Luke 3:15–20 | One Mightier than I Is Coming

The sermon is on Luke 3:15–20. There are no notes available for this sermon.

Luke 3:10–14 | Examples of Fruit Worthy of Repentance

We have begun to see the ministry of John the Baptist. We should remember that the purpose of the ministry is to make the people of Israel ready for the Lord. In order to do this, John the Baptist goes about preaching the baptism of repentance for the remission of sin (Luke 3:3). The point was that the baptism signified the remission of sin. Remission comes from ἄφεσις which is “the act of freeing from an obligation, guilt, or punishment, i.e., pardon, cancellation.”79 John was preaching that if one wants to be forgiven of sin then he must repent of his sin. Repentance leads to forgiveness. 

Last week we saw an example John’s preaching. He had three points of concern: rebuke of sin, repentance of sin, and the impending wrath that is for sin. The overall point was that the only way to escape God’s wrath against sin is to bear fruit worthy of repentance. This was significant in order for us to understand the meaning behind μετάνοια. Repentance is not a simple confession of sin, though they be similar. Repentance is about change. μετάνοια primarily means a change of mind, that one is turning away. Another fair translation would be conversion.80 This is why so much stress was placed upon the fruit worthy of repentance/conversion. It is not enough to simple say, “I need to be forgiven of my sin,” one must also turn from his previous sinful lifestyle. Jesus did not pay the penalty for our sin on the cross so that we could continue in our sin but so that we might be saved from our sin. From the moment of repentance and onward, the believer is supposed to display fruit of that repentance. The believer is supposed to show good works that glorify God. The believer is supposed to show evidence of his faith. We may come in as prostitutes, liars, and thieves; but we are to leave that at the cross so that we may be called saints, the sons of God. 

So you may say, “That’s all well and good, but what does that look like?” This is a good question. Now that doctrine has been explained we should move on to ethics. The point of teaching is that our actions change. So, what are works that worthy of repentance? Or in other words, now that one has repented, what does life look like? How shall we then live? What works demonstrate that a person truly has repented of their sins? 

Before these actions are stated and discussed, we must make one thing clear. These are actions take place because a man has repented of his sins. The order should be noticed. The actions that are going to be discussed to not take place to make up for our bad actions. These seemingly good actions are not meant to help turn the scales back into your favor. The actions are not meant as a way of earning your way out of the impending wrath of God to come upon sin. Only repentance that gives way to fruit will save a man from the wrath of God upon sin. These good actions are a result of the repentance. They are caused by the fact that the believer has an understanding of the gospel. He has a proper understanding of his new relationship with God. He knows that he has been saved from his sin and these actions follow from that. What is taking place is due to the fact that the man has been made a new creation (2 Cor. 5:17). 

All of this can be summed up in the second greatest commandment, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” (Mark 12:31).

General Crowd (3:10–11)

The crowd that came to John understood that their life was to be different from now on. They knew that true repentance meant change. Therefore, they ask, “Τὶ οὖν ποιήσωμεν; (What then shall we do?)” The apostle Paul asked the same question, “Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?” (Acts 9:6). Our will from this point forward should be re-aligned to match that of God’s. Therefore this crowd asks a good question. Righteousness is a strange creature to a man who has been living a life enslaved and deadened by sin. 

3:11. John’s answer to their question is very simple, practical, and strait forward. He does not call for a revolution like the zealots. He is getting the people ready for the coming of the Lord, which means that Israel needs to be ready to be citizens of God’s kingdom. There we could say that this is the manner in which a citizen of heaven is supposed to act. 

John gives two examples to the crowd in general as to what they are supposed to do now that they are to live a life bearing fruit of repentance. The first example is that the man who has two χιτῶνας is supposed to share (the verb is in the imperative mood) with a person who does not have a χιτών. A χιτών is “a shirt that is worn next to the skin.”81 We know this is not the word for an outer garment or coat, that is an ἱμάτιον. The Greek languages uses these words in a distinct manner. The shirt was not entirely necessary. However, if it was possible, a person tried to wear two χιτῶνας for comfort. Therefore, John is exhorting anyone who has an amount that is not truly necessary that the man should share his shirt with one who is lacking. We have a colloquial phrase that parallels this exhortation: “The man would give you the shirt off his back.” John is advocating that we do this. 

The second example of how to live a life that is bearing the fruit of repentance is very similar to the first example. A man who has meat should do likewise. If we find that our neighbor is in an impoverished position and is lacking food, something should be done. We live in a country that has abundance. If you disagree, then you do not know what poverty looks like. Let me demonstrate that you have abundance. Have you ever thrown out food because it went bad before you got around to eating it? You were so busy eating other food that you did not have the time to get the food in the back of the fridge that started growing green mold. 

Let me further point out that μεταδότω (share) is in the imperative mood, meaning that John is not making a simple suggestion. John is making an exhortation. We should be eager to perform such actions for others. Why? Because we have witnessed the love of God. We have witnessed how God provides for those who trust in Him. It would be shameful if we are bestowed gifts from the Almighty and do not turn around to do the same. This is how citizens of God’s coming kingdom are supposed to act. They are supposed to show love unto their neighbor.

Tax Collectors (3:12–13)

The first two examples we saw were from the crowd in general. The question may have been a recurring theme in the responses to John’s preaching. The question gets repeated to John. However, we should notice who is asking the question this time. This time the question is coming from τελῶναι (tax collectors). In order to understand why this is significant, we need to understand the cultural stigma that surrounded tax collectors. The tax revenue system was very open and allowed for a lot of abuse. The job of collecting property taxes and poll taxes from a particular region was contracted to whoever won by the government. The contractor that won the bid would then in turn hire men, usually locals, to go collect the taxes from the people. The problem was that the contractors would pay their workers from collecting extra revenue from the citizens, an amount that was open to the discretion of the contractors and not the government. Therefore these tax collectors were cast in a very poor light by their countrymen. They were seen as men who were hired by the government, robbed their own poor countrymen, and worse yet, they worked on the Sabbath. They were considered one of the worst kind of low life alongside prostitutes (cf. Matt. 21:31–32). They were called unclean because they frequently did business with Gentiles. They were also considered as traitors turning their backs on Israel. 

