All Flesh Shall See the Salvation of God

Below is a rough translation and some interpretive notes for Luke 3:1-6, the Revised Common Lectionary gospel reading for the 2^nd Sunday of Advent in Year C. Your comments are always welcomed. 

 

Luke 3:1-6

1 Ἐν ἔτει δὲ πεντεκαιδεκάτῳ τῆς ἡγεμονίας Τιβερίου Καίσαρος, ἡγεμονεύοντος ΠοντίουΠιλάτου τῆς Ἰουδαίας, καὶ τετρααρχοῦντος τῆς Γαλιλαίας Ἡρῴδου, Φιλίππου δὲ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ αὐτοῦ τετρααρχοῦντος τῆς Ἰτουραίας καὶ Τραχωνίτιδος χώρας, καὶ Λυσανίου τῆς Ἀβιληνῆς τετρααρχοῦντος, 

In the 15^th year of the hegemony of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being hegemon of the Judaea, and Herod being a tetrarch of the Galilee, and Philip his brother being tetrarch of the Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanius being tetrarch of Abilene, 

ἡγεμονεύοντος: PAPart gsm, ἡγεμονεύω, 1) to be leader, to lead the way  2) to rule, command  2a) of a province, to be governor of a province  2b) said of a proconsul, of a procurator

τετρααρχοῦντος: PAPart gsm, τετραρχέω, to be governor of a tetrarchy, be tetrarch: with a gen. of the region

1. So far, there is no main verb in this sentence, so this verse is one long dependent clause. 

2. Regarding the words “hegemony” and “hegemon”: I have transliterated the noun ἡγεμονίας as ‘hegemony’ and the participial form of it, ἡγεμονεύοντος, as ‘hegemon’ because those are term that have accrued insightful meaning in the work of Marxist social analyst Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci notes that ‘Hegemony’ not only connotes ‘leadership’; it points to a thorough form of domination that requires subjected peoples to adopt value systems that are historically and culturally alien as one’s own. It may be wise to use a more familiar term for a refined translation, Luke specifically locates the following story in time with reference to names that have nothing to do with the biblical Hebrew tradition. That seems significant. It shows not only that Luke’s audience may be more far-reaching than the audiences of the Hebrew Scriptures, but also that virtually any audience of Luke’s day would understand how this hierarchical system of ‘Caesar-to Caesar appointees-even to local religious leadership’ works.  

I do not know the literature of Luke’s era well enough to know if the terms related to “hegemony” were as loaded with such connotative meaning as Gramsci suggests or simply a common term for referring to a chain of command. So, I may be imposing a deeper meaning on this term than Luke intended. But I worry that many Bible Dictionaries and Lexicons were developed among people who tended to see this kind of imperial chain of command from the side of the powers and not from the side of the oppressed. It seems to me that what many Bible commentators from the past saw as the ‘background’ of the story – the Roman Empire and its effects – actually belongs in the foreground, where Luke is locating it here. The preaching of John and then Jesus happened in this context. That matters. 

3. Herod, Philip, and Lysanius are “tetrarchs” because the kingdom of Herod the Great (who was in power during the birth narrative of Luke 1-2) was broken up into four tetrarchies upon his death. There were rivalries and intrigue that accompanied the sons of Herod, who inherited his ambition, if not his effectiveness.

 

2 ἐπὶ ἀρχιερέως Ἅννα καὶ Καϊάφα, ἐγένετο ῥῆμα θεοῦ ἐπὶ Ἰωάννην τὸν Ζαχαρίου υἱὸν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ. 

during the chief priesthood of Anna and Caiaphas, a word of God came into being to John the son of Zacharias in the desert. 

ἐγένετο: AMI 3s (deponent), γίνομαι, 1) to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being

1. The fact that Luke includes the religious temple leadership in this chain of command is jarring. One thinks of Tertullian’s question, “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” (which was a commentary on the influence of philosophy on theology) and is tempted to ask, “What has Rome to do with Jerusalem?” For many Jews, the answer should be “nothing.” For many in power, the answer was “a lot.” 

2. Finally, we get to the main verb of vv. 1-2, and I’m not quite sure of the best way to translate it. ἐγένετο is the word that is often translated “it came to pass” in the KJV, which is really a fine translation. It is not “came” in the traveling sense, but often more of a “coming into existence.” It is a common term in the gospels and is translated quite widely, depending on the context and what clarity demands. I’m using “came into being,” but that is rather awkward and needs to be refined in a smoother translation. 

