Some commentators argue that chapter 3 begins a new section in the Gospel of Luke. I am not sure this is the case. I think the author continues to introduce us to Jesus Christ by comparing Him with John the Baptist up until 4:15. The last parallel made is how each person comes from the wilderness and then begins preaching. Chapters 1 and 2 led us through the birth narratives of both individuals. Now in chapters 3 and 4, we are going to see the character of each individual as a mature adult. The significance of the persons is demonstrated in 3 and 4. We will John as the herald that goes before as spoken by the prophet Isaiah preaching the repentance of sin and we will see Jesus be called the Son of God and be sinless man. After this demonstration of Jesus’ unwavering character, comes His preaching to the people of Galilee. This section therefore serves as an introduction to the preaching for both men even though we will only see John the Baptist in this pericope.
Marking a Date (3:1–2a)
It is very easy for a person to read over these first two verses and give not much thought to its significance. However, we should ask ourselves, “Why does Luke take the time to record all of these names of political figures?” The answer is simple but the demonstration of the answer is encouraging. The simple answer is that Luke wants you to know the date. Luke wants you to know the date because something very important happened. It was the year that the word of the Lord came to John the Baptist. Later in the chapter we will see that it will be the year that Jesus is baptized and then begins His earthly ministry. It is very common for an author to mark either the age of the character or the ruler of the day due to the significance of the event. For example, in Jeremiah we read, “The words of Jeremiah the son of Hilkiah, of the priests that were in Anathoth in the land of Benjamin: To whom the word of the Lord came in the days of Josiah the son of Amon king of Judah, in the thirteenth year of his reign” (Jer. 1:1–2). Or in Isaiah, “The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz, which he saw concerning Judah and Jerusalem in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah” (Isa. 1:1). Yet this style for communicating a date was common among secular histories as well (e.g. Thucydides 2.2; Polybius 1.3).61
Now Luke have given us a date by relating the event during the rule of only one ruler. However, Luke mentions seven different political figures. He mostly does this so his audience is aware of the political climate of the time, which is very confusing. I also want to use these to verses to remind us of Luke’s thesis for writing this Gospel and demonstrate just how well he has done. Luke told Theophilus that he was writing these down so that he “mightest know the certainty of these things, wherein thou hast been instructed” (Luke 1:4). These events are not fake. They are not made up. They happened within the recorded pages of history. The book of Mormon talks about wars of Native Americans in central America and of their currency, but there has never been a single shred of archaeological evidence to help corroborate Joseph Smith stories with real history. He made up wars. He invented pretend currencies. This is not the case with Scripture. Luke gives a faithful record of true events.
I want to show that Luke’s mention of these political figures show us that we have a reliable record in four ways. 1) Luke mentions real people ruling over real locations. 2) Of each of the people mentioned, all of their reigns overlap. It would be one thing to mention a political leader but pointless if the man was not alive during the time referred. 3) Luke uses the proper titles for each of the political figures that are mentioned. 4) Amidst all of the political confusion, Luke names the correct people as leaders during that time.
The first political figure that Luke mentions is Tiberius Caesar. The man’s life is recorded in numerous histories (e.g. Suetonius, Tacitus, and Josephus). From these histories, we can figure out that the man was Caesar from A.D. 14–37.62 Therefore, after doing some math, Luke tells us the year John the Baptist started preaching, ca. A.D. 29, depending on the years were counted. Now, Luke also mentions the other contemporary rulers, which that all of the following rulers would have been in power in A.D. 29. It should be noted that it is impressive that Luke named the correct person despite the situation going on at that time. Tiberius had actually retreated to the island of Capri in A.D. 26 and left his aide Sejanus to take care of most of the business in Rome gaining power until he was seen as a threat and then executed.63 Yet Luke states correctly that Tiberius is Caesar, not Sejanus.