A Jew entering the customs service cut himself off from decent society. He was disqualified from being a judge or even a witness in court, and excommunicated from the synagogue. The members of his family were considered to be equally tarnished.…Money handled by tax collectors was tainted and could not be used, ever for charity, for to touch the wealth of a man who obtains it unlawfully is to share his guilt.82

Yet we should also notice something else about these tax collectors. They came to be baptized by John. They came for the repentance of sin. This is not said of the Pharisees and Sadducees. These were men who knew that they were to live different from now on but they were not sure how. Their career put them in a tough place. 

3:13. John’s answer to the repentant tax collectors is interesting and simple. The simple part is that John exhorts to not take more than what was ordered. They are to do their job in an honest manner. What is interesting is that John fully expects these men to keep their job! John never tells them to quit being a tax collector. The reason is this: their job might be despised by everyone but there is still a way that God can be glorified by the job of the tax collector. A government has to have taxes and it needs people to collect those taxes. What no one needs is a tax collector that take advantage of the system and extorts the citizens. Therefore John tells them to just simply do their job honestly. 

Here’s another thing. Think about how the repentant tax collector’s new lifestyle is going to have an impact on those around him. The other tax collectors knew what he was doing before and they are now seeing a profound change. They are seeing him being kind to the citizens that he used to extort. Others will ask questions. People, we are aliens in this world. We will be seen as weird. But we are called to act as people that are ready for the coming of our Lord. We are to do this not just in our churches where everyone is like minded, or in our personal homes where no one can see us. We are to be doing these things in the work place as well. Fruit of repentance is to be seen in our entire lives. 

Soldiers (3:14)

The last group that we see ask this question in a very similar fashion are soldiers. The way they point the question though seems to imply that surely there is no way that can continue in the same manner of life. The soldier was disliked like the tax collectors. The soldier reminded the Jews that they were in subjection to a foreign gentile ruler and not a sovereign nation. Now the race of the soldiers is unclear. 

It is generally agreed that these soldiers were Jewish rather than Roman. They could have come from of three groups: Antipas’s army in Perea, which included foreign troops as well; the Judean “police”; or soldiers who assisted and protected the toll collectors. The last possibility may be indicated by καὶ ἡμεῖς at the end of the question: What shall “we also” do? (i.e., we alongside the toll collectors). It may also be supported by John’s reply focusing exclusively on money. These two factors indicate a possible connection between the two groups of 3:12–14, though one cannot be certain.83

Whomever these soldiers may be, John’s answer to them comes in two prohibitions and one exhortation. The first prohibition is that the soldiers are not διασείσητε. διασείω means to “extort money by force or threat of violence; literally it means to ‘shake violently.’”84 The imagery of the school-yard shaking a kid upside-down for his lunch money comes to mind. The prohibition is similar. They are told to not falsely accuse anyone coming from συκοφαντέω which means, “to put pressure on someone for personal gain, i.e., harass, squeeze, shake down, blackmail.”85 The exhortation is that the soldiers are supposed to be content with their wages/provisions they are given. You should notice that the exhortation is in direct opposition to what John prohibits. The exhortation is meant to replace the former practice. The soldiers are supposed to realize that God has provided them with they really need and therefore there is no point in bullying anyone to get more money or possessions. 

As I have mentioned before, all of these answers by John can be summed up by the second greatest commandment. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. If you display unto others how you want to be treated because you realize that God has cancelled your debt of sin then others will notice the fruit that has come from repentance. They will notice that you are born-again. You are a son of God awaiting the coming of His kingdom.  

_______________________

79. BDAG, 155. 

80. BDAG, 640–1. 

81. BDAG, 1085. 

82. Norman Hillyer, “τελώνιον,” in NIDNTT, 3:756. 

83. Darrell L. Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 312–3. 

84. BDAG, 236. 

85. BDAG, 955. 

The Decree of God

Thus far, we have only discussed the nature of God (i.e. His attributes and Trinity), which serves as part one in our study of Theology Proper. Part two of Theology Proper will be concerning some of the actions of God (the study of salvation will be placed under a separate system titled “Soteriology” due to its size and significance). In the lessons to follow we will be studying specifically His act of creation, providence and miracles. However, before we begin studying such actions of God, we must recognize that these actions bear a unique characteristic—they were eternally planned in the mind of God. In other words, they were decreed by God. Therefore, this lesson will serve as a general introduction to the works of God. 

The classic definition for the decree of God comes from the Westminster Shorter Catechism, “The decrees of God are his eternal purpose, according to the counsel of his will, whereby, for his own glory, he hath foreordained whatsoever comes to pass” (Question #7). Berkhof explains the decree of God as, “He has sovereignly determined from all eternity whatsoever will come to pass, and works His sovereign will in His entire creation, both natural and spiritual, according to His pre-determined plan.”1 We use the word “decree” because it is analogous to a king making a decree and having it come to pass because of the king’s sovereignty and authority. Many use the example of the planning of a building by an architect. The architect had the plans for the building in his mind and then placed on paper so other may construct his plan and thoughts for that building. 

