Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Luke 3:2
Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.
Annas and Caiaphas being highpriests – There was, properly speaking, but one high priest of the Jews; yet the name of high priest continued to be given to those who had been in that office, and especially when they still possessed some civil office after they had left the high priesthood. In this case it appears that Caiapas was high priest, and Annas had been, but had been dismissed from the office. It is highly probable that he still held an office under the Romans, and was perhaps president of the Sanhedrin. He is mentioned before Caiaphas because he was the father-in-law to Caiaphas, and probably was the eldest, and had been longest in office. Instances similar to this may be found in Josephus.
There is one remark to be made here about the manner in which the gospels are written. They have every mark of openness and honesty. An impostor does not mention names, and times, and places particularly. If he did, it would be easy to ascertain that he was an impostor. But the sacred writers describe objects and people as if they were perfectly familiar with them. They never appear to be guarding themselves. They speak of things most minutely. If, therefore, they had been impostors, it would have been easy to detect them. If, for example, John did not begin to preach in the 15th year of Tiberius – if Philip was not tetrarch of Iturea – if Pontius Pilate was not governor of Judea, how easy would it have been to detect them in falsehood! Yet it was never done. Nay, we have evidence of that age, in Josephus, that these descriptions are strictly true; and, consequently, the gospels must have been written by people who were personally acquainted with what they wrote, who were not impostors, and who were honest people. If they were honest, then the Christian religion is true.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Luk 3:2
Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests
Annas and Caiaphas
The way in which these two names occur in the New Testament has given some trouble to commentators.
They are found in St. Lukes Gospel, mentioned both together at the commencement of the preaching of John the Baptist, and are there called the high priests. St. Matthew, in the narrative of our Lords trial, speaks only of Caiaphas, and calls him the high priest. But St. John, who also mentions Caiaphas as the high priest, tells us that Jesus, after His arrest, was first brought to Annas, as if he were of chief importance, and then was sent by him to Caiaphas, Lastly, in the Acts, we have Annas called the high priest, and the name of Caiaphas mentioned at the same time, but no title is given to the latter. But we know from Josephus that Annas (Ananus), who was father-in-law to Caiaphas, was made high priest by Quirinus (Cyrenius), A.D. 7, and continued in that office for seven years, when he was deprived of it by Valerius Gratus, and was never chosen to be high priest afterwards. It is clear, however, that from the earliest times down to a date after the composition of the Acts of the Apostles, there were often circumstances under which two men were called high priests at the same time. That one who had once been high priest, but had ceased to be in office, would still be called high priest, is evident from that principle which is laid down in several places in the Talmud, that you may elevate in the matter of a sacred thing, or office, but you cannot bring down. As with us, once a bishop, always a bishop. We see, therefore, that when Annas had been high priest, it was not only likely that he would continue to be so called, but that, according to Jewish usage, he could be called nothing else. The age of Annas, and the influential position naturally occupied by one who had been acting high priest himself, whose son had twice held the same office, and who was father-in-law to the present high priest, are sufficient to warrant the action of the crowd in taking Christ to Annas first; while in the passage of the Acts, the mention of Annas at the head of the list, with the title of high priest, was nothing more than was due to his years and to the relationship in which he stood to Caiaphas, while the omission of the high priests title after the name of Caiaphas is no more a proof that he was not also high priest than the language of St. Marks Gospel, where it is said, Go your way, tell His disciples, and Peter, is evidence that Peter was not one of the disciples. (J. Rawson Lumby, D. D.)
The Word of God came unto John
An important statement
The events of the first verse, as compared with the events recorded in the second, are of the most trifling importance. In the first instance there is a list of govern mental personalities and districts, and in the second verse there is the solemn fact that the word of God came unto the forerunner of our Lord. This juxtaposition of events is remarkably suggestive as bearing upon what is current in our own day. The world has a large list of its own appointments, regulations, and authorities, which reads most imposingly: on the other hand there are single sentences bearing upon spiritual life and work which totally eclipse the pomp of royal nomenclature and dominion. Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate, Herod, Philip, and Lysanias, are names which will perish from the roll of the highest factors of human history and service; but the name of John will be remembered and reverenced as the highest name known amongst men before the building up of the distinctive kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ. The word of God came unto John. This is a most remarkable expression, showing that John did not run before he was sent, and showing also that God knows where to find men when He wants them for any work in the world. John in the wilderness is nobody, but the word of God entering into this same John kindles him into a light that is seen afar. The true minister of God is charged with the word of Heaven. That which he speaks he speaks not of himself, he simply pronounces and proclaims with earnestness and persistency the truth which has been breathed into his own heart by the Spirit of God. The sword in the scabbard is a useless weapon, but when grasped by the hand of the trained soldier carries with it alike death and victory. It is, indeed, possible to have received the word of God as a commandment to go forth, and yet to have stifled the great conviction. There are men who are silent to-day in the Church, who, if faithful to their convictions, would be heard in loud protest against evil, and vehement proclamations as the apostles of Christian truth. -Grieve not the Spirit! Quench not the Spirit! We do not begin by quenching the Spirit; the deadly work begins by grieving the sacred presence. It is to be noted that John was in the wilderness when the word of God came unto him. Time spent in solitude is not misspent if the ear be bent towards God, and our love be listening for the coming of His word. (J. Parker, D. D.)
