This passage introduces four real historical figures, in accordance with the scholarly, accurate investigation of Luke the writer.
The People of this Passage
- Herod (commonly known as Herod the Great to distinguish him from others of that name)
- Zacharias, the priest
- Elizabeth, wife of Zacharias
- John (the Baptist), the promised son to be born to Elizabeth and Zacharias
- Gabriel, the named angel sent by God to Zacharias
And the passage makes important reference to the Old Testament which at that time was the only “testament” (Covenant), and which governed the relationship between God and the descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob (“Israel”):
- The many of the Sons of Israel
- Spirit and Power of Elijah the Old Testament Prophet
The Place and Time of this Text
The primary discourse we have recorded here occurs in the most special place in all of ancient Israel, within the Temple, on the Temple Mount, Mount Moriah at Jerusalem.
Such place was completely off limits to any Israelite, even any Aaronic Priest (except as chosen by lot), and certainly no Gentile, believer or not, was allowed anywhere close to even the outer boundary of the Temple itself.
A Real Historical Record (the ‘Science’ of historical research)
As we noted in Week #1, special emphasis was given in the opening verses of the subject Gospel of Luke being a historical record of people, places, and events. As with any historical record, what is reported is not an exhaustive re-telling–as such would neither be truly knowable, nor would it be relevant to the significance of the story. The author of history must see the big picture to know what to include, and at what level of detail, supported by reliable records and interviews. We believe Luke was guided in such way, as were all the writers of the Bible, by The Holy Spirit, but in such a way that Luke wrote from his hand, his experience, vocabulary, not as an automaton like a teletype machine or a laser printer receiving bit streams from heaven. Yet the words we have are God’s, not Luke’s own musings.
Herod the King
Luke’s reference to “in the days” (Koine Dative, DAT2, that of location in time) gives us a calendar marker, as time was marked generally by the respective reigns of kings. This is yet another indication that we are reading a real, historical record. In accordance with the practice of marking times by the reign of kings it is interesting that our years are marked from the date of the birth of Jesus Christ. This is interesting in two particulars. First it recognizes, in this implicit way, that He was King from His brith, not at some later specific time / event of His life. And, Second, because we continue to count up the years, now over 2,000 of them, it implicitly recognizes that His Kingship has not ended.
A good test of significance for any celebrity, then or now, is this: how did his / her life turn out? We cannot know the eternality of such answer, though with Herod we have a pretty well-reasoned guess, but history does record his demise, summarized below:
At the end of his life, Herod suffered from a severe illness. Josephus described Herod’s symptoms: “For a fire glowed in him slowly, which did not so much appear to the touch outwardly as it augmented his pains inwardly; for it brought upon him a vehement appetite to eating … His entrails were also exulcerated, and the chief violence of his pain lay on his colon; an aqueous and transparent liquor also settled itself about his feet, and a like matter afflicted him at the bottom of his belly” (Josephus, Antiquities, 17.6.5). He was buried in the Herodium.
Herod issued two commands to be performed upon his death:
1. To execute the recently imprisoned Jewish elders so that the people would be mourning during his death.
2. To execute his son Antipater.
Winstead, M. B. (2016). Herod the Great. In J. D. Barry, D. Bomar, D. R. Brown, R. Klippenstein, D. Mangum, C. Sinclair Wolcott, … W. Widder (Eds.), The Lexham Bible Dictionary. Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press.
During Herod’s life, things were not much better. His rule was always precarious, his fears of his enemies well-founded, his home life (if one could call it that) was a chaotic mess, and then, he died a horrible death to almost no one’s sorrow. One today can visit the remains of his fortress at the famed cite Masada. He lived in power and luxury, but not in peace and security.
One great piece of evidence of his maniacal insecurities was his terror at hearing “the King of the Jews” had been born. At such news he sought to compromise those seeking to find and worship the newborn king and when foiled he proceeded to order the murder of every child under the age of two in the birth town (Bethlehem). Such a person would have either an overwhelming grieved conscience for such command or a seared conscience of utter indifference even in such context, the latter likely being the worse condition.
As the instantiation of Rome’s rule, Herod personified The Political Industry (TPI) about which we shall learn a great deal in this Gospel, as well as the rest of the New Testament.
Zacharais the Priest
We are next introduced to Zacharias a priest from the line of Aaron within the tribe of Levi. He stands at this very point of the narrative at the highest point of responsibility representing the Mosaic Law fulfilling the essential demonstration of by an act of imputation, the blood of an innocent animal, is made representative of the substitutionary death covering both literally and in anticipation the Mercy Seat in the Holy of Holies of the Temple shielding, as it were, the judgment of the tablets of the Ten Commandments from the judgment of God.
In this way and sense, Zacharias represented God’s Chosen People, the Jews, and his role of that fulfilling the requirements of the Mosaic Covenant. As will be discussed he serves as a precursor to The Religion Industry (TRI).
