Luke 3:1,2

1. Luke 3:1-2. In this concise description of the epoch at which John appeared, Luke begins with the largest sphere that of the empire. Then, by a natural transition furnished by his reference to the representative of imperial power in Judaea, he passes to the special domain of the people of Israel; and he shows us the Holy Land divided into four distinct states. After having thus described the political situation, he sketches in a word the ecclesiastical and religious position, which brings him to his subject. It cannot be denied that there is considerable skill in this preamble. Among the evangelists, Luke is the true historian.

And first, the empire. Augustus died on the 19th August of the year 767 U.C., corresponding to the year 14 and 15 of our era. If Jesus was born in 749 or 750 U.C., He must have been at this time about eighteen years of age. At the death of Augustus, Tiberius had already, for two years past, shared his throne. The fifteenth year of his reign may consequently be reckoned, either from the time when he began to share the sovereignty with Augustus, or from the time when he began to reign alone, upon the death of the latter. The Roman historians generally date the reign of Tiberius from the time when he began to reign alone. According to this mode of reckoning, the fifteenth year would be the year of Rome 781 to 782, that is to say, 28 to 29 of our era. But at this time Jesus would be already thirty-two to thirty-three years of age, which would be opposed to the statement Luke 3:23, according to which He was only thirty years old at the time of His baptism, towards the end of John's ministry. According to the other mode of reckoning, the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius would be the year of Rome 779 to 780, 26 to 27 of our era. Jesus would be about twenty-nine years old when John the Baptist appeared; and supposing that the public ministry of the latter lasted six months or a year, He would be “ about thirty years of age ” when He received baptism from him. In this way agreement is established between the two chronological data, Luke 3:1; Luke 3:23. It has long been maintained that this last mode of reckoning, as it is foreign to the Roman writers, could only be attributed to Luke to meet the requirements of harmonists. Wieseler, however, has just proved, by inscriptions and medals, that it prevailed in the East, and particularly at Antioch, whence Luke appears originally to have come, and where he certainly resided for some time.

The circle narrows. We return to the Holy Land. The title of Pontius Pilate was properly ἐπίτροπος, procurator. That of ἡγεμών belonged to his superior, the governor of Syria. But as, in Judaea, the military command was joined to the civil authority, the procurator had a right to the title of ἡγεμών. Upon the deprivation of Archelaus, son of Herod, in the year 6 of our era, Judaea was united to the empire. It formed, with Samaria and Idumea, one of the districts of the province of Syria. Pilate was its fifth governor. He arrived there in the year 26, or sooner, in the autumn of the year 25 of our era; thus, in any case, a very short time before the ministry of John the Baptist. He remained in power ten years.

Herod, in his will, made a division of his kingdom. The first share was given to Archelaus, with the title of ethnarch, an inferior title to that of king, but superior to that of tetrarch. This share soon passed to the Romans. The second, which comprised Galilee and the Peraea, was that of Herod Antipas. The title of tetrarch, given to this prince, signifies properly sovereign of a fourth. It was then employed as a designation for dependent petty princes amongst whom had been shared (originally in fourths) certain territories previously united under a single sceptre. Herod Antipas reigned for forty-two years, until the year 39 of our era. The entire ministry of our Lord was therefore accomplished in his reign. The third share was Philip's, another son of Herod, who had the same title as Antipas. It embraced Ituraea (Dschedur), a country situated to the south-east of the Libanus, but not mentioned by Josephus amongst the states of Philip, and in addition, Trachonitis and Batanaea. Philip reigned 37 years, until the year 34 of our era. If the title of tetrarch be taken in its etymological sense, this term would imply that Herod had made a fourth share of his states; and this would naturally be that which Luke here designates by the name of Abilene, and which he assigns to Lysanias. Abila was a town situated to the north-west of Damascus, at the foot of the Anti-Libanus. Half a century before the time of which we are writing, there reigned in this country a certain Lysanias, the son and successor of Ptolemy king of Chalcis. This Lysanias was assassinated thirty-six years before our era by Antony, who gave a part of his dominions to Cleopatra. His heritage then passed into various hands. Profane history mentions no Lysanias after that one; and Strauss is eager to accuse Luke of having, by a gross error, made Lysanias live and reign sixty years after his death. Keim forms an equally unfavourable estimate of the statement of Luke. But while we possess no positive proof establishing the existence of a Lysanias posterior to the one of whom Josephus speaks, we ought at least, before accusing Luke of such a serious error, to take into consideration the following facts:

1. The ancient Lysanias bore the title of king, which Antony had given him (Dion Cassius, 49:32), and not the very inferior title of tetrarch.

2. He only reigned from four to five years; and it would be difficult to understand how, after such a short possession, a century afterwards, had Abilene even belonged to him of old, it should still have borne for this sole reason, in all the historians, the name of Abilene of Lysanias (Jos. Antiq. 18.6.10, 19.5.1, etc.; Ptolem. 5.18).