Teachings of the wilderness
Few Bible characters are so strangely fascinating to the devout reader as that of John the Baptist. In the wilderness God came to him; in the wilderness he was equipped for public service; from the wilderness he began his missionary work. This fact suggests three ideas of practical importance.
I. THE NATURE OF WILDERNESS LIFE.
1. Solitude.
2. Abstemiousness.
3. Privation.
II. THE LESSONS OF WILDERNESS LIFE. What John was taught in the wilderness gave him his regal manhood, viz., the high moral lessons of–
1. Self-denial.
2. Humility.
3. Courage for what is true and holy.
Separate from the world, his breast
Did deeply take and strongly keep
The print of heaven.
III. THE REASON OF GODS VISITATION IN THE WILDERNESS. The word was a call to active endeavour in the busy world. The wilderness had done its work, that is, had made John a fit person in the sight of God to be called to the important work of heralding the ministry of Christ. That same word of God is constantly coming to us all in all the great and little wildernesses of life. In all ages notable instances of such visitations have been recorded. Moses, Luther, Wordsworth, amongst the hills and vales of his native Westmoreland; Carlyle, who, in the wilderness of Craigenputtock, heard and obeyed a call to preach in his books repentance as the first and last need of his age. If we would be true to our higher nature we must cultivate the love of solitude.
Morn is the time to act, noon to endure,
But O! if thou wouldst keep thy spirit pure,
Turn from the beaten path by worldlings trod,
Go forth at eventide in heart to walk with God.
And if to solitude there be added suffering in our wilderness, let us despise it not. Though often dreary, it has its charms, its blessings. God may be found there. (J. McGavin Sloan.)
John in the wilderness
Wide as was the moral and spiritual difference between the two great prophets of the Jordan wilderness, and the wild ascetics of later times, it is for this very reason important to bear in mind the outward likeness which sets off this inward contrast. Travellers know well the startling appearance of the savage figures who, whether as Bedouins or Dervishes, still haunt the solitary places of the East, with a cloak–the usual striped Bedouin blanket–woven of camels hair thrown over the shoulders, and tied in front on the breast; naked except at the waist, round which is a girdle of skin, the hair flowing loose about the head. This was precisely the description of Elijah, whose last appearance had been on this very wilderness, before he finally vanished from the eyes of his disciple. This, too, was the aspect of his great representative, when he came, in the same place, dwelling, like the sons of the prophets, in a leafy covert, woven of the branches of the Jordan forest, preaching, in raiment of camels hair, with a leathern girdle round his loins, eating the locusts of the desert, and the wild honey or manna which dripped from the tamarisks of the desert region, or which distilled from the palm-groves of Jericho. To the same wilderness, probably that on the eastern side, Jesus is described as led up by the Spirit–up into the desert-hills whence Moses had seen the view of all the kingdom of Palestine–with the wild beasts which lurked in the bed of the Jordan, or in the caves of the hills, where John was baptising, beyond Jordan. (Dean Stanley.)
Johns life in the desert
A soul lost in the greatness of eternal truths, like that of John, may well have risen to an indifference to the comforts, or even ordinary wants of the body, otherwise almost impossible. We have no record of his daily life, but that of one who, in saintliness of spirit, trod in his steps, is still preserved. Saint Antony, in the deserts of Egypt, was wont to pass whole nights in prayer, and that not once, but often, to the astonishment of men. He ate once a day, after the setting of the sun; his food was bread with salt, his drink nothing but water. Flesh and wine he never tasted. When he slept, he was content with a rush mat, but mostly he lay on the bare ground. He would not anoint himself with oil, saying that it was more fit for young men to be earnest in subduing the body, than to seek things which softened it. Forgetting the past, he, daily, as if beginning afresh, took more pains to improve, saying over to himself, continually, the apostles words–Forgetting what is behind, stretching forth to what is before; and mindful, too, of Elijahs saying, the Lord liveth, before whom I stand–he said, himself, that the ascetic ought ever to be learning his own life from that of the great Elias, as from a mirror. The picture may not suit in some particulars, but as a glimpse of the mortified life of the desert, in its best aspect, it may serve to realize that of John, in the loneliness of the rough wilderness of Judaea. (Dr. C. Geikie.)