Scripture never states God’s entire plan for the entire universe in an explicit manner but scripture does clue us in to God’s plan with the use of certain words. In the Old Testament, we find such words as עֵצָה (ʿēṣâ) meaning counsel, or advice (Ps. 33:11; Prov. 19:21; Isa. 46:10–11); סוֹד (sôḏ) meaning secret, or confidential conversation (Jer. 23:18, 22); זָמַם (zāmam) meaning to think, plan, or consider (Jer. 4:28; 51:12); חָפֵץ (ḥāp̄ēṣ) meaning to take pleasure (Isa. 53:10–11).2 In the New Testament, we find words like βουλή (boulē) meaning desicion, resolution, or counsel (Acts 2:23; 4:28; Heb. 6:17); θέλημα (thelēma) meaning will (Gal. 1:4; Eph. 1:11); εὐδοκία (eudokia) meaning favor, or good pleasure (Eph. 1:5, 9; Phil. 2:13); προορίζω (proorizō) meaning to decide upon beforehand, or predestinate (Rom. 8:29–30; 1 Cor. 2:7); and πρόθεσις (prothesis) meaning something planned in advance, plan, or purpose (Rom. 8:28; 9:11).3

Much of what we will learn of the decree of God will logically follow what we have already learned about God’s attributes, primarily His omniscience and omnipotence. God’s omnipotence states that God has the ability to do whatsoever He pleases. The decree goes one step further by stating that God has foreordained all that He desires to accomplish and the certainty that it will come to pass. Omnipotence speaks of His power. The decree speaks of His efficacious sovereignty. 

A. Characteristics of the Decree

As stated earlier, the Decree is similar to an architect planning a building or a king making a new law. However, these illustrations are limited. In the illustrations, the planner is limited in his knowledge; on all details that may be pertinent to matter at hand as well as any future details that may or may not occur. Sure an architect may plan a fire safety system into the building but it is not because of when or if a fire will occur; it is only a precaution. When we speak on the decree of God, we must remember that we are talking about an omniscient Being and is perfect in all His attributes.

1. One

Theologians usually discuss the decrees of God. In our human perspective, there seem to be many decrees of God. There was a decree to create the earth, another to send His Son to the earth, and another to elect individuals for salvation. However, there is really only one decree. From a heavenly perspective, there is only one decree that is for all things. The decree that planned the earth is the same that planned to send the Son to earth. This is because, “His knowledge is all immediate and simultaneous rather than successive like ours, and His comprehension is always complete.…There is, therefore, no series of decrees in God, but simply one comprehensive plan.”4 God does not need to think out the plan of how He will accomplish everything. He just simply knows without having to consult anyone (Isa. 40:13–14; Rom. 11:34; 1 Cor. 2:16).

2. Eternal

We should also note that the decree was eternal. We come to this conclusion based upon the fact that God is eternal. He never had a beginning. Also, God never needed to logically think about His decree; it was always known by God. There was never a point in time in which God decided what He was going to do. Scripture hints at this from passages that mention His plan were “before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4; cf. Acts 15:18; Rom. 16:25; Eph. 3:9, 11; 2 Tim. 1:9; Tit. 1:2; 1 Pet 1:20).

3. Perfect

Whatever God has decreed from the beginning is perfect and good (Rom 12:2). God is holy (Isa. 6:3; Hab. 1:13) and is unable to do anything against His own character (cf. James 1:13). We could also say that His plan is the best plan. This is because of His infinite wisdom (Ps 104:24; Prov. 3:19). There may be times when it seems that nothing good is happening in our personal lives but God is always working out His perfect will. Joseph experienced this first hand in his life. He was sold into slavery by his brothers. He was falsely accused of assaulting a woman and jailed for it. He was forgotten by the chief butler of pharaoh. But when Joseph spoke of all transpired, he says, that God meant it for good. (Gen. 50:20; Rom 8:28). 

4. Immutable

The decree of God is immutable, or it does not change. There is nothing nothing that God has not foreseen. He knows all things and all possible outcomes. Change to a plan would mean that God did not see something coming or realize that it could happen. Nothing will overthrow the original intention of His decree. What God has planned will happen (Job 23:13–14; Ps. 33:11; Isa. 14:24; 46:9–10). 

5. Independent

God’s decree was made independent of any of man’s actions. Just because foreknew an event or a person, does not mean that His plan was based upon that event, action or person. God determined His own plan despite whatever man plan (Ps 33:10; 115:3; 135:6; Dan. 4:35). This must mean that God has decreed not just the end but also the means (Acts 2:23; Eph. 2:8; 1 Pet. 1:2).

6. Efficacious

What God had decreed will come to pass. There is nothing than can overthrow the plan of God. He knows all things that will happen and God is omnipotent. Therefore, God knew of adversary or event that would be against His character but He is also strong enough to overcome any and all things that oppose His plan (Isa 14:27; 43:13). 

7. For His Glory

God’s decree is ultimately for His glory. The entire meta-narrative of Scripture is the glory of God. Every page is meant to teach us of His glory and goodness. “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him” (Col. 1:16; cf. Prov. 16:4; Rom. 9:11, 13–18; 11:36; Eph. 1:6, 11–12; Heb. 2:10). 

B. Manifestation of the Decree

We have come to an understanding of the characteristics of God’s decree through a careful study of the matter from Scripture. However, we have come to knowing some of the content of God’s decree through the record found in Scripture and through the unfolding of history. (We only know part of the content because there is still more to come between now and Revelation that has not been revealed.) Therefore, there are some things that need to be said about God’s decree from a human perspective.

1. Separate from the Event

For the sake of clarity, one must know that the decree is not the same as the act was decreed. The plan for an event and the event itself are separate. The blueprint and the construction for a building are not the same. “The decree of God must also be distinguished from its execution in history. The decree to create is not the actual creation of the world ‘in the beginning’ (Gen. 1:1). The decree to send Jesus Christ is not carried out until Jesus was born of Mary in the days of Caesar Augustus (Luke 2:1–7).”5 

The distinction between the plan and the event is necessary in order to properly place the guilt of sin upon the proper party. God foreknew that sin would enter into the world and thus it was part of His wise decree but it does not mean that God is responsible for sin entering into the world. The directive will of God was for man to remain holy and obedient (Gen. 2:16–17), yet God’s permissive will allowed the event to take place. “All acts—including sinful acts conform to the eternal plan of God, but He is not directly the author of all acts.”6 Berkhof further explains the permissive will of God, 

It should be carefully noted that this permissive decree does not imply a passive permission of something which is not under the control of the divine will. It is a decree which renders the future sinful act absolutely certain, but in which God determines (a) not to hinder the sinful self-determination of the finite will [of man]; and (b) to regulate and control the result of this sinful self-determination (Ps. 78:29; 106:15; Acts 14:16; 17:30).7

Another simple example comes from when Satan tested Job. Satan was permitted to test Job and was also restricted in the extent of the testing (Job 1:6–12; 2:1–7). Yet, God’s overall plan was for Job to trust God no matter how badly the circumstances have become because God’s counsel is all-wise (Job 13:15; 37:23–24; 38:1–3; 40;1–8). 

