same error in the citation. The reason is that they all are
quoting from the lxx, translated
the Hebrew into Greek incorrectly. The Isaiah passage reads:
“A voice cries out:
‘In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord,
make straight in the
desert a highway for our God.’”
Notice that Luke
(and the others) have the voice
crying in the wilderness, not crying
out about the wilderness. It becomes
not a sentence about the wilderness,
but a sentence that takes place in
the wilderness.
“The Isaiah
quotation sets forth one of the key theological themes that runs throughout the
Gospel of Luke, what some have called the
theology of reversal. Isaiah is prophesying a messianic age which Luke sees
as being fulfilled in the coming of Jesus. Isaiah describes the messianic age
with images of reversal, valleys lifted up, mountains brought low, the crooked
made straight and the rough made smooth. This symbolizes for Luke the leveling
of society in the messianic age, the rich and powerful being brought low, while
the poor are lifted up.[34]
Detailed exegetical commentary
on the passage
3:1 “ In the fifteenth year of the reign of Emperor Tiberius...”
Tiberius
was the stepson of Augustus Caesar, and was disliked by all of Rome because he
wasn’t really blood lineage. He only became leader because Augustus was unable
to produce a male offspring, so the stepson had to do. There were numerous
attempts to overthrow him during his reign.
“when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea...”
He rose
to this position from a “middle manager” position in the Roman Government. He came
up from the ranks by beating everyone else down. Ruthless. “Knowing that his
hold on Judea was tenuous, he made up for his weakness by periodically
unleashing a reign of terror through his soldiers on the citizenry.” The rule
of Pontius Pilate is also found in the writings of Josephus, J. W. 2.9.2-4 (2.169-77) and Ant.18.3.1 (18.55-59).
“and Herod was ruler of Galilee...”
Not Herod the King, but his son. Equally
unsavory character. He was later deposed and beheaded for his attempts to get
himself appointed real king. He ruled from 4 B.C.-AD 39, sharing the rule of
his father’s realm with his two brothers. One brother, Archelaus (Matt 2:22)
was banished in AD 6 and died in AD 18; the other brother, Herod Philip
(mentioned next) died in AD 34.
“Ruler,” tetrarch.
Originally the title for ‘a ruler of a fourth of
the territory’ or ‘one of four rulers.’ In Hellenistic and Roman times, however,
it is applied somewhat loosely to petty rulers of dependent states; a tetrarch
is lower in status than an ethnarch, who, in turn, is lower than a king. The
term occurs seven times in the nt,
with three of these occurrences in Luke 3:1. The other four occurrences refer
to Herod Antipas (Matt. 14:1; Luke 3:19; 9:7; Acts 13:1). On the other hand,
Herod Antipas is called ‘king’ in Mark 6:14, 26, suggesting that some
equivalence may have existed between the two titles.[35]
“and his brother Philip ruler of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis,
and Lysanias ruler of Abilene...”
Not
as much known about these two probable brothers of Herod. But we do know that
they fought over property of Judea. Fought to keep Israel fractured and divided
among themselves. Fought for the spoils of the country. Each had their own
demands for power which prevented a united kingdom. A legacy we still
experience in the middle east even today.
“Phillip,”
refers to Herod Philip, son of Herod the Great and brother of Herod Antipas.
Philip ruled as tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis from 4 B.C.-AD 34.
“Lysanias”: It may not be historically accurate to list Lysanias here because
Josephus (Ant. XXVII. I) tells of a
Lysanias who was King of Abila up to b.c.e.
36 as the one referred to by Luke, but with the wrong date. But recently an
inscription has been found on the site of Abilene with mention of “Lysanias the
tetrarch” and the stone is dated at about the time to which Luke refers, so it
may be correct.[36] But
then who knows? (And who cares?)
2 “during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas...”
Luke
is noting in passing the division even within the house of God: Caiaphus was
Annas’ son-in-law, and supposedly succeeded him in 18 c.e. but the older man never quite gave up the reigns. Like
a preacher who retires but never leaves the congregation and still controls
things from behind the scenes.
“the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness...”
Note
the simplicity of John in contrast to the powerful kings and rulers with whom
he is compared.
Zechariah: Note also that no other Gospel mentions
Zechariah. If the so-called “first Prologue” had originally been a part of the
Gospel, then Luke probably would not have seen the need to re-introduce John as
the “son of Zechariah,” something that had just been discussed in great detail
in the previous chapter.
Wilderness: “The desert is not only a geographical reference; it also
recalls the place of Israel’s formation as God’s covenant people and hence
implies a return to God. John’s ministry centered in the Jordan Valley where he
preached a baptism of repentance for forgiveness of sins (cf. Mark 1:4). This
baptism differs from proselyte baptism that was for non-Jews, and Qumran
baptism that was a repeated act of cleansing. Repentance and forgiveness of
sins constitute the gospel for Luke (24:47)””[37]
Definitions of these three key terms (from Strong’s and others, plus my comments)
“proclaiming a baptism of
repentance for the forgiveness of sins”
One model for a sermon on this text may be to just walk through these four important terms one by one and make a homiletical comment on each one. So, if you choose to go that route, here are brief definition s of each one to get you started.
