Luke 1:8-22

2. The promise of deliverance: Luke 1:8-22. This portion comprises: 1. Luke 1:8-17, The promise itself; 2. Luke 1:18-22, The manner in which it was received.

1. The narrative of the promise includes: the appearance (Luke 1:8-12), and the message (Luke 1:13-17), of the angel.

The appearance of the angel: Luke 1:8-12. The incense had to be offered, according to the law (Exo 30:7-8), every morning and evening. There was public prayer three times a day: at nine in the morning (Acts 2:15 ?), at noon (Acts 10:9), and at three in the afternoon (Acts 3:1; Acts 10:30). The first and last of these acts of public prayer coincided with the offering of incense (Jos. Antiq. 14.4. 3).

In the construction ἐγένετο ἔλαχε, the subject of the first verb is the act indicated by the second. ῎Εναντι, in the face of, before, is suitable here; for the officiating priest enacts a part in the front of the Divinity. The words, according to the custom of the priest's office (Luke 1:8), may be referred either to the established rotation of the courses (Luke 1:8), or to the use of the lot with a view to the assignment of each day's functions. In both cases, the extraordinary use of the lot would be worthy of mention. The reference of these words to what precedes appears to us more natural; we regard them as a simple amplification of ἐν τῇ τάξει : “the order of his course, according to the custom of the priest's office.”

On the use of the lot Oosterzee rightly observes that it proceeded from this, that nothing in the service of the sanctuary was to be left to man's arbitrary decision. The function of offering incense, which gave the priest the right to enter the holy place, was regarded as the most honourable of all. Further, according to the Talmud, the priest who had obtained it was not permitted to draw the lot a second time in the same week. Εἰσελθών, having entered; there was the honour! This fact was at the same time the condition of the whole scene that followed. And that is certainly the reason why this detail, which is correctly understood by itself, is so particularly mentioned. Meyer and Bleek, not apprehending this design, find here an inaccuracy of expression, and maintain that with the infinitive θυμιάσαι the author passes by anticipation from the notion of the fact to its historical realization. This is unnecessary; εἰσελθών is a pluperfect in reference to θυμιάσαι : “It fell to him to offer incense after having entered. ” The term ναός, temple, designates the buildings properly so called, in opposition to the different courts; and the complement κυρίου, of the Lord, expresses its character in virtue of which the Lord was about to manifest Himself in this house.

The 10th verse mentions a circumstance which brings out the solemnity of the time, as the preceding circumstance brought out the solemnity of the place. The prayer of the people assembled in the court accompanied the offering of incense. There was a close connection between these two acts. The one was the typical, ideal, and therefore perfectly pure prayer; the other the real prayer, which was inevitably imperfect and defiled. The former covered the latter with its sanctity; the latter communicated to the former its reality and life. Thus they were the complement of each other. Hence their obligatory simultaneousness and their mutual connection are forcibly expressed by the dative τῇ ὥρᾳ. The reading which puts τοῦ λαοῦ between ἦν and προσευχόμενον, expresses better the essential idea of the proposition contained in this participle.