2. Revealed Progressively

As one begins to read the Bible, one first reads of God creating the heavens and the earth (Gen. 1:1), and then reads of the Fall of mankind (Gen. 3), even with a promise of one that would crush the head of the serpent (Gen. 3:15). Much later in Scripture we read more of a coming Redeemer. The reader of Scripture is slowly learning of God’s plan as it is being revealed. The entire plan of God was not revealed at the very beginning even though it was “before the foundation of the world” (Eph. 1:4). It is only through the progression of time that we have come to learn what God has planned to come to pass. A well made novel makes a good illustration. We, as the reader, do not know the author’s plan for the main character of the story from the beginning. The only way to learn what the author does with the story is to progressively read through the events in the story. 

3. Wrought Directly and Indirectly

Just because God has decreed that an event should come to pass does not necessarily mean that God must directly act in creation (i.e. miracles), in order to bring an event to pass. His direct actions upon creation certainly do bear witness to His existence and sovereign power but He is still able to work through the actions of men in order to accomplish His will. Examples of human actions being a part of God’s plan include the return of Israel from the Babylonian exile (Jer. 25:11–12; 29:10–33; Ezra 1:1), the birth of Jesus Christ (Micah 5:2; Luke 2:1–7), and even the death of Christ (Isa. 52:13–53:12; Zech. 12:10; John 19:37; Acts 2:23). 

4. Encompasses All Things

The decree of God encompasses all things. Nothing is not included in God’s plan to bring about His glory. 

The decree includes whatsoever comes to pass in the world, whether it be in the physical or in the moral realm, whether it be good or evil (Eph. 1:11). It includes: (a) the good actions of men (Eph. 2:10); (b) their wicked acts (Prov. 16:4; Acts 2:23; 4:27–28); (c) contingent events (Gen. 45:8; 50:20; Prov. 16:33); (d) the means as well as the end (Ps. 119:89–91; 2 Thess. 2:13; Eph. 1:4); (e) the duration of man’s life (Job 14:5; Ps. 39:4), and the place of his habitation (Acts 17:26).8

Therefore we should comfort ourselves with the fact that no sin, personal mistake, failed achievement, or poor choice has ever ruined the plan, both for His grand scheme or for our personal lives. Nothing that has taken was not in God’s decree. God never said, “Oops,” or, “I never saw that coming.”

C. Objections

Many individuals are comfortable when learning of God’s decree. For a new christian, it makes sense that God is omnipotent and omniscient but yet finds God’s sovereign decree over all things for His glory difficult to comprehend. The problem comes not in questioning God’s capabilities but in questioning of how God’s all-powerful capabilities are applied to everyday events; events that include our actions and our personal salvation. The three most common objections to God’s decree are given below for our examination and understanding. 

1. Contrary to Free Will

The most common objection is that the idea of God planning everything from the beginning and determining the ends ignores the fact that man has a free will. However, it is quite clear that Scripture speaks of both God’s plan and man’s actions and does not present any kind of a contradiction between them. Paul even rebukes us for thinking that there is a contradiction (Rom. 9:18–23). Our human minds may have difficulty with resolving both God’s sovereignty and man’s actions but God’s mind knows both perfectly and without contradiction. Therefore, there must be some way in which these are compatible. 

Perhaps the greatest hurdle in understanding the compatibility between the two comes a misunderstanding of one the two. As we have already discussed the decree of God—His eternal purpose according to only the counsel of His own will encompassing all events for His own glory—we should look more closely at what Scripture states about the will and choices of man. 

Those object most to the doctrine God’s eternal decree are those that have a view of man’s will called Libertarianism. Libertarianism (as it concerns man’s free will) is defined as, 

The belief that the human will has an inherent power to choose with equal ease between alternatives. This is commonly called “the power of contrary choice” or “the liberty of indifference.” This belief  does not claim there are no influences that might affect the will, but it does insist that normally the will can overcome these factors and choose in spite of them. Ultimately, the will is free from any necessary causation. In other words, it is autonomous from outside determination.9

However, this is never seen in the real world; man’s will is never autonomous. For example, a court of law does not operate thinking that man makes decisions that are completely free from any external or internal motivators. They do the opposite. The prosecution is always looking for the motive that caused the accused to commit a crime. The prosecution will often show that a bank robber wanted to rob a bank because he wanted to be rich or he needed to pay a debt. The prosecution would never spend time showing that the accused robbed a bank only because he decided to do so without any motivating factors. 

We should not see man’s will as autonomous but rather as one that is subject to its causes and desires. Augustine defined free will as “the ability to choose what we want.”10 This view of man’s free will is the one that is taught in Scriptures. Jesus explained that man will say and do what is in his heart (Matt. 12:33–37; Luke 6:43–45). To explain further, an unsaved man may have the capabilities and the ability to do something right but he lacks the motivating factors that causes an unsaved man to do right (John 8:34–36; Rom. 3:10–19; 5:19; 8:6–8). Therefore in summary, man cannot choose to do good because he lacks anything within himself that is good. The unsaved man will only commit sin because he is sinful. The sinful man chooses to do sin because he desires from within to sin at every opportunity. It must be admitted that even God only does that which is in conformity with His character of holiness, that is, He cannot sin.

Therefore, coming back full circle, it is foolish to think that man is able to make decisions against what God has decreed. The unsaved man will disobey God’s commandments (i.e. His directive will) but this is not going to upset God’s plan (i.e. as part of His permissive will). God planned for sinful acts and chooses to use them for His glory (e.g. Acts 2:23). 