3. A medal and an inscription found by Pococke mention a Lysanias tetrarch and high priest, titles which do not naturally apply to the ancient king Lysanias. From all these facts, therefore, it would be reasonable to conclude, with several interpreters, that there was a younger Lysanias, a descendant, doubtless, of the preceding, who possessed, not, as his ancestor did, the entire kingdom of Chalcis, but simply the tetrarchate of Abilene. This natural supposition may at the present day be asserted as a fact.

Two inscriptions recently deciphered prove:

1. That at the very time when Tiberius was co-regent with Augustus, there actually existed a tetrarch Lysanias. For it was a freedman of this Lysanias, named Nymphaeus (Νύμφαιος... Λυσανίου τετράρχου ἀπελεύθερος), who had executed some considerable works to which one of these inscriptions refers (Boeckh's Corpus inscript. Gr. No. 4521).

2. That this Lysanias was a descendant of the ancient Lysanias. This may be inferred, with a probability verging on certainty, from the terms of the other inscription: “and to the sons of Lysanias” (ibid. No. 4523).

Augustus took pleasure in restoring to the children what his rivals had formerly taken away from their fathers. Thus the young Jamblichus, king of Emesa, received from him the inheritance of his father of the same name, slain by Antony. In the same way, also, was restored to Archelaus of Cappadocia a part of Cilicia, which had formerly belonged to his father of the same name. Why should not Augustus have done as much for the young Lysanias, whose ancestor had been slain and deprived by Antony? That this country should be here considered by Luke as belonging to the Holy Land, is explained, either by the fact that Abilene had been temporarily subject to Herod, and it is something in favour of this supposition, that when Claudius restored to Agrippa I. all the dominions of his grandfather Herod the Great, he also gave him Abilene, or by this, that the inhabitants of the countries held by the ancient Lysanias had been incorporated into the theocracy by circumcision a century before Christ, and that the ancient Lysanias himself was born of a Jewish mother, an Asmonaean, and thus far a Jew. This people, therefore, in a religious point of view, formed part of the holy people as well as the Idumaeans.

The intention of Luke in describing the dismemberment of the Holy Land at this period, is to make palpable the political dissolution into which the theocracy had fallen at the time when He appeared who was to establish it in its true form, by separating the eternal kingdom from its temporary covering.

Luke passes to the sphere of religion (Luke 3:2). The true reading is doubtless the sing. ἀρχιερέως, the high priest Annas and Caiaphas. How is this strange phrase to be explained? It cannot be accidental, or used without thought. The predecessor of Pilate, Valerius Gratus, had deposed, in the year 14, the high priest Annas. Then, during a period covering some years, four priestly rulers were chosen and deposed in succession. Caiaphas, who had the title, was son-in-law of Annas, and had been appointed by Gratus about the year 17 of our era. He filled this office until 36. It is possible that, in conformity with the law which made the high-priesthood an office for life, the nation continued to regard Annas, notwithstanding his deprivation and the different elections which followed this event, as the true high priest, whilst all those pontiffs who had followed him were only, in the eyes of the best part of the people, titular high priests. In this way Luke's expression admits of a very natural explanation: “Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests,” that is to say, the two high priests, one by right, the other in fact. This expression would have all the better warrant, because, as history proves, Annas in reality continued, as before, to hold the reins of government. This was especially the case under the pontificate of Caiaphas, his son-in-law. John indicates this state of things in a striking way in two passages relating to the trial of Jesus, Luke 18:13; Luke 18:24: “And they bound Jesus, and led Him away to Annas first; for he was father-in-law to Caiaphas....And Annas sent Jesus bound to Caiaphas, the high priest. ” These words furnish in some sort a commentary on Luke's expression. These two persons constituted really one and the same high priest. Add to this, as we are reminded by Wieseler, that the higher administration was then shared officially between two persons whom the Talmud always designates as distinct, the nasi, who presided over the Sanhedrin, and had the direction of public affairs; and the high priest properly so called, who was at the head of the priests, and superintended matters of religion. Now it is very probable that the office of nasi at that time devolved upon Annas. We are led to this conclusion by the powerful influence which he exerted; by the part which, according to John, he played in the trial of Jesus; and by the passage Acts 4:6, where he is found at the head of the Sanhedrin with the title of ἀρχιερεύς, while Caiaphas is only mentioned after him, as a simple member of this body. This separation of the office into two functions, which, united, had constituted, in the regular way, the true and complete theocratic high-priesthood, was the commencement of its dissolution. And this is what Luke intends to express by this gen. sing. ἀρχιερέως, in apposition with two proper names. It is just as if he had written: “ under the high priest Annas-Caiaphas. ” Disorganization had penetrated beneath the surface of the political sphere (Luke 3:1), to the very heart of the theocracy. What a frame for the picture of the appearing of the Restorer!

The expression, the word came to John (lit. came upon), indicates a positive revelation, either by theophany or by vision, similar to that which served as a basis for the ministry of the ancient prophets: Moses, Exodus 3; Isaiah 6; Jeremiah 1; Ezekiel 1-3; comp. John 1:33, and see Luke 1:80. The word in the wilderness expressly connects this portion with that last passage.