John in the wilderness
Here St. John the Baptist spent long years of solitary musing on the things of God, till his soul kindled into irresistible ardour, which drove him forth among men to plead with them to prepare for the coming of the Messiah. During the hot months it is a land of scorpions, lizards, and snakes, Be that his experience readily supplied him with a comparison for his wicked contemporaries, whom he denounced as a generation of vipers. Wild bees make their combs in the hollows of the limestone rocks; the aromatic thymes, mints, and other labiate plants, sprinkled over the face of the wilderness, furnishing them with honey, which is more plentiful in the wilderness of Judaea than in any other part of Palestine. They thus provided for him a main article of his diet, while in one wady or another, or in soma cleft, there was always water enough to quench his thirst. Locusts, the other article of his food, are never wanting in this region, and, indeed, are to this day eaten by the Arabs in the southeast of Judaea, the very district where John lived; by those of the Jordan valley, and by some tribes in Gilead. They stew them with butter, and travellers say–for I myself have never tasted them–that they are very like shrimps in flavour. (Dr. C. Geikie.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 2. Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests] Caiaphas was the son-in-law of Annas or Ananias, and it is supposed that they exercised the high priest’s office by turns. It is likely that Annas only was considered as high priest; and that Caiaphas was what the Hebrews termed cohen mishneh, or sagan cohanim, the high priest’s deputy, or ruler of the temple. See Clarke on Mt 2:4, and See Clarke on Joh 18:13.
The facts which St. Luke mentions here tend much to confirm the truth of the evangelical history. Christianity differs widely from philosophic system; it is founded in the goodness and authority of God; and attested by historic facts. It differs also from popular tradition, which either has had no pure origin, or which is lost in unknown or fabulous antiquity. It differs also from pagan and Mohammedan revelations, which were fabricated in a corner, and had no witnesses. In the above verses we find the persons, the places, and the times marked with the utmost exactness. It was under the first Caesars that the preaching of the Gospel took place; and in their time, the facts on which the whole of Christianity is founded made their appearance: an age the most enlightened, and best known from the multitude of its historic records. It was in Judea, where every thing that professed to come from God was scrutinized with the most exact and unmerciful criticism. In writing the history of Christianity, the evangelists appeal to certain facts which were publicly transacted in such places, under the government and inspection of such and such persons, and in such particular times. A thousand persons could have confronted the falsehood, had it been one! These appeals are made – a challenge is offered to the Roman government, and to the Jewish rulers and people – a new religion has been introduced in such a place, at such a time – this has been accompanied with such and such facts and miracles! Who can disprove this? All are silent. None appears to offer even an objection. The cause of infidelity and irreligion is at stake! If these facts cannot be disproved, the religion of Christ must triumph. None appears because none could appear. Now let it be observed, that the persons of that time, only, could confute these things had they been false; they never attempted it; therefore these facts are absolute and incontrovertible truths: this conclusion is necessary. Shall a man then give up his faith in such attested facts as these, because, more than a thousand years after, an infidel creeps out, and ventures publicly to sneer at what his iniquitous soul hopes is not true!
The word of God came unto John] That is, the Holy Spirit that revealed to him this doctrine of salvation. This came upon him in the desert, where he was living in such a state of austerity as gave him full right to preach all the rigours of penitence to others. Thus we find that the first preachers, historians, and followers of the doctrines of the Gospel were men eminent for the austerity of their lives, the simplicity of their manners, and the sanctity of their conduct; they were authorized by God, and filled with the most precious gifts of his Spirit. And what are the apostles which the new philosophy sends us? Philosophers full of themselves, not guided by the love of truth or wisdom, but ever seeking their own glory; in constant hostility among themselves, because of their separate pretensions to particular discoveries, of the honour of which they would almost as soon lose life as be deprived. Who are they? Men of a mortified life and unblamable conversation? No – they are poets and poetasters; composers of romances, novels, intrigues, farces, comedies, &c., full of extravagance and impurity. They are pretended moralists that preach up pleasure and sensual gratification, and dissolve, as far as they can, the sacred and civil ties that unite and support society. They are men whose guilt is heightened by their assuming the sacred name of philosophers, and dignifying their impure system with a name at which Philosophy herself blushes and bleeds.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
2. Annas and Caiaphas . . . highprieststhe former, though deposed, retained much of hisinfluence, and, probably, as sagan or deputy, exercised muchof the power of the high priesthood along with Caiaphas (Joh 18:13;Act 4:6). Both Zadok and Abiatharacted as high priests in David’s time (2Sa15:35), and it seems to have become the fixed practice to havetwo (2Ki 25:18). (Also see onMt 3:1.)
word of God came untoJohnSuch formulas, of course, are never used whenspeaking of Jesus, because the divine nature manifested itself inHim not at certain isolated moments of His life. He was the oneeverlasting manifestation of the GodheadTHEWORD [OLSHAUSEN].
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests,…. Some difficulty here arises, how these two could be both high priests; when according to the law of God, and the usages of the Jewish nation, there was to be, and was but one high priest at a time: many things are observed by writers, to solve this difficulty: some go this way; that though according to the divine institution, and the practice of former times, there was but one high priest at a time; yet now, through the corruption of the present age, there were two high priests; or at least, which officiated alternately in the same year: but of such a corruption, no instance can be given, even in those corrupt times; and as Maimonides says a, there can be but “one high priest” , “in all the world”; and besides, is contrary to their canons, which were then in being, and still remain; one b of which runs thus, “they do not appoint two high priests at once”. Others suppose, that these two annually performed the office of high priests by turns; that Caiaphas was high priest one year, and Annas another: it is true indeed, that through the corruption of those times, this office became venal, hence it is said in the Talmud c,
“because they gave money for the priesthood, they changed it every twelve months.”
