Luk 1:1.[13] Ἐπειδήπερ] Quoniam quidem, since indeed, not found elsewhere in the N. T., nor in the LXX., or the Apocrypha; frequent in classical writers, see Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 342 f. Observe that ἐπειδή denotes the fact, assumed as known, in such a way “ut quae inde evenerint et secuta sint, nunc adhuc durent,” Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 640.
πολλοί] Christian writers, whose works for the most part are not preserved.[14] The apocryphal Gospels still extant are of a later date; Mark, however, is in any case meant to be included. The Gospel of Matthew too, in its present form which was then already in existence, cannot have remained unknown to Luke; and in using the word πολλοί he must have thought of it with others (see Introd. § 2), although not as an apostolic writing, because the πολλοί are distinct from the eye-witnesses, Luk 1:2. The apostolic collection of Logia was no διήγησις περὶ τῶν κ.τ.λ., and its author, as an apostle, belonged not to the πολλοί, but to the ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται. But the Gospel to the Hebrews, if and so far as it had then already assumed shape, belonged to the attempts of the πολλοί.
ἐπεχείρησαν] have undertaken, said under a sense of the loftiness and difficulty of the task, Act 19:13. In the N. T. only used in Luke; frequently in the classical writers. Comp. also Ulpian, p. 159 (in Valckenaer): ἐπειδήπερ περὶ τούτου πολλοὶ ἐπεχείρησαν ἀπολογήσασθαι. Neither in the word in itself, nor by comparing it with what Luke, Luk 1:3, says of his own work, is there to be found, with Köstlin, Ebrard, Lekebusch, and older writers, any indication of insufficiency in those endeavours in general, which Origen,[15] Ambrosius, Theophylact, Calovius, and various others even referred to their contrast with the inspired Gospels. But for his special purpose he judged none of those preliminary works as sufficient.
διήγησιν] a narrative; see especially, Plato, Rep. iii. p. 392 D; Arist. Rhet. iii. 16; 2Ma 2:32. Observe the singular. Of the πολλοί each one attempted a narrative περὶ τῶν κ.τ.λ., thus comprising the evangelic whole. Loose leaves or detached essays (Ebrard) Luke does not mention.
ἀνατάξασθαι] to set up according to order, Plut. Moral. p. 968 C, εὐτρεπίσασθαι, Hesychius. Neither διήγησ. nor ἀνατάσσ. occurs elsewhere in the N. T.
περὶ τῶν πεπληροφορ. ἐν ἡμῖν πραγμ.] of the facts that have attained to full conviction among us (Christians). πληροφορεῖν, to bring to full conviction, may be associated also with an accusative of the thing, which is brought to full acknowledgment (2Ti 4:5); hence in a passive sense: πληροφορεῖταί τι, something attains to full belief (2Ti 4:17), it is brought to full conviction (πληροφορία πίστεως, Heb 10:22) among others. So here (it is otherwise where πληροφορεῖσθαι is said of a person, as Rom 4:21; Rom 14:5; Col 4:12; Ignat. ad Magnes. viii. 10; Ecc 8:11; Phot. Bibl. p. 41, 29). Rightly so taken by the Fathers (Theophylact: οὐ γὰρ ἁπλῶς κατὰ ψιλὴν παράδοσιν εἰσὶ τὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ἀλλʼ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ καὶ πίστει βεβαίᾳ καὶ μετὰ πάσης πληροφορίας), Erasmus, Beza, Calvin, Grotius, Valckenaer, and many others, including Olshausen and Ewald. The explanation: “quae in nobis completae sunt” (Vulgate), which have fully happened, run their course among us (Luther, Hammond, Paulus, de Wette, Ebrard, Köstlin, Bleek, and others), is opposed to usage, as πληροφορεῖν is never, even in 2Ti 4:5, equivalent to πληροῦν, and therefore it cannot be conceived as applying, either, with Schneckenburger (comp. Lekebusch, p. 30), to the fulfilment of God’s counsel and promise through the life of the Messiah, which besides would be entirely imported; or, with Baur, to the idea of Christianity realized as regards its full contents, under which the Pauline Christianity was essentially included.
