Lucas 3
Leon Morris · Citado em PreceptAustin
Lucas 3
Morris has an interesting note on John commenting that "Jesus said John the Baptist was the greatest man ever born up to His day (Matthew 11:11). Yet, for some strange reason, John is almost ignored by modern believers. In a very real sense, he was the first Christian, the first Christian witness, the first Christian preacher, the first Christian prophet, and, finally, the first Christian martyr. He was the first to baptize converts and could have even started the first local church since the disciples of Christ were already largely organized and ministering together under John before they were instructed to follow Christ (John 1:35-37; Acts 1:15-26). John the Baptist's Ministry - click to enlarge From Holman Bible Atlas (available for purchase in digital or Hardcover) © 1998 B&H Publishing Group used by permission. Please do not reproduce. In the wilderness (desert) - Luke had earlier alluded to the wilderness in (Lk 1:80+) describing how John the Baptist "continued to grow, and to become strong in spirit, and he lived in the deserts (eremos = "wilderness") until the day of his public appearance to Israel." .So it is significant to observe where John was when God spoke. He was not the holy Temple in Jerusalem, but the hot desert in Judea. As shown on the map above, the wilderness (Mt 3:1+ = "wilderness of Judea"; cf Mk 1:4+) refers to the uninhabited desert region to the northwest of the Dead Sea. Luke's location in the wilderness indicates John was the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy of "A voice is calling, "Clear the way for the LORD in the wilderness; Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God. (Isaiah 40:3)" (See Lk 3:4, Mt 3:3+).
Lucas 3
Morris say "Some have suggested that John's baptism was a sort of "proselyte baptism." However, there is no such thing as proselyte baptism mentioned in the Old Testament, the writings of Josephus, Philo, or any other literature of the apostolic era or earlier. John's baptism was true Christian baptism." (The Defender's Study Bible) Arnold Fruchtenbaum a well-known Jewish believer writes " Baptism, an ordinance that was Jewish in origin, should be understood as an identification or association with a person, a message, or a group. For example, baptism was practiced when a proselyte converted to Judaism, and it signified that they were now to be identified with Judaism. John the Baptist’s baptism was identification with the message of John, and the commitment to accept the one John pointed out to be the Messiah. It was not the baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit that Jesus commanded his followers to undergo. Paul re-baptized some disciples of John who had not yet heard about Jesus, in Acts 19:1-7. Believer’s baptism is the identification of oneself with three things: the death, burial, and resurrection of the Messiah. R C Foster in Studies in the Life of Christ has a lengthy comment - A second effort to discredit the divine origin of John's baptism was based on the supposition that the Jews had begun to practice proselyte baptism in the period between the close of the Old Testament and the coming of John. John is supposed to have adopted a current Jewish practice of baptizing Gentiles as a ceremony inducting proselytes into the nation of Israel. This offered a means for unbelievers to deny the divine origin of John's baptism, for the Jews did not even claim any divine inspiration for their leaders after the close of the Old Testament canon with Ezra. But the most painstaking search of the literature of the period has failed to show any such practice as proselyte baptism among the Jews until the third century a.d. The Jews of this later period found themselves in strong competition with the Christians. They saw what a profoundly impressive ordinance Christian baptism was. They began a countermove of practicing proselyte baptism into Israel. In our own times the controversy over baptism which has taken place over so many years has led to the most careful search of all available material. Alexander Campbell in the debate with Nathan Rice cited the fact that there is absolutely no trace in extant literature of any practice of proselyte baptism by the Jews until the third century a.d. In our own century this diligent search has continued, but no evidence has been found to substantiate any earlier practice by the Jews. Jewish scholars eager to undermine the claims of the Christian gospel to divine origin have been particularly zealous to search in their own literature for such evidence. But it has been fruitless. Jewish writers have published three monographs attempting to prove that John borrowed his baptism from the proselyte baptism being practiced by the Jews before his time. Steven Nicoletti - This leads us to our second question: do we have sufficient evidence to support the claim that Jewish proselyte baptism was being practiced in the period of the apostolic church? Jeremias argues that we do, pointing to what he believes is a reference to proselyte baptism in a dispute between the houses of Shammai and Hillel recorded in both the Mishnah (Pesahim 8:8) and the Tosefta (Pesahim 7:14). He also relies on the claim that Jews began to consider Gentiles ritually impure in the first century BC, making such a washing necessary at conversion. Recent scholarship, however, has thrown both of these claims into