The Activity of John the Baptist's Expected Figure At the Threshing Floor (Matthew 3.12 = Luke 3.17)

1. I would like to thank Dr Loveday Alexander, Dr Philip Davies and Dr David Hill for contributing to earlier forms of this work, and to Dr Gavin McGrath for reading a later draft and contributing to its clarity. Any mistakes, of course, remain my own responsibility.

2. This figure is often identified in scholarly circles by the titles 'Coming One' or 'Mighty One' on the basis of Mt. 3.11b (ό... έρχόμενος ίσχυρότερός μού έστιν) and Mk 1.7a = Lk. 3.16b (έρχεται [δέ] ό ίσχυρότερός μου). Various expected figures in the OT and Second Temple Jewish literature are identified as 'coming' or 'mighty', but there is little actual evidence that either of these terms functioned as a title in pre-Christian Judaism. I therefore use the term 'expected figure' so as not to pre-judge aspects of this figure's identity and ministry. C.H.H. Scobie (John the Baptist [London: SCM Press, 1964], p. 65) argues that the Coming One 'was current as a messianic title'. But the evidence he cites is from the NT itself, and it does not substantiate the claim that the phrase was actually a title. J. Schneider ('έρχομαι, κτλ.', TDNT, II, p. 670) makes a similar claim but only cites late, rabbinic evidence from Strack and Billerbeck (IV, p. 872ff.). R. Laufen (Die Doppelüberlieferungen der Logienquelle und des Markusevangeliums [BBB, 54; Bonn: Hanstein, 1980], pp. 95, 407-409 n. 12) also attempts to muster an argument for the titular use of ό έρχόμενος on the basis solely of NT evidence, but he must nevertheless admit (p. 407 n. 12) that '"Der Kommende" ist nicht in derselben Weise Messiastitel wie ό υίός τού άνθρΏπου, ό χριστός, oder ό κύριος'. By contrast, I.H. Marshall (The Gospel of Luke [NIGTC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978], p. 146) concludes that 'ό ίσχυρός/ίσχυρότερος does not appear to have been a significant "messianic" title'. The closest example of 'mighty' being used as a title of which I am aware is in 1QM 12.10, in which God is addressed as ('hero, valiant, mighty'): 'Rise up, O Hero/Mighty One [ ]! Lead away your captives, O glorious Man!' However, I am not convinced that this is an actual title, for it is picking up on the OT usage of to describe Yahweh as a mighty warrior who battles for his people (Isa. 42.13; Zeph. 3.17; cf. other uses of this term to describe Yahweh as mighty: e.g. Isa. 10.21; Jer. 32.18), a usage found in the preceding line of 1QM: 'and the Hero/Mighty One of War [[ ] is with our congregation' (12.9; cf. 1QH 6.30).

1. E.g. P. Bonnard, L'Evangile selon Saint Matthieu (CNT, 1; 2nd edn Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1970), p. 38; D. Hill, The Gospel of Matthew (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1972), p. 95; Marshall, Luke, p. 148; J.A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke, I (AB, 28; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1981-85), p. 474; U. Luz, Matthew 1-7: A Commentary (1985; trans. W.C. Linss; Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989), p. 172; W.D. Davies and D.C. Allison, Jr, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew, I (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988-), pp. 318-19.

1. Bible dictionaries and works on biblical archaeology are sometimes helpful in this regard; e.g. H.N. Richardson, 'Chaff', IDB, I, p. 549; H.N. Richardson, 'Threshing', IDB, IV, p. 636; idem, 'Winnowing', IDB, IV, p. 854; J.L. Mihelic, 'Shovel', IDB, IV, p. 340; G.E. Wright, Biblical Archaeology (rev. edn; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1962), pp. 183-87. But, due to the brevity of their description, their portrayal is inaccurate at times. The work of Gustaf Dalman is much more helpful with respect to the specifics of Palestinian practice; the entire third volume of his series, Arbeit und Sitte, is dedicated to a description of the harvesting process in Palestine, as is indicated by its subtitle, Von der Ernte zum Mehl (Arbeit und Sitte in Palästina, III [Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1964], pp. 1-308); cf. also G.M. Mackie, Bible Manners and Customs (London: A. & C. Black, 1898), pp. 40- 45.

2. It is interesting to observe that it was common practice to employ hired help in the harvest (cf. Dalman, Arbeit, III, p. 73); there is no mention of this in John's description. The possessive pronoun αύτού indicates ownership of the wheat (so Mt. 3.12) or the granary (so Lk. 3.17). In either case, it is the owner of the farm who is performing the work (the owner of the farm would probably own both the grain and the granary). In the light of the interpretation proposed here, the emphasis on the owner's activity alone is deliberate and serves to highlight the activity to be performed by the expected figure.

1. BAGD, p. 183; LSJ, p. 396.

2. BAGD, p. 183; LSJ, p. 396.

3. E.g. Davies and Allison, Matthew, I, pp. 318-19.

4. The word άλων usually specifies the threshing floor itself, but it may be used to imply the contents of the threshing floor, that is, the grain, such as in Ruth 3.2 (LXX): αύτός λικμά τόν άλωνα, 'he winnows the threshing floor'. In Ruth 3.2 άλων is the object of the verb λτκμάω ('to winnow'), thus leading to the infer ence that άλων is referring to the contents of the threshing floor. But this inferential meaning cannot be used with respect to Mt. 3.12 = Lk. 3.17 (against Davies and Allison, Matthew, I, pp. 318-19) because there is no specific evidence here to lead to this inference and, thus, to suggest that άλων means anything other than threshing floor.

