Luke 1

CHAPTER I

THE CERTAINTY CONCERNING THE MATTERS BROUGHT TO COMPLETION AMONG US

The First Part

The Beginning. Chapters 1 to 3 The Beginning. Chapters 1 to 3

Luke has no caption for his book as Matthew and Mark do; he also has no prologue like John. The lack of a caption in Luke and in John has been explained as being an indication that these two writers did not think of having their books published; Luke wrote privately for his friend Theophilus, John for the congregation at Ephesus. Yet Luke follows the common custom of his day by prefacing his book with a general statement concerning its contents and its purpose. It is this statement of purpose that reads as if the book is intended for Theophilus alone and not for the church in general. The fact that it was nevertheless published and at once came to be prized as one of the imperishable records of the life of Christ is due to its contents. It is misleading to say that Luke “dedicated” his book to Theophilus.

What we understand as a book dedication is not at all what Luke intended by his opening statement. Theophilus already knew many of the stories about Jesus. Luke intended to give him the most exact and reliable account of all that had transpired in order that the full certainty of faith might fill his heart.

Luke 1:1

1 The first sentence is periodic, packed with concise information, beautifully constructed in the manner of the best literary Koine, and not surpassed by any Greek writers (Herodotus, Thucydides, Polybius). The perfection of this sentence can be fully appreciated only by those who are able to read it in its Greek original. Even the best translation loses altogether too much, to say nothing of the specific terms used in the original which cannot be conveyed in translation with the desired exactness.

Since many have taken in hand to recount a narrative about the matters among us that have been brought to completion, even as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and assistants of the Word delivered them to us, I, too, resolved, after having accurately traced everything from the start, to write in an orderly way to thee, Your Excellency Theophilus, that thou mightest come to realize the certainty of the statements concerning which thou hast been informed. The general thought is simple: like others before him, Luke writes a Gospel, but he does so for a very special purpose and with the equipment this requires.

When Luke speaks of what others have done, this is merely to point out that his own undertaking is quite regular—he is doing what others have done. The causal force of ἐπειδήπερ (ἐπεί = since, δή = admittedly true, πέρ = intensifying particle to emphasize importance, R., W. P., page 3) is thus in place: since many did it, I, too, am doing it. Luke alone has this word, which fact conveys also a literary touch, R. 965. Yet the part of the sentence which follows shows that Luke is not merely doing over again what has already been done by many others—a useless task on his part. His narration belongs only in a general class with all these other writings; it has its own distinct aim and quality. For what the “many” had already written was not identical; their products, too, varied in different ways.

How many are included in πολλοί we have no means of knowing, but quite a number must be referred to. No trace is left of their writings, nor does any other person except Luke refer to these many accounts. Luke is, of course, not referring to the far later apocryphal Gospels, all of which are non-historical inventions. Many are ready to include Mark among the “many” but by no means Matthew, except possibly his Hebrew Logia to which Papias makes reference. These Logia are not Matthew’s Gospel that was written by him in Hebrew and was not translated into Greek until far later, in the year 80 or still later. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Greek near the year 60, and Mark had it as did Luke.

On the facts regarding Matthew see the writer’s introduction to his Gospel. Mark and Luke were companions as late as 66; then and after that date they exchanged information. See the further discussion in the introduction to Luke.

It is unwarranted to think that by writing ἐπεχείρησαν Luke finds fault with these other writers; we do not translate “they attempted,” as if they did not make a success of their attempts. This word is common in the papyri (ἐπί plus χείρ, to lay hand on) and connotes neither failure nor blame. Luke does not convey the idea that the faultiness and the imperfection of these other writers are impelling him to do a better job. In fact, with κἀμοί in v. 3 he places himself into the same class with them. The only thought implied in the verb is the difficulty of the task; all these writers had to take it in hand—it was not easy.

Luke has a choice expression for what these other writers did: ἀνατάξασθαιδιήγπσιν, “to recount a detailed narrative.” The verb is very rare, being found only twice in the middle voice in the literature of the three centuries after Christ, yet its meaning is quite clear. Irenæus uses it when he describes how, after the burning of the books that had been written by Moses and the prophets, Ezra, by means only of the Holy Spirit, reproduced them perfectly (Zahn). Robertson refers only to the other example given by M.-M., Vocabulary, in Plutarch’s anecdote about the elephant, who was so obstreperous and difficult to train and yet of his own accord rehearsed his tricks in the moonlight.

“Draw up” is not correct, for in such verbs ἀνά means “again,” hence “to arrange in due order once more,” which we have tried to convey by “to recount.” Each of these many writers repeated in an orderly way the story of Jesus, a διήγησις (leading or carrying something through), “a detailed narrative” (R., Tr., 18). Luke’s choice wording fits only the most honorable of tasks. The fact that the reproductions of the many were made, not in oral, but in written form is plain from the context; for “to take in hand” does not fit mere speech, and only as a writer does Luke classify himself with the “many.”

When Luke states what these men wrote he again uses a choice expression: they wrote “about the matters among us that have been brought to completion.” This is more than “the things concerning Jesus,” a common and ordinary expression; and πεπλρηροφορημένων is certainly far more than the colorless γενομένων: “that took place among us.” There is dispute about the meaning of this perfect passive participle and also about the territory it is intended to cover. Πληροφορέω is only a more sonorous πληρέω and with a neuter object means to fill up what is incomplete, to bring to an issue what has begun to develop. “Fulfilled” in the R. V. is fairly correct; “fully established,” R. V. margin and R., Tr., is ambiguous.

The old idea of Origen that, though the object is neuter, the verb must be read as if the object were personal, crept into some of the old versions and appears in expositions to this day as it does in the A. V.’s “which are most surely believed among us.” The difference is quite material. In the passive (as here) the object of the active appears as the subject. According to Origen’s view the verb would express a subjective idea: the writings would contain only what was generally believed and received with full conviction by the Christians. Luke says that the writings of the many contain what is objectively completed among the Christians. Origen says: these men wrote what the Christians believed; Luke says: these men wrote what all men ought to believe. It is unwarranted to quote Rom. 4:21; 14:5, and Col. 4:12 to substantiate Origen’s view because in those passages the subject is personal; the examples that have neuters are 2 Tim. 4:5, 17.

An effort is made to have “the matters among us that have been brought to completion” include all that Luke writes in the Gospel, the Acts, and the third book he is thought to have planned. This extension of the expression is obtained by saying that, when Luke wrote this phrase, he was thinking of what he himself intended to write, namely these three books. But even if Luke thought of what he himself intended to write and thus spoke of the things brought to completion, the fact remains that Luke used this phrase to specify what the “many” wrote; and if he thought about the extent of his own writing in this connection he thought of it only as resembling the ground that had been covered by those other writers. None of them wrote books like the Acts, all of them wrote only Gospels. That, too, is why the participle is in the emphatic position in the phrase and in the perfect tense. Not matters still in progress but matters fully completed did those writers present; and the perfect tense adds the thought that, once completed, these matters now stand thus for all future time.

These are the πράγματα of the gospel that were completed by the death and the glorification of Jesus. The events recorded in the Acts cannot be included, for what was begun there was not in any way as yet brought to completion.

It is specious pleading to say that Jesus’ work was not finished—all four Gospels present it as a finished whole; and to say that the apostolic work had reached a relative completion in the year 75 is rather arbitrary. The way in which Luke concludes the Acts shows the contrary, and to base the argument on Luke’s unwritten third book is to base it on what has never existed. Luke’s preface is intended only for his Gospel and not also for Acts. It is confusing when R., W. P., regards ἀνατάξασθαι as an ingressive aorist: they have taken in hand “to begin to recount,” etc., which leaves open to what their proceeding would extend. Both aorists are historical and effective. The work of the many was done; Luke likely had copies of their writing.

The observation seems to be correct that the unemphatic phrase ἐνἡμῖν, “among us,” is to be construed with the noun rather than with the participle, which makes τὰἐνἡμῖνπράγματα a concept by itself: “the matters among us.” Who is meant by the “we” in the phrase is plain from the entire context, especially from ἡμῖν in the next clause. The eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word delivered the gospel matters “to us,” i. e., to the Christians in general, including the many and also Luke. The phrase marks the esoteric character of the matters which the many recorded in their narrations. Caiaphas and Pilate saw and heard Christ, but for unbelievers such as they these matters might just as well have never occurred. For all time all that pertains to Jesus will remain “the matters among us” that were completely fulfilled and are thus unchangeable for all time.

When the participle is construed in Origen’s sense, the phrase must be construed accordingly: “which have been received with full assurance among us.” We have already indicated that this subjective sense is not tenable. Although the phrase “among us” is not placed in an emphatic position it nevertheless forms the mark of distinction for the subject-matter on which the many wrote. The things “among us” are distinct from all others, which pertain to those outside only. Yet this observation does not make “among us” include more than the Gospel; and it does this for the simple reason that “the matters among us” are limited by the participle “which have been brought to completion.”

Luke 1:2

2 With the καθώς clause Luke endorses the work of these early Gospel writers in no uncertain way, for “even as” declares that these writers followed their authorities down to the very manner and form. And these authorities were “they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and assistants of the Word.” The Greek has only one article which combines eyewitnesses and assistants into one class. Yet the one article does not thereby make the two identical so that the eyewitnesses were the assistants, and vice versa. There were two groups, but as authorities for the many writers they constituted one body. This force of the article is seen in instances where the three groups: high priests, scribes, and elders, are united by one article as constituting the Sanhedrin.

Some were eyewitnesses from the very first, from the time when they first became Jesus’ permanent disciples and followers. These were the eleven, but Acts 11:20–23 mentions at least two others who had this qualification. The ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς is emphatic by position, but this emphasis should not be turned the wrong way. “From the beginning” is not in contrast to a later time and thus to men who later were eyewitnesses of some of the apostolic events such as Luke in the “we” sections of the Acts. It is one-sided to stress the fact that the reliability of a witness depends on his truthfulness and not on his having seen everything “from the beginning” (in set phrases like ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς no article is used). Luke’s point is the fact that these eyewitnesses know the whole story, not merely parts of it. The many who used these eyewitnesses as their authority could write complete accounts and not merely fragmentary portions of the story. Αὐτόπται occurs only here in the New Testament but is found in the papyri; it is often used by medical writers just as we still have the medical autopsy.

The second group of authorities which Luke acknowledges for the many Gospel writers consists of “the assistants of the Word.” This λόγος is the gospel. The term ὑπηρέται is unusual in this connection. It meant originally “under-rowers” in galleys and then in general “underlings” who are Subject to the orders of a superior. The Temple police were such “underlings.” “Ministers” is incorrect, for these would be called διάκονοι; so also is “servants” or slaves, the word for which would be δοῦλοι.

It is a question whether to construe “from the beginning” with the second noun. If this is done, the sense of the phrase differs for the two nouns: “from the beginning” would go farther back in the case of the eyewitnesses than in the case of the assistants of the Word. To avoid this disparity Luke used the peculiar term ὑπηρέταιτοῦλόγου, which needs no additional phrase. This is not one of the common names for the preachers and teachers of the gospel, nor is it a name for the apostles. It is altogether exceptional and distinct in this regard. “Underlings” connotes an “overling”; no man is subject to orders unless he have one who is entitled to give him orders. The connotation thus points to the Lord Jesus and to the men whom he sent out to preach the Word.

These had received their message directly from him, knew much about him, executed his orders, and reported back to him (like the seventy in Luke 10:1–17; also the individual mentioned in Luke 9:60). Because of their contact with Jesus these underlings could report many valuable things to one who wished to write a Gospel. The aorist γενόμενοι indicates the historical fact.

These eyewitnesses and assistants “delivered to us” the matters Luke has just described; the object of παρέδοσαν (Luke alone has this form of the second aorist, R. 687) need not be written out in the Greek, it is readily supplied by the nimble Greek mind from the foregoing phrase, and it would thus be “the matters among us that have been brought to completion.” From this verb we have παράδοσις, “tradition,” but in the high New Testament sense: a handing down or over, an authorized transmission. So these eyewitnesses and assistants, who were called and fitted for the task, passed on the great gospel facts. Luke writes “to us,” i. e., to the Christians in general, including himself and the other writers named. He is speaking of oral transmission. Although the verb need hot exclude written transmission, it plainly does so here since the “many” did the writing, which would have been unnecessary if the eyewitnesses, etc., had themselves written.

Luke 1:3

3 Unlike any other evangelist, Luke refers to himself with the pronoun “I”; but this is due to Theophilus whom he is personally addressing. When Luke writes: “I, too, resolved,” etc., he justifies his own act of writing on the basis of the legitimate and well-executed acts of many others. As they did, so will he do. The ἔδοξεκἀμοί is generally translated “it seemed to me”; but especially the aorist with the dative goes farther and means: “I, too, resolved,” and, in the case of a meeting, “they resolved” or passed a resolution (B.-P. 315, ich beschliesse). But Luke’s resolution is not merely to repeat what others have already done, for which there would be little or no need. Although he will write, like the many, on the same general matters (πράγματα, v. 1) he comes to his task with an exceptional equipment, and he aims at a very specific object.

That is why he does not send the book of one of these other writers to Theophilus. He is able to meet the need of Theophilus in a better way, and Theophilus, too, will appreciate Luke’s personal writing in his behalf.

Luke is especially fitted for the task he has set for himself. He indicates this so that Theophilus may understand the authoritativeness of what he reads. This participial clause incidentally shows that Theophilus did not know Luke intimately, otherwise Luke would not have needed to refer to his qualification for writing what he did. “After having accurately traced everything from the start” points to the preliminary work done by Luke, the rich store he had accumulated and from which he proposed to draw. The perfect tense is significant; Luke’s careful researches lay before him as something that was finished and done—note the usual present connotation in the perfect. The verb signifies to follow along beside something (the compound being found only here in Luke); that this refers to a mental act and not to a physical accompaniment of the events is indicated by the entire context. If Luke had meant the latter, he would have written as an eyewitness.

Luke made his researches “accurately,” which is more than going into details (R., W. P.); ἀκριβῶς denotes the exactness and the carefulness with which Luke made his researches. The adverb is derived from ἄκρον, the topmost point, not that of the subject (extreme detail) but that of the mind (requiring topmost satisfaction). Luke implies nothing with regard to the “many” and to what trouble they went in gathering their material, but he does speak of his own great accuracy. He traced “all things from the start.” We may read πᾶσιν by itself, “all things,” dative after the participle which regularly has this case; or we may supply a noun in the dative from the preceding πραγμάτων. But the main idea lies in ἄνωθεν—Luke went back to the very beginning and traced everything from that original point.

He is evidently referring to the first three chapters of his Gospel. Only Matthew compares with Luke in this regard. We see that, as Luke knows Theophilus, an account that starts from the beginning will have especial weight with him.

Luke has also resolved to write καθεξῆς, “in an orderly way.” This adverb does not say that Luke proposes to follow a strict chronological order, for he relates at the very start of the Gospel the incident at Nazareth, with which he begins the account of Jesus’ ministry (4:16–32), which, however, does not begin the ministry. It is evident that Luke follows the chronology only in a general way in the eighteen general chapters and of necessity is exact in the first three and in the last three chapters of his book. The orderly way in which he proposes to write is one which puts together what belongs together and will thus enable Theophilus to understand the better.

At this proper point Luke places the address: “Your Excellency Theophilus.” All that we know of this man is included in these two Greek words. We are sorry to say that the force of κράτιστε was not very definite at the time of Luke’s writing since fixed rules and customs for addressing official persons and those in privileged positions like senators and knights did not come into vogue until in the second and the third centuries. All that we can say is that the word presents Theophilus as being a very prominent man, but whether he was such by reason of wealth alone or of office or of knighthood it is impossible to say. The officials Felix and Festus are addressed in this way (Acts 23:26; 26:25).

It is noteworthy that this title is not repeated in the Acts. This cannot be accidental. Throughout the first two centuries, we are assured, no Christian was ever addressed by a fellow Christian with a title that was in any way comparable to the one that is here used by Luke. We certainly have no reason to think that Luke would prove the exception in this. Hence we make the deduction from the presence of the title in the Gospel and from its absence in the Acts that Theophilus was at first not a Christian but was only interested in things Christian and had been won for the faith by Luke’s Gospel before the Acts were written. Theophilus was not “probably” but most certainly a Gentile; the entire Gospel permits no other conclusion.

This is the way, then, to read Luke’s Gospel according to Luke’s own intention. This book is intended to win a man of noble position. A missionary and pastoral motive is back of these twenty-four great chapters. The German scholars say that Luke “dedicated” his book to Theophilus, and that the first four verses constitute the dedication. But Luke does more than to dedicate, he addresses Theophilus personally; he actually preaches to him in this Gospel. When this is understood, we shall be able to answer correctly whether Luke assumed that Theophilus would publish his book.

Secular writers used their dedications for this very purpose and even put their desire into quite plain words. Luke omits everything of this kind. He lets no hint in this direction interfere with the impression he desires to make on Theophilus’ heart. For if Theophilus felt that Luke wanted to use him for securing publication of his book he would have considered that Luke’s prime object and would have been far less inclined to read Luke’s book as being written directly and personally for him. As far, then, as publication was concerned, Luke gave it no further thought. He wrote his book in all sincerity for Theophilus alone. When Theophilus became a Christian and showed the church the great treasure he possessed, publication took care of itself.

Luke 1:4

4 Luke’s aim in writing is frankly expressed: “that thou mightest come to realize the certainty of the statements concerning which thou hast been informed.” Luke uses no indirection to capture Theophilus; he writes with openness. We catch a glimpse of the mental state of Theophilus. Luke sees that what he needs for his soul is ἡἀσφάλεια, “the certainty,” that specific certainty which inheres in the gospel events. This noun is derived from σφάλλω, to trip up, plus the negative α; hence it is a condition in which one stands solidly and is no longer tripped and made to totter and to fall. All kinds of doubts still disturbed Theophilus, and Luke writes in order to dispel them.