2. Ruins Accountability of Sin

A second objection brought against God’s sovereign decree is that is makes God responsible for the sin that was planned. This objection is raised due to a misunderstanding between the decree and the effectuating of the decree. “It must be borne in mind that God has not decreed to effectuate by His own direct action whatsoever must come to pass. The divine decree only brings certainty into the events, but does not imply that God will actively effectuate them.”11

We see multiple example within Scripture of God foreknowing an event and yet still holding the man that acts as responsible for those actions (Prov. 16:4–5). Isaiah prophesies of the Assyrian king invading Israel but he will still be punished for this action (Isa. 10:5–15). Jesus foreknew that Judas would betray Him (John 6:70–71; 17:12) but Judas still bears the guilt for this action (Matt. 26:21–24).

3. Ruins Need of Exertion

A final objection often laid against God’s sovereign decree is often stated within the example of election of individuals for salvation. “If God has determined that certain individuals will without a doubt receive salvation, then what is the point of sending missionaries to foreign countries? Apparently God can still bring the person to salvation without a missionary.” However, God has not only determined the end (the salvation of a person) but also the means (through the sending of a missionary). God commanded (Matt. 28:19–20) and foreknew (John 10:16; Rom. 15:8–12) that the Church should preach the Gospel to all nations (Acts 1:8; Rom. 10:14). Therefore, God’s foreknowledge is an encouragement for missions (Acts 18:9–11). 

________________

1. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology: New Combined Edition (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1996), 2.100. 

2. Definitions of the Hebrew are from CHALOT, 280.1, 254, 89, and 112, respectively. 

3. Definitions of the Greek are from BDAG, 181–2, 447, 404, 873, and 869, respectively. 

4. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 2.102. 

5. Fred H. Klooster, “Decrees of God,” in EDT, 303.

6. Paul Enns, The Moody Handbook of Theology, rev. and expanded (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2008), 209. 

7. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 2.105. 

8. Ibid.

9. R. K. McGregor Wright, No Place for Sovereignty (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 43–4; qtd. in John M. Frame, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Christian Belief (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2013), 825. 

10. Quoted by R. C. Sproul, Can I Know God’s Will, The Crucial Questions Series, vol. 4 (Lake Mary, FL: Reformation Trust Publishing, 2009), 45. 

11. Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 2.106. 

Luke 3:7–9 | Repentance to Escape Wrath

In the previous paragraph, which served as an introduction to the preaching of John and eventually, Jesus, Luke told us the date that the word of the Lord came unto John the Baptist. It is with this statement that we begin to see that God is again doing a mighty thing in the midst of His people, for all of this was spoke of by the prophets. 

Now in this paragraph, we will see not just the mode of operation of John the Baptist, but we will see the normal and regular content of John’s preaching. We must remember what was said of John in chapter one. It was said that, “Many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord” (Luke 1:16–17), and that he will be “called the prophet of the Highest: for thou shalt go before the face of the Lord to prepare His ways; To give knowledge of salvation unto His people by the remission of their sins” (Luke 1:76–77). This paragraph will show how John’s preaching is getting the children of Israel ready for the coming of the Lord. 

There are three main components of John’s preaching: rebuke, repentance, and wrath. Each of these components are necessary part for John so that he could accomplish his task of getting the children of Israel ready for the Lord. These three components are also necessary parts of our preaching today so that we may clearly communicate the Gospel.

Rebuke (3:7)

John is addressing a crowd that is coming to be baptized by him. This would mean that have come to hear his preaching. Baptism was an integral part of John’s ministry. He used practice of baptism to signify the remission of sin that comes through repentance. As you will remember from last week, remission or ἄφεσις is “the act of freeing from an obligation, guilt, or  punishment, pardon, cancellation.”78 The act signified a spiritual cleansing. Our baptism is similar. It signifies not only God cleansing you of your sin but it also signifies participating in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. 

In Matt. 3:7, we have a parallel account, and it states that John is addressing the Pharisees and the Sadducees when he opens his discourse. It very could have been that the Pharisees and the Sadducees were not the only people that were present. John, a talented preacher, was probably generally speaking to the crowds but was making a heavy handed remark towards the Pharisees and Sadducees. 

John is not afraid to call it like it is. He openly calls them Γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν (offspring of snakes). These are individuals that are supposed to be the religious leaders of the day. However John is calling the Pharisees and Sadducees children of snakes—individuals that are poisonous. They may have the religious leaders of the day but they were not teaching as according to the Law of Moses like they thought. They were not teaching a repentance of sin but a form of self-made righteousness that comes through following the traditions of men. Therefore they were not teaching the Law but they were leading them astray. They were putting the children of Israel in Jeopardy. John is right to call them snakes. 

Jesus does the same thing when he comes across the Pharisees and Sadducees saying, “Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?” (Matt. 23:33; cf. 12:34). In the Gospel of John, Jesus tells the Jews that they are of their father the devil who was a murderer and a liar from the beginning (John 8:44). Jesus was accusing them of being murderers and liars by using the adage, like father, like son. 

Jesus and John were not afraid to call like it is. They saw someone that was prideful of their sinful state and they were afraid to declare who they truly were. “You, who think that your are so righteous, are nothing more than poisonous snakes, murderers, and liars.” When you are without Christ, you are sinner and are of the same character as Satan. Sin is still sin no matter who does the act, no matter how well dressed they are, no matter how much political power they have. Sin is sin. Sin is sickening. Sin is disastrous. Sin is destructive. Sin is poisonous. 

John makes a reference to the wrath to come. John is using some imagery with the snakes concerning wrath. In a brush fire snakes will often crawl out of the hole trying to escape from the heat of the fire. However, when the Day of the Lord comes, there will be no escape for those who have trusted only on their own efforts and not the work of Christ. 

The question that John puts forward is meant to be used rhetorically. John knows full well that these men are not looking to understood what John is preaching. The only reason why they have come is seen in John 1:19–28. They are curious about a man that has come from the wilderness and is drawing a crowd. If we saw a spiritual awakening being led by a homeless, I’m sure that there would be many curious yet inconspicuous men looking for answers for the crowd. John knows that they do not understand the true purpose of his ministry. He there to prepare the hearts of Israel for the coming of their King and Messiah. 

