Luke Chapter 3
Starts like Matt 3 and Mark 1 with the ministry of John. But Luke timestamps it. The 15th year of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, Herod tetrarch of Galilee, Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and Trachonitis, Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene, Annas and Caiaphas high priests. Surely this setup did not overlap for a very long time. Should narrow it down a lot. But...per MSB, it only narrows it down to sometime between AD 25 and 29.
This verse:
3 And he went into all the region around the Jordan, proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. [Luk 3:3 ESV]
Both Mark and Luke refer to what John did as "a baptism of repentance". Neither uses the definite article. The way they phrase it seems to be an effort to distinguish John's baptism from other baptisms extant in that time. Perhaps baptism had become a bit of a fad, with lots of people - preachers and such - ritualizing it to tie their followers to them.
2022 - Here is the last part of the verse above, as it appears in the mGNT:
βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν
And here it is in the TR:
βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν
On this they agree. As written, it would translate baptism of repentance for forgiveness of sins.
That word eis, translated "for" is the key to all the differences of opinion on baptism. It shows up every time. It is just a little preposition, yet it causes no end of problems.
I went to the grocery store for milk and eggs. To obtain the milk and eggs, the trip was necessary. This is the way those who see baptism as necessary to salvation understand the word "eis" in this phrase. If you want milk and eggs, you have to go to the grocery store. That's the way you obtain them.
He went to Washington DC for his term of office. In this sense, he was elected, and BECAUSE of that change of status, he went to DC. That's where you go to discharge your acquired responsibilities.
These two phrases are similar to an explanation I heard someplace else, but they are not exactly the same examples. I don't remember the exact ones used, but they were better than these. Nevertheless, these do convey the differences. There is "for" as in "to obtain", and there is "for" as in "because of". In this verse, it is hard to distinguish between the two.
I want to work on better exemplars of each use of "for", and I want to put in the wording from other places. I think there are several where it is obvious that it is the second interpretation, the "because of" interpretation, that is obviously correct. I could do that by looking up all the uses of baptisma.
2022 - Later:
"34 The people of Reuben and the people of Gad called the altar Witness, "For," they said, "it is a witness between us that the LORD is God."" [Jos 22:34 ESV].
"For", as used here, surely and indisputably means "because". It was named "Witness", because it was already a witness.
2023 - There is no definite article before baptisma. Perhaps this is a small matter, but if baptism was necessary for salvation, if it was the only door, then wouldn't we expect the definite article??? Without the definite article, this is an unspecified baptism. It implies that there were several things people were being baptized over at the time, and John added another. A baptism. It does not say that John introduced the only baptism that really did any good. It does not call Jesus the one door and baptism the one key. Nothing along those lines at all. I have a hard time agreeing that this verse requires baptism for salvation.
2024 - As a good study, look up every occurrence of the word "eis" in Luke and Acts. Compile them all. Determine which ones can be read "because of", which can be read "to acquire", and see how many of each there are. There will also likely be some like this verse where we don't know. This is a statistical analysis of how this particular writer uses this particular word. And it is very relevant because we have a LOT from this writer - we have a statistically valid sample. Hmm...how big a study would this be?
eis is Strong's G1519. In KJV, the word is interpreted in many ways. In some places it isn't interpreted at all, but is "rolled into" the translation. So there would be more possibilities to consider than the three listed above. Even so, it is possible to do this study.
Do I need to do it? No, not really, because I know that adding baptism to the gospel is inconsistent with many verses. Baptism is a very very strong should, but it is not baptism or the highway.
So the question becomes, why spend so much time on a statistical study unlikely to change anyone's mind?
2021 - The quote from Isaiah in vs 4 is punctuated to make it seem like it should read as "The voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord."
But in Isaiah 40:3, it is punctuated like this: A voice cries: "In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord".
I guess they essentially say the same thing, but surely the emphasis is different in the two passages. I just think it is interesting how different they seem, depending on the punctuation. Perhaps the idea is that Isaiah, from so long ago, was telling where the message would be proclaimed, and was interested in the comparison to Elijah's ministry, though Elijah is not mentioned in Isa 40. In the NT, the emphasis is on the message itself, and less on the location, because everyone knew where John's ministry was carried out.
And this, from John's message:
8 Bear fruits in keeping with repentance. And do not begin to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' For I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. [Luk 3:8 ESV]
Fruit in keeping with repentance. Clearly, fruit does not save, but indicates salvation. Salvation is not by works, and not by inheritance. These two are likely what the Pharisees taught, leaving repentance completely out.