The next person mentioned is Pontius Pilate who ruled over Judea from A.D. 26–36/37, of which A.D. 29 falls in the middle.64 His rule over Judea is mentioned not only by the Gospels, but also recorded by Josephus, Philo and Tacitus. Also, in 1961, Italian archeologists discovered an inscription in Caesarea that was formerly on a temple for the worship of Tiberius with the Latin inscription, “For the Caesareans. The Tiberium, which Pontius Pilate, the Prefect of Judea, gave [and] dedicated.”65
The third political leader mentioned is Herod, also known as Herod Antipas. He should not be confused with his father, Herod the Great. Now Herod the Great was called king over Judea and ruled from 37–4 B.C. It was Herod the Great that was mentioned in Luke 1:5 and ordered the slaughter of the children in Bethlehem (Matt. 2:16). Upon Herod the Great’s death, the territory under his rule was split up into three parts and given to his three sons.66 Acrhelaus ruled over the province of Judea only until A.D. 6. He was banished due to accusations brought against him by his brothers and the province of Judea was then placed under Roman rule by prefects.67 Herod Antipas succeeded his father in 4 B.C and was tetrarch, not king, over Galilee and Perea until A.D. 3968 (A.D. 29 falls within that range).
The fourth political figure mentioned is Philip. Philip is the third son of Herod the Great, and half-brother to Herod Antipas. Philip was tetrarch over Iturea and Trachonitis from 4 B.C till A.D. 34.69 Iturea was a region north of Galilee. Trachonitis is the area east of the sea of Galilee. Of all the Herodian family, Philip was considered the most reasonable. Outside of the Gospels, his rule is recorded in the works of Josephus.
The last Gentile political figure mentioned is Lysanias and he is the least known of the political figures that Luke mentions. From what we can understand from Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews, is that there were actually two men name Lysanias. The one whom Luke is referring to is the latter of the two. “His name appears on an inscription of Abila, dated between A.D 14 and 29, recording a temple dedication by a freedman of ‘Lysanias the tetrarch.’”70 We are unable to know the date of his reign. This is the only place he is mentioned in Scripture and only once in the Josephus.71 Abila, or Abilene, is northwest of Damascus.
The last point I wish to make before leaving the first verse is how Luke gets the titles of the political leaders correct. He called Herod the Great “king” in Luke 1:5 but Luke correctly calls each of his sons as tetrarch. The sons did not have as land and sway with their individual offices like their father before them. Luke carries on the practice of using the correct tittles for the rest of his corpus (i.e. Luke and Acts), which in Luke’s day is an amazing feat considering all of the political changes and differences between regions. F. F. Bruce explains,
One of the most remarkable tokens of his accuracy is his sure familiarity with the proper titles of all the notable persons who are mentioned in his pages. This was by no means such an easy feat in his days as it is ours, when it is so simple to consult convenient books of reference.…The titles sometimes did not remain the same for any great length of time; a province might pass from senatorial to administration by a direct representative of the emperor, and would then be governed no longer by a proconsul by by an imperial legate.72
This amount of precise detail shows that Luke must have paid careful attention to what was recorded so the accounts would be seen as accurate. The tittles Luke records includes, but not limited to, kings, tetrarch, proconsuls, governors, town-clerks, praetors, politarchs, etc.; all of which are handled properly.
3:2a. Verse 1 listed Gentile political leaders. Verse 2 lists two leaders of the religious realm. However, something peculiar is going on. Luke lists two individuals for one office that is supposed to held for life (Num 35:25, 28). Therefore there should only be one High Priest at a time. However, Israel was not a sovereign nation and Gentile rulers would often take down a High Priest and set up a new one. Annas was the High Priest when he was appointed by Quirinius, the governor of Syria, sometime around A.D. 6 and was deposed by Valerius Gratus, (the prefect of Judea that preceded Pilate) about 14/5. Caiaphas was appointed by Valerius Gratus in A.D. 18 and removed from office in A.D. 36 by prefect Vitellius.73 So why does Luke mention both of these men when only of them holds the office? It turns out that Annas is the father-in-law of Caiaphas. So while Caiaphas was the official High Priest, Annas was the one that was pulling the strings in the background. This is probably why Jesus went to see Annas first before being sent to Caiaphas on the night of his trial (John 18:13–14).
John’s Modus Operandi (3:2b–3)
The last time we saw John the Baptist was in Luke 1:80. He was growing strong in the Spirit while he was living in the wilderness. There is some speculation as to what happened to John during this time period. Some think that he may have joined a religious separatist group called the Essenes which were based in Qumran on the north shore of the Dead Sea. However, the only reason for this is from him living in the wilderness.