[13] According to Baur and others, this preface, vv. 1-4, was only added by the last hand that manipulated our Gospel, after the middle of the second century. Thus, the Gospel would bear on the face of it untruth in concreto. Ewald aptly observes, Jahrb. II. p. 182 f., of this preamble, that in its homely simplicity, modesty, and brevity, it may be called the model of a preface to an historical work. See on the prologue, Holtzmann, p. 243 ff. Aberle in the Tüb. Quartalschr. 1863, 1, p. 84 ff., in a peculiar but untenable way makes use of this prologue as proof for the allegation that our Gospel was occasioned by the accusation of Paul (and of the whole Christian body) in Rome; holding that the prologue must therefore have been composed with the intention of its being interpreted in more senses than one. See, on the other hand, Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschr. 1864, p. 443 ff. The whole hypothesis falls to the ground at once before the fact that Luke did not write till after the destruction of Jerusalem.
[14] There is not the remotest ground for thinking of non-Christian books written in hostility to Christianity (Aberle in the theol. Quart. 1855, p. 173 ff.).
[15] In Jerome: “Matthaeus quippe et Marcus et Johannes et Lucas non sunt conati scribere, sed scripserunt.” Comp. Euthymius Zigabenus.
Luk 1:2. Καθώς] neither quatenus, nor belonging to πεπληροφ. (in opposition, as respects both, to Kuinoel, as respects the latter also to Olshausen), but introducing the How, the modal definition of ἀνατάξ. διήγησιν.
παρέδοσαν] have delivered. It is equally erroneous to refer this merely to written (Königsm. de fontibus, etc., in Pott’s Sylloge, III. p. 231; Hug), or merely to oral communication, although in the historical circumstances the latter was by far the preponderating.[16] Holtzmann appropriately remarks: “The subjects of ΠΑΡΈΔΟΣΑΝ and the ΠΟΛΛΟΊ are not distinguished from one another as respects the categories of the oral and written, but as respects those of primary and secondary authority.” For the ΠΟΛΛΟΊ, as for Luke himself, who associates himself with them by ΚἈΜΟΊ, the ΠΑΡΆΔΟΣΙς of the ΑὐΤΌΠΤΑΙ was the proper source, in accordance with which therefore he must have critically sifted the attempts of those ΠΟΛΛΟΊ, so far as he knew them (Luk 1:3).
ἈΠʼ ἈΡΧῆς] namely, of those ΠΡΑΓΜΆΤΩΝ. But it is not the time of the birth of Jesus that is meant (so most commentators, including Kuinoel and Olshausen), but that of the entrance of Jesus on His ministry (Euthymius Zigabenus, de Wette); comp. Joh 15:27; Act 1:21 f., which explanation is not “audacious” (Olshausen), but necessary, because the αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται τοῦ λόγου are the same persons, and therefore under the αὐτόπται there are not to be understood, in addition to the first disciples, Mary also and other members of the family. ἈΠʼ ἈΡΧῆς therefore is not to be taken absolutely, but relatively.
ὙΠΗΡΈΤΑΙ ΤΟῦ ΛΌΓΟΥ] ministri evangelii (the doctrine κατʼ ἐξοχήν, comp. Act 8:7; Act 14:25; Act 16:6; Act 17:11). These were the Twelve and other ΜΑΘΗΤΑΊ of Christ (as according to Luke also the Seventy), who were in the service of the gospel for the purpose of announcing it. Comp. Luk 3:7; Act 6:4; Col 1:23; Act 26:16; 1Co 4:1. Others (Erasmus, Castalio, Beza, Grotius, Maldonatus, al., including Kuinoel) take τοῦ λόγου in the sense of the matter concerned, of the contents of the history spoken of (see on Act 8:21); but it would be just as inappropriate to ὑπηρέται as it would be quite superfluous, since ΤΟῦ ΛΌΓΟΥ must by no means be attached to ΑὐΤΌΠΤΑΙ also. Finally, it is a mistake to refer it to Christ in accordance with Joh 1:1. So Origen, Athanasius, Euthymius Zigabenus, Valla, Calovius, and others, including Stein (Kommentar, Halle 1830). It is only John that names Christ ὁ λόγος.