5. For examples of λικμάω signifying 'to winnow' see, in the LXX, Ruth 3.2; Isa. 17.13; 30.24; 41.16; Amos 9.9; Sir. 5.9; cf. BAGD, pp. 474-75; LSJ, p. 1050. For the same sense with διασπείρω see, in the LXX, Isa. 41.16; Jer. 15.7; cf. LSJ, p. 412, and, for the equivalent, διασκορπίζω, see Ezek. 5.2, 10; cf. BAGD, p. 188; LSJ, p. 412.

1. In Symmachus's translation of Isa. 30.24, the word πτύον translates, or winnowing shovel, while θρίναξ translates, winnowing fork. This is the only place in the OT where is used; the LXX does not translate the word, only Symmachus does. This is also the only place where the word πτύον appears in a Greek translation of the OT. Cf. the Palestinian Arabic term rāha for the winnowing shovel. The term is used only here and in Jer. 15.7, but is translated as θρίναξ only by Symmachus in Isa. 30.24. In neither place does the LXX translate the word. Cf. the Arabic term midrā (Dalman, Arbeit, III, pp. 116-25).

2. Dalman (Arbeit, III, p. 116) states: 'Das eigentliche Gerät des Worfelns... d. h. des Hochwerfens des gedroschenen Getreides, ist nicht eine Schaufel, sondem eine in das Getreide leichter eingreifende Gabel...' Cf. the photographs Dalman supplies of winnowing, nos. 28, 29 and esp. 30. Cf. also the brief description in Mackie, Manners, p. 42.

3. Dalman, Arbeit, III, pp. 116-24, 201, 253-54. Yet Dalman (p. 122) mentions that the shovel was used to winnow leguminous plants (such as beans or lentils) as well as to winnow the straw to produce fodder (after the wheat had been winnowed out with the fork). This explains the use of a winnowing shovel as a tool for winnowing along with a winnowing fork in Isa. 30.24, where the reference is made to the production of fodder. Cf. Homer, Il. 13.588-90, where reference is made to a πτυόϕιν (a poetic form of πτύον) being used to winnow 'dark-skinned beans or pulse'.

1. This interpretation is made by a few scholars, but the exegetical support is not provided as it is here. For example, J. Nolland (Luke 1-9:20 [WBC, 35A; Dallas: Word Books, 1989], p. 153) states that 'the winnowing which makes it possible to gather up separately the grain and the chaff has already been done... The interest here is not, however, in a whole harvest process, with the point being made that its terminal phase is about to occur.' Cf. H. Schürmann, Das Lukasevangelium, I (HTKNT, 3.1-2; Freiburg: Herder, 1969), pp. 177-78.

1. Cf. note 1 on page 104 above.

1. E. Best, 'Spirit-Baptism', NovT 4 (1960), p. 240. To support the association of wind with judgment Best cites the following: Isa. 11.4; 29.6; 30.27-28; 40.24; Jer. 23.19; 30.23; Ezek. 13.11-13; 4 Ezra 13.10, 27. The following references might be added to his list: Isa. 17.13; 27.8; 29.5; 57.13; 66.15; Jer. 4.11-13; 13.24; 18.17; 49.32, 36; Ezek. 5.2; Dan. 2.35; Hos. 13.15; Nah. 1.3; Zech. 7.14; Wis. 5.14, 23; Sir. 39.28; 43.16-17. Winds are also portrayed as serving God generally; e.g. 1 En. 18.1-4; 76.1-14.

2. H. Kleinknecht, et al., 'πνεύμα, κτλ.', TDNT, VI, p. 399. Cf. C.K. Barrett, The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition (London: SPCK, 1947), pp. 125-26.

3. J.D.G. Dunn, 'Spirit-and-Fire Baptism', NovT 14 (1972), p. 88.

4. A 'spirit' was a more prominent element of eschatological expectation than was a 'wind'; e.g. Isa. 4.4; 32.15; 44.3; Ezek. 11.19; 36.26-27; 37.14; 39.29; Joel 2.28-29 (MT 3.1-2); Zech. 12.10; Jub. 1.23; Sib. Or. 4.46, 189; 1QS 4.20-21. The Qumran literature speaks frequently of Yahweh's spirit, but generally does so in the context of the community's present situation rather than some eschatological future. However, this literature reflects a belief that the community was living in a time of eschatological fulfilment, and therefore the use of spirit-language in their current context is relevant to a discussion of Jewish expectation of an eschatological spirit; cf. 1QS 3.7-9; 1QH 16.12; 17.26. Sometimes the spirit is specifically identified as a 'spirit of holiness' as in Mt. 3.12 = Lk. 3.17; Jub. 1.23; Pss. Sol. 17.37; 1QS 4.21; CD 2.12; 1QH 7.6-7; 9.32; 12.11-13; 14.13; 16.7, 12; cf. CD 5.11; 7.4.

1. For further development of the implications of this argument for under standing John the Baptist see my forthcoming work, John the Baptizer and Prophet: A Socio-Historical Study (JSNTS, 62; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991).