This helps us to understand κατηχήθης. Neither here nor elsewhere in the New Testament does this verb denote the catechetical instruction that was offered to catechumens by catechists as R., W. P., thinks. This meaning is a later development. As here in Luke, so in Acts 18:25 the meaning is plain: neither Apollos nor Theophilus was “instructed” (our versions, R., Tr., and others) in the Christian doctrine; both had only “been informed” to some degree about Christian teaching—Theophilus without attaining the certainty that was so essential. This means that Theophilus was not as yet a Christian, also that he had not been and was not now a catechumen who was seeking admission into the church. See the discussion in C.-K. 480, etc.; also B.-P. 663.

All this aids us in understanding the rest of the clause. In the first place, it is the natural thing to connect a genitive with τὴνἀσφάλειαν, namely τῶνλόγων: “the certainty of the statements.” This will shut out the incorporation of the antecedent into the relative by means of two περί: “mightest realize concerning … concerning which thou hast been informed.” Especially, too, we shall not unfold περίὦν into περὶτῶνλόγωνοὕςκατηχήθης, for the sense of this would be that Theophilus had been duly instructed as a catechumen, κατηχεῖν with the accusative of the thing and of the person. Note the use with περί in Acts 21:21, 24; also ἧχοςπερί in Luke 4:37.

It will not do to regard λόγοι as being equal to ῥήματα, “things” in our versions. Others go too far in the opposite direction by thinking that Theophilus was fully instructed in the “doctrines.” If Luke had meant the latter he would not have used the plural without a modifier. The λόγοι of which Theophilus knew something were the accounts about Jesus, and the contents of these were the πράγματα mentioned in v. 1. The trouble was that Theophilus had been informed too inadequately by perhaps coming in contact with individual Christians or by attending an occasional congregational service. He needed more, the very thing with which Luke presents him, all the logoi or “statements” which present the story of Jesus, the Savior, in proper order from beginning to end.

Luke 1:5

5 The writer, who in his introductory statement has shown himself to be a man of fine literary Greek education, now suddenly writes like one of the Old Testament prophets who lived in the days of Saul and David. It is at once apparent that this is due to the faithfulness with which he reproduces his original sources. Some stop with this, but we must add that the tradition which Luke obtained for the contents of the first two chapters was in the original Aramaic and not, like the tradition used for the other chapters, in Greek form, which Luke needed only to polish and refine. The difference between the first two chapters and the rest of the book is too marked not to call for an explanation such as this. Whereas one cannot hazard an apodictic statement, it does seem as if Luke knew Aramaic and in his transfer of this into Greek allowed the original language to mold the Greek to a high degree.

Now there lived in the days of Herod, king of Judea, a certain priest by name of Zacharias, of the day-class of Abijah; and wife to him one of the daughters of Aaron, and the name of her Elisabeth.

Luke goes much farther back than Matthew did, not only because he had followed things “from the start” (v. 3), but also because his authority was Mary, whose narrative had to go back to her kinswoman Elisabeth and to the latter’s husband, Zacharias.

One of the curious things in exegesis is the fact that just about every historical writer must have documents. As soon as an exegete thinks that he is able to trace a section back to a document he seems to be satisfied. So in this portion of his Gospel Luke is thought to operate with documents, one exegete taking him as far as 1:80; another as far as 2:40, and a third as far as 2:52. A glance shows that these three sections are marked by dates, and that this fact produced the hypothesis of three documents. But why not add a fourth document, beginning with 3:1, where Luke again inserts an elaborate date? If we are to guess at Luke’s source for his first two chapters, it is far more natural to think of Mary whom Luke certainly had opportunity to meet personally and to secure the whole story from her at firsthand.

The fact that Luke uses δέ as a connective in these chapters and only a few καί is in marked contrast to the second Gospel in which the Hebraistic καί prevails. We conclude that, whereas Luke retains the original language of Mary in his own translation from her Aramaic narration, he, nevertheless, in many ways betrays his own Greek literary hand.

It is difficult to render the simple ἐγένετο (not quite the same in 2:1, 15) which is more than ἦν. “There lived” gives the sense, “there was” is quite good, “there appeared” or “there arose or came into notice” are not exact. Luke merely introduces us to Zacharias.

He states the time: “in the days of Herod, king of Judea.” Fixing the time as closely as possible is a feature that is peculiar to Luke; he has the mind of a historian, and it is certainly of value to know the exact time when these great events transpired. “In the days of Herod” means during the time of his reign; compare Matt. 2:1. This Herod, the head of the family who was later called the Great, was appointed king of Judea by the Roman Senate in B. C. 37, at the suggestion of Octavius and Antony. When Luke calls him “king of Judea” he distinguishes this Herod from all others of the same name, for none of the others was really a king, and none could in any sense be said to rule Judea. “Judea” is, however, not only the southern portion of the Holy Land as distinct from Samaria, Galilee, and Perea, but Judea in the wider sense as it is used by writers generally in Luke’s time, including all that we call Palestine. This kingdom was divided after Herod’s death. The apposition with a proper noun may or may not have the article, R. 760.

Zacharias is introduced as being “a certain priest” (τίς = certain, really rather uncertain and like the indefinite article, R. 743), i. e., one of the common order of priests. An ἐφημερία (ἐπί plus ἡμέρα) is a course of daily service, and we venture to translate “day-class.” There were 24 such classes; their names are found in 1 Chron. 24:7–18; they were reappointed by Solomon, cf., 2 Chron. 8:14. Each class served a week in the Temple and alternated so that each class served twice a year; the whole class did duty on the Sabbath, and all 24 classes were present at the Feast of Tabernacles.

The name Zacharias is introduced by the dative of relation ὀνόματι, “by name,” B.-D. 197. He belonged to the eighth of the “day-classes” and was somewhat far down the list. Only four classes returned after the Babylonian captivity, but these four were divided into 24, and the old names of the classes were restored, among them being Abijah, the class to which Zacharias belonged.

These facts about Zacharias show that he did not belong to the Jewish priestly aristocracy. This consisted of the high priest in office and of all former high priests together with the members of the families from which the Herods or the Roman governors had selected high priests, and finally of the priests who were in the first of the 24 classes. These priestly aristocrats resided in Jerusalem whereas all the other priests had their homes in the towns and villages throughout the land.

The Greek needs no copula: “and wife to him,” etc., R. 395. Law and custom permitted a priest to marry a maiden or a widow of Israel. Luke therefore considered it worth while to inform his reader that the wife of Zacharias belonged to the descendants of Aaron (partitive ἐκ), hence was not merely of priestly but of original high-priestly descent. It is not enough to say: “To be a priest and to be married to a priest’s daughter was a double distinction.” As regards Elisabeth the distinction was still greater. “Of the daughters of Aaron” is more than a refined expression for priests’ daughters; it is the proper term for the women descendants of the first Jewish high priest, Moses’ own brother.

Luke 1:6

6 Now they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and legal ordinances of the Lord blameless.

We are sorry to note that Robertson translates δίκαιοι “upright”; our versions are far more correct. It is true enough to say that this couple lived in the Old Testament forms of piety—in what other forms could they have lived? But “upright” omits the very point that should not be lost in δίκαιος, which is even expressed in the added phrase “before God.” This term, like all its derivatives, is forensic and connotes a judge who pronounces the verdict of approval. “Righteous before God” means that when these two were standing before God’s judgment bar they received his sentence of approval.

It ought to be plain that this term goes beyond outward conformity to the Jewish legal requirements. The view is widely held that all that God required in the Old Testament was legalism, careful outward obedience to his many rules and laws. The Jews, indeed, became such legalists, for which Jesus so mightily rebuked them. But the godliness that God sought in the Old Testament is just as evangelical as that of the New Testament, one that came from the heart, from true faith and the fear and love of God. The Old Testament does not teach one way of salvation (law) and the New another (gospel); both teach the same way of salvation. “Righteous” means approved of God in heart as well as in life.

The evidence for this divine verdict was their conduct: “walking in all the commandments and legal ordinances of the Lord (i. e., Jehovah) blameless.” The ἐντολαί and δικαιώματα remind us of the commandments and statutes of Jehovah recorded in Deut. 4:1, 40; 6:2. They are called “commandments” because they are the demands of God’s will; the other term is added because they are at the same time the norms of the divine acts (C.-K. 331)—we venture to translate “legal ordinances” and mean those fixed principles according to which God acts. The commandments are not the moral laws over against the ordinances in the sense of cultus requirements.

Ἄμεμπτοι is adjectival, not adverbial: “without reproach” (R., Tr.) The agent back of this verbal is not God, but men. The conduct of Zacharias and Elisabeth was such that no man could blame them. First, the divine approval (righteous before God); secondly, no disapproval of men (blameless). All this means that this priest and his wife belonged to the true Old Testament children of God and had in no way degenerated into the worldly way of Sadducean high-priestly connection. The forerunner of Jesus was born of a spiritually superior priestly family.

Luke 1:7

7 And there was no child for them inasmuch as this Elizabeth was barren, and both had gone far forward in their days.

Luke uses καί, but not in an adversative sense, hence it does not mean “and yet.” He is stating the pertinent facts regarding Zacharias and Elisabeth without putting them into relation to each other. One fact is the childlessness, which is due, not to the death of children, but to Elisabeth’s being “barren,” unable to conceive. Καθότι is a good Greek word: “according to what.” It is not really causal but came to be used in that sense (R. 964) as it is here. The second fact is the advanced age of this couple, all hope of ever having a child is long gone, has become, humanly speaking, an impossibility. Note the periphrastic past perfect προβεβηκότεςἦσαν, “they had gone forward.” Although Luke is retelling an Aramaic story, and the Aramaic original is apparent, he yet tells it with many touches of good Greek.

Luke 1:8

8 Theophilus has the necessary information about the persons so that their action can now be told. Now it came to pass while he was acting as priest in the order of his day-class before God, according to the custom of the priesthood he obtained by lot the burning of incense after having gone into the Sanctuary of the Lord; and all the crowd of the people continued praying outside at the hour of the incense.

The construction ἐγένετο plus a finite verb (as here), or plus καί and a finite verb is plainly an imitation of the Hebrew vajehi and came to Luke through the LXX. He writes the former 22 times and often with the un-Attic ἐντῷ and the infinitive, like the Hebrew be, in the sense of during, which occurs no less than 455 times in the LXX, though not all instances are temporal. The expression is circumstantial and weighty and a mark of the so-called sacred style. Compare R. 1042, also 1072, and 979; W. P. 9: ἐντῷ proper Greek but in imitation of the Hebrew infinitive construction. The class to which Zacharias belonged was having its regular week of priestly service in the Sanctuary (ἱερατεύειν, durative present).

This priestly service was rendered in the presence of God, ἔναντιτοῦθεοῦ, as himself being present in the Sanctuary. It is interesting to learn that this verb is found only here in the New Testament but occurs frequently in the LXX, on the famous Rosetta Stone, and on early inscriptions.

Luke 1:9

9 The κατά phrase belongs to the following: it came to pass “according to the custom of the priesthood” he obtained by lot, etc. It was the custom to cast lots for this highest daily task of burning the incense on the golden altar in the Holy Place. Only once in a priest’s life could he be granted this high privilege. Zacharias was already aged, and not until this day had the lot for this task fallen to him. To be sure, this was a great day for the old priest, but to make him “doubly alert for the supernatural” on this day is an unwarranted insertion. Thousands of other priests had daily sprinkled the incense on the holy altar, and nothing supernatural had happened—why should Zacharias be the exception?

Twice daily the incense was kindled: at dawn of day before the daily burnt offering and in the afternoon after the sacrifice. Luke does not state whether Zacharias officiated at the service in the morning or in the afternoon (three o’clock, Acts 3:1); but we are safe in assuming the latter, for no great crowd would attend at dawn whereas this would be the case in the afternoon. We lay no stress on the fact that, when Gabriel appeared to Daniel, this also occurred at the time of the evening sacrifice, Dan. 9:21, and we cannot see that the situations were at all similar. In his excitement Zacharias certainly never thought of Daniel.

The ritual required that, after another priest had deposited live coals from the altar of burnt offering upon the little golden altar in the ναός (Sanctuary which contained the Holy and the Holy of Holies, not ἱερόν, which signifies the entire Temple place with all its courts and structures), the priest who had obtained the lot sprinkled frankincense upon the coals and then prostrated himself with his face to the ground. Ἔλαχε (λαγχάνω) generally has the genitive as it does here. The fortunate lot was “a white stone” which recalls Rev. 2:17. The nominative εἰσελθών does not agree with the subject of ἔλαχε, for going into the Sanctuary was not connected with obtaining the lot but with burning the incense. Thus θυμιᾶσαιεἰσελθών is a sample of the nominative with the infinitive, which replaces the accusative with the infinitive, and τοῦ governs all that follows and not merely the infinitive. Κύριος is the translation of Yahweh.

Luke 1:10

10 “All the crowd of the people” suggests the afternoon service. They were “outside,” in the court of the men and in that of the women. The time was called “the hour of the incense,” i. e., the time when the incense sent up its fragrance in the Holy Place. During this time the people “continued praying,” the durative feature being stressed by means of the periphrastic imperfect. Luke paints the entire scene in a few strokes.

Luke 1:11

11 Now there appeared to him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense.

Δέ merely adds the new thing that happened and does not mean “meanwhile” (R., Tr.). Luke simply records the facts. Whereas we before had Κύριος with the article we now have it without since it is a proper name. The passive of ὁράω is regularly used with the dative in the sense of “to appear to someone” (see 1 Cor. 15:5, etc.). In this case the manner of the appearance of the angel is not described; it was like that of other angels. The perfect ἑστώς is always used in the sense of the present, “standing.” The angel did not walk in secretly from the outside, he was suddenly present in the Holy Place beside Zacharias. The Greek views the side as projecting out from the object and hence uses ἐκ which seems so strange to us who view the sides of an object in exactly the reverse way and say “at.” So also the right side is pluralized in the Greek in the fixed phrase ἐκδεξιῶν as if the right were composed of parts.

Which the right side of the altar of incense was depends on whether we view the altar from within the Holy Place out to the people or from the way in which the people looked in on the Holy Place. The latter will be correct. Zacharias faced, not the people, but the golden altar right before him and the Holy of Holies with its great curtain. It is usually said that the right side indicates good fortune, but this is true only in case of judgment, otherwise the left is only a step beneath the right. The existence of angels can be proved no more than can the existence of God.

Luke 1:12

12 And on seeing him Zacharias became disturbed, and fear fell on him.

The aorist participle following an aorist principal verb often expresses coincident action as it does here: to see was to be shaken. This initial reaction on Zacharias’ part is perfectly normal. Any mortal being, be he ever so godly, must be mightily disturbed and filled with fear at the sight of some glorious being from the other world. Note the picturesque expression that fear “fell” on Zacharias. Those who think that he on this great day expected or was attuned to something extraordinary are evidently mistaken.

Luke 1:13

13 But the angel said to him: Stop being afraid, Zacharias! Because thy petition was heard, and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. And there shall be joy to thee and exultation, and many shall rejoice over his being. For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and wine and intoxicating drink he shall in no wise drink, and with the Holy Spirit shall he be filled even from his mother’s womb. And many of the sons of Israel shall he turn to the Lord, their God. And he himself shall go before him in his sight in Elijah’s spirit and power to turn fathers’ hearts to children and disobedient ones by means of sensibleness of righteous ones in order to make ready for the Lord a people that has been entirely prepared.

After checking the fright of Zacharias the angel delivers his entire message. When the present imperative is negatived it often means to stop an action already begun; so we here translate: “Stop fearing!” R. 851, etc. We hear this same command from angel lips repeatedly. All our fear as sinful men is to vanish, for grace and salvation are what they announce. The entire gospel lies back of this command. Διότι introduces the cause which is to stop Zacharias’ fear: “because thy petition was heard.” We see no need of making this aorist a timeless tense: “was heard” and is thus now heard (R., W. P.), which would really not be timeless but the force of the perfect.

This is an aorist to express something that has just happened, for which the English would use the perfect: thy petition “has been heard,” R. 842, etc. The verb with εἰς means, “has been listened to,” i. e., in an effective manner so that thou wilt receive thy prayer. The δέησις is any request whether it be made of men or of God.

Some suppose that Zacharias begged God for a child even after he and his wife were past age. But why have him petition for a miracle? The request referred to by the angel is the one that had been made during the years when childbirth was yet humanly possible. It is quite proper to have “was heard” refer to that time also; prayers are often effectively heard by God long before he sends the answer. Zacharias had long ago stopped praying for a child because, like any godly Israelite, he did not think that he had a right to ask a miracle of God. But now it was the time that had been selected by God to grant all those fervent petitions of past years, yea, and more than to grant them, to combine with their granting the beginnings of the fulfillment of the Messianic hope.

The angel tells Zacharias in so many words that his wife Elisabeth shall bear him a son, and that Zacharias shall call that son John, the meaning of which name is, “Yahweh has been or is become gracious.” The child that is thus named by God through an angel before its conception can bear no ordinary name but must have one that reflects God’s intention regarding that child’s future work in his kingdom. The father and the mother had beautiful names, and some seek for a special significance in them. But they do so without reason, for then a significance should much more be attached to the name of Joseph and especially of Mary, which is, however, not the case.

“Shall bear thee a son” means that Zacharias shall be that son’s natural father. The future tenses in the angel’s announcement are prophetic and thus futuristic and state what shall occur without fail; none of them are volitive by stressing somebody’s will in what shall be. The angel’s statement that Zacharias and Elisabeth should have a son at this late period of their life must have instantly reminded Zacharias of the miraculous birth of Isaac. God had wrought this kind of miracle ages ago; he could certainly repeat it now.