Repentance (3:8)

John then relays the only way in which a person can escape the wrath that is to come—repentance. A man cannot earn his way out of condemnation. A man cannot make himself better. An unregenerate cannot even do good works. An unregenerate is nothing more than a brood of vipers. The only possible way in which a man may escape the judgment to come is through repentance. A man has to be willing to say that the only thing he has ever done is sin.

However, John makes it clear that repentance does not come only with words on lips but is attended and attested with good works on hands. The repentance needs to be a true repentance which evidenced by a changed lifestyle. God saved us so that we can be free from the bondage of sin and death. He has given life and liberty so that we might walk in the good works that He has set before us (Eph 2:10). James says the same in his letter, “Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone” (James 2:17). There is no such thing as fire insurance Christianity. A simple statement will not suffice. If a man is a true believer, he will have the Holy Spirit living within him Who is working to set him apart unto righteousness. If you say that you are a believer there must come evidence of one’s belief. 

After giving a positive, John gives the negative to push it further. The Pharisees, Sadducees, and many other children of Israel thought that being a child of Abraham would be good enough to enter the kingdom. Such men are poorly mistaken. We still deal with this problem today even. There are many confused people who think that because their parents were Christians then they must be Christians as well. The Catholic Church teaches such ludicrous ideas to children and are leading them astray, leading their souls into eternal torment. Children of pastors and missionaries make the same mistake. They may have grown up in a home that has loved the Lord but the parent’s faith bears no effect on the faith of the child. Growing up in a Christian home will not save you. Having Christian parents will not save you. 

The true children of Abraham are not always the ones that calls himself and Israelite. The one who is a son of Abraham is the one who has trusted in the promises of God as Abraham had trusted. “And [Abraham] believed in the LORD; and He counted it to him for righteousness” (Gen. 15:6). Paul states the same in his letter the Galatians, “And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise” (Gal. 3:29). 

Therefore, these men should not even begin to say (καὶ μὴ ἄρξησθε λέγειν) that Abraham as their father will save them from the wrath to come. They have no hope found in their lineage or nationality. They may lean upon their family tree only to have it break under their weight of sin. We should instead understand that God is able to make any person a child of God. This is what is meant by God raising children from these rocks. Salvation is not only for the Jew. Salvation is also available for the Gentile that comes to Christ for remission of sins. 

Wrath (3:9)

John explains that there is immediate impending judgment, “yet even now (ἤδη δὲ καί).” The Day of Lord may seem like it is a long way off but you need to understand that a man will judgment upon death for “it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment” (Heb. 9:27). And you are not aware of when your appointed time of death will come. Therefore one must be ready for when he will appear before God. 

John’s imagery is extremely with displaying how immediate the danger is for the unrepentant man. The axe has already been placed at the root of the tree. The axe is not in the shed or hanging on the wall with other tools. The axe is in hand and is ready to be swung. Judgment is able to come in a swift moment. There will be no warning. 

For the tree that will be cut down that fails to bear good fruit will be used to feed the fire. The tree bearing good fruit will not cut down for it of use to its master. The keeper of the orchard receives good fruit from a good tree and is able to take his fill and be satisfied. The good fruit that John is referring to are the good works that is evidence of the true repentance that was made. However, the tree, the man that shows no good fruit will be thrown into the fire. A keeper of an orchard will see a withering tree and quickly cut it down. The tree is good for nothing but to keep the man warm at night and to heat his stove. A man may come to Church, may say on Sunday that he follows Jesus but if the rest of his life shows nothing of good works then we know that his faith is dead! The man has no good works whereby he has glorified Christ with. He has not shown that the Spirit resides within him. He is a man that is destined for eternal torment in the fire of hell. The axe will fall and he will be cast into the fire. God may not have glorified in the display of his good works but God will certainly be satisfied in the man’s destruction. 

Preaching the wrath of God is not old-fashioned. Preaching and hearing of the wrath of God and the torments of hell is preaching the entire counsel of God. Every man is destined for eternal flame unless he trust His sins were paid for by Christ on the cross. God spoke of His wrath in the Garden of Eden to Adam and Eve, that if they were to eat of the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil that they would surely die. Noah warned the world of God’s wrath that would come in the form of a flood upon the earth. Make no mistake, it was God that sent the Flood for their hearts were evil. It was God that poured out His wrath on Sodom and Gomorrah because there was not enough righteous men in the city to spare it. God spoke of His wrath to Moses when the Israelites worshipped the golden calf in the wilderness but wrath was averted when Moses asked for forgiveness. Moses promised Israel that they would be cursed by God if they abandoned the covenant. The prophets warned Israel so many times of the coming Day of the Lord. Paul warns that all will appear before His throne. Peter reminds that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. Scripture concludes with the saints standing in pure righteousness but not before God judges the entire earth, even personally leveling His enemies in the place of Armageddon. John the Baptist preaches about the wrath of God because it is to be seen from cover to cover. Even Christ Himself makes numerous warnings about the final eternal punishment of the damned. Just in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus mentions the fire of hell, or the gnashing of teeth 13 times. Hell and torment is a regular part of Jesus’ preaching as well. Know this well, it will God that will cast you into hell you are found to not be bearing fruit of repentance. Dear brothers and sisters, work out your salvation with fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12). For it is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living Godπ (Heb. 10:31). Repent this day and be saved!

___________________

78. BDAG, 155. 

Luke 3:1–6 | Introduction to Preaching

Some commentators argue that chapter 3 begins a new section in the Gospel of Luke. I am not sure this is the case. I think the author continues to introduce us to Jesus Christ by comparing Him with John the Baptist up until 4:15. The last parallel made is how each person comes from the wilderness and then begins preaching. Chapters 1 and 2 led us through the birth narratives of both individuals. Now in chapters 3 and 4, we are going to see the character of each individual as a mature adult. The significance of the persons is demonstrated in 3 and 4. We will John as the herald that goes before as spoken by the prophet Isaiah preaching the repentance of sin and we will see Jesus be called the Son of God and be sinless man. After this demonstration of Jesus’ unwavering character, comes His preaching to the people of Galilee. This section therefore serves as an introduction to the preaching for both men even though we will only see John the Baptist in this pericope. 

