The Question of John the Baptist and Jesus’ Indictment of the Religious Leaders. Roberto a. Martinez
have rejected the Lord despite the diversity of ways by which he has tried to draw the Jews to himself.38 He understands the last clause about “wisdom” as implying a contrast between the true children of wisdom and the “bastards.” Those who act with obstinacy are illegitimate children but those who remain steadfast in the faith of the gospel are her true children, who render appropriate praise and support to wisdom.39
In sum, the commentators surveyed above are aware of the apparent contradictions between portions of Luke 7:18–35 and other accounts in the Gospels and show an effort to harmonize these various reports. These commentators tend to exculpate the Baptist from any real doubt and explain his subordination to Jesus in a way that is benevolent to John. They also interpret the rest of the passage along moral lines for the benefit of their ethical exhortations.
From the Modern Period to the Present
The development of new critical methods of biblical exegesis during the modern period allowed scholars to implement a number of different approaches in the interpretation of Luke 7:18–35. These hermeneutical developments have resulted in the publication of a vast literature, in which many have taken to task the interpretation of the passage. In what follows I will examine the interpretation of Luke 7:18–35 in some of the most important historical studies on John the Baptist, commentaries, and specialized studies.
Historical Studies on John the Baptist
When the interest of scholars in the search for the historical Jesus turned to John the Baptist, Luke 7:18–35 began to be examined in search for reliable data that would help to recreate an accurate portrayal of the Baptist’s life and ministry. One of the first studies on John the Baptist was the work of Martin Dibelius. For Dibelius the pericope has essential elements of an old tradition, but one which the early Christian community has edited in order to preserve the sayings of Jesus about the Baptist in a single collection: “[M]an wollte die Herrenworte über den Täufer zusammenstellen, um durch solche Komposition das christliche Urteil über Johannes zu fixieren—das legt die Annahme nahe, daß in diese Weise die ganze »Rede« aus Sprüche zusammengestellt ist, um jenem Bedürfnis zu genügen.”40
In the question put to Jesus by the disciples of John, the final warning forms the conclusion and point of the story, which is that the old hope of the people finds its fulfillment in Jesus. The meaning of the answer is that the kingdom is near and the Messiah has no need for a speech. Only his final word in the form of an indirect warning is necessary: Blessed are they who recognize in the signs of the times, the fulfillment of the above promises (the coming of the kingdom of God).41 Jesus gives the Baptist an answer that is both personal and prophetic. The experience of a new time has begun, and Jesus is in the middle of that messianic era. According to Dibelius, the question of the Baptist is ambiguous, and this suggests that he had not yet developed a definite relationship with Jesus.42
For Dibelius the Baptist’s praise of Jesus indicates that Jesus had witnessed the rise and fall of the people’s enthusiasm for John and was now trying to assess the meaning of the Baptist’s ministry for those who did not have vain or unreal expectations about him. For Jesus, John was more than a Prophet. What is certain is that Jesus was impressed by the greatness of the Baptist.43 Finally, in the parable of the children in the marketplace what is important is not the type of game that is envisioned but the argument of the children who do not want to play.44 The parable reflects the misjudgment of the people regarding the ministries of Jesus and the Baptist.45
Maurice Goguel’s reconstruction of the life and ministry of the Baptist focuses on the historical reliability of the passage.46 Goguel highlights that nothing in the pericope indicates the reaction of the Baptist to the reply of Jesus. Moreover, the presentation of an apocalyptic Messiah rather than a historical one contradicts the messianic idea that Jesus would have had of himself. For Goguel, elements like these argue against the historicity of the episode. Consequently, the narrative attributes to the Baptist an attitude of reluctance, which must have been the same defiance or hostility that the group of the disciples of John would have shown against Jesus and the Gospel. The passage must have been used in the polemic against the followers of the Baptist in an effort to show that their master had refused to accept the messianism of Jesus as manifested by his mighty deeds.
The tribute paid by Jesus to the Baptist can have only one possible explanation for Goguel: “[E]lle consiste à admettre que la tradition a voulu concilier le témoignage éclatant qu’elle prétendait avoir été rendu à la messianité de Jésus par Jean-Baptiste avec le fait connu aussi bien des chrétiens que de leurs adversaires que ni Jean ni ses disciples ne s’étaient rallies à Jésus.”47 For Goguel one thing is clear despite the editorial activity that makes it almost impossible to determine the exact sense of the passage: an abyss has been created between the Baptist as the representative of the old economy and Jesus, who heralds the beginning of the messianic era.48
In his biography of John the Baptist, Carl H. Kraeling examines the text to see what can be extracted about the relationship between John and Jesus.49 Kraeling also questions the historicity of the reported encounter between the emissaries of John and Jesus, dismissing it as an “anti-Baptist polemic.”50
Again, therefore, the historicity of the reported encounters is questionable, the importance of the stories for us being rather to highlight an ancient conviction that the meeting of the two men was not fortuitous but continuous, having a profound significance for them both, and that had John lived to witness the later events in the life of Jesus and of the early Church he would have given his personal allegiance to the new Christian faith.51
Thus, for Kraeling the story of the delegation sent by the imprisoned John to Jesus has no historical value to assess the relationship between John and Jesus. It is only a foil for the Christians’ own conviction in an effort to reconcile the tension between the Baptist’s conception of a fiery-like Messiah with the appearance of a wonder-working preacher of the kingdom.52
With regards to the rest of the pericope, Kraeling partially accepts the authenticity of the encomia of Jesus on John (7:24–30) because the historical circumstances would have scarcely allowed the early Church to have created such words.53 He considers the phrase about “the least in the kingdom of God” (7:28b) an emendation made by a later generation which did not understand the meaning of the original statement and saw it as a threat to the primacy of Jesus. The authenticity of the remaining phrase confirms Jesus’ affirmation of the true prophetic character of John, who fulfilled the eschatological role of Elijah.
Jacques Dupont is one of the first authors to isolate and comment on the first part of the pericope (7:18–23).54 Glossing over many of the contemporary critical issues, Dupont deals with the sense of the passage, which, for him, is based on an ancient and excellent tradition.55 Dupont reviews some of the most common interpretations that have been given historically to