Luke 1:14

14 When the angel continues: “And there shall be joy to thee and exultation,” this refers to far more than parental joy, which had been so long deferred and was now at last possible; for many others shall also rejoice over his being. The following γάρ explains this joy. The son of Zacharias shall be the great forerunner of the Messiah. Ἀγαλλίασις is exultation as when one capers and shouts in his joy. Zacharias was too old to live to see his son in his work, but it would be apparent from the start that this son was chosen of God for a great work of grace. The word used is γένεσις, from γίνεσθαι, the same word that is used in Matt. 1:1 regarding Jesus and denotes “being” or existence; it is not γέννησις, from γεννάω, the verb that is used in v. 13 (textus receptus, A. V.,: “birth”). These many people shall rejoice because of the message and the work of John, hence because of his “being,” his presence and his existence as a prophet.

Luke 1:15

15 With γάρ the angel indicates what shall produce all this joy. First the summary statement which embraces the entire person and the career of John: “He shall be great in the sight of the Lord,” which is more than being a truly great man; for “in the sight of the Lord” (Yahweh, as before) refers to the divine judgment and is used in the soteriological sense: great in the work of the Messianic kingdom. To begin with, he shall in no wise drink wine or σίκερα (indeclinable), the intoxicating drink made of grain, fruit, or dates. Note that wine is distinguished from these other drinks; the New Testament knows of wine only as a product of grapes; sikera is the Greek transliteration of the Hebrew term.

It is generally supposed that this clause describes John as being a Nazarite from his birth much as Samson was. But this view is untenable because the positive mark of a Nazarite was that no shears should touch his hair. John’s abstinence from all intoxicants, from even their legitimate use, is of a piece with all the rest of his abstemious life, his poor food, coarse clothing, habitation in the desert. John was something far greater and more important that a Nazarite who was vowed to God only in his own personal interest. He was the great preacher of repentance who prepared Israel for Christ, and he thus preached by his very appearance and by his every action.

The angel is describing John to his father as the prophet he is to be. He states first the striking outward feature of avoidance of all intoxicants—not an ordinary but a very exceptional prophet is he to be. In the second place he mentions his spiritual equipment. All prophets have the Holy Spirit, for there can be no divine prophecy without him. But John shall not merely have the Spirit when he begins to do his work, “he shall be filled with the Holy Spirit already from his mother’s womb” (ἔτι is not ἤδη but literally, “still from his mother’s womb,” i. e., before he leaves the womb), see v. 41, 44. So great will this prophet be (Matt. 11:9–11) that his whole existence shall be under the direct control of the Holy Spirit. “From his mother’s womb” is a Hebraistic phrase.

Not enough attention is paid to the striking fact that the person of the Holy Spirit and his divine work are mentioned to Jews as being perfectly known to them. There is never a word of explanation that God exists in three persons, and there is never even a question, to say nothing of a word of objection, in the Unitarian sense. This means that the Jews knew and believed in the Trinity, and that they had gained this knowledge and this faith from the Old Testament. The Jews of this period were not Unitarian as are those of today.

Luke 1:16

16 In the third place the angel sketches John’s great work. The first statement summarizes it as far as the Israelites are concerned. The verb “to turn” (used twice here) is the Hebrew shub, the turning that denotes the conversion of the heart. The implication is that God’s people have turned away from him in unbelief and wickedness—they need, above all, this conversion. We see no reason for making any of these future tenses volitive, they are futuristic and prophetic: “he shall turn.” The angel uses the name of honor and refers to Israel’s religious standing: “many of the sons of Israel.” They still loved to call themselves that though they had forfeited their right to that title, for they had lost the faith of their great forefather, the patriarch Israel. It is a sign of grace when the angel still uses that name.

So also “the Lord, their God,” is the blessed Old Testament title of the God of grace. Κύριος is Yahweh as it was before; and ὁΘεὸςαὐτῶν is Elohim but with the possessive (as in Elohenu, “our God,” in Deut. 6:4), which indicates that all God’s might and majesty as God are for the good of Israel. The two designations name God as the covenant Lord God, whose covenant with Israel was to culminate in the sending of the Messiah. In this statement and its weighty terms the angel is already describing John’s work with reference to the Messianic covenant, but this is now done more clearly.

Luke 1:17

17 John is to be the Messiah’s forerunner. Αὐτός makes the subject emphatic: “he himself” or “he on his part,” he and no other shall do something that is entirely exceptional, namely “go before (him) in his sight.” The reference is to “the Lord, their God,” for ἐνώπιοναὐτοῦ can have no other meaning than the phrase which has the same preposition in v. 15. We read πρό, not πρός, in the verb, with which ἐνώπιον just about coalesces, so that many translate simply: “go before him.” But the angel really says more. John shall, indeed, proceed with all his work “in the sight of the Lord, their God,” with the eyes of God constantly resting upon him in approval; but he shall do something more, he shall go πρό, “before” or in front of the Lord their God, as an advance herald, as a forerunner who announces the coming of the Lord, their God. Since John is “to go before,” this means that Yahweh is to follow. We know that God’s Son followed right after John. The angel thus announces two great facts: the Messiah is following John in order to fulfill all the Messianic promises; and this Messiah is identical with the Lord, their God, and thus makes the position of his forerunner the greater.

Basing their expectation on Mal. 4:5, the Jews expected Elijah to come in person in order to introduce the Messiah. Note this thought as expressed by the disciples, and how Jesus corrected it (Matt. 17:10–13); in the ideas the Jews had about Jesus (Matt. 16:14); and in the final mockery under the cross (Mark 15:35, 36). The angel, exactly like Jesus, has the correct interpretation of Mal. 4:5: the promised Elijah is John because he will work “in Elijah’s spirit and power.” He will be the same stern, abstemious figure that is needed, like Elijah, by the same impenitent and unbelieving nation, whose great task was to preach stern contrition and repentance. It is unwarranted to state that somebody put a far later interpretation of the Malachi prophecy into the angel’s mouth.

As regards the construction, we regard the two infinitives as heading their respective clauses, the second infinitive being epexegetical to the first since no connective appears; we do not begin the second clause with καί. As Christ’s forerunner, as a second Elijah, John shall work “to turn fathers’ hearts to children and disobedient ones by means of sensibleness of righteous ones.” The angel omits Malachi’s statement about the hearts of the children being turned to the fathers. Just what is meant appears in the addition: “and disobedient ones by means of sensibleness of righteous ones.” When John begins to do his work he will find some that are δίκαιοι in the sense in which this forensic adjective appears in v. 6. Among these were John’s disciples and the families of his disciples and many other godly Jews who had God’s verdict in their favor (δίκαιοι, see this and cognate terms in C.-K. Every Bible student should read these linguistic articles to settle in his mind once for all the forensic and true meaning of these words and thus once for all to reject wrong translations and interpretations). To these who are approved of God φρόνησις is ascribed, not the high term σοφία or wisdom (our versions and R., Tr.), but the more moderate term “sensibleness” or practical good sense. Unbelievers and disobedient people lack even good sense, for they foolishly run into the divine judgment.

We regard ἐν as instrumental: “by means of,” which is here close to the original sense of ἐν, “in connection with.” John will use the good sense of righteous people to turn and convert disobedient people—the articles are left out because classes are not referred to, and because the quality expressed in each noun is to be stressed: any who are of the disobedient (of the righteous) kind. “Disobedient ones” are the direct opposite of “righteous ones.” Their disobedience was not merely transgression of the law, moral obliquity, but the refusal to accept God’s grace and gospel, the fatal disobedience of unbelief. This is what makes them the opposite of the righteous, for the sinner is justified and declared righteous by the divine Judge only by faith.

Anyone who examines John’s preaching will see its sensibleness: he calls on people to escape the coming wrath, warns them of the ax of judgment already laid at the base of the tree, etc. This is what John used to convert his people to true repentance. If the angel’s words were translated into Hebrew they would be in the form of Hebrew poetry, even the Greek is a prose poem. This observation lets us see how the two lines are parallel and synonymous:

“To turn fathers’ hearts unto children

And disobedient ones by means of sensibleness of righteous ones.”

The general sense of the two lines is the same. When John begins to do his work he will find some godly children (Malachi adds the reverse: also some godly fathers); and so it will be his work to turn them to each other, all the ungodly to the godly, their very “hearts,” by an inner conversion. Compare the author’s Eisenach O. T. Selections, 53.

The work thus sketched shall have this great purpose: “to make ready for the Lord a people that has been entirely prepared,” κατά intensifies the participle, and the perfect tense has its usual present connotation of still being prepared. Although ἑτοιμάζω and κατασκευάζω are synonyms, the former speaks of the work of making ready (as this is described in the previous clause), the latter of supplying the equipment by which full (κατά) preparation is secured. Hence we also have the passive for the latter: this people that John makes ready will have everything that the Lord will require at his coming. The agent in this passive participle is John, who is also the subject of the two infinitives because he is the subject of the main verb. The angel says “for the Lord,” for Yahweh, and does not mention the Messiah by name; yet we see that Yahweh and the Messiah are identical because the Messiah is the Son of God.

The translations of both our versions obscure the sense of καὶἀπειθεῖςκτλ.; ἐν does not mean “to” like the previous ἐπί. The R. V. comes nearer to the true sense, but we have no reason to supply “to walk,” “which also gives a wrong sense to ἐν. The idea that John was to settle family quarrels is almost too trivial to be noticed. The fathers cannot be the godly patriarchs and ancestors whereas the children would be the generation that is living at John’s time, for one might then understand how the children could be turned to the ancient fathers, but certainly not how those ancient fathers could be turned to their children of that late generation. A rather peculiar idea is that the children take up with the new whereas the fathers, the old people, hold back, so that it was John’s task to bring these unprogressive fathers up with their up-to-date children.

This pays no attention to Malachi’s second line, turning the children to the fathers, and to the fact that, whereas the angel uses only the one line, he does not change its connection with the unquoted line. But the whole presentation is not something new that is offered by John to which old people might object but the reverse—John is to go back to do over again the old, old work of Elijah.

Luke 1:18

18 And Zacharias said to the angel, How shall I know this? For I on my part am an old man, and my wife gone far forward in her days.

The remarkable thing is that Zacharias asks exactly the same question that Abraham asked in Gen. 15:8, and yet that the two questions are not treated alike. That is due to the fact that Abraham believed (Gen. 15:6), but Zacharias did not The one asked for a sign to strengthen his faith, the other asked for a sign that he thought could not be given because the thing that was promised was no longer possible. “The order of nature seemed more certain to him than the order of grace.” The wonderful examples of Isaac’s birth as well as Samson’s and Samuel’s seem to make no impression on Zacharias now that such a birth is promised also to him. Those wonderful births had, of course, occurred long ago, and yet it was also long ago since God had sent an angel to earth, for the angel appearances related in the Apocrypha are spurious. Yet here was this supernatural being before the very eyes of Zacharias and actually speaking to him. Unbelief, we must remember, is always abnormal and irrational, and its processes of reasoning cannot be explained rationally. Zacharias should have believed—but he did not. Κατὰτί, literally, “according to what,” is practically “how”; but it asks for a norm or sign in accord with which the promise will be fulfilled.

The emphasis on ἐγώ, “I on my part,” intends to say that, if the getting of a son, to say nothing of such a son, depends on Zacharias, the case is hopeless—he is nothing but an old man who is unable to beget a child. The second impossibility is his wife who has “gone far forward in her days” (see v. 7), far beyond the ability to conceive a child. These words of the old priest perhaps indicate why he is so reluctant to believe that he shall have a son. He had prayed most earnestly as long as there was the shadow of hope physically. When that had positively faded, he settled down to bitter, disappointment. This was the more bitter since among the Jews childlessness was considered one of God’s punishments and a sure sign of his displeasure and many children a sure sign of his favor and a great blessing.

One of the questions that must have lain heavily on the old priest’s mind was why he should be thus punished by God when both he and his wife served God most faithfully. So the sudden announcement, though it comes from an angel’s lips, seems entirely unbelievable to him. This does not explain his unbelief, for that lies unexplained in the secret recesses of his heart.

Luke 1:19

19 And answering, the angel said to him: I on my part am Gabriel that stands in the sight of God! And I was commissioned to speak to thee and to announce to thee as glad tidings these things. And lo, thou shalt be silent and not able to speak until what day these things take place because thou didst not believe my words, the ones that shall be fulfilled in their due season.

We here have the first instance in Luke of the circumstantial participle ἀποκριθείς which is used with εἶπεν or with λέγει and always expresses action that is simultaneous with that of the verb: “answering he said”; R. 1125. The angel answers the unbelief of Zacharias regarding the most impressive promise. He puts the truth of the promise beyond all question; he furnishes the sign for the unbelief, one that expresses the divine displeasure. The unbelief of Zacharias referred only to this to him incredible promise, and with that piece of unbelief alone did the angel deal.

Over against the “I am” of Zacharias who is trying to justify his unbelief the angel put his own emphatic “I am,” which refuted that unbelief and furnished the most ample ground for faith. Note the emphatic ἐγώ, “I on my part.” The angel states his name only incidentally: “Gabriel,” which is, “man of God.” He is the same angel that is mentioned in Dan. 8:16. Any other angel would have been able to say just what Gabriel said. The chief point lies in the addition “that stand in the sight of God,” which does not, however, mean that he is one of the great angels, one of the archangels, as has been thought, but simply one of God’s attendants who is ready to receive and to execute his commands (Ps. 103:20). In this respect Gabriel was not above the other angels. Note that Elijah says the same thing regarding himself, 1 Kings 17:1, and compare Rev. 8:2.

As God’s own messenger Gabriel “was commissioned to speak to thee and to announce to thee as glad tidings these things.” Ἀπεστάλην is the second aorist passive and is used even with regard to Jesus. It is hard to see why this aorist should not denote past time (R., Tr.); it is one of the aorists which states something recent, for which we should use the perfect in our idiom: “I have been sent,” R. 842, etc. The second καί is epexegetical: “to speak to thee, namely (καί) to announce to thee as glad tidings these things.” The point is that Gabriel’s message to Zacharias is from God—his word this priest of God is doubting. Moreover, it is a message of good tidings, and this divine promise of the most blessed kind Zacharias is refusing to believe.

This is a plain example of the unreasonableness and self-injury of unbelief. Whom shall we believe if not God? When God sends us good tidings, blessed promises, shall we reject them because they are so blessed? What if they go beyond nature and common experience? Where is it written—except in the minds of skeptics—that our tiny experience with nature bounds the range of possibilities for God? Did God really exhaust his powers when he established the laws of nature? Is it really unreasonable to conclude that the God who made this universe with its laws very likely has the power to do still more wonderful things? This is a case where εὐαγγελίζεσθαι is used in its common meaning of bringing good news. Both infinitives are properly aorists to denote effective actions.

Luke 1:20

20 The foolish priest’s unbelief stands rebuked and refuted. But this is a case where God takes an unbeliever at his own word (another example is found in John 20:27). Must he know “how”; must he have something to go by? Well, he shall have what he asks for, a sign that exactly suits his case of unbelief. “Lo” marks the strangeness of it; he shall be dumb until his son is born. The periphrastic future ἔσῃσιωπῶν (R. 889) is linear or durative (R. 353): “shalt continue silent.” The fact is emphasized by the synonymous statement that he shall be unable to speak (make an utterance). In ἄχριἦς the antecedent is drawn into the relative, “until what day.”

The reason for this infliction is stated in the clearest way; ἀνθʼ ὦν is causal (R. 963) and also classical: ἀντὶτούτωνὅτι “for this that,” i. e., “because.” The reason is that “thou didst not believe my words,” which is another instance in which we should use the perfect “hast not believed.” The angel charges unbelief against Zacharias. The fact that we believe in general is no sign that we shall believe in some given promise or in some one gospel fact. Note the contrast between “thou didst not believe” and “that shall be fulfilled.” This unbelief holds that they will not be fulfilled because this seems impossible; but the angel says they shall be fulfilled and thus give the lie to the unbelief. The imagery in the verb is that of an empty vessel that is to be filled to the brim when John’s birth takes place. The tense is the prophetic future, it is like those used in v. 13, etc.

We regard οἵτινες not merely as being more emphatic than οἵ but add its usual causal connotation: “they being such as shall be fulfilled.” What folly to disbelieve words of this kind? When R. 594 has εἰς set a more definite period, the definiteness really lies in τὸνκαιρὸναὐτῶν, and the preposition is only a variant of ἐν: “in their due season,” i. e., in that point of time which is appropriate to the angel’s words. Great glad news ought to set a man to jubilating and to telling it in his joy (faith); but great glad news shall here strike this man dumb so that he shall not jubilate or tell about it with even one word (unbelief). The power that thus robs him of his speech for an exact fixed time shall by this its deed prove to him that it is able to do other and far greater things.

Luke 1:21

21 And the people went on expecting Zacharias and were wondering at his spending time in the Sanctuary.

The service of sprinkling the frankincense on the golden altar took but a short time, and the Talmud reports that the officiating priest remained in the Sanctuary only a brief time. He would then come out and dismiss the people with a benediction. The writer has been unable to determine whether the Holy Place was shut off from the view of those outside during this service or not; it almost seems that it was from this passage. The periphrastic imperfect stresses the duration of the expectation—they expected Zacharias to step forth at any moment, but he delayed and delayed; and they naturally went on wondering (imperfect tense) at his spending so much time in the Sanctuary (v. 9). Ἐντῷ with the infinitive (v. 8) is common in Luke: “were wondering in connection with him spending time,” etc.

Luke 1:22

22 But having come out, he could not speak to them. And they realized that he had seen a vision in the Sanctuary. And he on his part kept motioning to them and continued to remain dumb.

Instantly struck dumb, when Zacharias did finally come out of the Sanctuary to dismiss the people in the usual way he could not make a sound. The people realized rightly (ἐπί strengthens the verb) that Zacharias had seen a vision, ὀπτασία, which is not much different from ὅραμα. This was a case in which an angel was seen and his voice heard with waking eyes and active natural senses. Other visions of this kind are reported by the evangelists (see the same word in 24:23). The periphrastic imperfect indicates that Zacharias had to keep motioning for some time before the people understood that they were this time to go home without the usual benediction. But as far as Zacharias was concerned, the simple imperfect says that he continued dumb. The perfect ἑώρακεν is retained unchanged in the indirect discourse (we should change to “had seen”); but the perfect connotates that Zacharias still had the vision with him.