Theophylact, moreover, aptly observes: ἘΚ ΤΟΎΤΟΥ (namely, from ΚΑΘῺς ΠΑΡΈΔΟΣΑΝ ἩΜῖΝ Κ.Τ.Λ.) ΔῆΛΟΝ, ὍΤΙ ΟὐΚ ἮΝ Ὁ ΛΟΥΚᾶς ἈΠʼ ἈΡΧῆς ΜΑΘΗΤῊς, ἈΛΛʼ ὙΣΤΕΡΌΧΡΟΝΟς· ἌΛΛΟΙ ΓᾺΡ ἮΣΑΝ ΟἹ ἈΠʼ ἈΡΧῆς ΜΑΘΗΤΕΥΘΕΝΤΕς … ΟἻ ΚΑῚ ΠΑΡΈΔΟΣΑΝ ΑὐΤῷ Κ.Τ.Λ. By ἩΜῖΝ the writer places himself in the second generation; the first were the immediate disciples of Christ, οἱ ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς αὐτόπται καὶ ὑπηρέται. This ὙΠΗΡΈΤΑΙ, however, is not chosen for the sake of placing the Twelve on an equality with Paul (Act 26:16). As though the word were so characteristic for Paul in particular! Comp. Joh 18:36; 1Co 4:1.
[16] Of the written materials of this παράδοσις of the αὐτόπται we know with certainty only the λόγια of Matthew according to Papias.
Luk 1:3. Apodosis, which did not begin already in Luk 1:2.
ἔδοξε κἀμοί] in itself neither excludes nor includes inspiration. Vss. add to it: et Spiritui sancto. By the use of κἀμοί Luke places himself in the same category with the πολλοί, in so far as he, too, had not been an eye-witness; “sic tamen ut etiamnum aliquid ad ἀσφάλειαν ac firmitudinem Theophilo conferat,” Bengel.-.παρηκολουθ.] after having from the outset followed everything with accuracy. Παρακολ., of the mental tracing, investigating, whereby one arrives at a knowledge of the matter. See the examples in Valckenaer, Schol. p. 12; Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 344 f. Comp., moreover, Thucyd. i. 22. 2 : ὅσον δυνατὸν ἀκριβείᾳ περὶ ἑκάστου ἐπεξελθών.
πᾶσιν] namely, those πράγμασι, not masculine (Syr.).
ἄνωθεν] not: radicitus, fundamentally (Grotius), which is comprised in ἀκριβ., but: from the first, see on Joh 3:3. From the beginning of the history it is seen that in his investigation he started from the birth of the Baptist, in doing which, doubtless, he could not but still lack the authentic tradition of Luk 1:2. Nevertheless the consciousness of an advantage over those πολλοί expresses itself in παρηκ. ἄνωθεν.
καθεξῆς] in orderly sequence, not out of the order of time, in which they occurred one after the other.[17] Only Luke has the word in the N. T. (Luk 8:1; Act 3:24; Act 11:4; Act 18:23); it occurs also in Aelian, Plutarch, et al., but the older classical writers have ἐφεξῆς.
κράτιστε Θεόφιλε] See Introd. § 3. That in Act 1:1 he is addressed merely Ὦ ΘΕΌΦΙΛΕ, proves nothing against the titular use of ΚΡΆΤΙΣΤΕ. See on the latter, Grotius.
[17] In the case of this καθεξῆς the Harmonists of course make the reservation, that it will be “conditioned at one time more by a chronological interest, at another time more by that of the subject-matter,” Lichtenstein, p. 73. Thus they keep their hand free to lay hold now of the one, now of the other, just as it is held to suit. The assertion, often repeated, in favour of the violences of harmonizers, that in Luke the arrangement by subject-matter even predominates (Ebrard, Lichtenstein), is absolutely incompatible with that καθεξῆς.