Proclaiming (kerusso), to preach, publish, herald (as a public crier),
especially the gospel, preach (-er). Louw-Nida says it is "
Baptism (baptisma),:
1) immersion,
submersion
1a) of calamities
and afflictions with which one is quite overwhelmed
1b) of John’s
baptism, that purification rite by which men on confessing their sins were
bound to spiritual reformation, obtained the pardon of their past sins and
became qualified for the benefits of the Messiah’s kingdom soon to be set up.
This was valid Christian baptism, as this was the only baptism the apostles
received and it is not recorded anywhere that they were ever Rebaptized after
Pentecost.
1c) of Christian
baptism; a rite of immersion in water as commanded by Christ, by which one
after confessing his sins and professing his faith in Christ, having been born
again by the Holy Spirit unto a new life, identifies publicly with the
fellowship of Christ and the church.
In Rom. 6:3 Paul
states we are “baptized unto death” meaning that we are not only dead to our
former ways, but they are buried. To return to them is as unthinkable for a
Christian as for one to dig up a dead corpse! In Moslem countries a new
believer has little trouble with Moslems until he is publicly baptized. It is
then, that the Moslems’ know he means business, and then the persecution starts.[38]
Repentance (metanoea) a change of mind, as it appears to one who repents, of a
purpose he has formed or of something he has done.
According to Vine’s, to
translate metanoea as “repentance” is
“possibly the worst translation in the New Testament.”[39]
Louw and Nida’s rough definition would be, “to
change one’s way of life as the result of a complete change of thought and
attitude with regard to sin and righteousness - ‘to repent, to change one’s
way, repentance.’”[40] The trouble is that the
English word “repent” means “to be sorry again (repeatedly).” It comes from the
Latin (impersonal). John did not call on the people to be sorry, but to change
their mental attitudes and conduct. It has been hopelessly mistranslated. “The
tragedy of it is that we have no one English word that reproduces exactly the
meaning and atmosphere of the Greek word. The Greek has a word meaning to be sorry
(metamelomai) which is exactly our
English word repent and it is used of Judas (Matthew 27:3). John was a new
prophet with the call of the old prophets: “Repent ye!” (Joel 2:12; Isaiah
55:7; Ezekiel 33:11, 15).[41]
Forgiveness (aphesis)
1) release from bondage or imprisonment
2) forgiveness or pardon, of sins (letting them go as if they had never been committed), remission of the penalty
of sins (hamartia)
1) equivalent to
264
1a) to be without
a share in
1b) to miss the
mark
1c) to err, be
mistaken
1d) to miss or
wander from the path of uprightness and honor, to do or go wrong
1e) to wander
from the law of God, violate God’s law, sin
2) that which is
done wrong, sin, an offence, a violation of the divine law in thought or in act
3) collectively, the complex or aggregate of
sins committed either by a single person or by many.
[1]mal'ak;
from an unused root meaning to dispatch as a deputy; a messenger; specifically
of God, i.e. an angel (also a prophet, priest or teacher), ambassador, angel,
king, messenger.
[2] HarperCollins Study Bible (1993), p. 1328.
[3] James Newsome, Texts for Preaching: A Lectionary Commentary
Based on the NRSV, Year C (Louisville: WJK, 1994), p. 12.
[4] 1:10 Day of Christ. See note on 1 Corinthians
1:4-9.
[5] Or because I hold you in my heart
[6] Gk in grace. Charis, from chairo, to be “cheer”-ful, i.e. calmly
happy or well-off. Charis implies graciousness
(as gratifying), the divine influence upon the heart, and its reflection in the
life; gratitude, favour, gift, joy, pleasure.
[7] “My imprisonment.” A
reminder that Paul writes this letter while in prison (Leander Keck, Cambridge Study Bible.
[8] “Gospel,” euaggelion, from the same root as euaggelizo (to bring good news). A good
message, i.e. the gospel.
[9] Compassion, splagchnon. The Greek word refers to the
emotions, and is here a term of deep affection. Probably derives from a
strengthened form of splen, (the “spleen”),
which implies intestine, bowels; inward affection, mercy, moved to pity or sympathy.
[10] Keck, Cambridge Study Bible.
[11] “Reign,” hegemonia, from the word for “government,”
i.e. (in time) official term, reign. It’s where we get the English word, “hegemony.”
[12] “Ruler,” tetrarch, a governor of the fourth part of a region. Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos) 1995.
[13] “Word.” The term translated “word”
here is not logos which is laden with
heavy theological weight, but rhema,
which means an utterance, a matter or topic, a saying. Because of its
simplicity, some conservative commentators have seen the possibility in it of
reference to the call of God to John to begin ministry. I don’t see that, but
it may just be me.
[14] “wilderness,” or “desert,” eremos. The Synoptics differ widely as
to details, but all three locate him “in the wilderness,” cf. Mark 1:4; Matthew
3:1 (adding “of Judea”). See more on note m.