Luke 1:23

23 And it came to pass, when the days of his official service were fulfilled, he went away to his home.

Zacharias finished out the week in spite of his loss of speech. On ἐγένετο plus a finite verb see v. 8: “it came to pass he went away.” The λειτουργία (our “liturgy” is from this word) is any public service, especially one that is officially performed like that of the priesthood. Not until the week was duly ended did Zacharias go back home to Hebron where he dwelt.

Luke 1:24

24 Now after these days, Elisabeth, his wife, conceived and hid herself for five months, saying, Thus has the Lord done to me in the days in which he saw to it to take away my reproach among men.

“After these days” of the service in Jerusalem, Elisabeth promptly conceived, συνέλαβε, Luke alone uses this verb in that sense. For the last five months she kept herself in the customary retirement. R. 351 is inclined to regard περιέκρυβεν as the imperfect from κρύβω whereas it may also be the second aorist from κρύπτω, R. 1217. Either tense would fit the context, and no one is able to find anything decisive between them. Περί in the verb is perfective: she hid herself completely (all around).

Luke 1:25

25 The feelings that were in her heart, as these are now stated, were probably expressed often enough. With οὕτως she refers to her pregnant condition and thus properly uses the perfect πεποίηκεν, for what the Lord (Yahweh as before, with or without the article) did to her continues to the time of her speaking. Her barrenness and childlessness were considered “a reproach,” a disgrace, something that was personally blameworthy; compare v. 7. But we should not insert thoughts such as her husband’s desire for an heir, her own maternal desire, and the like. The matter was far more serious: to be without a child was a sign of God’s displeasure and in that sense a reproach among men who would point to this couple as being for some reason punished by God. The object of ἐπεῖδεν is most likely not “me” but the following infinitive clause: “saw to it to take away my reproach.” It is a rather fine point to make ἐπεῖδεν ingressive and ἀφελεῖν (from ἀφαιρέω) effective (R., Tr. 144): “began to look upon to remove once for all”; for that matter both might be ingressive or both effective, and the latter, being the simpler, is correct.

The point to be noted is that Elisabeth expresses only her natural feelings about her pregnancy in general; in v. 41 the Holy Spirit inspires her language. She is happy, first of all, because her reproach is gone and she, too, is to have a child as a sign of God’s pleasure. Already that is enough for her. She here says nothing about the higher plans of God that connect her unborn son with the Messiah.

Luke 1:26

26 Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was commissioned from God to a city of Galilee, for which the name Nazareth, to a maiden having been betrothed to a man, for whom the name Joseph, out of David’s house. And the name of the maiden Mary.

Luke connects the story of Mary with that of Elisabeth because they belong together; hence his designation of the time for the annunciation: “in the sixth month,” i. e., after Elisabeth had conceived. The angel indicates his identity in v. 36: he tells about Elisabeth, her conception and the length of her pregnancy, and thus reveals that he is identical with the angel who was sent to Zacharias. In neither appearance is this angel described. To say that Mary did not perhaps even know that she was speaking to an angel is therefore pointless. She knew this as well as Zacharias did. The message delivered to Mary was infinitely greater than the message given to Zacharias, and the messenger could not have appeared in a commoner form, i. e., as a mere man.

The idea in ἀπό is not that of agency: commissioned “by God” (ὑπό), but derivation: “from God,” sent with a message from his presence. Nazareth is mentioned as a city of Galilee and is so insignificant that Theophilus could not be expected to know its location; but it is noteworthy also that this town, which is so important in the sacred history, was located in the despised province of Galilee. The dative with ὄνομα (here and in v. 27) is idiomatic for one of the ways of introducing a name, ἦν is always left out (B.-D. 128, where the different ways are listed).

Luke 1:27

27 We are told twice that the person to whom Gabriel was now sent was a παρθένος, a “maiden” or “virgin.” Luke evidently intends to stress this fact. But this virgin is described as “having been betrothed to a man” named Joseph. The perfect participle tells us that the betrothal had taken place some time before and was now in force. But we should understand this in the Jewish way: the Jewish betrothal was public and had vows that constituted virtual marriage and needed only that the bridegroom should come at the set time, take his bride, celebrate, and live with her. That is why a betrothed maiden could be called a wife (Matt. 1:20), and her betrothed man her husband. It is unwarranted, however, to demand that we must today enter marriage in the same way.

The Word of God demands nothing of the kind; and they who insist on the Jewish way never carry it out as it is sketched, for instance, in Matt. 25:1, etc. In our practice betrothals are engagements and not yet essentially marriages but only promises of future marriages, and the binding marriage vows are not made until during the marriage ceremony, upon which the consummation of the marriage follows at once. See further the comment on Matt. 1:18.

There is some discussion on the connection of ἐξοἴκουΔαβίδ. It is dodging the issue when R., Tr., omits all punctuation. Zahn connects it with Joseph, but his argumentation betrays the fact that it results from his contention that Luke’s genealogy (3:23–38) is that of Joseph and not that of Mary. It is rather superficial to think that the main person to be introduced is Joseph, and that we must know about his Davidic descent. The main person is this maiden, and Joseph is introduced only as the man to whom she is betrothed, and it is about her descent that we must know. Luke tells Mary’s story throughout these chapters—Joseph is quite secondary.

We construe: “to a maiden … out of David’s house.” The fact that she is the person appears from the way in which her name is introduced, not incidentally like the names Nazareth and Joseph, but at the end in a separate sentence in which “maiden” again occurs. It is true, as the genealogy of Joseph shows (Matt. 1:2, etc.), that he, too, is of Davidic descent. But this is no justification for attaching Luke’s phrase to both “maiden” and “Joseph” as has been done. Zahn forgets the Gentile Theophilus, to whom these verses are written. It was vital for Jews and Jewish Christians to know that the legal father of Jesus was a descendant of David. Jewish legal ideas about descent could count little with a Gentile, the actual physical descent would be the essential point to him. “Mariam,” as Luke writes her name, was of David’s royal line.

More on this question will be found in connection with 3:23.

Luke 1:28

28 And having gone in to her, he said, Greeting, favored one! The Lord is with thee!

Gabriel appeared to Mary in her own home, as εἰς in the participle would indicate. He perhaps walked in through the door. It would be unwarranted, however, to assume that he hid his supernatural character and appeared as an ordinary man. The reactions of Mary are not like those of Zacharias, but this is due to the difference in the persons rather than to any difference in the angel’s appearance. The maiden who was selected by God to become the mother of his Son was superior to the old priest in the Sanctuary as all that we know of her character shows. Χαῖρε, the present imperative, is the common form of greeting in the Greek. No person now greets another, either on arriving or on leaving, by saying, “Hail!” yet this translation persists. Perhaps the translation, “Greeting!” will do as well as any; in the Aramaic it must have been the common wish: “Peace to you!” The Germans translate: “Sei gegruesst!”

The perfect participle κεχαριτωμένη has the strongest connotation of the present: “having been favored and as a result still being in this blessed condition.” The root in the verb is χάρις, grace, the unmerited favor bestowed by God. The passive voice makes God the agent. The special grace on account of which the angel greets Mary is God’s selection of her to be the mother of his Son. “Blessed thou among women” is found in good texts but seems to have been inserted here from v. 42. Bengel interprets the passive voice: non ut mater gratiæ sed ut filia gratiæ. The deification of Mary by Romanism is constantly rejected as being contrary to the text. The Vulgate’s translation gratiæ plena is ambiguous; it may pass if “full of grace thou hast received” is meant, but certainly not if the meaning is to be, “full of grace thou now hast to bestow.” Mary is a vessel to receive, not a fountain to dispense.

As the perfect participle in the address refers to a very special gift of grace, so the assurance: “The Lord is with thee!” refers to far more than to his ordinary helpful presence. The fact that a godly Jewess enjoyed Yahweh’s grace (ὁΚύριος as before) and helpful presence needed no angelic announcement. Far more is meant here. By becoming the virgin mother of God’s Son, Mary would most certainly need the fullest protection on the part of God. How could she defend herself against slander, and how could she protect her babe from murderous hands? So in advance, before Mary is further enlightened, the assurance of the Lord’s presence, help, and protection is given to her.

The Greek may omit the copula when it is in the present tense, but not when the tense is past, future, perfect, or when the mode is not the indicative. Hence “the Lord with thee” is not a wish but the statement of a great fact. The two go together: inasmuch as Mary is favored with this special grace the Lord’s helpful presence is with her in that special degree.

Luke 1:29

29 But she was greatly perturbed at the word and began to argue with herself of what kind this greeting might be.

The aorist denotes the fact of her perturbation, but the imperfect states only that she began to argue back and forth (διά) with herself, i.e., reckon up the reasons that might explain the angel’s word (meaning all that he said) in one or in the other way. The question Mary debated was: “Of what kind is this greeting?” The optative has almost faded out of the Koine, but here we have an example where in an indirect question after a secondary tense the indicative “is” is in classic fashion changed to “might be,” εἴη, R. 1044.

Luke 1:30

30 And the angel said to her: Stop being afraid, Mary! For thou didst find favor with God. And lo, thou shalt conceive in the womb, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great and shall be called the Highest’s Son. And the Lord God shall give to him the throne of David, his father, and he shall rule as king over the House of Jacob to the eons, and of his kingdom there shall not be an end.

Before Mary has time to arrive at an answer to her mental question, the angel goes on speaking to give her full information and thus to end all doubt and debate in her heart. The present negative imperative is the same as that which is addressed to Zacharias in v. 13: “Stop fearing, Mary!” So her perturbation included fear, that fear which befalls mortals when they are in the presence of heavenly beings. It is unreasoned and automatic and must always be checked in order not to interfere with the intended blessed effects of the divine words.

As in v. 13, so here the bidding to stop being afraid is at once fortified with the strongest kind of reason for dismissing all fear. In the case of Mary this reason (γάρ) is the fact that she has found χάρις with God. This is the noun that lies in the participle that was used in v. 28 and always means undeserved favor, “grace” in the sense of the divine motive and of the gifts that are due to that motive, which are wholly unmerited by us. This is the heart of the meaning when it is God’s grace that is referred to. When it is used with reference to others it is modified to match the person referred to. This divine grace is always found, never earned.

It falls into the lap, we do not go and work for it. It is a gift, pure and simple, in toto. The last thing that Mary dreamed of was becoming the mother of the Messiah, God’s own Son. The Greek expresses simply the fact: “didst find” (aorist), the English would use the perfect “hast found.”

It is true enough that χάρις has in it sweetness, charm, loveliness, joy, delight, the note of kindness, and, in fact, much else that is delightful; but these are only the by-products, the odor of the rose, not yet the rose itself. Any and all of these resultant ideas are due to the essential idea, that of unmerited favor and gifts of favor. The angel is leading up to the great announcement he has come to make. His statement is still general, only a little more direct than his first words. The aorist is noteworthy; Mary found this favor with God long ago. It is all arranged in God’s plan far in advance. Mary must know that. If she learns of it only now, that does not change her blessed state in the past. What she now learns is to fill her with the highest delight.

Luke 1:31

31 When Gabriel tells Mary in the clearest and simplest way about God’s intent with reference to her, if ever the interjection ἰδού, “lo,” was justified, it is so here. Three brief clauses present it all. Mary shall conceive, she shall give birth to a son, and that son’s name shall be Jesus. The verb for “conceive” is the same as that used in v. 24, the addition of ἐνγάστρι, a stereotyped phrase, really adds nothing. The future tenses are futuristic and prophetic, none of them is volitive. All these things shall occur without any question; any human will and consent that may be necessary shall be forthcoming.

The prophecy can be made in such a positive way because the divine foreknowledge coupled with the divine purpose cannot fail. The name “Jesus” is not explained to Mary as it was later to Joseph. “Jesus” was to be the son’s personal name, Yeshoshu‘a or Yeshu‘a, “Yahweh is help or salvation,” meaning, “the One through whom Jehovah brings salvation”: “for it is he that shall save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:22). Not one word is said about Joseph as being the father of this son which Mary is to bear; we have only the mention of the Lord and of God!

Luke 1:32

32 But the prophecy is not yet half told. The conception, birth, and name befit only this son. Regarding the son of Zacharias the angel said, “He shall be great in the Lord’s sight,” i.e., in his judgment, but of Mary’s son the same angel says, “This one shall be great.” He adds nothing and thus means “great” in the absolute sense. We might expect “for” in explanation of his greatness; instead we have καί which introduces a coordinate statement, one that thus stands by itself: “and the Highest’s Son shall he be called,” i.e., rightfully, that name states exactly who he is. Indeed, none could be greater.

The title ὕψιστος, “Highest,” “Most High” (superlative), by itself or combined with Θεός (Heb. 7:1; Gen. 14:18; repeatedly in the mouth of demons, Mark 5:7; Luke 8:28; Acts 16:17), designates God in his supreme exaltation and majesty. Neither noun has the article, which stresses the idea expressed by each. The view that υἱός is indefinite, “a son,” is due to ignorance of the Greek in which the added genitive always makes the noun definite. In 6:35 the genitive has the article, which stresses only the concept “sons” which is modified in the ordinary way by its genitive; but here νἱὸςὑψίστου is really one concept.

R., W. P., is too ready to yield the point that deity is not expressed here since in 6:35 Christians who exercise love are called νἱοὶτοῦὑψίστου, “sons of the Highest.” But mere outward similarity of phrasing, aside from the context, is not determinative. If Gabriel did not mean deity, what did he mean? The subtile Arianism of von Hofmann (Philippi’s correct judgment) has tainted many interpretations. He here uses Ps. 82:6, where judges, etc., are called sons of the Most High, because God lent them his majesty in administering the law; compare John 10:34, etc., in the author’s work on John. He overlooks Luke 6:35.

Modernism has stressed the idea that “Son of God,” “Son of the Highest,” etc., are merely synonymous with “Messiah,” both are ancient, outworn categories of thought or thought forms. If that were true, and if we are dealing only with changing forms of human ideas, any modern ideas that are offered us in place of the ancient ones would be only like new coats that take the place of the old but themselves soon become old and outworn too—with no coat in sight that would never grow old, change, and become worthless.

Luke 1:33

33 This exalted person who is to be born of the maiden Mary is to be the promised Messiah. The angel puts this into Old Testament language which Mary will the more easily understand, and which will at the same time be convincing to her as being the fulfillment of the old prophecies. Note 2 Sam. 7:13: “I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever”; and v. 16: “And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established forever before thee: and thy throne shall be established forever.” Compare Ps. 89:4, 29, 35–37 (John 12:34). “The Lord God” is the same Old Testament name as that found in v. 16 (which see).

This great covenant God shall give to this child Jesus “the throne of his father David.” Any gift of the Father to Jesus is, of course, made to his human nature. The royal side of Jesus’ office is described here. He himself spoke of his kingdom as not being of this world, John 18:36, 37. Thus “he shall reign over the House of Jacob to the eons,” which means that “of his kingdom there shall be no end.” The manner of his rule will be like the kingdom he rules, a rule with truth in the power of grace. “The House of Jacob” denotes all his descendants, not merely the Jewish nation as such, but the spiritual descendants on through the ages (Rom. 9:6–8). We need not be reluctant about accepting the angel’s word in its full reality that Jesus should rule forever over the spiritual House of Israel, believing Jews and Gentiles alike. He does so rule now, and this the angel actually foretold. Isa. 9:6, 7; Jer. 23:5, 6; 33:15, 16.

Jesus is to have “the throne of his father David.” The effort is made to deny that Jesus was a descendant of David, Mary being of the royal line. The usual interpretation is that “of his father David” refers to Joseph’s descent from David, Jesus being Joseph’s legal son and thus also David’s legal son. The untenableness of this view is apparent. Read 2 Sam. 7:12: “I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom” (LXX, ἔσταιἐκτῆςκοιλίαςσου). We are, however, told that we should not let the Old Testament prophecies control our New Testament exegesis!

The phrase εἰςτοὺςαἰῶνας, literally, “unto the eons,” is the Greek way of saying “to eternity.” An αἰών is a vast extent of time that is distinguished by the character of what happens in it; so we have “this αἰών or world age” and “the αἰών to come,” that in heaven. To gain the idea of eternity the eons were simply multiplied in an indefinite succession. The fact that this is the sense of the phrase is made plain by the next statement, that of his kingdom “there shall be no end.” This is the common way of defining eternity: time without an end. The fact is, however, that our minds are so bound to the notion of time (and also of space) that we cannot visualize anything that does not fit into this succession of moments, days, years, millenniums, etc. Yet eventually “time shall be no longer” (Rev. 10:6), this succession shall come to an end; eternity is the opposite of time, simul tota, an absolute altogether, an endless now without past or future—we can say it but not conceive it. The kingdom is eternal.

It is important to know what is meant by “the throne,” by βασιλεύειν, ruling as a king, and by this βασιλεία or kingdom. The usual view is to take an ordinary earthly throne, kingdom, and royal rule as the pattern and to conceive of Jesus’ kingdom in an analogous way. But all things earthly are but poor shadows of the heavenly; they are so of this kingdom that is not of this world. The earthly kingdom makes its king; without it he could not be king; and he may easily be dethroned and cease to be king. But the heavenly king makes his kingdom; without him it could not exist; and the only question is whether we will accept his rule and kingship or perish in our hostility. Thus the kingdom is where the king is, where he exercises his blessed rule of eternal grace, whether on earth or in heaven.

Not the people as subjects make up the kingdom—there are really no subjects, for all in whom Christ rules are themselves kings and rule with him, and in this sense he is the King of kings (of us whom he has made spiritual kings by his spiritual rule). All the infinite realities of divine grace are compressed in the angel’s words.