Luk 1:4. Ἵνα ἐπιγνῷς] ut accurate cognosceres; see on Mat 11:27; 1Co 13:12.
περὶ ὧν κατηχήθης λόγων] The attraction is not, with the Vulgate and the majority of commentators, to be resolved into: τῶν λόγων, περὶ ὧν κατηχήθης, as the contents of the instruction is put with κατηχεῖσθαι in the accusative (Act 18:25; Gal 6:6), and only the more remote object to which the instruction relates is expressed by περί (Act 21:21; Act 21:24), but into: περὶ τῶν λόγων, οὓς κατηχήθης: that thou mightest know in respect of the doctrines, in which thou wast instructed, the unshaken certainty. Comp. Köstlin, p. 132, and Ewald. The λόγοι are not the πράγματα, res (comp. Luk 1:2), as is usually supposed; but it is just the specifically Christian doctrines, the individual parts of the λόγος, Luk 1:2 (τῶν λόγων τῆς πίστεως, Euthymius Zigabenus), that stand in the most essential connection with the history of Jesus and from it receive their ἀσφάλεια; in fact, they are in great part themselves essentially history.
κατηχήθης is to be understood of actual instruction (in Act 21:21 also), not of hearsay, of which, moreover, the passages in Kypke are not to be explained. Who had instructed Theophilus-who, moreover, was assuredly already a Christian (not merely interested on behalf of Christianity, as Bleek supposes)-we know not, but certainly it was not Luke himself (in opposition to Theophylact).
τὴν ἀσφάλειαν] the unchangeable certainty, the character not to be shaken. Comp. τὴν ἀσφάλειαν εἶναι λόγου, Xen. Mem. iv. 6. 15. The position at the end is emphatic. According to Luke, therefore, by this historical work, which he purposes to write, the doctrines which Theophilus had received are to be set forth for him in their immoveable positive truth; according to Baur, on the other hand, the ἀσφάλεια which the writer had in view was to be this, that his entire representation of primitive Christianity sought to become conducive to the conciliatory interest (of the second century), and always kept this object in view. This is purely imported. Luke wrote from the dispassionate consciousness that Christianity, as it subsisted for him as the Pauline contents of faith, had its firm basis of truth in the evangelical history of salvation.
Luk 1:5. The periodic and Greek style of the preface gives place now to the simple Hebraizing mode of presentation in the preliminary history,-a circumstance explained by the nature of its Jewish-Christian sources, which withal were not made use of without being subjected to manipulation, since Luke’s peculiarities in expression pervade even this preliminary history. How far, however, the lofty, at times truly lyrical beauty and art of the descriptions are to be reckoned due to the sources themselves or to Luke as working them up, cannot be decided.
Observe, moreover, how the evangelical tradition gradually pushes back its beginnings from the emergence of the Baptist (Mark) to the γένεσις of Jesus (Matthew), and even to the conception of His forerunner (Luke).
ἐγένετο] extitit, emerged in history. Comp. on Mar 1:4.
ἱερεύς τις] therefore not high priest.
On the twenty-four classes of priests (מַחֲלֹקֶת, in the LXX. ἐφημερία, also διαίρεσις, in Josephus also ἐφημερίς), which, since the time of Solomon, had the temple-service for a week in turn, see Ewald, Alterth. p. 315; Keil, Archäol. I. p. 188 f.
Ἀβιά] 1Ch 24:10. From this successor of Eleazar the eighth ἐφημερία had its name.
The chronological employment of this notice for the ascertaining of the date of the birth of Jesus would require that the historical character of the narratives, given at Luk 1:5 ff., Luk 1:26 ff., should be taken for granted; moreover, it would be necessary withal that the year and (as every class came in its turn twice in the year) the approximate time of the year of the birth of Jesus should already be otherwise ascertained. Then, in the computation we should have to reckon, not, with Scaliger (de emendat. tempor.), forward from the re-institution of the temple-service by Judas Maccabaeus, 1Ma 4:38 ff., because it is not known which class at that time began the service (see Paulus, exeg. Handb. I. p. 83; Wieseler, chronol. Synopse, p. 141), but, with Salomon van Til, Bengel, and Wieseler, backward from the destruction of the temple, because as to this the date (the 9 Abib) and the officiating class of priests (Jojarib) is known. Comp. also Lichtenstein, p. 76.
