beheading of John (3:19; cf. Josephus Ant. 18:116–19).80 Lysanius controlled Abilene. Herod Archelaus, another son of Herod the Great, was ethnarch of Judea for ten years until he was deposed in 6 CE. After that Rome sent procurators to oversee the region, among whom was Pontius Pilate, who became governor or prefect of Judea in 26 CE. In extrabiblical Jewish and Roman writings of the time, Pilate was described as greedy, unjust, hot-tempered, and oblivious to Jewish sensitivities. He was finally recalled to Rome in 36 CE.81 On the religious front, Luke’s mention of “the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas” (3:2; cf. Acts 4:6) requires some clarification, for at any given time there could only be one high priest. Caiaphas held this office from 18 to 37 CE, but his father-in-law, Annas, who was high priest from 6 to 15 CE, continued to exert tremendous influence after leaving office.
Together these seven names represent the political, religious, social, and economic setting in which the remainder of the narrative is situated. Palestine was an insignificant outpost at the far reaches of the Roman Empire. Those invested with political and religious responsibilities were marked by cruelty and incompetence on the one hand, and manipulation and self-interest on the other. The temple leadership and pro-Roman Jewish vassal kings colluded with the Romans to maintain a delicate symbiotic relationship of mutual benefit. In spite of the piety exhibited by Zechariah, Elizabeth, Mary, Joseph, Simeon, and Anna in the first two chapters, we must not be naïve about the negotiations and compromises behind the scenes. The families of Annas and Caiaphas must have exhibited a high level of political prowess to stay in power for three decades, holding the Romans at bay while solidifying their dynastic base among the Jews. The power struggle at the top resulted in oppression of those at the bottom. Such was the world of suffering and tension that John encountered as he emerged from his years of seclusion to begin proclaiming “a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins” in the region near the Jordan (1:80; 3:3).
Luke identifies the voice crying in the wilderness in Isaiah with John who “[prepares] the way of the lord” (3:4; Isa 40:3). In the context of Isaiah, “the lord” refers to YHWH, for Israel is expecting God to return to Zion. Luke transfers the reference onto Jesus, as John is the forerunner of the Messiah. Whereas the Isaianic quotation ends with 40:3 in Mark 1:3 and Matt 3:3, Luke includes two more verses, culminating in the declaration that “all flesh shall see the salvation of God” (3:5–6; Isa 40:4–5). This extended citation brings out Luke’s universalism and echoes Simeon’s prayer that God’s salvation is for Israel and the nations (2:31–32; cf. Acts 1:8).
The substance of John’s proclamation implies that Israel is far from ready to receive the Messiah. This prophet must issue an urgent call to repentance like his predecessors of old.82 Presenting oneself to be baptized constitutes a public admission of sinfulness, a humiliating thing to do in a status-conscious society that elevates honor and denigrates shame. A penitent person would assume this posture of humbleness and receptivity to be baptized by John.
The purpose of baptism is explicitly stated, but how baptism is a fitting ritual to signify repentance and forgiveness of sins is less obvious. The notion of baptism is related to washing and cleansing. In the OT, washing signifies repentance (Isa 1:16–17; Jer 3:14) as well as God’s cleansing of a person from sin (Ps 51:5; Ezek 36:25, 33). The Jews practice cleansing for purification (Lev 14–15), but these rites are performed repeatedly whereas John’s baptism seems to be a one-time event. John himself cannot dispense forgiveness, since it is a divine prerogative, but he can at least prepare those who are willing to receive God’s forgiveness and salvation when the Messiah comes.
As the crowds flock to John in droves, the prophet confronts them with a two-pronged challenge. To those who will not repent, John warns of impending judgment. To those who do, he gives practical exhortations on what it means to “bear fruit worthy of repentance” (3:8a). John pulls no punches when it comes to those who rely on their Abrahamic ancestry for absolution of guilt (3:7, 8b). Calling the Jews “a brood of vipers” is highly inflammatory as far as invectives go. We think fearfully of vipers because they are poisonous, hence the metaphor gives an impression of danger, evil, and threat.83 Ancient Greeks and Romans believed that vipers killed their mother when they were born, rendering the offspring of vipers especially contemptible.84 If the coming of God or his Messiah signals the day of judgment to those who do not repent,85 and these vipers think they can slither away unscathed by virtue of their Abrahamic ancestry, then they are deceiving themselves. If God so chooses, even the inanimate stones strewn all over the wilderness can be raised up to take their place as Abraham’s children and God’s elect. Their status as Abraham’s offspring gives them no immunity when it comes to the need for repentance (cf. John 8:33–39).
The analogy of the fruit tree drives home the points of urgency and judgment (3:9). Healthy trees naturally bear good fruit, and those that do not are cut down and burned.86 Similarly, genuine repentance should produce behavior that befits one’s claim to be a bona fide child of God. Otherwise, destruction by fiery judgment is imminent and inescapable, as depicted by the picture of an ax ready to strike at the bottom of a dead tree.87 The fact that the unproductive tree has not yet been cut down offers a glimmer of hope at the eleventh hour. There is still time to repent, even for “the brood of vipers.”
In response to the crowd’s request for specific instructions, John lays out practical examples of fruit-bearing (3:8, 10). Justice, charity, and honesty must characterize communal life. In spite of sparse resources, people must care for one another with a spirit of generosity, sharing clothing and food (3:11). God has always instructed the Jews to care for the poor and needy among them, and they should continue to do so.88
More unexpected is the willingness of tax collectors and soldiers, people marked by their exploitative behaviors, to respond positively to John’s call (3:12, 14). In those days, there were two types of taxes, direct and indirect taxes. Direct taxes (head and land taxes) were collected by the Jewish authorities. The collection of indirect taxes (for customs, tolls, and duties) were farmed out to local tax collectors. Whoever had the highest bid would advance the money to the Romans to earn the right to assess the value of goods and determine how much to tax. Not only did a tax collector have to collect enough from his fellow Jews to recoup the outlay, he would also demand extra to cover his expenses and make a profit.89 A fine line lay between legal taxation and unjust practice. Operating with Roman authority, a greedy Jewish tax collector could line his pockets living off the backs of the common folks. Needless to say, tax collectors were hated and despised as unclean and traitorous because of their dealings with the Romans and their exploitation of their own people.90 John does not order the tax collectors to change their profession, but he challenges them to “collect no more than the amount prescribed” (3:12–13). After all, Rome will still demand taxation, but reformed tax collectors can effectively penetrate a corrupt system with justice and integrity, until the idea of an honest tax collector is no longer an oxymoron.
To soldiers John directs an exhortation not to “extort money . . . by threats and false accusations, and be satisfied with [their] wages” (3:14). Although it is unclear what type of soldiers these are, those paid meagerly may be tempted to bully others to get what they want.91 Again, honesty and contentment are expected of a life oriented toward God, especially when it is so easy for a soldier to intimidate others with their strength and weapon.
John must have left quite an impression on his hearers, for messianic speculation