J. The boy Jesus in the temple (2:41–52)
J. The boy Jesus in the temple (2:41–52)
We know nothing of Jesus’ boyhood apart from this one incident which Luke alone relates.
41. For his parents, see on verse 27. All male Jews were required to attend at the temple three times in the year, at Passover, Pentecost and Tabernacles (Exod. 23:14–17). The Mishnah expressly exempts women from the obligation (Hagigah 1:1), but some rabbis appear to have thought they should go up and some, of course, did. Attendance at all three festivals was difficult with Jews scattered all over the Roman world and beyond, but many made the effort once a year. It was Joseph and Mary’s custom to go up at Passover, the feast that commemorated the deliverance of the nation from Egypt (Exod. 12).
42–45. They followed their custom on the occasion when Jesus was twelve years old. It was at thirteen years of age that a Jewish boy could become a ‘son of the commandment’ or full member of the synagogue (cf. Mishnah, Aboth 5:21; Niddah 5:6). He would then assume all the responsibilities implied in his circumcision. For some observances at any rate the Mishnah provides that a boy should be taken to the observance a year or two before he turned thirteen so that he might be prepared (Yoma 8:4), and there may have been something of this on the present occasion (though it is equally possible that Jesus went up every year; we do not know). On this occasion Jesus was left behind when his parents set out for home. In a large ‘caravan’ (Rieu) parents might well not know where a child was. If the later practice was followed, the women and small children went ahead and the men followed with the bigger boys. Joseph and Mary may each have thought that Jesus was with the other. For a full day they journeyed, looking for him among the travellers before they concluded he must still be in Jerusalem and so returned thither. The description of Jesus as the boy, pais, may be in intentional contrast with ‘baby’, brephos, and ‘little boy’, paidion, in verses 16, 40. There is a record of development.
46–47. After three days probably means three days from the time they first missed Jesus. It should not have taken three days to find him in a small city like Jerusalem, all the more so since he was in a prominent place, not hidden away. They found him among the teachers in the temple precincts. This was a customary place for teaching and evidently there was no problem in an unknown boy attaching himself to the circle. He was listening to them and asking them questions, which indicates a thirst for knowledge. There would have been few good teachers in Nazareth, and Jesus was making the most of the opportunity of learning while he was in the capital city. The educational system of the day seems to have put emphasis on the discussion of problems (SB). This gave scope for a bright pupil both to ask and answer questions. The teachers were amazed at his understanding and his answers.
48. Joseph and Mary were astonished. Clearly they had expected nothing like this. There is reproach in Mary’s question, Son, why have you treated us so? and in her reference to their anxious search.
49–50. For Jesus it was a matter of surprise that there should have been any difficulty. The natural place for him to be was in my Father’s house (Jesus’ first words in this Gospel). The Greek could be rendered ‘about my Father’s business’ (AV). But RSV is probably right, for the Father’s business could be done in many places, and his parents’ problem was where he was, not what he was doing. His answer shows that thus early Jesus had a clear idea of the importance of the service of God and probably also that he stood in a special relationship to God. The expression my Father is noteworthy and no parallel appears to be cited (the Jews added ‘in heaven’ or used ‘our Father’ or the like).7 The first recorded words of the Messiah are then a recognition of his unique relationship to God and of the necessity (must ) of his being in the Father’s house. There is a Jewish midrash which speaks of the Messiah as knowing God directly, without human assistance, a distinction shared only by Abraham, Job and Hezekiah (Midrash Rabbah, Numbers xiv. 2). But Luke is saying more than this. Jesus had a relationship to God shared by no other. Joseph and Mary did not understand this. They learnt what Jesus’ Messiahship meant bit by bit.
51. As a dutiful son Jesus returned to Nazareth and was obedient to them (this is Luke’s last reference to Joseph; was he dead before Jesus’ ministry began?). It was not yet time for him to engage on his mission, so he remained in the home. As before with the shepherds (19), Mary did not forget. She might not understand, but she remembered.
