SEV Biblia, Chapter 3:2
siendo sumos sacerdotes Ans y Caifs, vino Palabra de Dios sobre Juan, hijo de Zacarías, en el desierto.
Clarke's Bible Commentary - Luke 3:2
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 hnm hk cohen mishneh, or ynhk go sagan cohanim, the high priest's deputy, or ruler of the temple. See the note on Matt. ii. 4, and on John xviii. 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.
John Gill's Bible Commentary
Ver. 2. Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests , etc.] 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 f169 , there can be but one high priest lw[h lkb , in all the world; and besides, is contrary to their canons, which were then in being, and still remain; one of which runs thus, tjak ylwdg ynhk yn ynmm ya 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 f171 , because they gave money for the priesthood, they changed it every twelve months. And which is more largely expressed by one of their commentators f172 , 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, ( John 11:49, 18:13) 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 f173 ; yea, we often read of Chanina, or Chananiah, or Ananias, perhaps the same with this Annas, who is called, ynhk gs , the Sagan of the priests f174 . 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 f175 ; which was not the Sagan, but another priest; and even such an one was called an high priest, as appears from the following story f176 . 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, dja wyb ylwdg ynhk yn 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 f177 ; 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 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 f179 ; 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 f180 , 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, ( Jeremiah 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.
Matthew Henry Commentary
Verses 1-14 - The scope and design of John's ministry were, to bring the people from their sins, and to their Saviour. He came preaching, not a sect, or party, but a profession; the sign or ceremony was washing with water By the words here used John preached the necessity of repentance, i order to the remission of sins, and that the baptism of water was a outward sign of that inward cleansing and renewal of heart, whic attend, or are the effects of true repentance, as well as a professio of it. Here is the fulfilling of the Scriptures, Isa 40:3, in the ministry of John. When way is made for the gospel into the heart, by taking down high thoughts, and bringing them into obedience to Christ by levelling the soul, and removing all that hinders us in the way of Christ and his grace, then preparation is made to welcome the salvatio of God. Here are general warnings and exhortations which John gave. The guilty, corrupted race of mankind is become a generation of vipers hateful to God, and hating one another. There is no way of fleeing from the wrath to come, but by repentance; and by the change of our way the change of our mind must be shown. If we are not really holy, both i heart and life, our profession of religion and relation to God and his church, will stand us in no stead at all; the sorer will ou destruction be, if we do not bring forth fruits meet for repentance John the Baptist gave instructions to several sorts of persons. Thos that profess and promise repentance, must show it by reformation according to their places and conditions. The gospel requires mercy not sacrifice; and its design is, to engage us to do all the good we can, and to be just to all men. And the same principle which leads me to forego unjust gain, leads to restore that which is gained by wrong John tells the soldiers their duty. Men should be cautioned against the temptations of their employments. These answers declared the presen duty of the inquirers, and at once formed a test of their sincerity. A none can or will accept Christ's salvation without true repentance, s the evidence and effects of this repentance are here marked out.
Greek Textus Receptus
επ 1909 PREP αρχιερεων 749 N-GPM αννα 452 N-GSM και 2532 CONJ καιαφα 2533 N-GSM εγενετο 1096 5633 V-2ADI-3S ρημα 4487 N-NSN θεου 2316 N-GSM επι 1909 PREP ιωαννην 2491 N-ASM τον 3588 T-ASM του 3588 T-GSM ζαχαριου 2197 N-GSM υιον 5207 N-ASM εν 1722 PREP τη 3588 T-DSF ερημω 2048 A-DSF
Vincent's NT Word Studies
2. Came (egeneto). 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.
Robertson's NT Word Studies
3:2 {The Word of God came unto John} (egeneto rhema qeou epi iwanen). The great epoch marked by egeneto rather than en. rhema qeou is some particular utterance of God (Plummer), common in LXX, here alone in the N.T. qen 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" (en tei eremwi) as here, #Mr 1:4; Mt 3:1 (adding "of Judea").
