Luke 3- Andy's thoughts

The reign of Tiberius was very different than the reign of Caesar Augustus. Augustus was the first and by all accounts, the greatest of all of the Roman emperors. His successor Tiberius, however, was one of the worst. Though the early years of his rule were fair, as time went on, Tiberius descended into a cruel paranoia. He was known for his indiscriminant murdering of men, women, and children who offended him. He was also known to make sexual victims of the same. These were dark times for the average inhabitant of the Roman Empire.

When I read that Herod Antipas had taken his brother’s wife as his own, I realize that he is following in the pattern of sexual indecency that the emperor himself had set. So when I read that John the Baptist publically criticized Herod for such behavior, I am struck with the complete audacity of the man. To censure Herod directly was to also censure Tiberius indirectly. I think that there is something to be said for speaking up against immoral or unjust governments even if it is risky to do so. Let the reader understand.

Dania, you had asked about our thoughts on addressing obvious sin in the lives of others. I think that as you said, it is really hard to do so when there is so much junk in our own lives to deal with. This may be part of the point though. We need to deal with the junk in our own lives. We need to be a people of continual repentance. I think that it is right and good to help others remove sin in their lives and in order to do so, we must have a clarity of vision and a pureness of heart.

I think Jesus’ comments in the Sermon on the Mount have shaped my thoughts on this the most. He doesn’t say it is wrong to take the speck out of someone else’s eye; we just have to take the plank out of our own eye first. As a long time wearer of contact lenses, I can say that I hate having a speck in my eye. I want it out. I think the imagery of an eye also helps to remind me of the great sensitivity needed/ desired when messing with another person’s eyes.

I think that the first part of this chapter makes me greatly appreciate who John was and what he did. He lived simply, taught powerfully, and believed deeply. I like that Joe pointed out- it was a simple teaching though not an easy one.
Regarding the genealogy, I think it would be easy to get lost in a sea of names or to spent a long time analyzing each person on the list and see the contributions they had made. When I read it tonight, it struck me how simple the structure was. “Jesus was known as… (words, words, words)… the son of God.” Perhaps I should add in comments on how Hebrew genealogies were not always exhaustive, so this is not intended to be a complete list of every single link from Adam to Jesus. It is a good summary of the significant people in that chain.

Kathleen- you had asked about what the baptism by fire means. Matt, I like your thoughts and response. I would add another train of thought too. I think that there is a contrast being made between water and fire. The context of the passage makes me think that it is appropriate to associate a baptism of fire with a refining process, or with a gifting of the Spirit for the purpose of mission. More specifically, however, I think that it seems that John is making a pretty bold statement about a final judgment.

I have to add a point here- I feel a little odd talking about the final judgment. I know it conjures up all kinds of negative associations of crazed and bearded men with sandwich board signs. Regardless of those who have added baggage to the concept, it is still a rather consistent theme throughout the Bible. I think it will be part of our responsibility in our corporate reading to acknowledge this and faithfully consider its meaning and implications.

There are numerous biblical references to passing through water and passing through fire. The Israelites passed through the sea and were delivered from the Egyptians. Paul even comments in 1 Corinthians 10:2 that in the cloud and in the sea the Israelites were baptized as followers of Moses. Peter also uses the contrasting imagery of water and fire as he looks at the great Flood of Noah’s day and the future fire of the last days in 2 Peter 3:5-12. Even Jude connects the fire that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah with the fire that will be involved with the last judgment. (Jude 7)

So what does it mean to be baptized with fire? I’m not exactly sure, but I know that it is more than just description of the process of repentance that a disciple goes through. It is connected with God’s gift of His own Holy Spirit to us so that we are able to stand firm in the final judgment. I also think that it may be appropriate to associate the combination of a baptism of water and fire with a union to Jesus in not only his life but his death.

I don’t know if that actually helps you K Gill or if it muddies that waters more. I think that I will probably return to this topic throughout the month. I wasn’t really thinking about this much when I started. I do hope other people feel free to post their thoughts and comments on my comments too.

Jared, I appreciated your thoughts on what the good news is. I know that you have been listening/ reading N. T. Wright, but for those who haven’t- the term is “evangelion” and this was usually a political term. It was used to announce “evangelion” (the good news) that the previous leader was no longer leader and there was a new leader/ Caesar. These political messengers would go on to explain the “good news” of what this new Caesar was going to do for the people and that it was cause for celebration. And by the way, here are the new taxes and rules… Great great news. Whoop de doo.

I think that the evangelion of Jesus as first proclaimed by John was similar yet different. John was announcing that there was a new leader for the people. He was making a very distinctly royal announcement that is tied into the very real kingdom of God on earth. But the evangelion concerning Jesus was radically different in that Jesus’ leadership was not going to be like that of anyone else. Not only was this leader coming not to be served but to serve, he was even going to give his life for his people. What a contrast to the tyrannical perverse rule of Tiberius and so many other despots.

And as Jared has said, the news of Jesus’ new reign, inaugurated at this baptism by John, involves telling the truth. There is not a cover up of the flaws and failings of the old reign- the one where we ruled ourselves. There is a very real and very honest discussion of our complete inability to govern ourselves and our need to accept a new king. And to John, no one was exempt from this message- not even the powerful political rulers. But I think in John’s eyes, this was not a mean thing to do. It was in fact the most loving thing that he could do. He was freeing men and women from the shackles of sin and human failings. He was releasing them to follow God.

-andy newberry