question. In her monograph on the subject, Christine Hayes argues that the rabbinic ascription of ritual impurity to Gentiles originated in the first two centuries AD,37 and not the first century BC as Jeremias claims. If correct, this would eliminate the need for a washing to remove Gentile impurity in the first half of the first century AD. Shaye J. D. Cohen has argued persuasively that interpreting the immersion mentioned by the House of Shammai in m. Pesahim 8:8 and t. Pesahim 7:14 as proselyte baptism ‘is almost certainly wrong’, explaining that in both texts the immersion is presented as something to be done in preparation for the Passover, after conversion is complete, and not as a part of the conversion process itself. Agreeing with Cohen’s work, Hayes points out that in the Mishnah’s account, the immersion prescribed for the new convert before the Passover is presented as a parallel to the immersion prescribed to a bereaved Jew before the Passover. She also argues that the immersion described by these two texts is not done to remove impurity, but to bestow sanctity before one consumes the Passover.40 If Cohen is correct, then the earliest explicit reference we have to proselyte baptism dates from the late first or early second century AD, and it describes how even though proselyte baptism was being recognised as an essential part of conversion by some authorities by that time, it was not being viewed as such by all. While some have argued that the establishment of proselyte baptism must have preceded the emergence of Christian baptism because the Jews would not have adopted a practice that may have been viewed by many as a Christian custom, others have pointed out that this argument fails to recognise 1) the reality that Judaism had a number of washing rituals from which proselyte baptism could have been derived, 2) the possibility that, rather than one deriving from the other, proselyte baptism and Christian baptism may share some features because they both developed out of the same historical and cultural context, and 3) the fact that there are actually many differences between the administration of proselyte baptism and Christian baptism. After considering the data, and in light of recent scholarship, it seems that we have insufficient evidence to either claim that proselyte baptism shaped Jewish presuppositions regarding infant initiation in the period of the apostolic church, or to know with confidence how it would have shaped those presuppositions if it was being practiced at the time. Circumcision and infant participation in Jewish religious life are therefore likely to be our most reliable indicators of Jewish expectations regarding infant initiation in the first century. (Excerpt from Infant Baptism In The First-Century Presupposition Pool) Andreas J. Köstenberger - It is difficult to know when the Jews began to practice proselyte baptism as an initiation rite for Gentile converts to Judaism, so we cannot assume it was a precursor of John’s and Christian baptism. (He has an entire section on Proselyte Baptism in his 24 page article "Baptism in the Gospels." ) Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (borrow a copy - go to page 386 for following discussion) - Jewish Water Rites. The discussion about what precedents there may have been for John’s baptism has been a heated one among scholars (see Baptism). This is in part the case because it is uncertain when proselyte baptism was first practiced by early Jews. In addition to the matter of OT water rituals having to do with ceremonial uncleanness, there is also the vexed question of what, if any, connection the Baptist may have had with the Qumran community (see section 1 above). It is also possible that John’s rite was something new and different, without precedent. With regard to the matter of proselyte baptism, several considerations are relevant. (1) The Mishna (m. Pesaḥ. 8.8) records a dispute between the school of Hillel and Shammai concerning whether or not a newly circumcised proselyte may immerse himself and eat the Paschal meal. If this dispute goes back to Hillel and Shammai, then it pre-dates John’s ministry. (2) The Babylonian Talmud (b. Yebam. 46a) also records a dispute between two first-century A.D. rabbis about proselyte baptism and its necessity. (3) In view of the Jewish belief that Gentiles in general were unclean, the likelihood is strong that there was some rite of initiation such as proselyte baptism for female converts to early Judaism. Thus, proselyte baptism probably did exist during John’s era (but cf. Pusey, Betz, Badia and Taylor, McKnight). However, we must note several differences between John’s practice and that of Jewish proselyte baptism. (1) Apparently, John was the active immerser when he offered his rite, but Jewish proselytes immersed themselves. (2) John performed his rite primarily on Jews who, of course, were never subject to Jewish proselyte baptism. Thus, one may argue that John was practicing proselyte baptism on Jews, which suggests that he did not feel their heredity was an adequate safeguard from God’s coming eschatological wrath. Indeed, it seems he felt Israel was lost, just like the Gentile world, unless they repented and received his baptism. There are also salient differences between John’s practice and both the water lustrations mentioned in the OT and those found at Qumran, including the cleansing ritual in the mikwâ. (1) John’s