Luke has firmly established a date for us to mark out the significance of this event—that the Word of God came unto John the Baptist. Again, this was customary with OT prophets (e.g. Hos. 1:1; Joel 1:1; Zech. 1:1). This event marks the beginning of John’s preaching ministry. Also the event is significant because the last prophet in the land was Malachi. There has been no prophet for around 400 years. Therefore, living in that generation and see a prophet come from the wilderness would have been very unusual and highly alarming. It would mean that God is doing something amongst His people again.
3:3. Luke then begins to explain to John’s mode of operation for John’s preaching ministry. There are two main facets with John’s preaching ministry. The first is that John preaches repentance from sin. Repentance is μετάνοια which primarily means “a change of mind” and applied within these contexts it means “turning away.”74 The point of repentance is for remission of sin. Remission is ἄφεσις meaning “the act of freeing from an obligation, guilt, or punishment, pardon, cancellation.”75 This is the very basis of salvation. We are called to turn away from our sin in order to be relieved of the penalty of our sin. It will not be until we Christ crucified that do we realize that our penalty of sin was placed upon Jesus Christ.
The second aspect of John’s preaching ministry is his practice of baptism. The practice of baptism may have been place already for many Jewish proselytes but it is uncertain if the practice goes back that far.76 The baptism that John is performing is akin to a ceremonial washing and is meant to signify the content of his preaching—God forgives sin for the repentant. This would also explain why John is preaching in the country of the Jordan river. The Jordan flows from the Sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea separating Samaria from Perea. John would have needed the river in order to perform the baptism, that is, to dunk people in water.
As Foretold (3:4–6)
Luke pulls a quotation from Isaiah 40:3–5 in order to shed more light on the significance of John the Baptist’s ministry and the purpose of his preaching. All the other Gospels quote Isaiah as well but only 40:3 (Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; John 1:23). In the Gospel of John, John the Baptist quotes the verse in order to explain his identity and role to the Jewish leaders, so the connection is undeniable.
3:4b–5. “The figures concerning the clearing of the way are standard ancient Near Eastern metaphors about clearing the way for the entry of a king or a god. The clearing prepares for the glorious entry of the sovereign figure.”77 Originally, within the context of Isaiah, the passage is referring to the return of Israel from the exile to Babylon. The return to Israel is very much a picture of God’s salvation/redemption in much the same way as the Exodus was a picture of God’s redemption. Therefore connotations of salvation are appropriate. Overall, the imagery of cutting roads and leveling ground is an illustration of a person’s preparedness for receiving the Sovereign figure—Jesus Christ.
3:6. Luke’s quotation does not follow the MT but the LXX. Instead of reading, “And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, And all flesh shall see it together,” we instead read, “And all flesh shall see the salvation from God.” The phrase that is change from “the glory of the LORD,” to “the salvation from God,” should be seen as equivalent. Luke more than likely understands that seeing salvation that is provided by God is equivalent to seeing the glory of the LORD.
________________
61. Darrell L. Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994), 282.
62. Jesse Pingenot, “Tiberius, Emperor,” in LBD.
63. Ibid.
64. Michael Brandon Massey, “Pontius Pilate,” in LBD.
65. KarBel Media, “Pontius Pilate’s Inscription,” in Faithlife Study Bible Infographics (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2012); cf. Lexham Press, “Pontius Pilate Inscription,” in Logos Bible Software Infographics (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2009).
66. Melton B. Winstead, “Herod the Great,” in LBD.
67. Frank E. Dicken, “Archelaus, Son of Herod,” in LBD.
68. Frank E. Dicken, “Archelaus, Son of Herod,” in LBD.
69. Frank E. Dicken, “Philip the Tetrarch,” in LBD.
70. F. F. Bruce, “Lysanias,” in NBD, 708.
71. Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 20.7.1.
72. F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, 6th ed. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1981), 82–3.
73. “Caiaphas,” Wikipedia, last modified November 23, 2015, accessed January 9, 2016, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caiaphas.
74. BDAG, 640.
75. BDAG, 155.
76. Bock, Luke 1:1–9:50, 288.
77. Ibid, 291.
No comments:
Post a Comment