EVENING SPIRITUAL DIARY FOR
4/18/2026 7:23 PM
My
Worship Time Focus:
PT-2 “The
Historical Setting”
Bible
Reading & Meditation Reference: Luke
3:1-2a
Message of the verses: “Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of
Tiberius Caesar, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was
tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philp was tetrarch of the region of
Ituraea and Tachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene, in the high
priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas,”
This morning I ended up with writing about Pilate’s
dealings with Jesus and with others too, and now this evening I begin to write
about Herod the tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip, who
was the tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis. These two were members of the notorious
Herod family, sons of Herod the Great, not sure why he was called great,
perhaps because he was a great loser??
So when Herrod died in 4 B.C., his domain was then divided among three
of his sons, Archelaus, Antipas, and Philip. Archelaus proved to be such and inept and
brutal ruler that he was deposed in A.D.6 and then his territory which was
Judea, Samaria, and Idumea was placed under the rule of Roman governors,
something that was written about in this mornings SD, showing that Pilate was
the fifth of those governors. The Herod
in view here is Antipas, who ruled Galilee from 4 B.C. to A.D. 39. He is the Herod referred to in the Gospels’
account of Jesus, ministry. It was
Antipas who imprisoned, and executed John the Baptist. (See Luke 3:20 and then Luke 9:9 to see
this.) It was Antipas who played a role in the unjust trial of Jesus as seen in
Luke 23:7-12).
John MacArthur writes that “Antipas’s
brother Philip ruled the region of Ituraea and Tachonitis (northeast
Galilee) from 4 B.C. to A.D. 34. Philip has been considered the best of the
Herodian rulers.” I have just thought of
a story that I think goes along with this last statement that I would like to
share with you. The story was told by
Erin Lutzer former Pastor at the Moody Church in Chicago for a long time. He tells about a very evil man who had a
brother who died and the surviving brother came to Pastor Lutzer and ask him to
do the funeral of his brother. I don’t
really remember why they were so evil or how old the brother was when he
died. This made Lutzer think about this
for a while, especially when the surviving brother said that he must say
something good about his brother at his funeral. Ok this was a very difficult decision and it
seems to me that he would receive money for doing this, something that Lutzer could
use for a project he was involved in. He
took the job of preaching at the funeral, and he began to tell all of the evil
things that this man had done, and he did this for a while. He ended with the
statement that compared to this diseased brother he was very good compared to
his brother, so he did have something good to say about the dead brother.
“Little is known of the third local
ruler mentioned by Luke, Lysanias, the tetrarch of Abilene (Northwest
Damascus). Rejecters of biblical
inerrancy used to charge Luke with an historical blunder, claiming that the
only Lysanias known to history had died years earlier in 36 B.C. Inscriptions have been found, however, that
indicate another Lysanias had ruled during the reign of Tiberius (Darrel L.
Bock, Luke 1:1-9:50, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament
[Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994], 283).
“Moving from the secular to the
religious realm, Luke placed the outset of John’s ministry in the high
priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, suggesting that in some sense they held
the office jointly. Although no longer
officially the high priest, Annas was nonetheless the most powerful
figure in the Jewish religious establishment.
He had been the high priest from A.D. 6 to A.D. 15, when he was removed
from office by Valerius Gratus, Pilate’s predecessor as governor. He could
still properly be referred to as high priest (Acts 3:6), in much the same way
that former presidents of the United States are still referred to as president
after they leave office. Annas’s title, however,
was more than a mere courtesy. Many Jews, resentful of Romans’ meddling in their
religious affairs, still considered him to be the true high priest (especially
since according to the Mosaic law high priests served for life; cf. Num.
35:25).” However this man was not truly a Jewish high priest because he was not
of the blood line of where the high priest’s came from in Israel. “As Leon Morris notes, ‘There is little doubt
but that…the astute old man at the head of the family exercised a good deal of
authority. He was in all probably the
real power in the land, whatever the legal technicalities’ (The Gospel
According to John, The New International Commentary of the New testament
[Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1979], 749).”
I will stop here with not a whole
lot in order to finish this but I like to do my Spiritual Diaries in the
morning where I will attempt to finish this section, but tomorrow is Sunday
morning, and I leave for our Church services early.
4/18/2026
8:02 PM
No comments:
Post a Comment