rite, like proselyte baptism, was a unique and unrepeated ritual so far as we can tell. (2) There is no indication that John’s rite had anything to do with purely ceremonial uncleanness caused, for instance, by touching a corpse. Apparently, it is only or at least primarily moral uncleanness that is at issue in John’s rite. (3) John’s baptism seems to have been an initiation rite, not a rite to continue to maintain purity or cleanliness for one who was already basically in right relationship with Yahweh. (4) There is no evidence that John required a probationary period before being immersed, nor any prior demonstration of one’s earnestness to obey God other than the willingness to come forward and be baptized. When one considers the Qumran initiatory water rite, both the probationary period and self-immersion appear to distinguish the Qumran practice from that of the Baptist. Quite possibly, the Baptist’s rite was uniquely unrepeatable (cf. Badia). Note that John may have been drawing on the ancient idea of trial by water ordeal, in which case the rite is connected with his proclamation about coming wrath and is a visible symbol of preparation for that coming event. One may compare the idea of circumcision being an act invoking the oath curse on oneself, and thus of being cut off by God, if one does not go on to obey the covenant. James Garrett - JEWISH PROSELYTE BAPTISM Four questions pertaining to the baptism of Gentile proselytes into Judaism need to be answered, namely, its practice, its significance, its time of origin, and its likely influence upon Christian baptism. Rabbinical sources no earlier than the second century AD refer in some manner to the baptism of Gentile proselytes. The baptism was self-immersion and total bodily immersion in “living water.” It was required of all who entered Judaism, and such a baptized proselyte was likened to “a newborn child.” It included the examination and catechizing of the proselyte. Children born to proselyte parents after their own baptism were not subsequently baptized, and children baptized as part of a proselyte family had the right after attaining maturity to renounce Judaism without penalty of apostasy.44 The baptism was validated by the presence of witnesses and was to be accompanied by male circumcision and, at least to AD 70, by the offering of sacrifice. Proselyte baptism has been defined as “the application to the foreigner of a familiar and ancient rite of washing in order to confer religious and social ‘fitness.’ ” Gilmore has set forth a fivefold interpretation of the significance of Jewish proselyte baptism: Ø It was for convinced and instructed converts, and it was a witnessed ceremony.… Ø It was an initiation ceremony, marking a break with the old life, and a joyful acceptance of the new.… Ø It was an act of dedication [to Israel’s God].… Ø It carried with it the idea of cleansing.… Ø It was more than a symbol or declaration; it was an effective sign. The time of origin of Jewish proselyte baptism was a debated issue during the twentieth century. The evidence favoring its origin after AD 65 is threefold: the rabbinic sources date from the second century AD; there is total silence as to Jewish proselyte baptism in the Old Testament, the Old Testament Apocrypha, Josephus, Philo, and the New Testament; and the Jews might have adopted baptism from the early Christians. The evidence for its origin prior to AD 65 is twofold: the allusions to proselyte baptism in the fourth book of the Sibylline Oracles (c. AD 80) and by Epictetus (c. AD 94) can be taken to imply that the practice was well established; and the second-century rabbinical statements can be similarly understood. The modern authors who have held to the earlier time of origin, beginning in 1887 with Alfred Edersheim (1825–89), constitute a large majority,51 but three major scholars have held to the late origin. Only if the earlier time of origin should be accepted, can Jewish proselyte baptism be taken as an antecedent of Christian baptism. Many of the procedural aspects of proselyte baptism, that is, the examination and catechizing, the mode of total immersion, and the presence of witnesses, may be acknowledged as possibly having influenced Christian baptism. Both Gavin and Beasley-Murray54 have seen similarities between Jewish proselyte baptism and the descriptions of Christian baptism in The Teaching of the Twelve and in Hippolytus’s The Apostolic Tradition. But some have denied any influence. Beasley-Murray has challenged Joachim Jeremias’s conclusion that the instructional aspect, the ritual nature, and the theological language of proselyte baptism carried over noncoincidentally and nonaccidentally to Christian baptism. For Beasley-Murray, the decisive moment for the proselyte was that of circumcision, not baptism. Moreover, proselyte baptism knew no “unity with the Messiah who is Son of Man and Second Adam and who died and rose for the race” and no “belief that the age of resurrection and the life of the Kingdom of God has dawned in the rising of the Messiah.” (Systematic Theology) My Conclusion - While I have not performed an exhaustive study to determine if proselyte baptism was practiced in Jesus' day, it is clear that some respected writers feel that it was while others question its existence in the first century. Therefore my conclusion is "inconclusive." Preaching (present tense = continually proclaiming) (2784)(kerusso) from