And which is more largely expressed by one of their commentators d,
“because the high priests, who were under the second temple, after Simeon the just, gave money to minister in the high priest’s office, and because they were wicked, they did not fill up their years, therefore they changed every year.”
But though it is certain, that there were frequent, and sometimes annual changes in the priesthood, hence it is said of Caiaphas,
Joh 11:49 that he was “high priest the same year”, yet it does not appear that he and Annas took it yearly by turns: for Caiaphas continued in that office some years, even till after the death of Christ: and besides, had this been the case, as one of them could be but high priest for the year being, both in one year as here, could not with propriety be said to be high priests. Others take another method, and suppose Caiaphas to be properly the high priest, as he certainly was; and Annas so called, because he had been one formerly, the same with Ananus, the son of Seth; who was put into the priesthood by Quirinius, in the room of Joazar, and was deposed by Valerius Gratus, and Ishmael ben Phabi was put into his room: but though there may be instances of persons being called high priests, who had been in that office, after they were removed from it, yet no reason can be given, why Annas should be peculiarly called so, when there were in all probability several alive, who had been in that office as well as he; as Joazar his predecessor, and Ishmael ben Phabi, who succeeded Joazar, and after him Eleazar, the son of Annas, and then Simeon ben Camhith; nor why he should be put in the annals of the high priests, in a year in which he was not one. It seems most likely therefore, that he was the “Sagan” of the priests, of which office mention is frequently made, in the Jewish writings e; yea, we often read of Chanina, or Chananiah, or Ananias, perhaps the same with this Annas, who is called, , “the Sagan of the priests” f. This officer was not a deputy high priest, or one that was substituted to officiate occasionally, in the room of the high priest, when any thing hindered him, or rendered him unfit for his office; as on the day of atonement, if the high priest contracted any pollution, they substituted another to minister g; which was not the “Sagan”, but another priest; and even such an one was called an high priest, as appears from the following story h.
“It happened to Simeon ben Camhith (a predecessor of Caiaphas), that he went out to speak with the king, on the evening of the day of atonement, and the spittle was scattered from his mouth, upon his garments, and he was unclean; and his brother Judah went in, and ministered in his stead in the high priesthood; and their mother saw her “two sons”,
“high priests in one day”.”
But the “Sagan” was not an officer pro tempore, or so much under the high priest, and one in his stead, as a ruler and governor over other priests. Maimonides says of him thus i;
“they appoint one priest, who is to the high priest as a second to the king, and he is called “Sagan”; and he is called a ruler: and he stands at the right hand of the high priest continually; and this is an honour to him, and all the priests are under the hand of the Sagan.”
The account given of him in the Talmud k is this;
“in five things the “Sagan” ministers; the “Sagan” says to him, my lord, high priest, lift up thy right hand (i.e. when he took the lots out of the vessel for the goats, on the day of atonement l; which should be slain); the “Sagan” is on his right hand, and the father of the sanhedrim on his left (i.e. when he went to the east of the court and the north of the altar m, where were the two goats, and the vessel in which were the lots); the “Sagan” waved with the veils, or linen clothes; the “Sagan” held him by his right hand, and caused him to ascend (by the steps to the altar); and no man was appointed an high priest, before he was a “Sagan.””
Now these might be as Serojab and Zephaniah, the one chief priest, and the other second priest, Jer 52:24 where the Targum and Jarchi interpret the text, the “Sagan” of the priests. And this being an office of such dignity and authority, supposing Annas in it, though he was not “the” high priest, yet being the head of the other priests, he might be called one, and be joined with Caiaphas, and set before him; not only because he had been an high priest, but because he was his father-in-law:
the word of God came to John the son of Zachariah: a priest of the order of “Abia”; and of Elisabeth, a daughter of Aaron, and cousin of Mary, the mother of Jesus; as it had come formerly to the prophets, and particularly to Jeremiah, who was sanctified from the womb, as the Baptist was: he was blessed with a prophetic spirit, and with the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost, and with a wonderful revelation of the Messiah, and of the Gospel dispensation; and was abundantly qualified for the work he was called to, and sent to perform: and this befell him
in the wilderness; that is, of Judea; where he had been brought up and lived, and from whence and where he came, preaching: he had lived a solitary life, and had not learnt his doctrine from men, but had his mission, ministry, and baptism, from heaven.