Zacharias in the events recorded in our present passage is a faithful man but not a man of faith. He was faithful in his fulfillment of offering incense to God in the Temple. But he did not believe the God-sent Angel, Gabriel, standing directly before him. In this way, he was truly representative of TRI at the time: following at least outwardly the Mosaic Covenant but inwardly not characterized by true belief, even of a miraculous messenger from God. Such unbelief would continue in response to the promised son to Zacharias, who we later learn to be John the Baptist, and further in response to the very Messiah / Christ, and even further to the post-Resurrection testimony of Jesus Himself, and His Apostles as recorded in Acts and the Epistles.
As we will see later in Luke 1 upon the birth of the promised son (John), Zacharias’s tongue is loosed and he prophesies supernaturally the promises of God. this anticipates the event at the very moment of Christ condemnation to the Cross by the then High Priest (Caiaphas) saying, again more than he knew / realized, the following:
18:12 So the band of soldiers and their captain and the officers of the Jews[d] arrested Jesus and bound him. 13 First they led him to Annas, for he was the father-in-law of Caiaphas, who was high priest that year. 14 It was Caiaphas who had advised the Jews that it would be expedient that one man should die for the people.
John 18:12-14 (ESV)
Yes, it was “expedient” (so translated in the ESV and NASB1995) is a very particular sense. As Caiaphas meant it, it was “expedient” for TRI to get rid of this ‘man from Nazareth,’ as they saw Him, a threat to the privileged position of TRI before TPI, and (as they saw him) a blasphemer. But it was “expedient,” and absolutely uniquely necessary, as to God’s provision for the redemption of the Elect by the imputation of the righteous sacrifice of the Son of God, the Messiah, Jesus Christ.
The Koine word translated “expedient” by the ESV has a deeper, more significant meaning than suggested by just this translated word:
Strong’s G4851 συμφέρω sumphérō; from sún (4862), together, and phérō (5342), to bring. To bring together in one place (Acts 19:19); used in an absolute sense or with a dat. following, to be profitable, advantageous, to contribute or bring together for the benefit of another. Used either personally (1 Cor. 6:12; 10:23; 2 Cor. 8:10; Sept.: Esth. 3:8; Prov. 19:10) or impersonally, sumphérei, meaning that it is advantageous (Matt. 5:29, 30; 18:6; 19:10; John 11:50; 16:7). The neut. part., tó sumphéron, advantage, profit, benefit (1 Cor. 7:35; 10:33; 12:7; Heb. 12:10); pl., tá sumphéronta, things profitable (Acts 20:20).
Zodhiates, S. (2000). The complete word study dictionary: New Testament (electronic ed.). Chattanooga, TN: AMG Publishers.
As above, the root meaning is “to bring together in one place.” So Caiaphas unwittingly said it exactly right: The Lord Jesus Christ brought together in one ‘place’
- Prophet, Priest, and Kind
- Truly man, and Truly God
- The Old Testament Promise and the New Testament (Covenant) Fulfillment
- The Creator of all Creation and the Creator of the New Creation
- The accursed before God of Adam’s Fall and the Second Adam
- All Eternity and the moment within spacetime toward which all Eternity had pointed
- The true unique “Meeting Point,” Jacob’s “Ladder to Heaven” (Gen. 28:12)
Caiaphas, and the Jewish Leaders and people, the entire TRI, as well as Pilate and all the Roman Leaders and people, the entire TPI, likewise came together, as was uniquely required for such condemnation to death and crucifixion to occur, all together utterly clueless as to the significance of that unique, life-giving moment in time.
Elizabeth, Wife and Mother (of John the Baptist)
The central fact we know about Elizabeth from this passage is her barrenness to date and, human speaking, the extinguishment of any hope of her becoming barren even were she joined to another husband.
This is important in two particulars. First it links us back to a time before the Mosaic Covenant, to that of the Abramic Covenant where there was also a barren wife, Sarah. Sarah’s barrenness was significant because God had made promises to Abram that he would become the father of many, an innumerable number, changing his name to Abraham–father of many–to be in accordance to such promises. So such promise was confronted with the human reality of both Sarah’s barrenness and her being beyond the years of conception. She, and Abraham, sought a human solution, the use of a surrogate wife, Hagar, giving evidence that the limitation to conception was Sarah’s not Abraham’s. But God did not accept such human scheme, and even some 14 years after the birth of Ishmael through Hagar, God reappeared to Abraham to renew the yet more incredible promise of his fathering the promised line through Sarah, a promise that Sarah overheard and mocked.
As then, so in Luke 1, some 2,000 year later. Elizabeth’s barrenness was overcome through miraculous means leading to another kind of father, a forerunner, whose ministry also led to the emergence of many “children” of Abraham, such that Jesus Himself proclaimed John the Baptist to be the greatest of the Old Testament prophets.