καὶ γυνὴ αὐτῷ] (see the critical remarks) scil. ἦν.
ἐκ τῶν θυγατ. Ἀαρ.] John’s descent on both sides was priestly. Comp. Josephus, Vit. v. 1. See Wetstein.
Ἐλισάβετ] Such was also the name of Aaron’s wife, Exo 6:23 (אֶלִישֶׁבַע, Deus juramentum).
Luk 1:6 f. Δίκαιοι] upright, such as they ought to be according to God’s will.
ἐνώπιον τ. Θεοῦ] a familiar Hebraism: לִפְנֵי יְהֹוָה, characterizing the ἀληθὴς δικαιοσύνη (Euthymius Zigabenus), which is so not perchance merely according to human judgment, but before the eyes of God, in God’s presence, Gen 7:1; Act 8:21; Jdt 13:20. Comp. Augustine, ad Marcell. ii. 13.
πορευόμενοι κ.τ.λ.] a more precise explanation of the foregoing, likewise in quite a Hebraizing form (1Ki 8:62, al.), wherein δικαίωμα is legal ordinance (LXX. Deu 4:1; Deu 6:2; Deu 30:16; Psa 119:93, al.; see on Rom 1:32; Rom 5:16), ἐντολή joined with δικ. (Gen 26:5; Deu 4:40) is a more special idea. The distinction that ἐντολή applies to the moral, δικαιώμα to the ceremonial precepts, is arbitrary (Calvin, Bengel, and others). We may add that the popular testimony to such δικαιοσύνη does not exclude human imperfection and sinfulness, and hence is not opposed to the doctrine of justification.
ἄμεμπτοι] not equivalent to ἀμέμπτως, but proleptic: so that they were blameless. Comp. 1Th 5:23; Winer, p. 549 f. [E. T. 778 f.].
The Attic καθότι, here as at Luk 19:9, Act 2:24, Tob 1:12; Tob 13:4, corresponding to the argumentative καθώς: as then, according to the fact that, occurs in the N. T. only in Luke.
προβεβηκότες ἐν ταῖς ἡμ.] of advanced age, בָּאִים בַּיָּמִים, Gen 18:11; Jos 23:1; 1Ki 1:1. The Greeks say προβεβηκὼς τῇ ἡλικίᾳ, Lys. p. 169, 37, τοῖς ἔτεσιν (Machon in Athen. xiii. p. 592 D), also τὴν ἡλικίαν, and the like (Herodian, ii. 7. 7; comp. 2Ma 4:40; Jdt 16:23), see Wetstein, and Pierson, ad Moer. p. 475. Observe that κ. ἀμφ. προβ. κ.τ.λ. is no longer connected with καθότι, but attached to οὐκ ἦν αὐτ. τέκν. by way of further preparation for the marvel which follows.
Luk 1:8 f. Ἐγένετο … ἔλαχε] thus without interposition of καί. Both modes of expression, with and without καί, are very frequent in Luke. See generally, Bornemann in loc.
κατὰ τὸ ἔθος τῆς ἱερατ.] according to the custom of the priesthood, does not belong to what precedes (Luther, Kuinoel, Bleek), to which ἔθος would be inappropriate, but to ἔλαχε τοῦ θυμιᾶσαι; the usual custom, namely, was, that the priest of the class on service for the week, who was to have the honourable office of burning incense, was fixed every day by lot, just as in general the several offices were assigned by lot. See Tr. Tamid, v. 2 ff.; Wetstein, and Paulus, exeget. Handb.; Lund, Jüd. Heiligth., ed. Wolf, p. 804 f. How the casting of lots took place, see Gloss. Joma, f. 22, 1, in Lightfoot, p. 714.
