MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.— Luke 3:15-20
Acceptance and Rejection of the Divine Message.—The work of separating the wheat from the chaff and of bringing to light the hidden thoughts of men is done by every true messenger of God to men. Some receive the Divine word gladly, others harden their hearts against it. This twofold result was very marked in the case of John the Baptist.
I. The Divine message he brought awakened the attention of the nation and excited eager questionings and expectations.—The people as a whole accepted John as a prophet sent from God, received his rebukes of their sins without resentment, and believed on his testimony that great events were near at hand. Some thought that he must himself be the Christ; nor was their idea altogether ill-founded, for in the person of John, Christ was indeed standing and knocking at the door of their hearts. But John with the humility which is characteristic of true greatness shrank from accepting the honour paid him, and directed the thoughts of the people again to One mightier than himself. He spoke of the greater power, and majesty, and authority with which the Anointed of God would be clothed, and to his previous warnings and threatenings added words that were good tidings of salvation. And in this subordination of the Baptist to the Saviour we have an illustration of the fact, which we ever need to keep in mind, that mere repentance is not enough—that it is but a state of preparation for that holy life which springs from faith in Christ and communion with Christ.
II. The call to repentance and amendment of life was in some instances rejected, and John, like so many other of the prophets, had to endure persecution on account of the faithfulness with which he discharged his duty.—The ruling classes of the nation were disposed to deny his Divine mission, and were only kept from openly opposing him by the strong feeling in his favour on the part of the nation at large. The deepest disgrace, however, attaches to Herod for the part he played in laying violent hands upon the Baptist. Ecclesiastical authorities might be divided upon the question whether John was a prophet sent from God or not; but there could be no doubt that the conduct of Herod which drew upon him the Baptist’s rebuke and exhortation, was without excuse. Both his own conscience and the plain teaching of the law of Moses, which he professed to reverence, must have convinced the Jewish prince that John’s words of blame were amply deserved. In other parts of his conduct Herod seems to have been disposed to obey the admonitions of the Baptist; but this sin he would not renounce. A solemn warning for all of us lies in this fact. The sin we will not give up must lead us into utter antagonism to God; and no amendment we may effect in other departments of our conduct will atone for the evil that we retain. The thought, too, is suggested by the case before us that rejection of revelation is, in some instances at any rate, due to corruption of heart; and those who are under the impression that the barriers in their way are intellectual difficulties would do well to consider whether the real explanation is not to be found in a depraved nature and a perverse will. The “evil heart of unbelief” may not in all cases be the cause why revelation is rejected; but few who are acquainted with the word of God and with the facts of human nature can doubt that in most cases it is.
SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON Luke 3:15-20
Luke 3:15-17. John as a Herald.
I. His clear conception of his own limits.
II. The bowing down of the strong, stern spirit before the Coming One.
III. The profound insight into Christ’s work.—Maclaren.
Preacher and Witness.
I. A great preacher.
II. A plain teacher.
III. A faithful witness to Christ.—Taylor.
Luke 3:15. “Whether he were the Christ.”—The people had not as yet so carnal a notion of the Messiah, for there was nothing of outward splendour about John; nevertheless they entertained these thoughts about him.—Bengel.
Luke 3:16. The Spirit’s Fire.—The two mean but one, the fire being the emblem of the Spirit. Selected to express the work of the Spirit of God—
I. By reason of its leaping, triumphant, and transforming energy.—This fire of God, if it falls on you, will burn up all your coldness, and will make you glow with enthusiasm:
(1) working your intellectual convictions in fire, not in frost;
(2) making your creed a living power in your lives;
(3) kindling you into a flame of earnest consecration in life-work. Christians are to be set on fire of God. We have more than enough of cold icebergs. The metaphor of fire also suggests—
II. Purifying.—“The spirit of burning” will burn the filth cut of us. Foul clay must be thrust into the fire to have its blackness burned out of it. This too is the way in which a soul is cleansed. No washing will ever clear sin. Get the love of God into your hearts, and the fire of the Divine Spirit into your spirits to melt you down, as it were, and then the scum and the dross will come to the top, and you can skim them off.—Maclaren.
“One mightier.”
I. Mightier than John, because “mighty to save.”
II. Mightier than John, who could impart no spiritual gift. Jesus has sent “the Comforter.”
III. Mightier than John, who could only warn of judgment. “Thou shalt come to be our Judge.”—Taylor.
“Fire.”