a In Misn. Menachot, c. 13. sect. 10. b T. Hieros. Sanhedrin, fol. 29. 1. Maimon. Hilch. Cele Hamikdash, c. 4. sect. 15. c T. Bab. Yorma, fol. 8. 2. d Bartenora in Misn. Yoma, c 1. sect. 1. e Targum in 2 Kings xxiii. 4. & xxv. 18. & in Jer. xx. 1. 3. & xxix. 26, & lii. 24. f Misn. Shekalim, c. 6. sect. 1. T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 8. 1. Juchasin, fol. 57. 1. g Misn. Yoma, c. 1. sect. 1. h T. Hieros. Yoma, fol. 38. 4. Megilla, fol. 72. 1. Horayot, fol. 47. 4. T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 47. 1. Bemidbar Rabba, sect. 2. fol. 180. 3. i Hilch. Cele Hamikdash, c. 4. sect. 16. k T. Hieros. Yoma, fol. 41. 1. l Misn. Yoma, c. 4. sect. 1. m Ib. c. 3. sect. 9.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
The Word of God came unto John ( ). The great epoch marked by rather than . is some particular utterance of God (Plummer), common in LXX, here alone in the N.T. Then John is introduced as the son of Zacharias according to Chapter 1. Matthew describes him as the Baptist, Mark as the Baptizer. No other Gospel mentions Zacharias. Mark begins his Gospel here, but Matthew and Luke have two Infancy Chapters before. Luke alone tells of the coming of the word to John. All three Synoptics locate him “in the wilderness” ( ) as here, Mark 1:4; Matt 3:1 (adding “of Judea”).
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
Came [] . Lit., arose, or came to pass. John. The Synoptists intrduce him under different titles. Here, the son of Zacharias; Matthew, the Baptist; Mark, the Baptizer.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests,” (epi archiereos Hanna kai Kaiapha) “in the time of Annas and Caiaphas the high priests;” Annas was the former high priest, now out of office, yet honored with the title, Joh 11:49-51; Joh 18:13-24; Act 4:6. For he had been deposed by Pilate’s predecessor and replaced by Caiaphas.
2) “The word of God came unto John,” (egeneto hrema theou epi loannen) “A message of and from God, came to John (the Baptist),” by the Holy Spirit, impelling him to preach, as a prophet (to deliver himself of a great work, and heaven-given message for Israel, regarding Jesus Christ who was to come) as messages came to ancient prophets, 1Ki 12:22; 1Ch 17:3; Jer 1:1, etc.
3) “The son of Zacharias in the wilderness.” (ton Zachariou huion en te ercmo) “The son of Zacharias while he was in the desert,” wilderness, or an uninhabited area, as indicated, Luk 3:3; Luk 1:57; Luk 1:59-60; Luk 1:62-63.
The wilderness was located north of the Dead Sea around the mouth of the Jordan on the north, most of the way up to the Sea of Galilee.
Annas was administrative High Priest AD 7-14, later succeeded by Caiaphas who presided AD 17-35.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
Luk 3:2
. Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests It is certain, that there never were two persons who held the office of high priest at the same time. Josephus states, that Valerius Gratus made Caiaphas high priest, a short time before he left the government. During the time that Pilate was governor of Judea, Josephus does not speak of him as having made any change in this respect; (244) but, on the contrary, states that, when Pilate had been recalled from the government, and sent to plead his cause at Rome, Vitellius, who was at that time governor of Syria, reduced Caiaphas to a private rank, and transferred the high priesthood to Jonathan, the son of Ananus, (Ant. 18:4:3.) When Luke says that there were two high priests, we must not understand him to mean, that both held the same title, but that the honor of the priesthood was partly shared with him by Annas his father-in-law. Luke’s narrative indicates such a state of trouble and confusion, that, though there was not more than one person who was actually high priest, the sacred office was torn in pieces by ambition and tyranny.
The word of the Lord came upon John Before relating, as the other Evangelists do, that John began to exercise his office of teaching, Luke asserts that he was divinely called to that office: and he does so, in order to assure us, that the ministry of John carried undoubted authority. Why the interpreters have chosen to translate the word, ἐπὶ ᾿Ιωάννην, UPON John, instead of TO John, I do not see: but because there is no ambiguity as to the meaning, that this commission was entrusted to him, and that he received a command to preach, I have followed the received version. Hence infer, that there are no regular teachers, but those on whom God has conferred the office; and that it is not enough to have the word of God, if there be not likewise a special calling.
Matthew and Mark do not speak of the preaching of John as extending beyond the wilderness, while Luke says, that he came into all the country around Jordan These statements may be reconciled by observing, that John discharged the office of teaching among the neighbors, with whom he dwelt; but that his Gospel spread more widely, and became known in many places, so that the report of it, in a short time, reached Jerusalem. Indeed, the whole of that tract of the Jordan might be called a wilderness: for the word does not mean “a solitude,” but “a rough, and mountainous, and thinly inhabited district.”
(244) The whole passage is remarkable, and proves that the appointment to the sacred office of high priest was entirely at the disposal of the Roman Governor. “This man (Valerius Gratus) deprived Ananus of the high priesthood, and appointed Ishmael, the son of Phabi, to be high priest. He also deprived him in a little time, and ordained Eleazar, the son of Ananus, who had been high priest before, to be high priest: which office, when he had held for a year, Gratus deprived him of it, and gave the high priesthood to Simon, the son of Camithus; and, when he had possessed that dignity no longer than a year, Joseph Caiaphas was made his successor. When Gratus had done those things, he went back to Rome, after he had tarried in Judea eleven years, when Pontius Pilate came as his successor.” — ( Ant. 18:2:2.)