52. Jesus continued to advance intellectually and physically. In favour with God and man (cf. 1 Sam. 2:26; Prov. 3:4) points to spiritual and social progress. In the similar summary in the case of John the Baptist (1:80) there is nothing equivalent to in favour with … man. Probably there was an early difference in personality. John’s sternness precluded him from anything like attractiveness.
2. The ministry of John the Baptist (3:1–20)
All the Gospels make it clear that the ministry of John the Baptist prepared the way for that of Jesus and that it was characterized by a call to repentance. But Luke alone tells us how John replied to questioners anxious about the way repentance affected their particular callings. His answers are simple and practical, though without the depth of insight that marked Jesus’ teaching. Where John, for example, did not go past individual acts, Jesus called for ‘nothing less than the complete surrender of the soul to the indwelling power of the divine Spirit’ (Manson, on 3:10–14). John’s answers, however, reveal a recognition that each calling in life has its own temptations and that it is the mark of the truly penitent to resist them.
1. Luke’s elaborate dating is set at the beginning of John’s ministry (not that of Jesus). It thus reflects the critical importance of the revival of prophecy. And it sets what follows firmly in the context of secular history. As Augustus died on 19 August AD 14, the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar was August AD 28 – August AD 29. Some argue that the starting-point should be that of Tiberius’s coregentship with Augustus, AD 11–12; but no example appears to be cited of anyone ever dating from this point. Dates are always from the time Tiberius became emperor. Others hold that Luke is using the Syrian method whereby the year began on 1 October. The period 19 August – 30 September would be counted as the first year of the reign, with the second beginning on 1 October. This brings us to the year beginning on 1 October AD 27. If he followed a similar Jewish system the year would be that beginning Nisan 1 (March – April) AD 28.1 It does not seem that we can get closer than about AD 27–29.
Pontius Pilate was governor. This word is quite general, but an inscription shows that his title was ‘prefect’ (not ‘procurator’, as has often been held). Judea was part of the region assigned by Herod the Great to Archelaus, but he ruled so badly that his subjects petitioned the Romans to remove him. They did so and installed their own governor in AD 6. Pilate held this office AD 26–36. Herod is Herod Antipas, son of Herod the Great. He became tetrarch of Galilee and Perea on his father’s death in 4 BC and held office until AD 39. He thus ruled during most of Jesus’ lifetime over the territory in which most of Jesus’ time was spent. The word tetrarch strictly means a ruler over a fourth part of a region, but it came to be used of any petty prince (Herod the Great in fact divided his kingdom into three parts). Herod’s brother Philip ruled his tetrarchy (which was northeast of the Sea of Galilee) 4 BC – AD 33 or 34. Lysanius is a problem. Josephus mentions a man of this name who ruled extensive territory from his capital Chalcis until his death in 36 (or 34) BC (Antiquities 15:92) and some have concluded that Luke is mistaken. There are, however, inscriptions which refer to a Lysanius at a later time who ruled as tetrarch in Abilene, which is to the north of the other regions mentioned (see the Additional Note in Creed). It seems best to hold that Luke is independent of Josephus and is writing about this later Lysanius. Nothing more is known of this man.
2. Luke adds a dating of peculiar importance to Jews, namely with reference to the high-priesthood. Annas was high priest AD 6–15, when the Roman governor Gratus deposed him. Five of his sons became high priest in due course, and Caiaphas, who held the office AD 18– 36, was his son-in-law. Luke uses the singular, which shows that he knew there was only one high priest. He appears to mean that Caiaphas was actually in office, but that Annas still exercised great influence, perhaps even was regarded by many Jews as the true high priest (cf. Acts 4:6; Marshall notes Schürmann’s translation ‘Annas the high priest and Caiaphas’). It may be worth pointing out that when Jesus was arrested he was first brought to Annas (John 18:13).