[15] “And he.” “Here” (kai) is not translated because of
differences between Greek and English style. Due to the length and complexity
of the Greek sentence, a new sentence was started here in the translation.
[16] “Repent,” metanoeite. To think differently or
afterwards, i.e. reconsider, repent, reversal (of a decision).
[17] Aphesis, freedom, pardon, deliverance, forgiveness, liberty,
remission. The word (aphesis) “occurs
in Luke more frequently than in all the other New Testament writers combined”
(Vincent’s Word Studies). In medical
writers it is used for the relaxing of disease.
[18] hamartia, sin, offense, sinful. Originally from hamartano, to miss the mark (and so not
share in the prize), i.e. to err (especially morally), to sin, for your faults,
offend, sin, trespass.
A
baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins was a call for preparation
for the arrival of salvation. To participate in this baptism was a recognition
of the need for God’s forgiveness with a sense that one needed to live
differently as a response to it (Luke 3:10-14).
[20] “Crying,” boao. To call, shout (for help or in a
tumultuous way), cry out.
[21] Wilderness or “desert.” The
syntactic position of the phrase “in the wilderness” is unclear in both Luke
and the LXX. The MT favors taking it with “Prepare a way,” while the LXX takes
it with “a voice crying out.” If the former, the meaning would be that such
preparation should be done “in the wilderness.” If the latter, the meaning
would be that the place from where John’s ministry went forth was “in the
wilderness.” There are Jewish materials that support both renderings: 1QS 8:14
and 9.19-20 support the MT while certain Rabbinic texts favor the LXX (see D.
L. Bock, Luke [BECNT], 1:290-91(cited
in Vincent, Word Studies). While it
is not absolutely necessary that a call in the wilderness led to a response in
the wilderness, it is not unlikely that such would be the case. Thus, in the
final analysis, the net effect between the two choices may be minimal. In any
case, a majority of commentators and translations take “in the wilderness” with
“The voice of one crying” (D. L. Bock; R. H. Stein, Luke [NAC], 129; I. H. Marshall, Luke [NIGTC], 136 (cited in Vincent, Word Studies).
[22] Valley (pharagx). Here only in
N.T., though in the LXX and
ancient Greek. A ravine or valley hedged in by precipices.
[23]This call to “make paths
straight” in this context is probably an allusion to preparation through
repentance as the verb the verb ποιέω (poieō)
reappears in vv. 8, 10, 11, 12, 14 (NET).
[24] All flesh (πᾶσα σὰρξ, pãsa sàrx). In the NT, this word is only
used of the human race. However, in the LXX
it also is occasionally used of animals. The figurative language speaks of the
whole creation preparing for the arrival of a major figure, so all obstacles to
his coming are removed. It is like creation’s rolling out the red carpet.
[25]The salvation of God (σωτήριον
τοῦ θεοῦ, to sotērion tou theou). The
saving act of God. This phrase is a good description of a key element of Luke’s
Gospel which has in mind the message of Christ for all humanity. It is the
universal Gospel. Cf., Luke 1:76-77, Luke 2:29-30. It is a quotation from Isa
40:3-5. Though all the synoptic gospels use this citation from Isaiah, only
Luke cites the material of vv. 5-6. His goal may well be to get to the
declaration of v. 6, where all humanity (i.e., all nations) see God’s salvation
(see also Luke 24:47).
[26] So Joseph Fitzmyer (Gospel According to Luke: Anchor Bible Series,
Vol. 28, [Doubleday], 1981, p. 450) though Craddock (Harper’s Bible Commentary [New York: Harper and Row, Publishers,
Inc.], 1988, p. 1010) disagrees.
[27] Reginald Fuller, The Atonement (Doubleday, 1987), p.
95).
[28] Fitzmyer, op. cit., p. 452.
[29] Rudolph Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, Vol. 2, (Scribners
and Sons, 1935), p. 126).
[30] Josephus, Antiquities,18.5,2.
[31] Hans Conzelmann, The Theology of Luke, Philadelphia:
Fortress Press, 1974).
[32] Following Beverly Gaventa, Texts for Preaching (W/JKP, 1994), p.
18.
[33] Ibid., p. 18.
[34] J. Christian Wilson, in Lectionary Homiletics, Vol. IX, Number
1, December, 1997, p.2.
[35]Achtemeier, Paul J., Th.D., Harper’s Bible Dictionary, (San Francisco: Harper and Row,
Publishers, Inc.) 1985.
[36] William Blake MacCauley, Luke the Historian in the Light of Research (London:
Dinsmore Press, 1937), pp. 167f.
[37]Mays, James Luther, Ph.D., Editor, Harper’s Bible Commentary, (New York: Harper and Row, Publishers,
Inc.) 1988.
[39] Archibald Thomas Robertson, Word Pictures In The New
Testament, Vol. 2: Luke & John (Nashville: Broadman Press, 1937, 1997).
[40]Louw, Johannes P. and Nida, Eugene A., Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament
based on Semantic Domains, (New York: United Bible Societies) 1988, 1989.
[41] Robertson, Word Pictures.