3. “Word” (ῥῆμα, not λόγος) has no definite article here. 

4. The dependent clause names all of the people in power with the regions over which they are empowered. The main verb, however, is that a word of God came into being, not to any of the political or religious luminaries of the day, but to a desert-dwelling John, son of Zacharias. 

5. The construction of this sentence raises the question of whether Luke is using the luminaries to fix an approximate date in history, or to contrast where a word of God is found, with where imperial and religious authority is found. Or both. Luke follows a similar pattern in cc.1 and 2, beginning the story of John the Baptizer with reference to Herod the Great and the story of Jesus’ birth with reference to a decree from Caesar Augustus. This may be Luke’s way of writing ‘sacred history,’ where the events in the world normally remembered by historians are the setting for what God is doing. 

 

3 καὶ ἦλθεν εἰς πᾶσαν [τὴν] περίχωρον τοῦ Ἰορδάνου κηρύσσων βάπτισμα μετανοίας εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, 

And he came into all [the] surrounding region of the Jordan while preaching baptism of repentance into a forgiveness of sins, 

ἦλθεν: AAI 3s, ἔρχομαι, 1) to come  1a) of persons

κηρύσσων: PAPart nsm, κηρύσσω, 1) to be a herald, to officiate as a herald  1a) to proclaim after the manner of a herald

1. I’m hearing an echo of II Kings 2 here and perhaps Luke’s way of writing sacred geography. While the Jordan River is prominent in the Hebrew Scriptures, in II Kings 2 Elisha pick up the mantle of the ascended-in-the-fiery-chariot Elijah and strikes the waters of the Jordan with it asking, “Where is the Lord, the God of Elijah?” When the waters part, the prophets say, “The spirit of Elijah rests on Elisha.” By situating John in the region surrounding the Jordan, it seems that Luke is saying that the spirit of Elijah now rests on John.

2. This is such a full and marvelous sentence, almost “memory verse” worthy with respect to John’s ministry. John was “preaching a baptism of repentance.” I like to stop whenever I use the word “repent” in sermons and simply add an apposition, “change the way you think about everything,” then keep going. And it was repentance (changing the way of thinking) toward (εἰς) a “ἄφεσιν of sins.” I’m using “forgiveness” reluctantly here. The noun ἄφεσιν can mean “release, discharge, set free” and the like; while its verbal form, ἀφίημι, can mean “send away, let go, divorce.” It is a term with a wide variety of meanings, but almost always gets translated “forgive” is the word “sin” is anywhere close. Young’s Literal Translation and the KJV use “remission.” 

3. I think my reluctance to use “forgiveness” is that it may be a misdirection. When we hear “forgiveness of sin” we immediately ascribe the act of forgiving to God. But, what if John’s preaching was less about what God does to our sins and more about what we do, as part of our repentance (changing our way of thinking)? What if our new way of thinking is akin to divorcing sin? To letting sin depart? To sending sin away?” That would open the door for us to consider more deeply what John means by “sins” (ἁμαρτιῶν), which would be a wonderful thing to consider. 

 

4 ὡς γέγραπται ἐν βίβλῳ λόγων Ἠσαΐου τοῦπροφήτου, Φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, Ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου, εὐθείας ποιεῖτε τὰςτρίβους αὐτοῦ. 

as it has been written in the book of the words of Isaiah the prophet, “A voice of one crying out in the desert, ‘Prepare the way of a lord, make straight his paths.’ 

γέγραπται: PerfPI, 3p, γράφω, 1) to write

βοῶντος: PAPart gsm, βοάω, 1) to raise a cry, of joy pain etc.  2) to cry, speak with a high, strong voice 

Ἑτοιμάσατε: AAImpv 2p, ἑτοιμάζω, 1) to make ready, prepare 

ποιεῖτε: PAImpv 2p, ποιέω, 1) to make  

1. Darn, just when I see echoes of Elijah in John the Baptizer, Luke goes and quotes Isaiah. 

2. The Greek text for Luke that I am using has the word ‘voice’ (Φωνὴ) capitalized, signifying that, for them, “A voice ...” is the beginning of the quote. Original manuscripts did not have capitalization, so this is arguable. Likewise, the Septuagint – from which we suppose Luke is working or has learned – has this: φωνὴ βοῶντος ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ ἑτοιμάσατε τὴν ὁδὸν κυρίου εὐθείας ποιεῖτετὰς τρίβους τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν. (Isaiah 40:3) 

It could be that a voice was crying out, “In the desert prepare the way ...”. In that case, the point of this verse would not be John who was in the desert (v.2 has already made that point), but ‘the way of the Lord’ is to be in the desert. 