The genitive τοῦ θυμιᾶσαι (not to be accented θυμιάσαι[18]) is governed by ἔλαχε. See Matthiae, p. 800; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. II. p. 2. On the mode of burning incense, see Lightfoot, p. 715; Lund, l.c. p. 618 ff.; Leyrer in Herzog’s Encykl. XII. p. 506 ff. With this office specially divine blessing was conceived to be associated (Deu 33:10 f.); and during it John Hyrcanus received a revelation, Josephus, Antt. xiii. 10. 3.
Whether, we may ask, are we to understand here the morning (Grotius) or the evening (Kuinoel) burning of incense? The former, as the casting lots has just preceded.
εἰσελθὼν κ.τ.λ.] can neither be something that follows after the ἔλαχε τ. θυμ. (so Luther and others, de Wette and Bleek), nor can it belong merely to θυμιᾶσαι (so Winer, p. 316 [E. T. 443], and Glöckler, following the Vulgate), in which case the words would be quite idle. Rather must they be, in the same relation as the following καὶ πᾶν τὸ πλῆθος … ἔξω τῇ ὥρᾳ τοῦ θυμιάματος, an essential portion of the description. It is, namely, the moment that preceded the ἔλαχε τοῦ θυμιᾶσαι: the duty of burning incense fell to him, after he had entered into the temple of the Lord. After his entrance into the temple he received this charge.
εἰς τὸν ναόν] not εἰς τὸ ἱερόν (see on Mat 4:5), for the altar of incense, the θυσιαστήριον, Luk 1:11, stood in the sanctuary (between the table of shewbread and the golden candlestick).
[18] Comp. generally, Lipsius, Gramm. Unters. p. 38 ff.
Luk 1:10. And now, while this burning of incense (symbol of adoration; see Bähr, Symbol. I. p. 463-469; Leyrer, l.c. p. 510 f.) allotted to him was taking place in the sanctuary, the entire multitude of the people (which expression does not exactly presuppose a festival, as Chrysostom, Chemnitz, and Calovius hold) was found (ἦν) in the forecourts, silently praying. This was implied in the arrangements for worship; see Deyling, Obss. III. p. 343 f.; Leyrer, l.c. p. 509.
τοῦ θυμιάματος] not: of burning incense (θυμίασις), but: of incense (see Luk 1:11; Rev 5:8; Rev 8:3-4; Wis 18:21; Sir 45:6; 1Ma 4:49; 2Ma 2:5; Plat. Pol. ii. p. 373 A, Legg. viii. p. 847 C; Herod, i. 198, iv. 71, viii. 99; Soph. O. R. 4), namely, at which this was burnt.
Luk 1:11-12. Ὤφθη] not a vision, but a real angelic appearance, Luk 22:43.
ἐκ δεξιῶν] on the propitious side of the altar, at which Zacharias was serving. See Schoettgen, and Wetstein, ad Mat 25:33; Valckenaer in loc.
ἄγγελος] an angel. Who it was, see Luk 1:19.
φόβος ἐπέπεσεν ἐπʼ αὐτ.] Comp. Act 19:17; Exo 15:16; Jdt 15:2; Test. XII. Patr. p. 592. Among the Greeks usually found with a dative, as Eur. Andr. 1042: σοὶ μόνᾳ ἐπέπεσον λῦπαι.
Luk 1:13-14. Εἰσηκούσθη κ.τ.λ.] By ἡ δέησίς σου cannot be meant the petition for offspring (yet so still Olshausen, de Wette, Bleek, Schegg, following Maldonatus and many others); for, as according to Luk 1:7 it is not to be assumed at all that the pious priest still continued now to pray for children, so least of all can he at the burning of incense in his official capacity have made such a private matter the subject of his prayer; but ἡ δέησίς σου must be referred to the prayer just made by him at the priestly burning of incense, in which also the whole of the people assembled without were associated (Luk 1:10). This prayer concerned the highest solicitude of all Israel, namely, the Messianic deliverance of the people (Augustine, Euthymius Zigabenus, Erasmus, Jansen, Calovius, Ewald, and others), ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου. The context which follows is not opposed to this, but on the contrary the connection is: “Has preces angelus dicit exauditas; jam enim prae foribus esse adventum Messiae, cujus anteambulo destinatus sit is qui Zachariae nasciturus erat filius,” Grotius.