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(2) Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests.Strictly speaking, there could be only one high priest, and the office was filled at this time by Caiaphas. Annas had been appointed by the Roman Procurator Quirinus, A.D. 7. In A.D. 14, he had to give way to Ishmael, who was appointed by Gratus successor to Quirinus; then followed Eleazar and Simon, and then, in A.D. 25, Joseph Caiaphas, who had married the daughter of Annas (Joh. 18:13). It was natural that this relationship should involve the restoration, as far as possible, of his old dignity, and either as the Nasi or President of the Sanhedrin, or as the Sagan or deputy of the high priest, he may have acted as a coadjutor, as in our Lords trial, and come to be spoken of as still high priest. Five of his sons, it may be noted, filled the Pontifical office in succession. In Act. 4:6, he is named as distinctly the high priest. In St. John, as above, he shares the judicial authority with Caiaphas. St. Matthew and St. Mark do not name him.
Unto John the son of Zacharias.This description of the Baptist is peculiar to St. Luke.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
(2) As we go further back the names are all different till we come to Zerubbabel; and the list in St. Luke from Zerubbabel to Joseph contains twenty names, inclusive, while those in St. Matthew are only thirteen.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
(2) The difference in the number of names presents no real difficulty. We have seen (Note on Mat. 1:9) that St. Matthew omits three names in the list of kings in order to adapt it to the memoria technica of fourteen names in each group, and what he did in one case he may well have done in another for the same reason.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
2. Annas and Caiaphas being high priests There could, by the Mosaic law, be but one high priest at a time. See our note on Mat 26:3, in regard to the high priesthood and Caiaphas. In regard to Annas, see our note on Joh 18:13.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
Luk 3:2. Annas and Caiaphas being the high-priests According to the institutions of the Jewish religion, there could be only one high-priest, properly so called, at a time; that minister being typical of the one Mediator between God and man. The most probable solution therefore of the difficulty in the text, is, that Annas was the high-priest, and Caiaphas his sagan, or deputy; to whom also the title of high-priest might, in an improper or secondary sense, be given. Aaron, the high-priest, left two sons, Eleazar and Ithamar; Eleazar, the eldest, obtained the sacerdotal tiara by birth-right; but under the judges it was translated from his family to that of his brother; for Eli, who was both high-priest and judge, is not mentioned among Eleazar’s posterity; (see 1Ch 6:4; 1Ch 6:81.) So that he must have been of Ithamar’s family, as indeed Josephus expressly affirms. Accordingly, Ahimelech, the father of that Abiathar (1Sa 22:20.) whose deposition by Solomon is declared to have been an accomplishment of the word of the Lord concerning the house of Eli, 1Ki 2:26-27 and who, for that reason, must have been one of Eli’s descendants, is said to have been of the stock of Ithamar, 1Ch 24:3. But the high-priesthood passed from one family to the other more than once; either through the legal incapacity of him to whom it appertained by right of succession, or by the decree of the chief magistrates, who seem to have claimed the disposal of this dignity; for it was brought back to the family of Eleazar, in the person of Zadok, by Solomon, 1Ki 2:27-35. In latter times, the high-priesthood was possessed by the Asmoneans, who were neither of the one family nor the other, but common priests of the course of Joarib. The dignity of the high-priesthood made him who enjoyed it, whether he was of the posterity of Eleazar or Ithamar, the first of the sacerdotal order; the head of the other family being second only, and next to him. It is supposed that the prophet Jeremiah speaks of both, when he mentions a chief-priest and a second priest, Jer 52:24. In like manner, notwithstanding Abiathar, of the line of Ithamar, was deposed from the high-priesthood, he is honoured with the title which in those days was given to the high-priests, and set almost on an equality with his successor Zadok, of the line of Eleazar, 1Ki 4:4.and Zadok and Abiathar the priests. If therefore Caiaphas was the second priest, as is probable from his succeeding Annas, he might be called the high-priest in a less proper sense. Or, if Annas was removed, and Caiaphas succeeded him before the year expired, they might both properly be said to have been high-priests that year: but though Annas was deposed to make way for Caiaphas, he was restored to his dignity soon after our Lord’s death, Act 4:6. It should be observed, that those who once bore the office of high-priests always retained the title afterwards; and Annas having enjoyed it before Caiaphas, might for that reason have been honoured with the title. It has been suggested, that Annas represented Moses, as the nasi, prince, or head of the Sanhedrim; and Caiaphas Aaron, as the proper high-priest; and that they both continued in their office till the death of Christ. See Joh 18:13.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
2 Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.
