The Question of John the Baptist and Jesus’ Indictment of the Religious Leaders. Roberto a. Martinez
authors emphasize how Luke’s editorial work seeks to clarify the relationship between the Baptist and Jesus as well as John’s soteriological role to the kingdom of God. While some underscore the modification of the sources and the secondary setting of the passage that sought to restrict the Baptist’s role to that of the precursor of Jesus, others highlight the Baptist’s historical struggle to reconcile his messianic expectations with the manifestation of Jesus’ messianic signs.
Specialized Studies
Since the beginning of modern biblical exegesis a number of studies dealing with a variety of NT topics have presented their own interpretations of Luke 7:18–35. One example of such interpretations is the pericope’s assessment by Julius Wellhausen in his introduction to the Synoptic Gospels.175 To support his claim that Mark was the primary source for the teachings of Jesus and that Q represented a secondary version, Wellhausen turns to the passage that deals with John the Baptist. For Wellhausen the pericope suggests that the Baptist was not a disciple of Jesus. The Baptist remains a hybrid between the old and the new era, while Jesus holds a superior religious view. Jesus is the present Messiah, who already establishes the reign of God on earth, and the future belongs to him.
According to Wellhausen, Matthew and Luke are in substantial agreement regarding the relationship between the Baptist and Jesus. In their final analysis Matthew and Luke have transformed into a close relationship what in Mark was only a weak analogy that occurred at the conclusion of the eschatological speech (Mark 1:7–8). Jesus identifies himself as the “Son of Man” in a messianic sense and becomes the “Lord.” For Wellhausen, these changes evidence Luke’s Christianization of the original sources. In comparison to Mark, this speech represents a more coherent composition of Jesus addressed to his disciples and aimed at the church for which Jesus was already the present Messiah.176
Ernst Percy is another author who focuses on the passage in his study about the mission and message of Jesus. For him, Jesus’ reply to the delegates from John seems far better understood from Jesus’ own historical situation than from that of the early community.177 Percy discusses whether the reports about the mighty deeds of Jesus could have been historically based on the evidence of Mark 6:14–16.178 He also ponders how John could have come to the conclusion that Jesus was the “expected fiery-judge-Messiah.” However, the tone of the final beatitude as well as the oblique manner in which Jesus’ answer is delivered convinces Percy that this answer is original. The question of the Baptist itself may have originated not with John but with his disciples. Percy interprets Jesus’ response to John as proof that the prophesied time of fulfillment has arrived.179 The mighty deeds to which Jesus alludes announce the kingdom of God, because although they do not speak explicitly about the kingdom, the mighty deeds cannot be differentiated from it.180
Rudolph Schnackenburg examines the passage in his investigation of the meaning of the kingdom of God in the preaching of Jesus.181 Schnackenburg cites the passage to support his claim that Jesus’ message of salvation centered on the divine mercy of God and that this message, even to the amazement of his contemporaries, included the outcast members of society (7:34). For Schnackenburg the wonders of Jesus (7:21–22) also show that a new era of salvation—the fulfillment of the Deutero-Isaian prophecies—is already present and operative, although not fully realized. The passage plays a fundamental role in Jesus’ messianic claim because in the close relationship of his preaching and wonders the coming of the reign of God was manifested.182
In his “History of the Synoptic Tradition,” Rudolph Bultmann refers to Luke 7:18–35 as an apothegm (7:18–23) to which sayings about the Baptist have been added.183 He considers the question of the Baptist as a “community product” that “belongs to those passages in which the Baptist is called as a witness to the Messiahship of Jesus.”184 The composition of the passage took place amid the arguments between the disciples of Jesus and those of John, who denied the messianic character of the mighty works.185 The difference between the Lukan and Matthean forms of this apothegm must be attributed to Luke’s habit of expanding traditional material that does not appropriately fits in his redactional context.186
The episode about the delegation of the Baptist to Jesus is the first “parable” that Joachim Jeremias deals with in his work on the parables of Jesus, which also treats the parable of the children in the marketplace.187 Jeremias places the former into the category of parables that proclaim “now is the day of salvation,” while the latter is treated as a parable that announces “the imminence of catastrophe.” He does not discuss the historical circumstances surrounding either of them, because in outlining his ten “principles of transformation” he presumes that many of the parables have been modified from their original form and setting by the experience of the primitive church.188 Jeremias seems, however, to admit the authenticity of both accounts, although he avoids discussing its editorial trajectories.189 The parable of the delegation of the Baptist is for Jeremias a reply of Jesus in the form of a free quotation from Isaiah in which he announces the salvation of God with the proclamation of the arrival of a new age. Meanwhile, the parable of the children in the marketplace is an announcement of judgment, a warning against those who failed to heed the call to repentance and rejected the proclamation of the gospel.
Werner Georg Kümmel discusses part of the pericope to illustrate the contemporary difficulties affecting the methodology of research for the historical Jesus.190 Kümmel surveys the contemporary development of critical biblical scholarship and the growing skepticism that led to the assertion that nothing can be known about the personality and life of Jesus. This is formulated in the expression “vita Christi scribi nequit.”191 Kümmel discusses the outcome of the research that led to a wider awareness of the relative historical value of the Gospel and a greater realization of the influence that the post-resurrection confessional statements of the primitive community had on the traditions. He points out the methodological flaws and erred assumptions upon which many historical-critical investigations formulated their conclusions. Kümmel advocates the possibility of extracting certain facts from the kerygma and faith reflected in the Gospels, and outlines a series of methodological criteria that should guide the use of the sources in the search for the historical Jesus.192
Kümmel rehearses the arguments advocated by many researchers, especially those of Dibelius and Anton Vögtle,193 concerning the secondary character of Luke 7:18–23, summarized in the following objections: (1) given his eschatological messianic expectation, the Baptist could not have formulated the question to Jesus; (2) the involvement of the Baptist’s disciples shows that this is not a conversation between Jesus and John; (3) the lack of response from the Baptist shows that the entire report has been formulated for the sake of the final warning.194 Following his own principles and criteria, Kümmel evaluates whether the redaction of the report in Luke 7:18–23