Luke 1:34

34 But Mary said to the angel, How shall this be since I know not a man?

The question as well as the answer it receives indicate no unbelief on Mary’s part. She is not like Zacharias but, in a way, like Nicodemus who also asked “how,” namely about the new birth. What perplexes Mary is the fact that she is to have a son, not at some distant time after her marriage to Joseph (about whom the angel said not a word), but, as she properly judged, beginning shortly after the announcement she just heard. With “how” she asks for some explanation, and with “since” she states the reason for her perplexity, namely that she “knows not a man,” a typical Jewish way of stating her virginity. “To know a man” means to know sexually. The point in stating this reason is that she is able to conceive a son only by sexual union with a man, the universal natural law of procreation. Mary is entirely willing to have the great son of whom the angel speaks—but how about the husband through whom she is to conceive that son?

Does the angel say that Joseph, her betrothed, will promptly consummate his marriage with her? We know that Joseph waited for several months and, in fact, intended to wait still longer (Matt. 1:18), but God himself hastened his resolve. Since her marriage is still a long way off, how was she, an immaculate virgin, to have a son? The point to be noted is that, unlike Zacharias whose only difficulty was his age, Mary had no ancient analogous cases to help her out, and the angel had intimated nothing whatever about how she would become a mother.

Roman Catholicism (also Bengel) reads οὐγινώσκω, a plain, ordinary present tense, in the sense of the future, as declaring that Mary has vowed perpetual virginity. Zahn’s observations are much to the point. If that were the sense of Mary’s words, since no other than the natural way for her to have a son has been intimated, she would be denying the angel’s word in flat unbelief—her vow of perpetual virginity would make the angel’s word impossible. Again, Mary was betrothed to Joseph; if she had made her vow prior to the betrothal she had already broken it by the betrothal, the first vital step in entering marriage; but if she had made the alleged vow after her betrothal she would by such a vow have broken her marriage tie with Joseph. But the Scriptures know nothing of such a vow (entschiedener Vorsatz, Bardenhewer) as they know nothing of the Mariolatry of Romanism.

Luke 1:35

35 And answering the angel said to her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the Highest’s power shall overshadow thee; wherefore also that holy thing being born shall be called Son of God.

See v. 19 on “answering.” Mary’s question is fully and completely answered, and there is no intimation that there was an impropriety in her asking it. In fact, it seems as if the angel purposely left out this vital point in his announcement and thus induced Mary’s question in order to state this point the more emphatically, for it is absolutely essential in the proper conception of Mary’s son, our Savior. This angel’s word answers the question of the entire church as to how the Savior could be born of a virgin, and the answer is adequate in every way. Hence the church has always confessed “conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary.”

The conception was a miracle—and all who reject miracles will find some other way to interpret the angel’s word. All who want a Savior without deity will do the same. A son who was conceived by Mary through Joseph, conceived before their marriage was consummated, or a bastard who was conceived through somebody else (the Jews called him Penthara), is seemingly more to their liking than God’s Son born of the Virgin Mary. Two things are certain: the texts of Matthew and of Luke still stand, and the sense of what they record also stands; all efforts to the contrary only make these facts stand out the more.

It is unwarranted to declare that ΠνεῦμαἍγιον does not here come under the rule that proper nouns and names may or may not have the article, hence that the third person of the Godhead is here not referred to but only a holy spirit power as opposed to the flesh in ordinary conception. “Holy Spirit” is freely used either way in the Greek, with or without articles. Matthew writes twice (1:18, 20) that Mary’s conception was ἐκΠνεύματοςἉγίου. Mary’s power to conceive was derived (ἐκ) from the divine Spirit.

In Luke’s account the angel takes us a step farther: the Spirit “shall come upon thee.” And even this is made plainer: “the Highest’s power shall overshadow thee.” Farther than this the miracle could not be revealed, for the human mind could not follow farther. The points are these: the conception shall be caused by the third person of the Godhead; he shall not operate from a distance but shall himself come upon Mary; he shall work the conception by his almighty power; and this shall occur when, like the Shekinah (Exod. 40:34–38), the power shall overshadow Mary. Just as Πνεῦμαᾍγιον is not indefinite (it is used without articles throughout this chapter), so also δύναμιςὑψίστου is not indefinite. On the latter compare the parallel expression υἱὸςὑψίστου in v. 31; it is the genitive that makes the noun definite.

There is only one power of the Highest, his omnipotence. This power belongs to the Spirit as well as to the other persons. There is no reason for regarding “the power of the Highest” as denoting the power of the Son instead of that of the Spirit so that the eternal Son overshadowed Mary and wrought his own conception by his omnipotence. This would certainly militate against Matthew’s twice-repeated ἐκ and would make the Spirit’s part in the act only secondary, merely sanctifying Mary or the ovum used in the conception by the Son. The entire conception was wrought by the omnipotent operation of the Holy Spirit.

Beyond this we cannot go. All else is impenetrable. But we should remember that an ordinary, human conception is also, in spite of all our science, as great a mystery as ever—a new person, an immortal soul suddenly comes into existence. We who cannot penetrate this everyday miracle should not feel aggrieved when the miracle of the incarnation of the second person of the Godhead is veiled in mystery for us. The divine record presents the facts and no more.

Why the Spirit wrought this conception and not the Father or the Son we may not ask; we are compelled to stop with the fact. Why he proceeded as he did, coming upon Mary, etc., we again may not ask; the facts must suffice, and even these are in reality beyond us. But John 1:13 (rightly interpreted, not with reference to the believers, but to the conception of the Logos—see the author’s commentary) points out the corollaries: “of God,” i.e., of the Spirit, hence not of blood or mere human life, not of the will of the flesh or our human nature, and not of the will of man (male) in copulation—three ἐκ negatived by the one positive ἐκ (like the two in Matthew). Pagan mythologies may claim divine birth for some of their heroes, but we cannot place the incarnation of God’s Son into that category. Look at what those heroes were, then look at what Jesus was; and remember that the method of Jesus was, not to proclaim his deity in advance, but to let men discover it by their experience with his person and his work (John 1:14; also 1:47–51).

After stating the divine how of Mary’s conception and making it entirely a divine work that is infinitely above ordinary conceptions the angel states in the most exact terms who the son who shall be thus conceived shall be. We need not put a future sense into the present participle γεννώμενον, “that which is to be born”; it merely describes the unborn child: “being born.” This word should not be translated “being begotten.” Jesus was conceived but not begotten. The view that the Holy Ghost took the place of the human father and supplied the male seed to fructify the ovum is false in toto. The incarnation was vastly beyond this, for the eternal Logos became flesh. This pre-existent person was conceived by a direct divine act, without a sexual act or any substitute therefor.

The construction of the A. V. is correct over against that of the R. V. It is τὸἅγιον that is modified by γεννώμενον, not the reverse, nor is ἅγιον to be the name of the one who is to be born of Mary. He who shall be called “God’s Son” needs no second name, and the neuter ἅγιον is not a name, especially when it is placed beside the masculine ΥἱὸςΘεοῦ. When Jesus is called “the Holy One,” this term is never neuter.

Note the absence of καί, which is not explained by saying that “God’s Son” rises above “holy.” The verb “shall be called” is the same as it was in v. 32; and “God’s Son” is the same as “the Highest’s Son” in that verse. The sense is that he shall be called what he really is. The translation “a Son of God,” one of a number of such sons, is not justified by the absence of the Greek article before “Son” just as little as the absence of the article with Spirit means “a spirit.” All that the angel has said makes certain in what sense “God’s Son” is meant.

He says that Mary’s son shall be called “God’s Son,” not that he shall call himself “God’s Son.” Much has been made of the fact that Jesus did not keep calling himself God’s Son, and this is extended to the assertion that he never called himself by this name. Jesus had the good sense to let people recognize his deity by their experience with him. The angel seems to refer to this when he says that Jesus shall be called God’s Son. The agent involved in the passive verb is not named. But the fact is that Jesus was most decidedly called God’s Son by many people, by his own Father from heaven, by Gabriel in this chapter, and by himself every time he spoke of his Father and finally when he was asked a question under oath (Matt. 26:63–65 plus 27:43).

As already stated, “God’s Son” is not identical with the title “Messiah.” The latter expresses office, the former being. God’s Son was the Messiah, i.e., he had this office; but he was God’s Son long before he assumed that office. An unwarranted view is that Jesus became God’s Son only by his wonderful birth; but for that he could not have been considered God’s Son. “Only-begotten” is also understood in this way: the only one ever begotten in this way, i.e., of a virgin, and thus God’s Son. But this denies the pre-existence of the Logos, destroys the essence of the incarnation, and leaves us with a Savior who, aside from what he may be called, is in reality no more than a man. It may be well to add here as was done in v. 15 that the three persons in the Godhead are mentioned before Jewish ears without the least explanation as being perfectly known. This is the regular practice and contradicts the assumption that the Old Testament revealed the Holy Trinity only faintly (or not at all).

Luke 1:36

36 The angel continues: And lo, Elisabeth, thy relative, has herself also conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month for her who is called barren; because with God nothing shall be impossible.

What the angel adds is plainly intended to aid and to confirm Mary’s faith. The degree of relationship that is expressed by ἡσυγγενίςσου is quite uncertain. Zahn combines it with the close acquaintance that is evidenced in v. 39, etc., and thinks this sufficient to prove that Mary, like Elisabeth, was a descendant of Aaron, the daughter of a priest, and by no means a descendant of David. The daughter of a priest could have any number of relatives who were not at all of priestly connection. It is fruitless to assail the actual Davidic descent of Jesus.

The angel points out the miraculous thing that has happened to Elisabeth, that she who had come to be called barren by all who knew her had now in her old age conceived; and though the child is yet unborn, the angel calls it “a son”—sufficient evidence that it is Gabriel who speaks to Mary. By mentioning Elisabeth who is now in her sixth month, well on toward the day of birth, the angel silently suggests to Mary the very thing she now undertakes, namely a visit to her aged relative. It is certainly thoughtful to point Mary to this one person to whom she might freely confide her tremendous secret. She could not speak to Joseph who needed far more than her word (Matt. 1:20), still less to any others in Nazareth.

Luke 1:37

37 The added ὅτι clause states the great reason that underlies what has occurred in the case of Elisabeth and is now to occur in the case of Mary in a far higher manner: “nothing shall be impossible with God.” This rendering of the A. V. regards ῥῆμα in the sense of the Hebrew dabar, which was current also as a Greek colloquialism, “a thing or matter mentioned.” It goes back to the LXX’s translation of Gen. 18:14, which is exactly the same except that the words are there a question and have the interrogative particle μή; but they are uttered to Sarah in connection with the promise of her having a son. The future tense of the verb may well be a rendering of the Hebrew imperfect. Of course, οὐ … πᾶν means “nothing,” R. 752. The sense is that nothing that comes from God (παρά) shall be impossible. On this assured fact Mary may rest her faith.

The other rendering, “for no word from God shall (will) be void of power” (R. V.; R., Tr.), disagrees with the meaning of the verb as it is used in Matt. 17:20 and especially in Gen. 18:14, LXX.

Luke 1:38

38 Now Mary said, Lo, the slave-maid of the Lord! May it be to me according to thy utterance. And the angel went away from her.

The angel left Zacharias dumb, he leaves Mary with a full, calm, deliberate word of assent. Her final reply is so brief, yet so beautiful and spiritually quite perfect. The exclamation “lo” marks the depth of her feeling. Think to what she was consenting! “Handmaid” in the A.V. is beautiful and refined but inadequate. Mary pronounces herself “the slave-maid” of Yahweh (κύριος as throughout this chapter). She is Jehovah’s willing property for him to use as he in his covenant grace desires; she declares this of herself. The translations do well to insert no “I am.”

In γένοιτο we have one of the few optatives that are found in the Koine, it is here the optative of wish: “may it be to me.” It is thus volitive—Mary wills that what the angel has said to her may come to pass; κατά means in exact accord with the utterance (ῥῆμα) that has fallen from his lips. This is holy submission, mighty confidence, blessed readiness—all this in one so young whereas the saintly old Zacharias, while serving in the Sanctuary itself, stumbled at far less.

39, 40) Now in those days Mary, having risen, went into the hill country with haste, to a city Juda, and entered into the house of Zacharias and saluted Elisabeth.

Mary did not wait long before hastening to Elisabeth although the journey was one of some distance. The circumstantial participle ἀναστᾶσα, “having risen,” is not necessary, but the use of such participles is very customary in narratives; Luke loves this verb and uses it 60 times. It is found only 22 times in the rest of the New Testament. We have no means of knowing how Mary traveled, whether alone or not. Luke says that she went “with haste.” She had no reason to linger on the way, and her desire to see Elisabeth was strong. But we should not say that she was anxious to verify the angel’s word—that needed no verification for her.

The ὀρεινή is the hill country of Judea over against the plain and level land, especially that on the coast; it is not the Oreine, one of the ten toparchies of Pliny’s time, about the boundaries of which we know nothing. But what is meant by εἰςπόλινἸούδα? Many say “into a city of Judea,” but when Luke refers to the province he writes Ἰουδαία (10 times in the Gospel, 12 times in the Acts). Moreover, the hill country takes in less territory than Judea (1:65) and includes fewer cities than the entire province. The most likely sense is “into a city (named) Juda.” Luke has a number of instances in which he thus combines “city” with the name of the city (2:4; Acts 11:5; 16:14; 27:8). The trouble is that we know of no city by this name; many are willing to accept the traveler Reland’s conjecture that Juttah is meant (Josh. 15:55; 21:16) which was about 8 miles south of Hebron. Ἀσπάζομαι is any form of greeting or farewell which began with loving embrace and ended with words. In this instance the salutation must have been fervent.

Luke 1:41

41 And it came to pass when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe in her womb leaped, and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit, etc.

This occurred at the moment when Elisabeth heard the greeting and recognized that it came from Mary. Then the babe stirred and struggled in her womb. Many attribute this phenomenon to the mother’s sudden excitement at seeing Mary and make it an ordinary case of what is called quickening, which usually begins at about six months. They make the joy mentioned in v. 44 the exciting cause. But v. 15 leads to a different conclusion, namely that Elisabeth’s unborn babe was at this moment also filled with the Holy Spirit and thus came to leap in his mother’s body. Then Elisabeth, too, was filled with the Spirit and burst into prophetic language.

If any interaction is implied in Luke’s words, it is that of the babe upon its mother, not the reverse. When the one mother recognized the other, the unborn forerunner felt his Master’s presence and was himself filled with the Spirit, and that Spirit then filled also his mother. The latter fact had to be stated especially to make plain how Elisabeth could speak as she did, for only through the Spirit’s revelation could she have this astounding knowledge which went far beyond anything that Zacharias knew and could have communicated to her, and far beyond any deductions she could draw from the movement of the child in her body.

It is worth while to note that the Holy Spirit actually filled an unborn babe (v. 15), and that the babe even responded to the Spirit’s presence and gracious power. It is unwarranted, then, to assume that spiritual effects can be wrought only when the mind is already developed so as to be able to understand to some degree. Observe that the unborn child is called τὸβρέφος, which shows that τὰβρέφη mentioned in 18:15 were “infants” indeed and yet could and did receive a spiritual blessing from Jesus. The power of grace in the Spirit is by no means limited as men may argue and conclude.

We have no reason to think that either Elisabeth or Mary spoke while in an ecstatic condition. Luke tells us regarding the former that she was filled with the Holy Spirit (ΠνεῦμαἍγιον without articles as in v. 15 and 35), the genitive after a verb of filling. The agent in the passive is God. As a child of God Elisabeth was already filled with the Spirit who moved her to faith and to faithfulness. But the filling of which Luke now speaks is extraordinary, for this time only, charismatic, enabling her to speak prophecy through a revelatory enlightenment. We know only the fact, ἐπλήσθη, historical aorist to state the fact, and the effects, in the verses that follow; it is idle to speculate, theorize, or argue.

Elisabeth spoke by the Spirit’s inspiration, this being one of the numerous instances of this enabling of the Spirit. Yet it would be a mistake to deduce from this instance that all cases of inspiration must have the exact form which that of Elisabeth took with her loud and exultant cry.

Luke 1:42

42And she lifted up her voice with a great shout and said:

Blessed thou among women,

And blessed the fruit of thy womb!

And whence this to me

That the mother of my Lord came to me?

For lo, when the sound of thy salutation came to my ears,

There leaped in exultation the babe in my womb.

And blessed she that did believe,

Because there shall be completion for the things that have been spoken to her from the Lord.

Those who think that the Spirit produced an ecstasy find an indication of it in Elisabeth’s loud voice. But loudness is not an indication of an ecstatic condition. Elisabeth is in full possession of her senses and speaks loudly because of her natural surprise at seeing Mary and because of the exuberant joy that burst from her pent-up heart. But this joy centered about Mary, not about herself; only incidentally does she refer to herself. Without having seen or heard a thing about Mary, now at the sound of her greeting, as in a flash, by the Spirit’s revelation all is perfectly clear to her. This is revelation, making known in a supernatural way; inspiration is quite different, for it is the divine prompting and the divine control of the utterance (or writing). In Elisabeth’s case we have both combined, yet the two are distinct.

It is true that in the words of both Elisabeth and Mary we have Hebrew poetry as R. 998 puts it: “something of Hebrew spirit and form.” This appears in the balance of the lines in both form and thought, which is dimmed somewhat by translation from the original Aramaic into Greek.

“Blessed thou among women,” really means “thou most blessed woman!” The thought is superlative. The Aramaic, having no degrees of comparison, uses such circumlocutions, R. 660. The two present participles denote a continuous state of being blessed, and the unnamed agent in the passive voice is God. His divine blessing rests upon both the mother and her recently conceived child. Her blessedness is the fact that God chose her to be the mother of his Son, and the child’s blessedness consists in the fact that the favor and the concern of God ever rest upon him. We have no reason whatever to reduce εὐλογημένη to mean only “praised,” i.e., spoken well of among men. Nor does Elisabeth utter a mere wish or hope as some suppose; she expresses a great and glorious fact.