Ver. 2. Annas and Caiaphas being high priests ] By turns, Joh 11:49 ; Act 4:6 , contrary to the old order. Throughout the whole Turkish territories, there is but one Mufta, or high priest, and he is the supreme judge and rectifier of all actions, as well civil as ecclesiastical.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
2. ] ANNAS (= Ananus, Jos. Antt. xviii. 2. 2) the high-priest, was deposed by Valerius Gratus (U.C. 779), and after several changes, Joseph or Caiaphas (Joseph. as above), his son-in-law ( Joh 18:13 ), was made high-priest. It would appear from this verse (and the use of the singular, – , renders the inference more stringent. Cf. also St. Luke’s own phrase, Act 4:6 ) that Annas, as ex-high-priest , and possibly retaining in the view of the Jews the legitimate high-priesthood , was counted still as having the office: he certainly ( Joh 18:13 ) exercised the power , and had influence enough to procure the actual high-priesthood for five of his sons , after his own deposition, Jos. Antt. xx. 9. 1.
A substitute, or deputy to the high-priest (called by the Talmudists ), appears to have been usual, see 2Ki 25:18 ; and Annas would thus be able to evade the Roman appointment and keep the authority.
. ] See Joh 1:33 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Luk 3:2 . , under the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas. The use of the singular in connection with two names is peculiar, whence doubtless the correction into the easier (T. R.); and the combination of two men as holding the office at the same time, is likewise somewhat puzzling. As Caiaphas was the actual high priest at the time, one would have expected his name to have stood, if not alone, at least first = under Caiaphas, the actual high priest, and the ex-high priest, Annas, still an influential senior. One can only suppose that among the caste of high priests past and present (there had been three between Annas and Caiaphas) Annas was so outstanding that it came natural to name him first. Annas had been deposed arbitrarily by the Roman governor, and this may have increased his influence among his own people. His period of office was A.D. 7 14, that of Caiaphas A.D. 17 35. , etc., came the word of God to John; this the great spiritual event, so carefully dated, after the manner of the O. T. in narrating the beginning of the career of a Hebrew prophet ( vide, e.g. , Jer 1:1 ). But the date is common to the ministry of John and that of Jesus, who is supposed to have begun His work shortly after the Baptist. . From next verse it may be gathered that the desert here means the whole valley of the Jordan, El-Ghor.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
Annas. See App-94.
Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests. Caiaphas was the High Priest as successor of Aaron; while Annas was the Nasi, or head of the Sanhedrin (as successor of Moses), and thus associated with Caiaphas in government. This explains Joh 18:13, Joh 18:24, and Act 4:6.
the word of God came, &c. See App-82. Compare Jer 1:2. Eze 6:1, &c. John was the last and greatest of the prophets.
unto = upon. Greek. epi. App-104. Not the same word as in Luk 9:12, Luk 9:13, Luk 9:14.
John the son of Zacharias. In Matthew, John the Baptist.
the wilderness : i.e. in the cities and towns of the opencountry. See Luk 3:4; Jos 15:61, Jos 15:62; and 1Sa 23:14, 1Sa 23:24.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
2.] ANNAS (= Ananus, Jos. Antt. xviii. 2. 2) the high-priest, was deposed by Valerius Gratus (U.C. 779), and after several changes, Joseph or Caiaphas (Joseph. as above), his son-in-law (Joh 18:13), was made high-priest. It would appear from this verse (and the use of the singular, -, renders the inference more stringent. Cf. also St. Lukes own phrase, Act 4:6) that Annas, as ex-high-priest, and possibly retaining in the view of the Jews the legitimate high-priesthood, was counted still as having the office: he certainly (Joh 18:13) exercised the power,-and had influence enough to procure the actual high-priesthood for five of his sons, after his own deposition, Jos. Antt. xx. 9. 1.
A substitute, or deputy to the high-priest (called by the Talmudists ), appears to have been usual,-see 2Ki 25:18; and Annas would thus be able to evade the Roman appointment and keep the authority.
.] See Joh 1:33.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Luk 3:2. , under the High priesthood of, etc.) The singular number; which does not however prevent Caiaphas being included: see Act 4:6. Just as in genealogies the usual Hebrew mode of expression is Sons in the plural number, even though only one son follows, viz. because often there are wont to be more than one: ex. gr. 1Ch 23:17, The sons of Eliezer were Rehabiah-And Eliezer had none other Sons, etc.: So here High Priest is said in the singular number, although two men, Annas and Caiaphas, are named: (It is owing to this that the Gothic Version reads , which is also printed in some editions), for there was bound to be but one High priest, and the very ears were averse from the plural number.[34]-[ , the word of God) It was to this that the great effectiveness of Johns ministry was due.-V. g.]-, upon John [Engl. Vers. not so well, unto John]) immediately and directly [not through the mediation and instrumentality of others]. The same phrase occurs LXX. Jer 1:1 [ , The word of God which came upon Jeremiah.]