Luke also quotes Isaiah, but more extensively. In fact, each of the last two added a little to the original quote in Matthew. Perhaps Matthew's audience would have know the whole chapter by heart anyway! John's message is portrayed the same as in Matthew, and a little more extensive than what Mark said. Luke tells us that John's message included instruction on how to live their lives. He was, after all, shunning the religious elite of the time, so the people asked him how they were to go forward. He tells them to be charitable with their earthly goods. Not to abuse their authority to make themselves rich. Not to go beyond the force that is necessary to do their duty. He tells them to be good people, and to look at others as good people.
2021 - John's instructions on how to live life are in Luke 3:10-14. He addresses "the crowd", and tells them to be charitable with food and clothing, that is, with life's basic necessities. Don't let people freeze, don't let people starve. There is nothing about everyone having a color TV, or everyone having a Lexus. The idea was to be generous with the poor, and perhaps beyond that, to free them from worrying about freezing and starving so that some of their physical resources could be turned to finding work, to supporting themselves, and so on. If you are worried about where your next meal will come from, you are unlikely to plan for long term housing. This seems very instructional. Perhaps even a FB quote. This is very different from what socialism says. It is very different from equality of outcome.
Then the tax collectors are addressed. This would seem to have been a small group, but nevertheless they are addressed specifically. Maybe they represent those in government with much discretion. Maybe the point is about how Christians should act on behalf of a corrupt and Godless government. Tax collectors are not really judiciary, so perhaps we should think of them as the executive. Their job was to see that citizens paid their taxes - supported their government financially. I really don't think I've zeroed in on this exactly. John's reply was that they were to bring integrity to their offices. They were not to abuse their power. They were not to be as corrupt as their government was, even though they could. They were to hold to a higher standard of behavior.
2024 - They were to hold themselves to a higher standard than "what was legal", and do what was moral. The law is more lax about what is allowed than the Law of God.
Then the soldiers. Enforcement. This does appear to be the executive, moreso than the tax collectors. Maybe the tax collectors are judiciary. The potential for grave injustice was certainly in their hands. The soldiers are law enforcement. The message to them was also to be more honest than the government they served. They were not to use their position of authority to extort money (like our confiscation without due process laws now encourage them to do), or to have people charged with crimes they did not commit. These soldiers could take anyone to jail, on their word alone, and ruin lives. You'd almost have to pay them off if they threatened, the consequences were just too severe. John told them to reign in these temptations, to do what it took to earn their paychecks, and not be greedy for more. My goodness! Could our government officials use this message?
So instead of the multiple laws that the Pharisees said they must follow, every day, John just said to be good. This goes along with what I was thinking about the differences between Judaism as practiced in Jesus' time, and the church in our time. The rules just went away.
2022 - This verse:
"16 ...He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire." [Luk 3:16 ESV]. Using the "to obtain" translation of for, this says only those Jesus baptized with the Holy Spirit and fire were saved. You had to have that done in order to be saved. Yet that happens in Acts 1 to the 12 apostles - the 11 and Matthias. Are we to believe that none of them was truly saved until the day that happened? They weren't saved when they went to Galilee and received Jesus' teaching? They weren't saved when they elected Matthias to take Judas' place? They'd have gone to hell if the Romans had found them and summarily killed them? They had to wait for the Holy Spirit and fire to be saved?
2022 - This verse:
"17 His winnowing fork is in his hand, to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire."" [Luk 3:17 ESV] Does this verse connect with Rev 14?
OR, is John talking about the rapture, when the saved are gathered to him in the clouds and the rest of the planet, save for the Jews who will endure that time, moves toward eternity in fire? If so, it would not be connected with Rev 14 at all, but Rev 6.
"14 Then I looked, and behold, a white cloud, and seated on the cloud one like a son of man, with a golden crown on his head, and a sharp sickle in his hand. 15 And another angel came out of the temple, calling with a loud voice to him who sat on the cloud, "Put in your sickle, and reap, for the hour to reap has come, for the harvest of the earth is fully ripe." 16 So he who sat on the cloud swung his sickle across the earth, and the earth was reaped. 17 Then another angel came out of the temple in heaven, and he too had a sharp sickle. 18 And another angel came out from the altar, the angel who has authority over the fire, and he called with a loud voice to the one who had the sharp sickle, "Put in your sickle and gather the clusters from the vine of the earth, for its grapes are ripe." 19 So the angel swung his sickle across the earth and gathered the grape harvest of the earth and threw it into the great winepress of the wrath of God. 20 And the winepress was trodden outside the city, and blood flowed from the winepress, as high as a horse's bridle, for 1,600 stadia." [Rev 14:14-20 ESV]
This seems to show the good wheat - the fully ripe - being harvested first, and then in vs 18, the angel in charge of fire, gathers the grape harvest - a different harvest in all respects from the wheat harvest, and this receives the wrath of God. We have not seen this metaphor previously, where wheat that is eaten is the good part, and wine that is drunk is the bad. So it is hard to make too much of this, and we must consider that any conclusions about what this means are speculative. BUT, we ought to give it some thought.