At the time so impressively marked out the word of God came to John. The expression is very like that used in LXX of the way the prophets got their message (cf. Jer. 1:2). It is probably meant to place John in the true prophetic succession.
3. He went into all the region about the Jordan appears to mean that John travelled about in the Jordan valley. Unlike Matthew and Mark, Luke says nothing about John’s appearance and dietary habits. He goes straight to his message. John preached a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. This means a baptism which follows repentance and is a sign of it. Luke is interested in repentance and has both the noun ‘repentance’ and the verb ‘to repent’ more often than the other three Gospels put together. John called on people to turn away from their sins and the acceptance of his baptism was a sign that they had done this. The purpose was forgiveness. Baptism was a rite of cleansing in a number of religions. It seems certain that at this time the Jews used proselyte baptism, a ceremony to cleanse converts from the defilement they saw as characteristic of all Gentiles. The sting in John’s practice was that he applied to Jews the ceremony they regarded as suitable for unclean Gentiles. John denounces those who expected that in the judgment God would deal hardly with Gentile sinners, but that the Jews, the descendants of Abraham, would be safe. He removes this fancied security.
4–6. In all four Gospels Isaiah 40:3 is applied to John the Baptist, but only Luke adds verses 4–5. All four see John as regarding himself as no more than a voice (‘The whole man was a sermon’, Plummer), and so as preparing the Lord’s way. But Luke goes on to the filling of the valleys, etc. (the imagery points to the making of a road before the approach of a king) and to the climax, all flesh shall see the salvation of God (the word salvation is derived from LXX not the Hebrew; it may be an interpretation of the word for ‘glory’). This fits in with Luke’s purpose of bringing out the universality of the gospel.
7–9. Where Matthew mentions Pharisees and Sadducees as John’s hearers, Luke names the multitudes. John’s message was for the whole nation. His words as recorded here are almost identical with those in Matthew 3:7–10. Of sixty-three words in the Greek the only differences are Luke’s fruits and begin (8) where Matthew has ‘fruit’ and ‘presume’. The paragraph is heavy with judgment. John condemns his hearers as vipers trying to flee the wrath to come. The wrath of God is an important topic in both Testaments. It stresses the divine hostility to all evil.2 With this we take the axe lying by the root of the trees. The trees are not yet cut down. But the warning is clear. In between, John reminds his audience that repentance must be shown by the appropriate fruits. He warns them against relying on Abrahamic descent. Jews were apt to think that God would ultimately be kind to them because of Abraham’s merits if they had none of their own. John reminds them that we stand before God as individuals. There may be a play on words between stones and children, Aramaic ’abnayya’ and bĕnayya’.
10–11. John’s teaching was rejected by Jewish leaders (7:30), but it led others to ask questions. People wanted to know what was expected of them. John’s first answer is intensely practical: people should share what they have with those who have nothing. Coats (chitōnes) are properly ‘tunics’. Normally one was worn under the outer garment (himation), but more than one might be worn for extra warmth (Mark 6:9), or a person might have an extra one.
12–13. The Romans taxed people by farming out the taxing rights to the highest bidder. The successful man would pay Rome the amount he bid, but he would collect more than that to pay expenses and to give him his legitimate profit. But it was a strong temptation to levy more tax than was strictly necessary and to pocket the extra. This provoked resentment, especially among the patriotic, who in any case did not like to see Jews helping the Romans by collecting their taxes for them. A vicious circle developed: the more they overtaxed the more they were hated and the more they were hated the more they overtaxed. The tax collectors who came to John’s baptism were the agents of the tax farmers (or small independent contractors, Schweizer), not the tax farmers themselves. John’s preaching had convinced some of them that what they were doing was wrong and they wanted to express their repentance in baptism. John’s advice is Collect no more than is appointed you.