Luke 1:43

43 The question introduced by “whence” is rhetorical and expects no answer but voices only Elisabeth’s feeling of unworthiness that she should be honored by a visit of the mother of her Lord. Πόθεν asks, not for the reason “why,” but for the source or origin of this favor. The ἵνα clause after τοῦτο is not consecutive (as R. 998 has it) but subfinal, a nominative apposition to τοῦτο: “this that” (R. 699 and 992). The astonishing thing is the clarity and assurance back of the recognition of Mary as “the mother of my Lord.” In the narrative thus far Κύριος constantly meant Yahweh, but here it suddenly refers to Mary’s babe. Elisabeth uses “my Lord” in the same sense as David does in Ps. 110:1, the Hebrew Adonai, “my Overlord,” my almighty Ruler. Elisabeth is in advance of the whole Christian world, which later on, and also by the Holy Ghost, called Jesus “Lord” in the same sense, 1 Cor. 12:3. How did Elisabeth know that Mary was pregnant, and what had caused that pregnancy?

We have only one answer: the revelation of the Spirit. It meant much for Mary to realize this. God was at work in her case; she had no difficult, incredible revelations to make, God made them for her.

Luke 1:44

44 The explanation introduced by γάρ does not mean that the joyous leaping of Elisabeth’s babe brought her this revelation about Mary, for the reverse is true. The divine revelation affected both Elisabeth and her babe. Its leaping “in exultation” (the same word as that used in v. 14) was the evidence upon the babe of the revelation. That unborn child experienced ἀγαλλίασις at the approach of its incarnate Master. Skeptics may scoff, but the Spirit of God operates without respect to them.

Luke 1:45

45 Καί forms no closer connection than it did in v. 43, and the idea that Elisabeth now makes “an application” to Mary cannot be based on so slight a basis. “Happy” (R., Tr.) is too weak a translation for μακαρία although to translate it “blessed” confuses this adjective with the participles used in v. 42. This word recalls ’ashre used in Ps. 1:1 and also heads the Beatitudes in Matt. 5:3, etc. It is exclamatory: “O the blessedness of her!” etc. It at the same time expresses a judgment whereas in v. 43 the participle expresses a fact. A judgment on the part of Elisabeth would not be important, but one on the part of the Spirit, speaking through Elisabeth, is another matter. The adjective denotes the happy condition of those who are divinely favored.

God’s part in producing this condition is expressed by the ὅτι clause. Its subjective side precedes in the designation ἡπιστεύσασα, the aorist feminine participle to indicate Mary’s one act of faith: “she that did believe” at the moment the divine words were spoken to her. The verb πιστεύειν is used in its usual sense, “to trust,” to rely upon in full confidence. Any idea of credulity is absent, for confidence is placed only on divinely assured grounds. Hence not to believe is both folly and guilt, it treats the divine assurance as lies. Elisabeth’s beatitude recalls the one found in John 20:29, which also deals with faith.

R., W. P., is quite alone in judging that ὅτι may here be either “that” or “because,” either giving us the contents of what Mary believed or the eventuality which will most surely justify her faith. The contents of the clause fit only the latter, hence our versions rightly translate “because.”

Elisabeth is not reporting what Mary believed but prophesying what Mary will yet come to see; hence she uses the future ἔσται which does not fit the aorist πιστεύσασα. Elisabeth is not referring merely to the preliminary τελείωσις or completion in Mary’s miraculous conception but, as the plural “for the things that have been spoken to her” shows, to the completion of all that was thus spoken “from the Lord” (Yahweh) through the angel. Elisabeth is repeating and endorsing the angel’s prophecies about the person, nature, and work of Mary’s son. In τελείωσις there lies the idea of τέλος or goal. The ultimate goal of all that the angel had spoken shall be reached. What was begun in the conception should never end in the eons (v. 33), and that would be the completion.

Elisabeth speaks as if she herself had heard the angel’s words. But for Mary to hear her refer to them in this astounding way, to declare their positive fulfillment to the very end, and to hear this as not being addressed unto her but being spoken in the third person as if being addressed unto God himself by Elisabeth’s faith, must have been a mighty uplift to her faith and sweet comfort and assurance for her soul. The fact that Elisabeth spoke by revelation as well as by inspiration must have been certain to Mary.

Luke 1:46

46And Mary said:

Magnify doth my soul the Lord,

And jubilate did my spirit over God, my Savior;

Because he looked upon the humbleness of his slave-maid;

For lo, from now on shall all generations pronounce me blessed.

Because the Mighty One did great things for me;

And holy his name;

And his mercy unto generations and generations

For those fearing him.

He wrought strength with his arm,

He scattered men haughty with respect to the reasoning of their heart.

He threw down potentates from thrones and exalted humble ones.

Hungry ones he filled with good things, and rich ones he sent away empty.

He took hold to help his servant Israel

In order to remember mercy

(Even as he spoke to our fathers)

For Abraham and for his seed for the eon.

We have printed four verses of four lines each and followed the text of Westcott and Hort, a division of the hymn that is preferable to any other. “And Mary said” hints at no divine inspiration; neither this nor revelation were needed for the contents of this hymn. Unlike that of Elisabeth, it contains no prophecy and no proof of knowledge that is supernaturally communicated. Elisabeth’s hymn is directed to Mary, and properly so; Mary’s to God, and again most properly. Elisabeth’s is a continuation of Gabriel’s address to Mary, Mary’s a continuation and an expansion of her brief reply to Gabriel. While Mary’s is most beautiful in phrase and form it is on a lower level than Elisabeth’s. Mary herself furnishes no cause for Mariolatry.

She merely glorifies and praises God for all that he has done and takes a broad view of his saving work. Her hymn is called the Magnificat from the first word of its Latin translation.

Already Mary’s first line announces her theme: she magnifies Yahweh (Κύριος). The verbs used in the first three lines are placed forward for the sake of emphasis. To magnify is to make great and glorious by what we say of a person. We may magnify men too highly, but all our magnifying will not express fully the greatness and the glory of God.

Some are inclined to make no difference between “soul” and “spirit,” are even afraid of getting into trichotomy, and are made uneasy by the latest psychology. But the difference is there without trichotomy and irrespective of anything psychologists may say. It runs throughout Scripture in its use of these terms. But in the Greek the difference between ψυχή and πνεῦμα is much greater than that between “soul” and “spirit” in the English. We see this when we note ψυχικός, a derivative of ψυχή that means “carnal” without even a remote English equivalent that is derived from “soul.” “Soul” is nearer to “spirit,” ψυχή farther away from πνεῦμα. Both denote the one immaterial part of man while the material is expressed by the word σῶμα, the body—hence dichotomy.

But ψυχή designates this immaterial part as animating the body (hence it is at times translated “life”) and thus being influenced by the body while πνεῦμα designates the same immaterial part as it is directed upward to God and the heavenly world and is capable of receiving impressions from above. When Mary says that her soul magnifies the Lord she refers to her ψυχή as animating her body, the very soul life that throbs in her body and its members.

Luke 1:47

47 With that there, of course, goes her spirit (πνεῦμα), which not only magnifies and tries to tell the greatness of God but exults over him as the great Σωτήρ, the Savior, from whom flows the whole σωτηρία or salvation, who rescues and delivers out of mortal danger (sin, guilt, damnation) and places into a permanent state of safety. “Savior” is the key to Mary’s song, and by this one word she reveals most clearly that she understands God’s plan regarding her great son. Observe the noun in v. 14 and 44, the verb for which appears here.

While some of Mary’s expressions recall Old Testament language, this is not the case in the first stanza. As a Jewess she, of course, uses Yahweh and Elohim (translated Κύριος and Θεός) but on her own account adds “Savior,” which defines in a far stronger way what “my (our) God” means in the Old Testament (who exercises his God power in my—our—favor). The aorist ἠγαλλίασε, “did jubilate,” needs no peculiar explanation such as that it denotes the moment before she opened her lips. Exultation filled her spirit from the first moment onward when Gabriel’s message came to her.

Luke 1:48

48 Mary herself says this when as the reason for her exultation she states: because God, her Savior, “looked upon the humbleness of his slave-maid.” The aorist expresses the simple historical fact. God did this when he sent Gabriel to her. We may as well say right here that all the aorists that follow and refer to God’s deeds are of the same kind; they record past facts and are ordinary historical aorists, and the effort to make them or any one of them timeless is misdirected. “Looked upon” means as much as noticed and implies that her humble estate was unworthy for the Lord even to regard her in any way. In v. 38 Mary called herself the Lord’s δούλη or “slave-maiden,” which idea she repeats here and connects with her ταπείνωσις, “humbleness” or humble condition, about which she had no illusions.

These words resemble somewhat those of Hannah’s prayer for a child recorded in 1 Sam. 1:11; but everything is so different in the situations that we cannot agree to the thought that Mary was recalling Hannah’s words. Luther translates unansehnliehes Wesen and writes: “God has looked upon me poor, despised, lowly maid, where he could easily have found a rich, high, noble, mighty queen, a daughter of princes and great lords; so he might have found Annas’ and Caiaphas’ daughter, who were the highest in the country, but upon me he cast his pure, good eyes and used such a lowly, despised maid that no one should boast before him that he would have been or was worthy,” etc. The Reformer shows that it is one thing to recognize properly one’s actual low estate and altogether another merely to act lowly. The latter is a manufactured humility; it is like carrying water and pouring it into a dry well, the former like water that is naturally flowing out of a spring. Queen Esther wore a fine crown, but it was no better to her than a common shawl—she was undeceived as to her lowliness.

In the last line of this first stanza the exclamation “lo” draws attention to the astonishing fact that one generation after another shall call Mary blessed. When did anything like this ever happen before or after this time? The causal “for” (γάρ) regards this result of God’s looking upon Mary as evidence and proof of the fact that he did look upon her. We can see that he did when we hear these continuous beatifications through the ages. “From now on” means exactly what the phrase says. Elisabeth had spoken openly of Mary’s secret and had begun to call her “blessed.” She took up, we may say, the angel’s greeting spoken in v. 28. Mary sees that this beginning which is now being made by Elisabeth will be continued by “all generations.” Her secret will cease to be a secret when her son is born and steps forth as the Messiah. He will rule over David’s kingdom among men, and thus all generations shall know him.

This is not prophecy on the part of Mary but acceptance of Gabriel’s message (v. 32, etc.) and a simple deduction. Luther is right when he says that “all generations” does not refer to the masses of each succeeding generation but to the succession itself, so that he translates alle Kindeskind, father, son, son’s son, etc. We have no need to think of the unbelievers, the deniers of the Virgin birth, or of the Mary worshippers. When Mary says that so many “shall pronounce me blessed” (μακαριοῦσι, Attic future) she is, of course, not basking in future human praise. What she has already said and what follows show that she means that men shall praise her for the grace vouchsafed to her. Luther is very keen on this point and castigates the Romanists for lauding the virtue and the merit of Mary when she thinks only of her low estate and thus make her a liar and rob us of the example and of the comfort contained in it, that as God looked in grace upon her lowliness he will do so with ours also if we appear before him in a similar spirit.

Luke 1:49

49 In the first stanza the note is Mary’s lowliness, in the second the great things done for her—a striking contrast. In the first stanza God is revealed as Savior, but in the second we hear of his might, holiness, and mercy. The two stanzas are properly linked by “because,” in the second showing the basis for the first. God looked upon Mary’s lowliness when he did great things for her. In the Greek the emphasis is on the verb and the subject, a construction that it is too difficult to reproduce in English. The aorist refers to the definite past act when God selected her as the mother of his Son and carried this selection into effect. Since this occurred recently, the English would use the perfect, R. 842.

The plural in “great things” spreads out the act in all its parts: choosing Mary, sending Gabriel, causing the miraculous conception, revealing the mystery to Elisabeth. All the items are truly great, but they are left with a beautiful veil of reticence, without closer specification. In ὁδυνατός the adjective is substantivized: “the Mighty One” who is possessed of power and ability and is thus able, indeed, to do great things. But God’s might is never merely quiescent like that of a mighty king who is sitting and doing nothing, his might is ceaselessly active.

The “name” of God which Mary calls holy is the revelation by which he makes himself known to us. Without that revelation we should not know him at all. To say, then, that his name is holy is to say that the revelation he has made of himself describes him as being holy, the absolute opposite of sin and the absolute antagonism against sin. In his holiness God is thus separate, and all else who are holy are likewise separate, namely unto God. Mary’s word refers to v. 35: “The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee … that holy thing being born of thee,” etc. Mary has her conception in mind when she speaks of the name’s holiness. It was wrought by God’s holy power and was utterly separated from the sin and sinfulness of man.

Luke 1:50

50 As the first “and” connects the holiness with the great things mentioned in the preceding line, so this second “and” adds the mercy to the holiness. The punctuation found in our versions obscures this by giving v. 50 an independent position. Although God’s holiness separates the conception from every connection with sin, this miracle, nevertheless, belongs to God’s mercy, ἔλεος as distinguished from χάρις or grace. Grace is love toward those who do not deserve it because of their guilt; mercy is love toward those who are in misery as a result of their sin and guilt. When the mercy is here stressed, the grace is not excluded, the contrary is rather true; for the mercy always presupposes the grace and rests upon it. Mary’s conception of this mercy is a favor that extends “unto generations and generations,” which Luther renders waehret immer fuer und fuer.

It does not appear now and then but goes on and on in the succession of the generations of men who are made wretched by sin. The idea is that the conception of the Messiah lies in this mercy line; all God’s mercy during past generations led up to this crowning mercy, and all God’s mercy throughout coming generations flows from this supreme mercy.

This mercy follows a certain channel: “for those fearing him” (present tense, the qualitative participle substantivized). This is the fear that is so much spoken of in the Old but also in the New Testament (Rom. 3:18; 2 Cor. 7:1; Eph. 5:11; etc.). It denotes the awe which fills the heart and reflects itself in the bearing of those who recognize aright God’s majesty and greatness. His power, holiness, and righteousness deter them from treating him and his commandments lightly by disobedience whereas his love, grace, and mercy move them to honor and to obey him with childlike reverence. The fear is childlike, not slavish. Fundamentally there is no difference between fear in the Old and in the New Testament; in both fear involves faith, childhood, and willing obedience.

The mercy of God is therefore said to be on them that fear him. The rest have spurned that mercy, which tried to bless also them. The Greek has only the dativus commodi. As the generations follow each other they shall always have those who fear God, and these shall be the bearers of his mercy.

Luke 1:51

51 Are the aorists used here timeless, stating what God does at any time; or prophetic, stating what is yet to be as if it were already done; or just ordinary historical aorists, stating what God has actually done? We see no reason for assuming anything but the last. Mary’s hymn broadens. After the last two lines of the preceding stanza, which speak of the mercy for all generations, she goes on to what God has done with his mighty arm all along in history. The κράτος is power and strength in outward manifestation; and the use of ποιεῖν with this noun means to exercise such strength. Hence there is the anthropomorphitic addition “with his arm,” ἐν indicating that the mighty display of strength is located “in” God’s arm. Mary is evidently elaborating what she means by “the Mighty One” used in v. 49.

God’s wonderful display of strength is now unfolded in detail. It is exercised first upon “men haughty with respect to the reasoning of their hearts.” The absence of the article stresses the quality of the substantivized adjective ὑπερηφάνους, “men who show themselves above others,” here in the evil sense, “haughty,” arrogant. The added dative διανοίᾳ is not one of means as though God scattered them “by” their reasoning (R. V. margin) but a dative of relation: proud with regard to their reasoning.

In the Greek the “heart” is conceived as the seat of the soul life, its thought, emotion, and will. So the picture we get is one of arrogant skeptics, haughty scientists, supercilious philosophers, and their imitators among the small fry, who are not only inwardly puffed up but try to lord it over humble believers by attacking God, his Word, any part of its teaching, and the Christian faith as being false and foolish. These God “scattered,” διά in the verb adds the idea of completeness. Ps. 2:1–5 furnishes a fine example; compare Ps. 37:35, 36. Luther: “When the bladder is full, and everybody thinks they are on top and have won, and they themselves also are secure and have brought it to an end, then God pricks a hole in the bladder, and it is all over with.” When the truth steps forth in its might, all the advocates of lies take to cover. As long as the truth seems to remain in retirement, they strut about in arrogance. The eternal power of God backs up his truth to the everlasting discomfiture and scatterment of all haughty lies.

Luke 1:52

52 In this verse and in the following verses Mary contrasts the power of God as it is directed toward the wicked and toward the godly; the arrangement of the clauses is chiastic: potentates, humble ones—hungry ones, rich ones. In the case of all four the articles are again missing, which causes the emphasis to rest completely on the terms themselves: such as are potentates, etc. Mary is carrying her own case to its ultimate conclusion; the fact that the Lord looked upon her humbleness is in accord with all his dealings with men.

The idea that by making her the mother of the Messiah God has virtually

done all that is stated by the aorists used in v. 51–55 sounds attractive; yet this would make them all prophetic aorists, and we have no reason to think that Mary is prophesying. Moreover, God’s action in the future, under the reign of the Messiah, will be no different from his reign in the past. So Mary says: just as God has always done, so he has now done with me in the most notable way. In both clauses the thought contrasts the verb and the object. “Potentates on thrones” seem mighty secure, but God “threw them down” (καθαιρέω); “humble ones” (ταπεινοῦς, recalling ταπείνωσις in v. 47, used regarding Mary herself) seem to be regarded by no one, but God “exalted them.” The few Old Testament parallels that have been found are of little importance for establishing the truth of Mary’s words. 1 Cor. 1:26–29 is more important as stating the very rule that God follows in these dealings.

Luke 1:53

53 “The hungry ones” and “the rich ones” are not two new classes but the same two that have been mentioned, but as viewed under a different aspect. We should be warned against spiritualizing all the terms used here and against making them nothing but physical designations. The two are not distinguished. As regards the hunger that is more than physical, observe that God satisfies it “with good things” (Ps. 103:5), the genitive after a verb of filling, a term that is so broad as to include anything that we may need. The verb is equally strong: “he filled” until the vessel could hold no more. Let us recall Luther’s word about all gifts being valueless without the gracious will of God behind them; also the constant Scriptural use of terms like “the poor,” “the hungry,” etc., to designate those, whatever their earthly station may be, who seek for divine satisfaction. What the Beatitudes predicate of the future Mary predicates of the past.