Marking a Date (3:1–2a)

It is very easy for a person to read over these first two verses and give not much thought to its significance. However, we should ask ourselves, “Why does Luke take the time to record all of these names of political figures?” The answer is simple but the demonstration of the answer is encouraging. The simple answer is that Luke wants you to know the date. Luke wants you to know the date because something very important happened. It was the year that the word of the Lord came to John the Baptist. Later in the chapter we will see that it will be the year that Jesus is baptized and then begins His earthly ministry. It is very common for an author to mark either the age of the character or the ruler of the day due to the significance of the event. For example, in Jeremiah we read, “The words of Jeremiah the son of Hilkiah, of the priests that were in Anathoth in the land of Benjamin: To whom the word of the Lord came in the days of Josiah the son of Amon king of Judah, in the thirteenth year of his reign” (Jer. 1:1–2). Or in Isaiah, “The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah” (Isa. 1:1). Yet this style for communicating a date was common among secular histories as well (e.g. Thucydides 2.2; Polybius 1.3).61

Now Luke have given us a date by relating the event during the rule of only one ruler. However, Luke mentions seven different political figures. He mostly does this so his audience is aware of the political climate of the time, which is very confusing. I also want to use these to verses to remind us of Luke’s thesis for writing this Gospel and demonstrate just how well he has done. Luke told Theophilus that he was writing these down so that he “mightest know the certainty of these things, wherein thou hast been instructed” (Luke 1:4). These events are not fake. They are not made up. They happened within the recorded pages of history. The book of Mormon talks about wars of Native Americans in central America and of their currency, but there has never been a single shred of archaeological evidence to help corroborate Joseph Smith stories with real history. He made up wars. He invented pretend currencies. This is not the case with Scripture. Luke gives a faithful record of true events. 

I want to show that Luke’s mention of these political figures show us that we have a reliable record in four ways. 1) Luke mentions real people ruling over real locations. 2) Of each of the people mentioned, all of their reigns overlap. It would be one thing to mention a political leader but pointless if the man was not alive during the time referred. 3) Luke uses the proper titles for each of the political figures that are mentioned. 4) Amidst all of the political confusion, Luke names the correct people as leaders during that time. 

The first political figure that Luke mentions is Tiberius Caesar. The man’s life is recorded in numerous histories (e.g. Suetonius, Tacitus, and Josephus). From these histories, we can figure out that the man was Caesar from A.D. 14–37.62 Therefore, after doing some math, Luke tells us the year John the Baptist started preaching, ca. A.D. 29, depending on the years were counted. Now, Luke also mentions the other contemporary rulers, which that all of the following rulers would have been in power in A.D. 29.  It should be noted that it is impressive that Luke named the correct person despite the situation going on at that time. Tiberius had actually retreated to the island of Capri in A.D. 26 and left his aide Sejanus to take care of most of the business in Rome gaining power until he was seen as a threat and then executed.63 Yet Luke states correctly that Tiberius is Caesar, not Sejanus.

The next person mentioned is Pontius Pilate who ruled over Judea from A.D. 26–36/37, of which A.D. 29 falls in the middle.64 His rule over Judea is mentioned not only by the Gospels, but also recorded by Josephus, Philo and Tacitus. Also, in 1961, Italian archeologists discovered an inscription in Caesarea that was formerly on a temple for the worship of Tiberius with the Latin inscription, “For the Caesareans. The Tiberium, which Pontius Pilate, the Prefect of Judea, gave [and] dedicated.”65

The third political leader mentioned is Herod, also known as Herod Antipas. He should not be confused with his father, Herod the Great. Now Herod the Great was called king over Judea and ruled from 37–4 B.C. It was Herod the Great that was mentioned in Luke 1:5 and ordered the slaughter of the children in Bethlehem (Matt. 2:16). Upon Herod the Great’s death, the territory under his rule was split up into three parts and given to his three sons.66 Acrhelaus ruled over the province of Judea only until A.D. 6. He was banished due to accusations brought against him by his brothers and the province of Judea was then placed under Roman rule by prefects.67 Herod Antipas succeeded his father in 4 B.C and was tetrarch, not king, over Galilee and Perea until A.D. 3968 (A.D. 29 falls within that range). 

The fourth political figure mentioned is Philip. Philip is the third son of Herod the Great, and half-brother to Herod Antipas. Philip was tetrarch over Iturea and Trachonitis from 4 B.C till A.D. 34.69 Iturea was a region north of Galilee. Trachonitis is the area east of the sea of Galilee. Of all the Herodian family, Philip was considered the most reasonable. Outside of the Gospels, his rule is recorded in the works of Josephus. 

The last Gentile political figure mentioned is Lysanias and he is the least known of the political figures that Luke mentions. From what we can understand from Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews, is that there were actually two men name Lysanias. The one whom Luke is referring to is the latter of the two. “His name appears on an inscription of Abila, dated between A.D 14 and 29, recording a temple dedication by a freedman of ‘Lysanias the tetrarch.’”70 We are unable to know the date of his reign. This is the only place he is mentioned in Scripture and only once in the Josephus.71 Abila, or Abilene, is northwest of Damascus. 