καλέσεις κ.τ.λ.] see on Mat 1:21.
Ἰωάννης is the Hebrew יְהוֹחָנָן or יוֹחָנָן (God is gracious, like the German Gotthold). The LXX. have Ἰωνά (2Ki 25:23), Ἰωνάν (Neh 6:18), Ἰωανάν (Neh 12:13; 2Ch 17:15; 2Ch 23:1), Ἰωάνης (2Ch 28:12).
γένεσις here is birth (often so in the Greek writers and in the LXX.); Xen. Ephesians 3 : ὁδοῦ ἀνθρωπίνης ἀρχὴν μὲν γένεσιν, τέλος δὲ θάνατον.
Luk 1:15. Μέγας ἐνώπ. τ. κυρ.] A designation of a truly great man; “talis enim quisque vere est, qualis est coram Deo,” Estius. Comp. on Luk 1:6.
καὶ οἶνον κ.τ.λ.] Description of a נָוִיר, as those were called, who had for the service of God bound themselves to abstain from wine and other intoxicating drinks (Num 6:3), and to let the hair of their head grow. John was a Nazarite, not for a certain time, but for life, like Samson (Jdg 13:5) and Samuel (1Sa 1:12). See in general, Ewald, Alterth. p. 96 ff.; Saalschütz, Mos. R. p 361 f.; Keil, Archäol. I. § 67; Vilmar in the Stud. u. Krit. 1864, p. 438 ff.
τὸ σίκερα (שִׁבָר), which does not occur in the Greek writers, is any exciting drink of the nature of wine, but not made of grapes; Lev 10:9 and frequently in the LXX. It was prepared from corn, fruit, dates, palms (Pliny, H. N. xiv. 19), and so forth. Eusebius, Praep. Evang. vi. 10, has the genitive σίκερος.
ἔτι ἐκ κοιλίας κ.τ.λ.] ἔτι never stands for ἤδη, but: of the Holy Spirit[19] he shall be full even from his mother’s womb, so that thus already in his mother’s womb (see Origen) he shall be filled with the Spirit. A pregnant form of embracing the two points. Comp. Plutarch, consol. ad Apoll. p. 104: ἔτι ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς ἠκολούθηκεν (having therefore already followed ἘΝ ἈΡΧῇ). Doubtless the leaping of the child in the mother’s womb, Luk 1:41, is conceived of as a manifestation of this being filled with the Spirit. Comp. Calovius and Maldonatus.
[19] It is quite arbitrary in Olshausen to support the rationalistic opinion that the expression here is to be understood not of the distinctive Holy Spirit, but of the holy power of God in general.
Luk 1:16-17. Working of John as a preacher of repentance, who as a moral reformer of the people (comp. on Mat 17:11) prepares the way for the Messianic consummation of the theocracy.
ἐπιστρέψει] for through sin they have turned themselves away from God.
κύριον τ. Θεὸν αὐτ.] not the Messiah (Euthymius Zigabenus, and many of the older commentators), but God.
καὶ αὐτός] He will turn many to God, and he himself will, etc.
προελεύσεται] not: he will emerge previously (de Wette), but: he will precede (Xen. Cyr. vi. 3, 9), go before Him (Gen 23:3; Gen 23:14; Jdt 2:19; Jdt 15:13).
ἐνώπ. αὐτοῦ] can only, in accordance with the context, be referred to God (Luk 1:16), whose preceding herald he will be. The prophets, namely, look upon and depict the setting in of the Messianic kingdom as the entrance of Jehovah into the midst of His people, so that thereupon God Himself is represented by the Messiah; Isaiah 40.; Mal 3:1; Mal 4:5 f. Comp. Tit 2:13. In the person of the entering Messiah Jehovah Himself enters; but the Messiah’s own personal divine nature is not yet expressed in this ancient-prophetic view (in opposition to Gess, Pers. Chr. p. 47). Incorrect, because in opposition to this prophetic idea, is the immediate reference of αὐτοῦ to the Messiah (Heumann, Kuinoel, Valckenaer, Winer), as regards which appeal is made to the emphatic use of הוּא, αὐτός, and ipse (comp. the Pythagorean αὐτὸς ἔφα), whereby a subject not named but well known to every one is designated (Winer, p. 152 [E. T. 182 f.]).