As πεινῶντας, “hungering ones,” so also πλουτοῦντας, “being rich ones,” is the characterizing present participle which describes the state of these persons. The latter are those who are rich, but not in God, who are satisfied with what they have whether it be pelf or science or moral excellence or “works” of their own hands in self-righteousness. God can never tolerate the self-sufficient, hence “he sent them away empty,” κενούς, in the sense of having no substance, of being hollow. The more they have of the wealth they prize, the emptier and the more hollow they are. God does not even need to take their riches away, their very continuance may develop into the completest disappointment. In the verb “he sent them away” there lies the thought that, because they would not listen in the time of grace, God finally put them where they should never obtain the true riches. Without God’s grace no man can be rich.

Luke 1:54

54 In the final stanza Mary magnifies God’s grace because he fulfilled his promise to Israel. The middle voice of ἀντιλαμβάνω means to take hold of something or of somebody and in that way to help, and, like the verbs of touch, it is construed with the genitive. “Israel” is by no means just the Jews as a nation or people: “they are not all Israel, which are of Israel,” Rom. 9:6. This term emphasizes the covenant relation, which was, indeed, intended for all the descendants of Jacob but was realized only in those who were true to Jacob’s faith. This true Israel is Jehovah’s παῖς, which means “servant,” the Hebrew ebed, which is never used with reference to sonship, not even when it is used with reference to Christ as it is in the Acts. As God’s “servant” Israel was to do his will in all things and to find the highest blessing in that.

In what way the Lord laid hold to help Israel is indicated by the infinitive clause “in order to remember mercy,” etc. It is better to regard this as an infinitive of purpose (our versions) than as an infinitive of result (R. 1001) or as an epexegetical infinitive (R. 1086). In other words, what God had done for Mary was a plain intimation of his purpose to remember (effective aorist) his promise to Abraham. It was a remembering of “mercy,” i.e., to carry his mercy into effect; see v. 50 on ἔλεος. To some it probably seemed that God had forgotten, but when the time comes, God always remembers as he did here.

Luke 1:55

55 The A. V. combines: “as he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed forever.” But it will not do to connect “forever” with “he spake,” besides, “to our fathers” has a preposition whereas “Abraham and his seed” are simple datives. “As he spoke to our fathers” is parenthetical. God had all along told the fathers through the prophets that he would effectively remember, i.e., redeem the promise made to Abraham. Mary notes this because the remembering has actually occurred in the miracle of her conception.

The datives used in the last line are dativi commodi: “to remember mercy for Abraham and for his seed.” Note that this puts Abraham and his seed together, all the coming generations of his true children as well as all the past. The gift of the Messiah is intended equally for them all. We should expect a durative instead of a punctiliar (aorist) tense for “remember” since it is modified by “forever.” The matter becomes clear when we note that the one act of remembering consisted in making Mary the mother of the Messiah, whose rule of grace would last εἰςτὸναἰῶνα, “for the eon,” the Greek way of saying “forever” (see v. 33, the singular extends to the last day whereas the plural “eons” goes beyond even that day). God’s promise, once remembered in fulfillment, would send its effects to all his children for the entire eon or world age. And thus Mary’s song reaches its fitting end.

Luke 1:56

56 Now Mary remained with her about three months and returned to her home.

The aorists record merely the facts. Mary remained nearly to the time of Elisabeth’s confinement (v. 36 six and now about three months). We judge that Mary hastens home because she wanted to avoid the people who would soon throng the house of Elisabeth.

Luke 1:57

57 Now for Elisabeth the time was fulfilled that she give birth, and she bore a son.

The aorists again state the simple facts. On the fulfillment of the time compare 2:6. The infinitive with τοῦ is like a genitive noun modifying “time”: “the time to be giving birth (present tense) was fulfilled.” In accord with the angel’s word “she bore a son” and not a daughter.

Luke 1:58

58 And her neighbors and her relations heard that the Lord magnified his mercy with her and were rejoicing with her.

The neighbors who lived around her (περί in the noun) heard the news first and are thus mentioned before the relatives who lived in various places. There is no reference to v. 14, the joy of many over the birth of John, for these people rejoiced over Elisabeth because she was relieved of her barrenness. In ἔλεος (see v. 50) Yahweh considered Elisabeth’s grief over her barrenness; he took that away with his “mercy.” The aorist “he magnified” simply states the past fact without putting it into its relation with the time when the people heard the news; in English we should want to express this relation by using the past perfect “had magnified.” God magnifies his mercy when he lets it shine out in notable merciful deeds. “They were rejoicing with her,” αὐτῇ because of σύν in the verb, is properly the durative imperfect to express continuous rejoicing.

Luke 1:59

59 And it came to pass on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child, and they tried to call it after the name of its father, Zacharias.

The neighbors and the relations are referred to (v. 58), who were invited for this festive occasion. Circumcision was by law fixed for the eighth day (Gen. 17:12) and was combined with the bestowal of a name. Circumcision was the Abrahamitic covenant act by which the boy was entered in that covenant—not a mere sign or symbol that pointed to an entry at some other time. On ἐγένετο followed by a finite verb compare v. 8. The imperfect ἐκάλουν is ingressive: “began or tried to call,” with the connotation that something intervened; αὐτό is neuter because of to τὸπαιδίον. R. 605 thinks that ἐπί has the notion of a model, but this sounds rather like an explanation of the English “after,” which is our idiom. The Greek makes the father’s name the basis: “on the ground of its father’s name.” It is an old, old custom to give the son the name of his father.

Luke 1:60

60 And its mother answering said (see v. 19), No indeed; but it shall be called John!

We read between the lines: Zacharias must have communicated to Elisabeth in writing all that the angel had told him. Thus Elisabeth did not only know, she believed most fervently. Still unable to rise from her bed, she is the one who promptly and decisively interferes. The strengthened οὐ is an exclamation: “No indeed!” and not a one-member sentence, and not elliptical as R. 391 bis would regard it. Οὐχί is complete in itself. After a negative ἀλλά is our strong “on the contrary”; it puts something opposite to what the negative rejects: “On the contrary, he shall be called John!” Great astonishment must have followed this apodictic declaration.

Luke 1:61

61 And they said to her, There is no one of thy relation who is called by this name.

They meant that Elisabeth therefore had no reason for choosing the name John. We learn incidentally that the child was not to be named after any relative, for he was not to pattern after even the greatest and best of them; he was to have a decidedly new and individual name, one that matched his great career.

Luke 1:62

62 Now they started to nod to its father in regard to what he would want him to be called. And having asked a writing tablet, he wrote, saying, John is his name. And they all marvelled.

The translation “they began to make signs,” which is inexact at best, reads as if Zacharias was deaf as well as dumb, which is a groundless assumption (v. 20). Zacharias had heard everything, and all that the friends did was to nod and to motion toward him, and they may even have spoken to him. The imperfect “started to nod” means that Zacharias made his answer very promptly. By means of the neuter accusative article τό the indirect question is converted into a substantive and is construed as an accusative of general reference: “in regard to this,” what, etc. The indirect question retains the optative of the direct: “what he would wish him to be called,” i.e., if he could speak, a condition of potentiality (εἰ with the optative in the protasis and the optative with ἄν in the apodosis). Since the antecedent of αὐτοῦ with τῷπατρί is still to τὸπαιδίον in v. 59, we have “its father,” but αὐτόν is masculine: “him to be called.”

Luke 1:63

63 Zacharias asked for a writing tablet, which was probably a tablet that had been surfaced with wax, into which a stylus impressed the lines; he most likely did this by making the motion of writing, having for nine months found this the only exact way of speaking to his wife; and so he, too, called the boy’s name John to the wonderment of all those present. The entire affair regarding the child’s name surprised them greatly.

Luke 1:64

64 And opened was his mouth forthwith, also his tongue, and he began speaking, praising God. And fear came upon all those dwelling round about them. And in the whole hill country of Judea all these things continued to be talked back and forth. And all who heard them placed them in their heart, saying, What, then, shall this child be? For also the Lord’s hand was with it.

Zacharias had remained dumb until this moment. Now that he wanted to speak his son’s name his voice came back. The remarkable nature of this occurrence is brought out by the fulness with which the fact is stated. “Opened was” fits “his mouth” as a subject but not “his tongue,” which makes the expression a zeugma. There is no ellipsis, and we are not to translate by supplying a verb to fit “his tongue,” which would destroy the zeugma. Luke wrote as he did because what he writes is perfectly plain as it stands. He now began speaking (R. 885) by praising (R. 1127) God—a thing he failed to do in v. 18, where he voiced unbelief instead until he was now brought to his senses. How Zacharias praised God is reported in full in v. 67, etc.

Luke 1:65

65 The fear that came on all who dwelt around them (αὐτούς, the object of the substantivized participle) was that of awe, a deep impression that God was working here. But the news spread in the entire hill country (the same word that was used in v. 30) of Judea, which is quite a bit of territory. But ῥήματα are not “sayings” (A. V. margin), they are “things” like the singular in v. 37. The imperfect διελαλεῖτο with its διά means: continued to be talked back and forth between (διά) the people, which describes exactly what was done.

Luke 1:66

66 Nor was this mere curious and superficial talk. All who heard these things (the object is supplied from v. 65) “placed them in their heart,” which is more than “took them to heart,” they treasured them in their heart. In the Greek the heart is the center of the personality (compare v. 51); the singular is idiomatic here where many are referred to. How deeply “all these things” affected the people far and wide is indicated by a pertinent expression of theirs when they asked and wondered: “What, then, shall this child be?” i.e., into what kind of a man, doing what kind of work, shall he grow? They wished that they might live to see it.

Opinion is divided regarding the last clause, some regard it to be a remark by Luke, others a part of the expression of the people. Some would cancel γάρ, and Zahn even ἦν, although the reading is fully assured: “for also the Lord’s hand was with him.” We need not cancel the copula in order to get the sense “the Lord’s hand (is) with him.” Luke is reporting what the people said long after the day of circumcision, when the whole story finally came to them; then, looking back, they said that the Lord’s hand “was” with him. “Also” with γάρ adds this as the reason to the facts reported (πάντατὰῥήματαταῦτα). “The Lord’s hand” is his directing and upholding power, and Κύριος is Yahweh.

Luke 1:67

67And Zacharias, his father, was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied, saying:

Blessed the Lord God of Israel!

Because he looked upon and wrought ransoming for his people

And raised up a Horn of Salvation for us

In the home of his servant David

Even as he spoke through the mouth of his holy prophets from the eon,

Salvation from our enemies and from the hand of all hating us;

In order to perform mercy with our fathers

And to remember his holy covenant,

An oath he swore to our father Abraham,

To give to us, fearlessly having been delivered out of our enemies’ hand,

To serve him in holiness and righteousness

In his sight all our days.

“Filled with the Holy Ghost” is explained in v. 41, which see. He could never have uttered what he did by his own natural powers. It was the enabling of the Spirit that produced these prophetic words. As is the case throughout this chapter, we have ΠνεῦμαἍγιον, without the articles, exactly as the proper noun that it is. While “and prophesied” is simply added it states the result of being filled with the Holy Ghost. To prophesy is not merely to foretell the future or to speak in exalted language that resembles psalms but to understand the will and the acts of God in their inner connection and to reveal this connection for the hearers in their present situation and as regards the future.

Thus any man who is moved by the Spirit in the ordinary way may prophesy (1 Cor. 14:1). But in the strict sense to prophesy is to speak as indicated, under the extraordinary influence of the Spirit who is granted for the time being as a special gift so that what is uttered is spoken by inspiration and bears the mark of infallibility.

Not of Elisabeth but only of Zacharias is it said that he prophesied. A comparison shows the marked difference. Elisabeth uttered personal words to Mary, and only her last line has a prophetic touch, whereas the psalm of Zacharias bears the prophetic touch throughout by presenting the great deeds of God with wonderful clarity and revealing his son’s share in them with the same vividness. This is, indeed, the highest type of prophecy. Mary’s psalm is a monologue, and, while it also speaks of God’s deeds, it only presents them with praise; Zacharias addresses God in the third person, and his presentation of God’s deeds is strictly soteriological and thus directly instructive for salvation and hence prophecy. Mary speaks a prayer, Zacharias a sermon in prophecy.

From its first word in the Latin translation it is called the Benedictus. It is composed of only two sentences, each of which is expanded to an unusual length. The Hebrew psalms are always written in simple language and in short sentences. This psalm follows that model but goes beyond it in connecting the lines into two lengthy chains. Hence only one division is justified, that made by Zacharias at the end of the first sentence at v. 75.

Words of praise such as this should have risen to Zacharias’ lips when Gabriel announced his son’s birth. His lips had to be sealed, but when they are now opened, the praise finally rushes forth like a pent-up stream. Zacharias speaks Hebrew poetry, which is not rhymed but rhythmic in the beauty of thought combined with the beauty of balanced expression. Its perfection lies in the exceeding richness, pureness, and loftiness of its religious thought, in the clearness and the fulness of the gospel revelation, and in the perfection with which Old Testament allusion and phraseology are employed.

Where did this humble old priest, bowed with years, obtain such glory of thought and of utterance? Luke has given us the one adequate answer. The imperfect ἐλάλει in v. 64 denotes a continuation of praise to God, and in this psalm we have the first sample. As the audience we imagine all the relatives and the neighbors present (58) and their double astonishment at the sudden return of speech to him and at words of such divinity from his lips.

Luke 1:68

68 The verbal εὐλογητός, like nearly all verbals, has the passive sense, and the implied agent is broad and general. Thus “blessed” means: “let all men bless God,” i.e., speak well of him, εὐλογέω, in the way which he deserves. The first line is an echo of three different psalms: “Blessed be the Lord God of Israel” in 41:13 and in 106:48; and: “Blessed be the Lord God, the God of Israel” in 72:18. ΚύριοςὁΘεός is the same as it was in v. 16 and 32, the Greek for Yahweh Elohim, and the covenant relation, which is expressed already in Yahweh, is made emphatic by the addition of the genitive “of Israel,” i.e., connected with the people of Israel in a special way. The utterance of this impressive name before Israelites called to mind all the greatest events in their past history and all the golden hopes that were based on these events and the promises that were connected with them.

Zacharias at once states the reason (ὅτι, “because”) for calling God blessed: “Because he looked upon and wrought ransoming for his people.” For “look upon,” i.e., with active concern and eagerness to help, compare Exod. 4:31 and Luke 7:16. The object of ἐπεσκέψατο is τὸνλαὸναὐτοῦ, which is drawn from the indirect object (dative) of the second verb. To look upon his people (λαός is often used to indicate the covenant people) does not imply disregard and indifference during the preceding time. God always waits until the fulness of time comes and then acts. Zacharias and true Israelites understood that well.

“He looked upon,” and we may say in order to give the sense, he forthwith did the one thing that was most imperatively needed, “he wrought ransoming for his people,” λύτρωσις, an act of ransoming (Luke 2:38; Acts 7:35). A number of commentators understand the term used here in a broad sense as a reference to redemption in the sense of deliverance, and that from political and national bondage. To say nothing more, if this were the sense, God never wrought that redemption, for in the year 70 the nation was wrecked. The political sense is not supported by the reference to “enemies” in v. 71, for we have no reason to think of political enemies.* Others take a half-way position: Zacharias could not have excluded the political sense. A mixing of the political into the spiritual is untenable.

The word “redemption” and its relatives, as Warfield has shown, have lost much of their original force in present English usage, namely the buying feature; so we translate λύτρωσις by the more precise term “ransoming,” an act of setting free by the payment of a ransom price. In his excellent study even Warfield overlooks the decisive points which establish this sense here. These words are spoken by inspiration of the Holy Spirit and not merely by the Jew Zacharias with any national aspirations that he may have. Almost every concept presented in this psalm cries out against politics by emphasizing the spiritual. Most decisive is v. 77 where the σωτηρία which this λύτρωσις produces is described as occurring ἐνἀφέσειἁμαρτιῶν. This certainly settles the question that we here have the ransoming act of the Messiah referred to.

Calvary does not merely creep in, it holds the entire territory. When God looked upon Israel, its political situation was an entirely minor matter compared with its spiritual need of a ransoming act to free it from sin and guilt. God wrought (ποιεῖν) his ransoming act by sending the Ransomer and by having him pay the ransom or price and thus effecting the liberation. “For his people,” like “for us” in v. 69, refers to Israel, yet in the sense of the old prophets as this is expressed by Jesus: “Salvation is of the Jews.” Though many Jews spurned that salvation, Jesus bought also them, 2 Pet. 2:1.

Luke 1:69

69 We are not ready to call ἤγειρεν a prophetic aorist for the simple reason that the Redeemer had already been conceived (Ps. 132:17). Zacharias uses the image of the horn, the instrument of strength in many animals (Ps. 18:2, for instance) and thus the symbol of power (1 Kings 22:11). When it is used in the symbolic way it is always used in the singular and hence is drawn, not from two-horned beasts, but from the mythical unicorn, Ps. 92; 103; Isa. 34:7. The qualitative genitive σωτηρίας describes the character of this “horn”: its power is to rescue and save. Since a person is referred to he is here described as a most powerful Savior. Jesus is referred to, and to attribute political saving to him is out of the question. Σωτηρία here has its full spiritual sense.

God raised up this mighty Savior “in the house of his servant David” (παῖς as in v. 54 and throughout the New Testament in the sense of “servant”). “His servant David” intimates the high position which David held with the Lord God. Raising up the Horn of Salvation in the house of David must mean that Jesus is an actual descendant of David (compare Ps. 89:4 and all the promises made to David), and that Mary is the medium of this descent. The effort to prove that “in the house of David” means no more than the legal connection of Jesus with his Davidic foster-father is misdirected.