I. The Holy Spirit is fire.
II. Christ plunges us into this Divine fire.
III. That fiery baptism quickens and cleanses.—Maclaren.
Wherein consists the Superiority of Jesus?—
1. John calls men to repentance, Jesus remits sin.
2. John proclaims the kingdom of heaven, Jesus bestows it.
3. John baptizes with water, Jesus with the Spirit and with fire.
“Not worthy to unloose.”—“It was the token of a slave’s having become his master’s property, to loose his shoe, to tie the same, or to carry the necessary articles for him to the bath” (Lightfoot). The varying forms of expression used in the Gospels all illustrate this relationship between master and slave. It is to be noted that this language would indicate utter abjectness and servility of mind if Jesus had been a mere man, however exalted in character and office; it can only be explained and justified by the fact that He was God incarnate. And it gives us a vivid idea of the beauty of John’s character to see that at the height of his popularity he thus effaces himself in favour of One who would only by the eye of faith be recognised to be more than a lowly Galilæan peasant.
Baptism with Water, with Fire, and with the Spirit.—Baptism with water had in view the forgiveness of sins, and baptism with the Spirit meant the renewal and sanctification of the nature: the one was negative, and the other positive. And it was baptism with the Spirit that gave efficacy to the material rite. Observe that in the original there is no preposition before “water,” and that there is one before “Spirit”; the reason is that “water” is merely a means employed, and “the Spirit” more than that. Baptism of a threefold character:
(1) with water;
(2) with the Holy Spirit; and
(3) with fire. “In the triple element of baptism there is contained or indicated a progressive gradation of the spiritual development of life, and of the element through which it occurs. Whilst the lowest degree, i.e. the baptism with water, refers to the external purification of sins and repentance, the baptism of the Spirit, on the contrary, refers to the internal purification by faith (the Holy Spirit being considered as the regenerating principle, John 3:1 sqq.; Acts 1:5), and, finally, the baptism of fire expresses the transformation, or sanctification, of the new-born higher life in its peculiar nature” (Olshausen).
“With fire.”—No reference is made in the use of this phrase to “fire” as an emblem of Divine wrath against the impenitent, as in the following verse. The very idea of punishment is utterly incongruous with the rite of baptism, which has man’s salvation always in view. It rather describes a holy influence that
(1) searches the nature,
(2) consumes the dross in it,
(3) refines the good elements of character, and
(4) elevates and ennobles the whole being. To purify, illumine, transform, inflame with holy fervour and zeal, and carry upwards, as Elijah was carried up to heaven in a chariot of fire. A prophecy specially fulfilled at Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit descended in tongues of fire (Acts 2:3).
Luke 3:17. “Whose fan is in His hand.”—The royal majesty of Christ is indicated in the use of the word “His”—“His hand,” “His floor,” and “His garner.” Observe it is not said “His chaff”; the wheat represents those who are His, the chaff those who reject Him, and are therefore themselves rejected, and are not counted by Him as His own. In the figure of the axe reference was made solely to the fate of the impenitent: this describes the distinction being made between the sincere and the hypocritical—between those who become holy and those who remain in their sins. His work of judgment is going forward every day; but the full accomplishment of it will not be seen till the last day. The same figure is used in Amos 9:9; Jeremiah 15:7; chap. Luke 22:31.
“Wheat.”—But how is Christ said to separate the chaff from the wheat, when He can find nothing in men but mere chaff? The answer is easy. The elect, who by their nature are only chaff, become wheat by the grace of God.—Calvin.
“Chaff.”—Empty, light, worthless persons, who have nothing of religion but the mere profession, who are devoid of all solidity of principle and character (cf. Psalms 1:4).
“Fire unquenchable.”—There seems at first sight to be a contradiction between “burning up” and “fire unquenchable.” But the paradox is explained by the spiritual facts of the case:
(1) there is an utter destruction of all that constitutes true life and happiness; but
(2) the persons themselves are not destroyed—in that dread state they are ever conscious of an unending doom. Such seem to be the two ideas suggested by the use of the phrases “burn up” and “unquenchable.” That “fire” here is not the material element, but a Divine anger of which the material fire is an emblem, is quite evident. If we are to interpret “fire” as literal flame, what can we make of “fan,” “threshing-floor,” “wheat,” and “chaff”? “Let us lay aside the speculations by which foolish men weary themselves to no purpose, and satisfy ourselves with believing that these forms of speech denote, in a manner suited to our feeble capacity, a dreadful torment, which no man can now comprehend and no language can express” (Calvin).
Luke 3:18-20. John’s Later Ministry.—Why does Luke anticipate the order of events to introduce the notice of John’s imprisonment at this point? Probably to mark more distinctly the introductory character of his ministry. Luke will finish up his summary of John, and, as it were, get him out of the way before he brings John’s Lord on the scene. This Gospel has no account of John’s martyrdom. The morning star fades before sunrise. The notice of his imprisonment—
I. Completes Luke’s outline of his character and work.
II. Shows John as a fearless rebuker of highly placed vice.—How he got access to “kings’ houses” we do not know. Whether he rebuked Herod publicly or privately we are not informed. He had only reproof for the royal profligate.
III. Shows that the climax of a bad man’s guilt is his persecution of those who would win him to goodness.—The martyr’s imprisonment seals the king’s condemnation, showing his conviction that the preacher spoke the truth, and was only to be silenced by force.—Maclaren.