The last point I wish to make before leaving the first verse is how Luke gets the titles of the political leaders correct. He called Herod the Great “king” in Luke 1:5 but Luke correctly calls each of his sons as tetrarch. The sons did not have as land and sway with their individual offices like their father before them. Luke carries on the practice of using the correct tittles for the rest of his corpus (i.e. Luke and Acts), which in Luke’s day is an amazing feat considering all of the political changes and differences between regions. F. F. Bruce explains,

One of the most remarkable tokens of his accuracy is his sure familiarity with the proper titles of all the notable persons who are mentioned in his pages. This was by no means such an easy feat in his days as it is ours, when it is so simple to consult convenient books of reference.…The titles sometimes did not remain the same for any great length of time; a province might pass from senatorial to administration by a direct representative of the emperor, and would then be governed no longer by a proconsul by by an imperial legate.72

This amount of precise detail shows that Luke must have paid careful attention to what was recorded so the accounts would be seen as accurate. The tittles Luke records includes, but not limited to, kings, tetrarch, proconsuls, governors, town-clerks, praetors, politarchs, etc.; all of which are handled properly.

3:2a. Verse 1 listed Gentile political leaders. Verse 2 lists two leaders of the religious realm. However, something peculiar is going on. Luke lists two individuals for one office that is supposed to held for life (Num 35:25, 28). Therefore there should only be one High Priest at a time. However, Israel was not a sovereign nation and Gentile rulers would often take down a High Priest and set up a new one. Annas was the High Priest when he was appointed by Quirinius, the governor of Syria, sometime around A.D. 6 and was deposed by Valerius Gratus, (the prefect of Judea that preceded Pilate) about 14/5. Caiaphas was appointed by Valerius Gratus in A.D. 18 and removed from office in A.D. 36 by prefect Vitellius.73 So why does Luke mention both of these men when only of them holds the office? It turns out that Annas is the father-in-law of Caiaphas. So while Caiaphas was the official High Priest, Annas was the one that was pulling the strings in the background. This is probably why Jesus went to see Annas first before being sent to Caiaphas on the night of his trial (John 18:13–14). 

John’s Modus Operandi (3:2b–3)

The last time we saw John the Baptist was in Luke 1:80. He was growing strong in the Spirit while he was living in the wilderness. There is some speculation as to what happened to John during this time period. Some think that he may have joined a religious separatist group called the Essenes which were based in Qumran on the north shore of the Dead Sea. However, the only reason for this is from him living in the wilderness. 

Luke has firmly established a date for us to mark out the significance of this event—that the Word of God came unto John the Baptist. Again, this was customary with OT prophets (e.g. Hos. 1:1; Joel 1:1; Zech. 1:1). This event marks the beginning of John’s preaching ministry. Also the event is significant because the last prophet in the land was Malachi. There has been no prophet for around 400 years. Therefore, living in that generation and see a prophet come from the wilderness would have been very unusual and highly alarming. It would mean that God is doing something amongst His people again. 

3:3. Luke then begins to explain to John’s mode of operation for John’s preaching ministry. There are two main facets with John’s preaching ministry. The first is that John preaches repentance from sin. Repentance is μετάνοια which primarily means “a change of mind” and applied within these contexts it means “turning away.”74 The point of repentance is for remission of sin. Remission is ἄφεσις meaning “the act of freeing from an obligation, guilt, or  punishment, pardon, cancellation.”75 This is the very basis of salvation. We are called to turn away from our sin in order to be relieved of the penalty of our sin. It will not be until we Christ crucified that do we realize that our penalty of sin was placed upon Jesus Christ. 

The second aspect of John’s preaching ministry is his practice of baptism. The practice of baptism may have been place already for many Jewish proselytes but it is uncertain if the practice goes back that far.76 The baptism that John is performing is akin to a ceremonial washing and is meant to signify the content of his preaching—God forgives sin for the repentant. This would also explain why John is preaching in the country of the Jordan river. The Jordan flows from the Sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea separating Samaria from Perea. John would have needed the river in order to perform the baptism, that is, to dunk people in water. 

As Foretold (3:4–6)

Luke pulls a quotation from Isaiah 40:3–5 in order to shed more light on the significance of John the Baptist’s ministry and the purpose of his preaching. All the other Gospels quote Isaiah as well but only 40:3 (Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; John 1:23). In the Gospel of John, John the Baptist quotes the verse in order to explain his identity and role to the Jewish leaders, so the connection is undeniable.

3:4b–5. “The figures concerning the clearing of the way are standard ancient Near Eastern metaphors about clearing the way for the entry of a king or a god. The clearing prepares for the glorious entry of the sovereign figure.”77 Originally, within the context of Isaiah, the passage is referring to the return of Israel from the exile to Babylon. The return to Israel is very much a picture of God’s salvation/redemption in much the same way as the Exodus was a picture of God’s redemption. Therefore connotations of salvation are appropriate. Overall, the imagery of cutting roads and leveling ground is an illustration of a person’s preparedness for receiving the Sovereign figure—Jesus Christ. 

3:6. Luke’s quotation does not follow the MT but the LXX. Instead of reading, “And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, And all flesh shall see it together,” we instead read, “And all flesh shall see the salvation from God.” The phrase that is change from “the glory of the LORD,” to “the salvation from God,” should be seen as equivalent. Luke more than likely understands that seeing salvation that is provided by God is equivalent to seeing the glory of the LORD. 

________________

61. Darrell L. Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 282. 

62. Jesse Pingenot, “Tiberius, Emperor,” in LBD.

63. Ibid. 

64. Michael Brandon Massey, “Pontius Pilate,” in LBD.

65. KarBel Media, “Pontius Pilate’s Inscription,” in Faithlife Study Bible Infographics (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2012); cf. Lexham Press, “Pontius Pilate Inscription,” in Logos Bible Software Infographics (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2009). 

66. Melton B. Winstead, “Herod the Great,” in LBD.

67. Frank E. Dicken, “Archelaus, Son of Herod,” in LBD.

68. Frank E. Dicken, “Archelaus, Son of Herod,” in LBD.

69. Frank E. Dicken, “Philip the Tetrarch,” in LBD.

70. F. F. Bruce, “Lysanias,” in NBD, 708.

71. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 20.7.1.

72. F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, 6th ed. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1981), 82–3. 

73. “Caiaphas,” Wikipedia, last modified November 23, 2015, accessed January 9, 2016, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caiaphas. 

74. BDAG, 640. 

75. BDAG, 155. 

76. Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 288. 

77. Ibid, 291.