Luke 1:70

70 In v. 68, 69 Zacharias summarized the promises given by the prophets and presented the very heart of their gracious messages. He therefore now adds: “Even as he spoke through the mouth of his holy prophets from the eon.” It has been well said: “Zacharias believed in verbal inspiration and in Messianic prophecy.” His words, which were spoken by inspiration of the Holy Spirit (v. 67), are the Holy Spirit’s own testimony that God spoke through the lips of the prophets. This is the Scripture definition of verbal inspiration: God speaks and uses the mouth of the prophets as his medium (διά, this preposition is regularly so used in the New Testament). The old dogmaticians, therefore, say correctly: God is the causa efficiens, and the prophets, etc., are the causæ instrumentales (thus expounding this διά). The prophets are “holy” as God’s instruments, their work sanctifies them.

The phrase ἀπʼ αἰῶνος is added attributively (between the article and the noun) and is thus difficult to translate. “From the eon” evidently reaches back to its very beginning as Calov puts it: “Already through the mouth of Adam.” Although in Acts 3:24 Peter starts with Samuel, in 2 Pet. 2:5 he as well as Jude 4 list Noah and Enoch among the prophets. “The whole volume of Scripture did prophesy of him. He was the sum and scope of all their predictions. He was Abraham’s promised Seed, Abraham’s Isaac, Jacob’s Shiloh, Moses’ Great Prophet, Isaiah’s Immanuel, Ezekiel’s Shepherd, Daniel’s Holy One, Zechariah’s Branch, Malachi’s Angel; all of them predictions of his coming. He was Abel’s Sacrifice, Noah’s Dove, Abraham’s First Fruits, Aaron’s Rod, the Israelites’ Rock, the Patriarchs’ Manna, David’s Tabernacle, Solomon’s Temple: all these prefigured his Incarnation. They were folds and swathing bands of this babe Jesus.” Bishop Browning.

Luke 1:71

71 The R. V. makes v. 70 parenthetical so that σωτηρίαν in v. 71 becomes an apposition to κέραςσωτηρίας in v. 69; it is less acceptable to discard the parenthesis and to regard σωτηρίαν as the object of ἐλάλησεν. Better than both these constructions it is to drop the idea of a parenthesis and to regard what follows as an appositional elaboration of the double statement that is introduced by the ὅτι of v. 68. The “Horn of Salvation” is the Mighty Savior, and we now hear what his work is: “Salvation from our enemies,” etc. The idea of the horn still prevails, it is striking and destroying the enemies.

Some commentators regard these “enemies” as political foes and make the salvation political liberty, at least so as to combine with it the privilege of worshipping God unhampered by heathen interference (v. 74, 75). But Zacharias is not speaking his and his people’s political thought, he is uttering thoughts as the mouthpiece of the Holy Spirit. Political liberty, even freedom of worship, was not the result of the Savior’s work as far as the Jewish nation was concerned. The spiritual significance is too marked to insert a political reference at this point. The enemies here spoken about are not “the Roman tyranny, or Herod’s usurpation, the galling bondage of the Jewish state,” plus something that is more or less spiritual. “The hand (power) of all hating us” does not fit these ruling authorities. These enemies and haters are the very foes whom Christ overcame, Satan and the powers of darkness, “every evil counsel and will which would not let us hallow God’s name nor let his kingdom come.”

Luke 1:72

72 The two infinitives denote purpose. We may paraphrase: salvation, etc., “intending thereby to perfrom mercy … and to remember his holy covenant.” See v. 50 on ἔλεος as distinct from χάρις. The note of mercy runs through this psalm because it deals with the miserable results of sin. Ποιῆσαιἔλεος, like ἐποίησεκράτος in v. 51, means to perform mercy in a decisive and an effective way (aorist). Zacharias is speaking of the supreme act of mercy in which all minor previous and subsequent merciful acts center. The peculiar turn with μετά, really “with our fathers,” is Hebraistic (LXX, Gen. 24:12; B.-D. 310, 1).

Another thing (καί), it was God’s intention “to remember his holy covenant,” again an effective aorist: to remember it so as to execute that covenant completely. “To remember” is, of course, to speak anthropomorphitically of God. When God acts after a long delay, it is said that he remembers. The διαθήκη is the whole covenant from Abraham onward to the time of Zacharias. The word itself means any disposition (διατίθημι) that one may make. This is often done by a last will or testament, hence this word equals testament; then, a step farther, it means covenant. It is used by the LXX for the Hebrew berith; μιμνήσκω governs the genitive.

This covenant is “holy” as being God’s own, originating in him and being executed by him. It is always denominated from him and never from those with whom it is made; it is always “his holy covenant,” never Abraham’s or Israel’s.

Luke 1:73

73 In ὅρκον we have a case of inverse attraction, the antecedent being attracted from the genitive to the accusative relative ὅν. Thus ὅρκον is in apposition with διαθήκης, and the attracted ὅρκον with its relative is a cognate accusative, “to swear an oath.” R. 718 and 474. In remembering his covenant God could not help but remember the oath with which he sealed it: “By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord … in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed.” In the covenant God, not Abraham, made an oath. The whole matter of the sworn covenant was a gift of God to Abraham. Solemn covenant pacts usually bore some special seal of assurance, and in this case, since it was a covenant of the highest importance, it bore as its seal of inviolability the strongest possible assurance, the oath of God himself. This oath was a condescension on the part of God to weak and doubting men; it is the utmost God can do to induce faith on our part. The covenant included Abraham’s children down to Zacharias himself, hence “our father” is added to “Abraham.”

Luke 1:74

74 If, like R. 1076, we have τοῦδοῦναι modify ὅρκον, this would state the contents of the oath that was sworn to Abraham; but the infinitive with τοῦ is often equal to a purpose clause and is quite generally so regarded in this instance; the simple infinitive would have the same meaning. It was God’s purpose in remembering his covenant and oath “to give to us, fearlessly having been delivered,” etc. The subject of the infinitive λατρεύειν is ἡμᾶς understood, hence the participle that modifies this subject must be in the accusative, ῥυσθέντας: “that we, having been delivered, serve,” etc. The ἔχθροι are the same as those mentioned in v. 71, and their “hand” is again their power. It is unwarranted to think of rare cases like Pilate’s who on one occasion mingled the blood of certain Galileans with their sacrifices. The content of this prophecy is highly spiritual. This is deliverance from our real enemies, sin, curse, damnation, all the power of the devil.

Possessing this deliverance, it is God’s gift to us “to serve him fearlessly,” whether men now and then oppress or persecute us or not. Our spiritual deliverance raises us above the fear of men as we see in the case of Peter and John, Acts 4:13. The object of τοῦδοῦναι is λατρεύειναὐτῷ: God gave us this gift to serve him as people whom he delivered and who are thus fearless; ἐκχειρός is the distributive singular like many phrases without the article. Λατρεύειν originally meant to serve for pay (λάτρον) as the opposite of δουλεύειν, the service of a slave without pay; but it was expanded to designate also the service that is rendered to God, but in the classics, the LXX, and the New Testament alike the service that everyone owes God in contrast to λειτουργεῖν, the special service which priests render. So it was the purpose of God’s covenant to make us such worshippers.

Luke 1:75

75 “Delivered” describes our new condition; “fearlessly,” our new relation toward our spiritual enemies; “in holiness,” etc., our new relation toward God. Holiness and righteousness are not distinguished by having the one refer to the heart, the other to the conduct; the one to the inner principle, the other to the outer activity; both refer to the heart and the conduct alike. Nor is holiness our conduct toward God and righteousness our conduct toward men; both refer to God and to men alike. Still less is righteousness the perfect imputed righteousness of Christ and holiness the imperfect life we live; against which interpretation the order of the words rebels. “Holiness” is separation from sin and devotion unto God, and “righteousness” is the devotion to what God’s verdict approves. The two go together and form a whole: whatever is holy is also righteous, and vice versa; and for this reason the terms are joined in one phrase with ἐν, which denotes sphere: our entire service to God is confined to this sphere which is filled with holiness and righteousness.

The phrase ἐνώπιοναὐτοῦ (compare v. 15, 17, 19), “in his sight,” in his presence, contains the thought of priestly service, for it is the term that is used with reference to the work of the priests in the Temple although it here refers to all God’s worshippers. We have a veiled reference to the universal priesthood of believers. “All our days,” the accusative of the extent of time, means all our lifelong here on earth. And this is, indeed, the purpose which God attained by sending his Son as was promised in the covenant he made with Abraham: we freely worship God today in the way which Zacharias stated. To have such a people was God’s covenant and plan.

Luke 1:76

76 The first magnificent part of Zacharias’ song, which pours out so lavishly all the riches of God’s grace, is followed by a brief description of his son’s part in the great saving work of God, which, however, at once rises above the little child and once more dwells on the great Messianic gift.

And now thou, child, shalt be called a prophet of the Highest,

For thou shalt go before the Lord’s face to make ready his ways,

To give knowledge of salvation to his people

In connection with the remission of their sins

On account of the bowels of mercy of our God,

In connection with which the dawn from on high shall look upon us,

To shine upon those sitting in darkness and death’s shadow,

To guide our feet to peace’s path.

This is again one extended sentence that is carefully built with each member of it in its place. Though it is but eight days old, the father addresses the child, yet only as prophetically sketching its career. Καί plus δέ express continuation, not opposition (R. 1185); καί adds, but δέ says that what is added is somewhat different. Zacharias does not say “my child,” his paternal joy is swallowed up by his religious joy. That this is his own child counts as nothing beside the fact that the child is the forerunner of the Messiah. ΠροφήτηςὙψίστου, without articles, is like a set title of office, and “Highest”=Almighty God as it did in v. 32 and 35. John was the last and in this sense the greatest of the prophets, for he immediately preceded the Messiah and belonged to the new dispensation. Jesus called him more than a prophet.

Zacharias explains (γάρ) why this child shall have this title; it is for a very special reason: it shall be his work to “go before the Lord’s face to make ready his ways.” Throughout this chapter Κύριος is the Greek word for Yahweh, and no personal name appears for the Messiah, only descriptive terms are found such as “horn of salvation,” “dawn from on high,” and statements of his work. So here it is said to be John’s work to go before Jehovah’s face to prepare his ways. Nor is Jehovah’s face a name for Christ. The idea is that Jehovah himself comes to his people in the person of Jesus. “To make ready his ways” is the infinitive of purpose (Matt. 11:10) which combines prophecies such as Mal. 3:1 and Isa. 40:3 which picture the coming of a great Oriental king for whom the roads are put into order to facilitate his advance. It is at once stated how John was to do this work.

Luke 1:77

77 We follow B.-D. 400, 6 in regarding the two infinitives with τοῦ, here and in v. 79, as final, not as consecutive (R. 1001). This makes τοῦδοῦναι appositional to the final ἑτοιμάσαι: “in order to make ready, namely in order to give,” etc. The whole seventy-seventh verse must be considered together as one thought that defines John’s work. In their worldly and political aspirations the Jews had lost the knowledge of salvation and substituted vain dreams of their own for it. These were the obstacles that had to be removed in order to make entrance for Christ and his blessings. As a “prophet” John was “to give knowledge of salvation to his people.” He was to bring the gift from God, a knowledge that was not one of mere mental perception as when we know of something that we do not have, but a knowledge of actual possession and experience as when one is rescued from death and knows what that means and to what it leads. In σωτηρία and its cognate terms there lies this idea of rescue and subsequent safety.

When ἐν is taken in its native sense, the matter becomes clear: we have the knowledge of salvation in only one way, “in connection with the remission of our sins,” i. e., when this remission is ours. The remission is an objective act on the part of God, and from it there results the subjective knowledge of having been saved. In order to have the knowledge we have to receive the remission. No man whose sins are not remitted can possibly know what salvation is. How this remission is connected with the Messiah appears in the next verse.

The most comforting term in the entire Scriptures is ἄφεσιςἁμαρτιῶν, and ἄφεσις, from ἀφίημι, means the sending away of our sins—as far as the east is from the west (Ps. 103:12), into the depths of the sea (Micah 7:19), blotting them out and never remembering them (Isa. 43:25). When God is no longer able to find our sins, we may, indeed, be happy. A classic definition is found in Concordia Triglotta 919, 9: “Poor sinful man is justified before God, that is, absolved and declared free and exempt from all his sins, and from the sentence of well-deserved condemnation, and adopted into sonship and heirship of eternal life, without any merit or worth of our own, also without any preceding, present, or any subsequent works, out of pure grace, because of the sole merit, complete obedience, bitter suffering, death, and resurrection of our Lord Christ alone, whose obedience is reckoned to us for righteousness.” Calov links all the other statements of Zacharias with the remission of sins: John ministers to it; his preaching, which works faith, is the means of apprehending it; salvation is the essence of it; the mercy of God is the fountain of it; the dayspring from on high is the meritorious cause of it; illumination and the walking on the way of peace are the result of it.

Luke 1:78

78 We omit a comma after v. 77 and construe: “remission of sins on account of the bowels of mercy of our God”; διά with the accusative states the reason or ground of the remission. The ultimate cause of the act of remission is in the heart of God, in his bowels of mercy; σπλάγχναἐλέους = bowels of pity or mercy. The Greeks and the Jews located the emotions in the nobler viscera, lungs, heart, and liver (compare Col. 3:12). This word is not properly rendered by the old translation “bowels,” which includes the ignoble viscera, although we have no one term for the nobler ones. The R. V.’s margin “heart” of mercy is a little better than the A. V.’s “tender mercy.”

We again translate ἐν in its first meaning: “in connection with which (ἐνοἶς, i. e., σπλάγχνα, bowels of mercy) the dawn from on high shall look upon us.” It is not merely ἀνατολή, some kind of a dawn, but ἀνατολὴἐξὕψους without articles like a name or title (compare the title for John in v. 76: προφήτηςὑψίστου) and is plainly used for a person when he is said to look upon (visit) us. The term evidently refers to light; note “shine” and “darkness” and “shadow” in v. 79; not to the “Branch” mentioned in Jer. 25:5; 33:15; Zech. 3:8; 6:12, which is translated ἀνατολή by the LXX. We may think as does Mal. 4:2 of the Sun of righteousness with healing in his wings, rising after the long night of waiting.

One is in doubt whether to prefer the verb in the future tense, “shall look upon,” or in the aorist, “did look upon.” The textual evidence is divided, as is also the context. In the address to the child, thus in the verbs immediately preceding, the tenses are future; but in the rest of the song we have aorists. Either tense fits the sense, and the verb is the same as that used in v. 68, but it is now used in the figure of the dawn looking upon us from the heavens.

Luke 1:79

79 The infinitive ἐπιφᾶναι modifies ἐπισκέψεται and expresses purpose: the dawn shall look upon “in order to shine upon.” The “us” used in v. 78 is now described: “those sitting in darkness and death’s shadow”; compare Matt. 4:16 which is drawn from Isa. 9:2. The reference is to the Israelites as a people, but not as excluding the Gentiles. “Those sitting” means men who are utterly helpless, tired, worn out, giving up the struggle, hopeless. “In darkness” is at once intensified by describing it as “death’s shadow”—all this darkness that envelops these hopeless, despairing people is that cast by death which stands so close to them that its shadow already rests upon them as being utterly doomed. Can a more deplorable and desperate spiritual condition be imagined? It exists to this very day in the hearts of all who have not let the dawn from on high rise in their hearts. But suddenly Christ came, the heavenly dawn drove away the death shadow.

Where men sat abjectly they now rise to their feet joyously; where in the darkness they knew not whither to turn they are now guided aright; where there was nothing but death’s shadow there is now the bright and shining way of peace. Τοῦκατευθῦναι, like τοῦδοῦναι in v. 74 and 77, denotes purpose and is appositional to ἐπιφᾶναι: “in order to guide,” or more literally, “in order to make straight our feet,” to head them in the most direct way “into peace’s path.” Israel had lost the right way, Isa. 53:6; 59:8, 9, and who will count those who are lost in the same way today?

Ὁδός, the Hebrew derek, is often used in an ethical sense with reference to principles and conduct. So here the genitive “of peace” is qualitative: the way marked and characterized by peace. “Peace” is far more than the feeling of calmness, security, and rest, which as such would be deceptive, it is the condition of real harmony and friendship between God and us, which was established by Christ and made ours through him. Where this condition exists the feeling has the proper basis, and whether it is always present or not will always return and grow more and more. The first word of Zacharias was “blessed” and the last is “peace”; the one describes him, the other us.

Luke 1:80

80 Now the child kept growing and gaining strength in spirit and was in the desert regions until his presentation day to Israel.

John resembles Jesus in this respect, that we know all about his birth but very little about his younger years. “The child” is the one mentioned in v. 76, which had just been circumcised. The imperfect “kept growing,” without a modifier, refers to bodily growth—nothing befell to hinder that. The second imperfect “kept gaining strength” might also be understood regarding bodily growth, but it is made the counterpart of that by the dative of relation πνεύματι; his gain of strength was in relation to his spirit, the higher part of his immaterial being. Note the difference between this and 2:40 which speaks of Jesus.

The parents of John could not have lived long after these events. As a young man he lived ἐνταῖςἐρήμοις (supply χώραις), in uninhabited localities, away from the distractions of men. God guided his life in this way as a preparation for his coming office. Where these wild regions were is not stated, and it is gratuitous to seek them near his birthplace, for they may have been elsewhere just as well. That John lived as a hermit is not indicated, and we know nothing about his occupation during this preparatory time. Here in the wilderness the word of God eventually came to him, and he went to the Jordan country to preach (3:2). This was his “presentation day” (the two words form one concept), the day when God presented him to Israel for his great work. Ἀνάδειξις appears in a similar sense in 10:1 and means the public presentation of a person for an office or a work.

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

M.-M. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament, Illustrated from the Papyri and other Non-Literary Sources, by James Hope Moulton and George Milligan.

B.-P. Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, etc., Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschem Handwoerterbuch, etc.

C.-K. Biblisch-theologisches Woerterbuch der Neutestamentlichen Graezitaet von D. Dr. Hermann Cremer, zehnte, etc., Auflage, herausgegeben von D. Dr. Julius Koegel.

B.-D. Friedrich Blass’ Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, vierte, voellig neugearbeitete Auflage besorgt von Albert Debrunner.