Luke 3:18. “Preached good tidings” (R.V.).—Preached, lit. “proclaimed good tidings.” There is something pathetic in the contrast between the good tidings which he made known to others and the tragic fate which came upon himself. From a comparison of John 2:13 with Luke 3:24, it appears that John was not cast into prison until after the first Passover attended by Christ after His baptism. It would seem as if St. Luke were anxious to exhibit the history of John at one view, and to connect his bold preaching with the imprisonment in which it issued. And probably this is not without its teaching. By coupling the remote cause with its ultimate consequence—the course pursued with the results it eventually led to (dropping every intermediate fact and all irrelevant circumstances)—the inspired writers forcibly remind us how He must regard our lives, and actions, and characters who seeth as well as “declareth the end from the beginning.”
Luke 3:19. “Herod … reproved by him.”—Note that John the Baptist reproved Herod himself. He did neither
(1) inflame the minds of the people against their ruler by describing and denouncing the immoral character of the life he was living, nor
(2) as Christian prelates have been known to do, condone the wickedness of the king and live on good terms with his mistress. He was different from many of the “court preachers” known to history. Neither the vicious private life of the sovereign nor the evils of his public administration of affairs escaped rebuke. Cf. the relations between Elijah and Ahab, Nathan and David.
Luke 3:20. “Added yet this above all.”—The worst of all the evil things that Herod did was to murder the Baptist. Other sins might plead some palliation because of strong evil passions urging Herod on; but this was evidence of hatred of God and of holiness. For it is to be distinctly noted that he regarded John as a messenger and minister of God at the very time that he imprisoned him and at the later time when he beheaded him. As a Jew, Herod could not plead ignorance of God’s nature and claims, and of the inviolable majesty which clothed those whom He inspired and sent to speak to men in His name. Very seldom do the sacred historians manifest any expression of personal feeling excited by the events they record; but here in the phrase “added yet this above all” the indignation of the writer is but slightly veiled. The words are equivalent to the Hebrew expression “filling up the measure of iniquity.”
Luke 3:19-20. Fidelity to duty.—There are three periods in the life of John the Baptist. The first of these, of which we know little, lasted for thirty years, the greater part of which he spent in the desert in preparation for his life-work; the second is that of the few months of his public ministry; and the third, perhaps a still shorter period, which he spent as a prisoner in the castle of Machærus. In these different circumstances his character was subjected to severe tests. The task laid upon him of rebuking the sins of every class of the nation required rare steadfastness of soul, and fidelity to the God whose messenger he was. But his success as a prophet had its perils also. It remained to be seen whether he would come safely through them. The movement he inaugurated spread far and wide over the land, until it reached and affected even the sceptical and voluptuous Herod, who summoned him to his palace and seemed disposed to accept his teaching. Worldly wisdom might have counselled John to exercise caution in alluding to the flagrant sin in which Herod lived, or, disguising itself under the pretence of charity, might have found many excuses for it in the evil influences that had surrounded him from his earliest life, in the bad example of his father, and in the licence which is so often allowed to men in his position. John, however, spoke out against the sin of the king in as plain terms as ever he had used in rebuking the sins of Pharisees, and publicans, and soldiers. He addressed himself to the offender, and did not, as already remarked, court the popularity which a demagogue sometimes wins by inflaming the minds of the people with denunciations of the crimes of their rulers. Two things are noticeable in John’s rebuke of Herod:—
I. It was unhesitating and direct.—“It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother’s wife.” It was the sinfulness of the king’s conduct, and not its imprudence, or the scandal it caused, or the risks it provoked, that he laid stress upon. He spoke as one who did not dare to be silent, and not as one who was conscious of the heroism of his conduct.
II. It was unselfish.—John’s was not one of those hard, pitiless natures that feel no compunction in administering blame. In spite of the austerity of his life, his soul was of the most exquisite sensibility. No one can read the touching words he spoke when his disciples left him to attach themselves to Jesus without perceiving this. “He that hath the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled: He must increase, but I must decrease.” The firmness in rebuking sin shown by this man of such profound humility and fine sensitiveness of feeling is all the more wonderful. It must have cost him keen pain to inflict pain, and to speak words of rebuke which he could scarcely fail to know would be fruitless, except in provoking against himself a profound and unsleeping hatred.
The third period of John’s life, when he lay in the dungeon of the palace, and heard rumours of the wonderful works of Christ, who, however, showed no signs of attempting his release—when he had leisure to think of the apparent defeat of his mission and of the overthrow of the hopes and anticipations he had once cherished—was also one when his faith was subjected to new and severe tests. Nor need we wonder if in the hour of darkness he was afflicted by doubt as to the Divine mission of Him whom he had pointed out as the Messiah and the Lamb of God. His doubts, nevertheless, were not those of a poor and weak religious character. They were misgivings caused by separation from Christ, and they were solved by an appeal to Christ.