14. Luke does not say whether the soldiers were Jewish or Roman. Most agree that they were probably Jewish and some think they may have been associated with the tax collectors in providing the backing which enabled them to do their work. Either way they were in a privileged position over against the general public. Citizens could have little redress when troops used violence or false charges to rob them (soldiers characteristically loot!). The word rendered rob… by false accusation is a picturesque term meaning literally ‘show figs’. It has been conjectured that this referred originally to denouncing people for exporting figs from Attica (a prohibited practice), but this and other suggestions are dismissed by LSJ as ‘mere guesses’. John told the soldiers not to presume on their position but be content with your wages, an injunction with a wider application. Notice that John does not call on either group to leave their jobs. Rather he wants them to act uprightly in them.
15. Such activities raised in men’s minds the question whether John might perhaps be the Christ (cf. John 1:20, 25). Messianic expectations were in the air and John’s activities were such as to make people wonder whether he might be the one they were looking for.
16. But John repudiates the idea. He makes two points: he is inferior to Someone who is yet to come and his baptism is likewise inferior. This Successor, says John, is mightier than I. In sheer power he surpasses John. And when it comes to worth, John sees himself as unfit to loose the thong of his sandals. Palestinian teachers were not paid, but pupils used to show their appreciation with a variety of services. A rabbinic saying (in its present form dated c. 250 but probably much older) runs, ‘Every service which a slave performs for his master shall a disciple do for his teacher except the loosing of his sandal-thong’ (SB, i, p. 121). Untying the sandal-thong was just too much. But John selects precisely this duty, which the rabbis regarded as too menial for a disciple, as that for which he was unworthy. This is genuine humility.
John’s other point is that his own baptism is with water, whereas the mightier one will baptize … with the Holy Spirit and with fire. This second baptism is clearly metaphorical. The figure of speech emphasizes that the Mighty One will give the Spirit in generous measure. The reference to fire is taken by some to be in apposition with Spirit, ‘the fire of the Spirit’ (Harrington), by some to mean testing (Creed), by others to point to judgment. The context favours the last-mentioned, and W. H. Brownlee has drawn attention to a passage in the Dead Sea scrolls referring to an eschatological fire of judgment which he thinks supports this interpretation.3 But it is the same people who are baptized with the Holy Spirit as with fire (and the two are governed by one en in the Greek). It seems best to see John as thinking of positive and negative aspects of Messiah’s message. Those who accept him will be purified as by fire (cf. Mal. 3:1ff.) and strengthened by the Holy Spirit.
17–18. The judgment theme is developed. Winnowing was the process wherein, the grain having been loosened from the husks (as by treading it with oxen), the whole was thrown into the air against a breeze. The wind carried the chaff away, but the grain fell straight down. The winnowing fork ( ptyon) was the fork or shovel by which the grain was tossed into the air. By this means the threshing floor was cleared. The wheat was brought into the barn, but the chaff burnt with unquenchable fire. This strong expression emphasizes the certainty and completeness of judgment. Luke rounds off the section by adding that John preached many such things. Notice that he includes this in the good news John preached. Judgment is not at first sight very good news; but it is an integral part of the gospel. Unless we can be sure that in the end evil will be decisively overthrown there is no ultimate good news.
19–20. John was a fearless preacher of righteousness and he rebuked Herod the tetrarch for having married his brother’s wife. Herodias was the daughter of Aristobulus, half-brother to Herod Antipas, and she was married to Herod, another half-brother and a private citizen. Herod Antipas persuaded Herodias to leave her husband and marry him, though it involved his divorcing his own wife also. It was a very unsavoury business. Luke mentions other evils of Herod (as Matthew and Mark do not) and goes on to say that he added to all the rest this ‘crowning instance’ (Marshall.) that he imprisoned John. From Josephus we learn that this was in the fortress Machaerus (Antiquities xviii.119). Luke is not writing chronologically, for John continued at work during the early part of Jesus’ ministry. He is simply finishing his story of John, after which he concentrates on the ministry of Jesus.