I was reading an article recently on the Sojourners blog, God’s Politics, on the soldier court martialed for being a conscientious objector. In the article (and you should read the back story of this brother in Christ who needs our support and prayer), the author, Logan Laituri, brought into the discussion Luke iii.14 and what John the Baptizer said to soldiers who came and asked him what they should do.
Interestingly, a similar sentiment is possibly reflected in the gospels themselves. Remember Luke 3, at the river Jordan? “Some soldiers,” pagans in the midst of a Jewish ritual in occupied Palestine, seek out John the Baptizer (their enemy) for advice. The fact of their relatively scattered presence must not be overlooked. The term “some” may refer to a contubernium, the smallest Roman unit of 10 soldiers. However, even by modern standards, it is highly unlikely that a group of even 10 would wander away from their forward operating base (perhaps Fort Antonia on the grounds of Herod’s Temple) into extremely hostile territory to gawk at an ethnically/religiously charged ritual. You couldn’t pay me enough to risk death (or discharge, for that matter) with a couple of buddies in Iraq to seek the advice of a guy who ate crickets and dressed in camel skins. Those guys were AWOL, sure as the sun they sweated under.
Mr. Laituri did indicate this was “possibly” the case, so I do not want to hold this to him as presenting a definite commentary. But, seeing as he did put the words to print I think we should deal with them.
This passage is a favorite refuge for many non- or anti- Christian pacifists because what we read is seemingly an open and shut case that John did not condemn the soldiers or tell them to stop being soldiers, and therefore we Christians have the freedom to be soldiers and take up arms against other humans created in the image of God. Well, their arguments tend not to include that last, italicized phrase, but I don’t want to digress. Everyone would do well to read Thom Stark’s excellent examination and refutation of the non-pacifist reading for this passage: Resisting Nonresistance II: Luke 3:14.
But I want to get into this particular commentary. The conclusion from Mr. Laituri was that these soldiers, “some” in number, were deserters, AWOL, seemingly equal to conscientious objectors. His commentary was very intriguing, and even compelling. But it was entirely based on the idea that the soldiers were “some,” or a relatively low number indicating they were not acting in their capacity as soldiers. “Some soldiers,” as we find in several translations (e.g. NIV, NLT, NASB, CEV, HCSB, TNIV, NIRV, NET), is an inferred idea. There is no word in the text for “some”; there is only the word that even the NET indicates in a notation is translated “soldiers.” Limiting the number of soldiers to “some” is an inferrance made by the translators. In all likelihood, only some soldiers did go see what John the Baptizer was doing and engaged the prophet with the question. But technically we can only know that was likely the case, and we cannot come up with a specific number of men involved. And we cannot then conclude that they were objectors, deserters.
More importantly we need to take a closer look at “soldiers” here. I’m not so sure “soldiers” is the best translation we can use. In Lk. vii.8, xxiii.11, and xxiii.36, Luke talked about soldiers using a noun; exactly what you’d think a writer would use when talking about a group of people. In iii.14, however, Luke throws out a participle, a verbal adjective, as if I were describing a group of people by what they are doing.
The girl sitting by the fire was reading her Greek New Testament.
Sitting is a participle. Sitting is a verb that’s describing what the girl is doing. But, let’s take a look at another example from the New Testament, a very familiar one:
This is how God loved the world: he gave his only, unique son, that everyone believing in him will not perish but have eternal life. (Jo. iii.16)
“Everyone believing” is clearer than the popularized “whosoever.” πας ο πιστευων (PAS HO PISTEUON) is easily broken down: πας refers to all or every of something; ο πιστευων means the believing ones, or those who are believing. Hence the translation, everyone believing. There’s action to it. The all are defined by the action of their action: believing.
Back in Lk. iii.14 we find
επηρωτων δε αυτον
EPEROTON DE AUTON
και στρατευομενοι λεγοντες,
KAI STRATEUOMENOI LEGONTES,
Τι ποιησωμεν και ημεις;
TI POIESOMEN KAI HEMEIS;
Instead of saying, “Soldiers asked him,” or “Some soldiers asked him,” Luke mentioned the group by using the verb that described what they did, and turned that verb into a participle. στρατευω means to serve in the military, be on active service, wage war, be a soldier, etc. When you toss that into a participle form, like here with στρατευομενοι (or see a similar case in 1 Co. ix.7 for στρατευεται), you essentially add an -ing to the verb: serving in the military, waging war, being a soldier.
To Luke, the group of people were soldiering, serving in the military, being soldiers. They went to John and asked a question not as followers but as soldiers. They wanted to know what was John’s expectation of them as soldiers. The key to this is the understanding that Luke was not presenting the group as merely individuals who happened to be soldiers, but of soldiers (consider the tax collectors who asked the question before them). They were not numbered in the crowd or with the tax collectors. They were the soldiers, acting in their capacity as soldiers.
And that, I think, would cause difficulties for the interpretation that Mr. Laituri laid posted. You add to that the response from John and the interpretation becomes a bit more difficult. But, you might be thinking that I have undermined my own beliefs here by making a case that the soldiers John was talking to were very much active soldiers. In his response he didn’t tell them to stop being soldiers; he simply told them to not do a couple of things and to be content with their wages.
Well, not exactly. I’m thinking John possibly said something a little more stark and firm than you might think. I’ll try and jump into the response from John in a short bit.