Certainly this suggests a detailed look at all the "wheat gathering" references in the NT. Didn't Jesus offer several parables about wheat? Some 30, some 60, some a 100 comes to mind for one.
Later 2022 -
The wheat refers to those saved during the church age, mostly Gentiles. They will be harvested at the rapture, and the tares left to be burned.
The Jews are always the vine. Gentiles are grafted in, but the Jews are the cultivated vine. These Jews, like the tares, WILL go through the wrath, to be trampled and trodden, to be tested and tried, to be processed from grapes into the better product, the wine. Note that both the wheat in Luke and the grapes in Revelation are gathered in. But the grapes stay outside the city, because the M of L is in control of the city. And the trodding is about the persecution of the Jews, the attempted genocide of the Jews carried out in all the world at the direction of the M of L, and very many - millions and millions - will die during the wrath of God phase of tgt. Seen this way, John's words, as recorded in Luke, make perfect sense.
2022 - One more thought about this way of looking at things..
Gentiles are wheat, Jews are grapes.
We are the church, they are the temple.
We are the bread, they are the wine.
We are the body, they are the blood.
In the Lord's supper, we eat the body and drink the blood.
Is this in some way the explanation for why, beginning with the Lord's supper, it was ok to consume the blood of the sacrifice? How does this all fit?
Jesus is the sacrifice, both for Gentile and Jew. He is the one in whom the whole world is one.
The life of the flesh is in the blood. The body - Gentiles - cannot be made alive without the blood - the Jews who came first.
We MUST drink the blood, as a way of making the flesh alive.
Hmm...some of this sounds pretty good, some seems a little sketchy. There is a lot of truth here I think, I just don't yet quite comprehend it all.
2024 - Lk 3:15-17 are about the power that Jesus will have when he comes. He will ultimately separate ALL MEN into wheat and chaff. Those who believe in him are the wheat. On Jesus' say so, on his judgment, the eternity of EACH person will be decided. He has ALL the power. John was telling them to look for this one that was yet future, even though they were already looking to God. He was telling them that another would decide, where they had always looked to God alone. No wonder so many rejected this message.
John pulls no punches, even where royalty is concerned, and gets himself arrested by Herod the tetrarch.
Luke has a very abbreviated account of Jesus' baptism.
Vss 23-38 are the "other" genealogy of Jesus. This one is in reverse order, from Jesus' supposed father Joseph, all the way back to Adam. MSB says Luke's genealogy is that of Mary, which makes it reconcilable with the one in Matthew.
2023 - This last verse in the genealogy: 38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God. [Luk 3:38 ESV]. As used here by Luke, son of God can refer to someone directly created by God. Or perhaps to an original of its kind. Wonder if this applies in any way to the sons of God who went in to human women in the OT? Does this imply that God created other "humans" besides Adam's race, and it was these who had hyper-abilities? Not angels, but not humans either. They couldn't have been immortal or they'd still be around...Way off the subject, just an idea.
2025 - I don't believe any other religion tries, attempts, or pretends to trace the genealogy of any of it's patriarchs or heroes or even its god all the way back to the first generation of created man on earth. Only Christianity and Judaism do this. If one decides that it is just a history of the religion and goes back not to the origin of man but to the founder of monotheism, then one must admit that the Bible begins on day one with a misrepresentation of what it really is. I do not believe that the Bible begins with a deception. Even euphemistically, I don't believe it starts with a misconception.
2025 - Heard an argument yesterday saying that the moon gets about an inch further away every year. Not sure how scientific the guy was, but he said if you go the other way, and go back 1.2 billion years, the moon and earth would have been very close together. The tides would have been tremendous, and I would add that if it was that close it would have been sucking atmosphere over to itself also, depleting what was originally here. I imagine this is where the whole idea of the moon coming in from elsewhere and getting trapped further out in earth's gravitational field comes from. Seems also like the best possible argument that it did not "pop out" of the molten earth to start with either. I would bet good money that no scientist has done the math showing that if the earth was as old as science says it is, then the moon couldn't be here. It would have "ruined everything" when it arrived. Just think of the complexity of the orbital perturbations that would have occurred if something that big just showed up that close to us. That big, and, unlike any present day asteroids of which we have knowledge, it showed up already round!