[34] Rec. Text has with ac Vulg. But ABCDb have ; and the canon, Prstat ardua lectio procliviori, favours the latter.-ED. and TRANSL.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Annas: Joh 11:49-51, Joh 18:13, Joh 18:14, Joh 18:24, Act 4:6
the word: Luk 1:59-63, Jer 1:2, Jer 2:1, Eze 1:3, Hos 1:1, Hos 1:2, Jon 1:1, Mic 1:1, Zep 1:1
in: Luk 1:80, Isa 40:3, Mat 3:1, Mat 11:7, Mar 1:3, Joh 1:23
Reciprocal: Mat 21:25 – baptism Mat 24:26 – he is in the desert Mar 1:4 – did Mar 9:12 – restoreth Luk 7:24 – wilderness Joh 1:6 – a man Act 8:26 – desert Act 13:24 – General
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
2
Joh 18:13 calls Annas the father-in-law to- Caiaphas the high priest. There was no provision made in the law of Moses for more than one high priest to be in office at the same time, but in the days of Christ the secular government was taking much part in the affairs of the Jews. In that arrangement Annas was president of the Sanhedrin and Caiaphas was high priest for religious activities. Chapter 1:80 leaves John in the wilderness, and the present verse says the Lord called him by His word.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.
[Annas and Caiaphas being high priests.] They do constitute two high priests at one time. True indeed: but they promoted a sagan; together with a high priest.
The ‘sagan,’ as to his degree, was the same to the high priest, as he that was next or second to the king.
They substituted, indeed, on the vespers of the day of expiation, another priest to the high priest, that should be in readiness to perform the office for the day, if any uncleanness should by chance have befallen the high priest.
“It is storied of Ben Elam of Zipporim, that when a gonorrhea had seized the high priest on the day of expiation, he went in and performed the office for that day. And another story of Simeon Ben Kamith, that as he was walking with the king on the vespers of the day of expiation, his garments were touched with another’s spittle, so that Judah his brother went in and ministered. On that day the mother of them saw her two sons high priests.”
It is not without reason controverted, whether the sagan were the same with this deputed priest: the Jews themselves dispute it. I would be on the negative part: for the sagan was not so much the vice high priest; as (if I may so speak) one set over the priests. The same with the ruler of the temple; of whom we have such frequent mention among the doctors: upon him chiefly did the care and charge of the service of the temple lie.
“The ruler of the temple saith to them; Go out and see if it be time to slay the sacrifice.” “The ruler saith; Come and cast your lots who shall slay the sacrifice, who shall sprinkle the blood,” etc. The Gloss is, the ruler is the ‘sagan.’
He is commonly called the ‘sagan’ of the priests; which argues his supremacy among the priests, rather than his vicegerency under the high priest.
“When the high priest stands in the circle of those that are to comfort the mourners, the sagan and he that is anointed for the battle, stand on his right hand; and the head of the father’s house; those that mourn, and all the people stand on his left hand.”
Mark here the order of the sagan; he is below the high priest, but above the heads of all the courses.
2Ki 23:4; the priests of the second order: Targum, the ‘sagan’ of the priests. And 2Ki 25:18, Zephaniah the second priest; Targum, Zephaniah ‘the sagan’ of the priests.
Caiaphas therefore was the high priest, and Annas the sagan or ruler of the temple; who, for his independent dignity, is called high priest as well as Caiaphas; and seems therefore to be named first, because he was the other’s father-in-law.
There was a dissension between Hanan and the sons of the chief priests; etc. It was in a judicial cause, about a wife requiring her dower, etc. Where the scruple is, who should these chief priests be? whether the fathers and heads of the courses, or the high priest only and the sagan. It was a council of priests; which we have already spoken to at Mat 26:3. Now the question is, whether by the “sons of the chief priests,” be meant the sons of the fathers of courses, or the fathers of courses themselves, or the sons of the high priest and the sagan; where the high priest in that court was like the prince in the Sanhedrim; and the sagan the father of the Sanhedrim.
“Moses was made a sagan to Aaron. He put on his garments, and took them off [viz. on the day of his consecration]. And as he was his sagan in life, so he was in death too.”
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Luk 3:2. In the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas. There could be properly but one high-priest, holding office for life; the verse therefore suggests some peculiar state of things. From other sources we learn: that Annas had been high-priest, but was deposed by the Romans some years before; that, after a number of changes his son-in-law Caiaphas was made high-priest, holding the office at this time. Annas, however, is called the high-priest in Act 4:6, and still exercised some functions of the office (Joh 18:13). Annas was probably recognized by the Jews as the legitimate high-priest, while Caiaphas was accepted as high-priest de facto, whenever contact with Roman authority made such a recognition necessary. The name of Annas comes first on account of his age and influence. Others suppose that the two alternated yearly in the office; others, that Annas was the deputy to the high-priest (2Ki 25:18), thus evading the Roman interference. The first view is the best, especially as it involves a protest against the unlawful meddling with an office of Gods appointment. Comp. on Mat 26:2; Mat 26:57.
The word of God came. The Old Testament formula for prophetic inspiration.
In the wilderness. See chap. Luk 1:80. The beginning of Johns ministry is referred to.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 2
There is historical evidence that it was Caiaphas who actually held the office of high priest from this time to a period beyond the crucifixion; but Annas, his father-in-law, seems to have been in some way connected with him in the duties of the office. (See John 18:13,24.) Various explanations of this have been attempted, but they are conjectural.–The word of God; special communications from the Holy Spirit.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
3:2 {a} Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.
(a) Josephus calls him Ananus.