On the other hand, if “A voice” is the beginning of the quote, this would be a way of signifying that John’s ministry could be understood as fulfilling the role that Isaiah envisioned. 

 5 πᾶσα φάραγξ πληρωθήσεται καὶ πᾶν ὄρος καὶ βουνὸς ταπεινωθήσεται, καὶ ἔσται τὰ σκολιὰ εἰς εὐθείαν καὶ αἱ τραχεῖαι εἰς ὁδοὺς λείας: 

Every valley shall be filled and the mountain and hill shall be leveled, and the crooked ones will become into straight and the rocky ones into a smooth path;

πληρωθήσεται: FPI 3s, πληρόω, 1) to make full, to fill up, i.e. to fill to the full

ταπεινωθήσεται: FPI 3s, ταπεινόω, 1) to make low, bring low  1a) to level, reduce to a plain 

ἔσται: FMI 3s, εἰμί, 1) to be, to exist, to happen, to be present

1. Certainly it is awkward, as a rough, literal translation, to say “will become into straight,” but I am picking up on the middle voice of the future verb ‘to be’ (ἔσται), and the participle (εἰς) that is usually translated ‘into.’ 

2. The words “crooked” and “rocky” are plural substantive adjectives, picking up on “paths” as the antecedent. 

 

6 καὶ ὄψεται πᾶσα σὰρξ τὸ σωτήριον τοῦ θεοῦ.

and all flesh shall see the salvation of God. 

ὄψεται: FMI 3s, ὁράω, 1) to see with the eyes 

1. The NRSV translation of Isaiah 40:3-5 is 

A voice cries out:
‘In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord,
   make straight in the desert a highway for our God. 
Every valley shall be lifted up,
   and every mountain and hill be made low;
the uneven ground shall become level,
   and the rough places a plain. 
Then the glory of the Lord shall be revealed,
   and all people shall see it together,
   for the mouth of the Lord has spoken.’

2. In addition to the referent of the phrase “In the wilderness” (see my note in v.4 above) another difference between Luke’s quote and Isaiah’s is that Isaiah refers to the “glory of the Lord” being revealed and seen, while Luke refers to the “salvation of God” being seen.

 

 

Reflection: “All flesh shall see the salvation of God”

This statement is quite a claim. One wonders what it meant in Isaiah’s time, what it meant in John’s time, what it meant in Luke’s time, and what it means in our time. 

- Does ‘seeing salvation’ mean that everyone who lives will find wholeness and the fullness of life in their lifetime? That was certainly not the case in Isaiah’s, John’s, or Luke’s lifetimes and it certainly does not seem to be the case now. 

- Does ‘seeing salvation’ point to an eschatological fulfillment of life’s purpose and glory? There was a strong development of eschatological, futuristic theology in between the time of 2^nd Isaiah and Luke. (Actually, 2^nd Isaiah might be at the forefront of that development, but you’ll need to speak to an Old Testament or Intertestamental scholar for that information). Part of that development was the movement of ‘salvation’ from this life to the next. The “afterlife” (as some put it) is not a significant part of early Hebrew theology, which is why the Sadducees, who only held the Pentateuch to be authoritative, did not believe in it. 

- Does ‘seeing salvation’ mean that some people live with hope, seeing the possibilities of salvation as a guiding force, despite all of the evident bloodshed or violence or imperial hegemony that surrounds them? That is an inspiring idea, but it would almost certainly be true only of “some flesh” in any moment of history, and not “all flesh.” 

- Does ‘seeing salvation’ mean literally witnessing the life, death, and resurrection of the Christ? That was a possibility for some people (certainly not “all flesh”) in John’s and Luke’s lifetimes, but not Isaiah’s or ours. 

- Does ‘seeing salvation’ mean “seeing” the life, death, and resurrection of the Christ through the witness of preaching? For anyone reading Luke’s gospel, this is true, because he is showing Christ through this gospel. Of course, not “all flesh” has either read Luke’s gospel or heard it preached. 

 

It is hard to know what, exactly, Isaiah, John, or Luke might have meant by proclaiming that “all flesh shall see God’s salvation” (or, in Isaiah’s case, “all peoples will see God’s glory”). Perhaps it is not a claim in the literal or plain meaning of the term, but a word of hope that is rightly echoed in new voice in each situation of despair. It’s meaning may lie not so much in how it is fulfilled at any given moment in time, but in how true it is in every moment in time.