kerux = a herald - one who acts as the medium of the authority of one who proclamation he makes; kerugma = the thing preached or the message) means to proclaim (publicly) or to herald or act as a public crier - the town official who would make a proclamation in a public gathering. Kerusso means to preach, proclaim, publish, always with the suggestion of formality, gravity and an authority which must be listened to and obeyed. The idea is to preach or proclaim with the goal to persuade, urge or warn to comply. John was to preach the Word and not coerce. It is the Spirit Who convicts of sin and convinces of need for righteousness (Jn 16:8). Kerusso was used of the official whose duty it was to proclaim loudly and extensively the coming of an earthly king, even as our gospel is to clearly announce the coming of the King of kings and Lord of lords (Rev 19:16+)! The Imperial Herald would enter a town in behalf of the Emperor, and make a public proclamation of the message which his Sovereign ordered him to give, doing so with such formality, gravity, and authority as to emphasize that the message must be heeded! (Think about this in regard to the Gospel of God instead of the decree of a man! cf 1Th 2:13+). He gave the people exactly what the Emperor bade him give, nothing more, nothing less. He did not dare add to the message or take away from it. Should this not be the example and pattern every preacher and teacher of the holy gospel of God seeks and strives to emulate, yea, even doing so with fear and trembling! ("not as pleasing men but God, who examines our hearts" see 1Th 2:4+) The original meaning of the root word kerux was a "herald at the royal court." Homer used kerusso and kerux in this connection. They not only announced the coming of the prince, but they also carried his commands to the uttermost corners of his realm. As the government of Greece became more republican, these heralds came to serve the state rather than the court. Certain qualities were required of heralds. They must have powerful voices, so voice auditions were often held. In the case of John the Baptist he did not need to audition because he was enabled by the Holy Spirit to boldly proclaim the good news of repentance. Also the secular heralds had to be capable of calming down an unruly mob, in order to faithfully communicate the command. Frankly, John the Baptist's message was not to calm them down but to stir them up calling on them to repent! An honest disposition was also required, as a protection against the exaggeration of a royal decree. The importance of John's message could hardly be exaggerated as it is the most important message any lost soul can hear! Furthermore, the secular heralds could make no additions or subtractions from the received message. John spoke the Word of God that came from him without any additions or subtractions! Luke's use of kerruso (17 of 61 NT uses) - Lk. 3:3; Lk. 4:18; Lk. 4:19; Lk. 4:44; Lk. 8:1; Lk. 8:39; Lk. 9:2; Lk. 12:3; Lk. 24:47; Acts 8:5; Acts 9:20; Acts 10:37; Acts 10:42; Acts 15:21; Acts 19:13; Acts 20:25; Acts 28:31 Baptism (908)(baptisma from bapto = dip as in dye to color - see study of verb baptizo) is the result of the act of dipping, plunging, immersing, washing. something or someone. The suffix -ma indicates the result of dipping or sinking or baptizing while baptismos is the act of baptizing. Luke is not describing baptism as we normally think of it today, where a person believes in Jesus for salvation and his baptism symbolizes the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. John's baptism does not produce or result in forgiveness, for no human ritual can accomplish forgiveness. Repentance: "About, face!" Repentance (3341)(metanoia from meta = after + noéo = to understand) literally means "afterthought" or "to think after" and implies a change of mind. Metanoia means however much more than merely a change of one's mind but also includes a complete change of heart, attitude, interest, and direction. Metanoia is a conversion in every sense of the word. Jesus' teaching would support this conclusion for our Lord declared… I tell you that in the same way, there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents (metanoeo), than over ninety-nine righteous persons who need no repentance (metanoia). (Luke 15:7+) Metanoia is a key term used frequently by Luke, 5x in the Gospel and 6x in Acts, so 50% of the 22 NT uses - Matt. 3:8; Matt. 3:11; Mk. 1:4; Lk. 3:3; Lk. 3:8; Lk. 5:32; Lk. 15:7; Lk. 24:47; Acts 5:31; Acts 11:18; Acts 13:24; Acts 19:4; Acts 20:21; Acts 26:20; Rom. 2:4; 2 Co. 7:9; 2 Co. 7:10; 2 Tim. 2:25; Heb. 6:1; Heb. 6:6; Heb. 12:17; 2 Pet. 3:9 Forgiveness (KJV = "remission")(859)(aphesis from aphiemi = action which causes separation and is in turn derived from apo = from + hiemi = put in motion, send) literally means to send away or to put apart, a letting go, a leaving behind, a removal. Aphesis refers to a remission as when one remits (pardons, cancels) a debt, or releases then from an obligation. To release from captivity. Remission (see definition of English word) of sins means once and for all taking them away, removing the guilt, punishment and power of sin. And so to release one’s sins, is not just release from the ("legal" or forensic) charge and the just penalty of sin but also release from the power and dominion of sin (and in Heaven the release from the presence of sin and the pleasure of sin).