Luke Lesson 4
Chapter 3
When Malachi closed his book with a promise of a coming messenger, God’s people entered a 400-year-long famine of prophecy. At first, nobody noticed. Prophets had come infrequently in earlier centuries although there were bursts of prophetic activity associated with crisis times in Israel’s history (Isaiah, Amos, Hosea, Jonah and Micah in Assyria’s days and Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel in Babylon’s time). No such crisis intruded during the decline of Persia and rise of Greece until the reign of Antiochus in the 160s BC and God did not see fit to send a prophet to the nation during that time. Were a prophet to the nation appear, it would have excited tremendous comment and interest. And so John came . . .
The Work of John—Luke 3:1-20
Once again, Luke provides the most careful dating possible by locating John’s activity in relation to various rulers in the area. The fifteenth year of Tiberius places him in the years 27-29 BC, depending upon which of Tiberius’ years were considered “the first year” (and allowing for changes to the calendar). Pontius Pilate was prefect (not procurator, as he was formerly labeled) of Judea from AD 26-36. Herod Antipas and Philip both began their reigns at the death of Herod the Great in 4 BC, with Philip lasting until AD 34 and Antipas to AD 39. Lysanias is not well known, so his years cannot be identified. It seems clear that Luke intended us to understand that John’s prophetic ministry began about AD 29.
One of the most interesting statements has to do with the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas. It is impossible for two men to occupy the office of High Priest, yet Luke identifies both. Records show that Annas was High Priest from AD 6-15 when he was deposed by the Roman governor. Afterward, his family members were installed. Caiaphas was his son-in-law and was designated High Priest from AD 18-36. The High Priesthood, however, was a life appointment in the Scriptures, and many of the Jews likely considered Annas the legitimate High Priest. It is undeniable that he wielded very considerable power.
It is during this time of political and religious layering that God spoke to His people through John, son of Zechariah. At first, John seems to have had a preaching ministry on the move near the Jordan River. This was the border between Judea and Nabatea. John preached baptism for Jews, a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. Luke identifies John’s ministry as the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy of 750 years earlier. With John’s call, the people responded and came to him to hear his message and to express their own desire for covenant with God.
John’s message was a message of judgment on those who reject God yet rely on His promises. Descent from Abraham was certainly no guarantee of God’s favor. And when John preached, his hearers asked for specific guidance about the kind of conduct required by their repentance. In each case, John pointed toward the principles of justice and of love. He never required resignation, however—neither tax collectors nor soldiers were considered sinful activities in themselves. The people fulfilling the functions, though, should be guided by fairness.
With the circumstances of
his birth and the ministry he provided, it was inevitable that the people would
question whether John could be the hoped-for Messiah. In response to their
expectation, he made it clear that he was not in any sense of the idea, the
Messiah. However, the Messiah was coming and would sort good from evil,
punishing the wicked and caring for the righteous. Luke
calls John’s message “good news,” although it sounds mostly negative to us. In reality, the good news of salvation can never be good news until people recognize how bad the present situation truly is. When they become convinced of the bad news of condemnation for sin, the prospect of forgiveness is the greatest good news of all.
Luke summarizes the rest of John’s career quickly here. His ministry was cut short by the reaction of Herod Antipas. He had seduced Herodias away from his half-brother Philip (not the earlier-mentioned tetrarch, but a half-brother of the same name who lived as a private citizen) and married her. Morally, this was reprehensible in every way and would have been considered incest since her husband was still alive. Politically, this was foolish since it demanded that Antipas divorce his then-wife, the daughter of Aretas, king of Nabatea, in order to marry Herodias. With John denouncing the action at the border between Judea and Nabatea, Herod decided to suppress dissent by imprisoning John.
Jesus Begins His Ministry—Luke 3:21-38
While the crowds were streaming out to hear John and be baptized, Jesus also came with them. Luke omits conversation between John and Jesus and merely records that Jesus was baptized. At this moment Jesus begins His full identification with the condition of fallen, sinful human beings. He did not need to repent or to be baptized, but He accepted this ceremony of consecration and devotion to God to be like His brothers. Luke pointed out, though, that upon His baptism, Jesus was praying and immediately the Holy Spirit descended upon Him while the Father announced from the heavens, “You are my Son.” In this way, all three persons of the Godhead were present at this critical moment. We should stay alert to Jesus’ prayer life as recorded by Luke—we find the Lord in prayer at every major event in his ministry, beginning here with the beginning.
Luke notes that Jesus was “about 30 years old” when He began His ministry. Luke further wishes to identify Jesus in the context of his physical descent, so he records a genealogical table for Jesus. The most casual reader will realize that this genealogy differs from Matthew very greatly. Matthew does not precede Abraham; Luke records the generations from Abraham to Adam. From Abraham to David the records are substantially the same, yet after David, the lists diverge considerably. The explanation of these differences is elusive even in the face of the obvious fact that Matthew did not record all generations between David and Jesus—his purpose was to provide a poetic symmetry of 14 generations each. Luke is far more detailed, but shifts to a different list after David.
Some have supposed that Matthew traced Joseph’s lineage while Luke listed Mary’s ancestors. This is possible but otherwise unheard-of. In favor of it is a subtle grammatical shift immediately after Joseph’s name and the fact that a virgin conception would call for a unique genealogy anyway. Some have speculated that Heli (Luke) and Jacob (Matthew) were brothers and that Heli died without children and Jacob married the widow and produced Joseph. There is no evidence of such an event and there would likely not be any evidence. Others have claimed that Matthew showed the legal, kingly line of descent that would place Joseph (and Jesus) in a possible line for David’s throne, while Luke provided the actual birth fathers. All of these explanations are weak; none of them answers all objections and none of them is impossible. At best we can say that we cannot definitively point to one explanation. It is possible that future discoveries will clear up the confusion. What is clear, though, is that Jesus of Nazareth is descended from David and from God.