ἐν πνεύματι κ. δυνάμ. Ἠλ.] furnished therewith. Spirit and power (power of working) of Elias (according to Mal 4:5 f.) is, as a matter of course, God’s Spirit (comp. Luk 1:15) and divine power, but in the peculiar character and vital expression which were formerly apparent in the case of Elias, whose antitype John is, not as a miracle-worker (Joh 10:41), but as preacher of repentance and prophetic preparer of the way of the Lord.
ἐπιστρέψαι κ.τ.λ.] according to Malachi, l.c.: in order to turn fathers’ hearts to children; to be taken literally of the restoration of the paternal love, which in the moral degradation of the people had in many grown cold. Comp. Sir 48:10 and Fritzsche in loc. Kuinoel incorrectly holds that πατέρων means the patriarchs, and that the meaning is (similar to that given by Augustine, de civit. D. xx. 29; Beza, Calovius, and others): “efficiet, ut posteri erga Deum eundem habeant animum pium, quem, habebant eorum majores.” Comp. also Hengstenberg, Christol. III. p. 674, and Bleek. The absence of any article ought in itself to have warned against this view!
καὶ ἀπειθεῖς ἐν φρον. τ. δικ.] sc. ἐπιστρέψαι. The discourse passes over from the special relation to the general one. ἀπειθεῖς is the opposite of τῶν δικαίων, and therefore is not to be understood of the children (Olshausen), but of the immoral in general, whose characteristic is disobedience, namely towards God.
ἐν φρονήσει] connected immediately in a pregnant way with the verb of direction, in which the thought of the result was predominant. See Kühner, II. p. 316. “Sensus eorum, qui justi sunt, in conversione protinus induitur,” Bengel. φρόνησις (see Arist. Eth. Nic. vi. 5. 4), practical intelligence. Comp. on Eph 1:8. The practical element follows from ἀπειθεῖς.
ἑτοιμάσαι] to put in readiness, etc. Aim of the ἐπιστρέψαι κ.τ.λ., and so final aim of the προελεύσεται κ.τ.λ.
κυρίῳ] for God, as at Luk 1:16-17.
λαὸν κατεσκευασμ.] a people adjusted, placed in the right moral state (for the setting up of the Messianic kingdom), is related to ἑτοιμάσαι as its result. “Parandus populus, ne Dominus populum imparatum inveniens majestate sua obterat,” Bengel.
Luk 1:18. Like Abraham’s question, Gen 15:8.
κατὰ τί] According to what. Zacharias asks after a σημεῖον (Luk 2:12), in conformity with which he should know that what had been promised (τοῦτο)-in other words, the birth of a son, with whom the indicated destination of Elias should associate itself-had really occurred.
Luk 1:19-20. The angel now discloses to Zacharias what angel he is, by way of justifying the announcement of penalty which he has then to add.
Γαβριήλ] נַּבְרִיאֵל, vir Dei, one of the seven angel-princes (שָׂרִים) or archangels (comp. Auberlen in Herzog’s Encykl. IV. p. 634[20]), who stand for service at the throne of God (ἐνώπιον τ. Θεοῦ), as His primary servants (Ὁ ΠΑΡΕΣΤΗΚΏς, comp. thereon Rev 8:2, and see Valckenaer), Dan 8:16; Dan 9:21. Comp. Fritzsche on Tob 12:15. “Nomina angelorum ascenderunt in manum Israelis ex Babylone,” Ros Hassana, f. 56, 4; Enoch 20. See later Jewish fictions in respect to Gabriel, set forth in Eisenmenger, entdecktes Judenth. II. p. 363 ff., 378 ff., 390, 874.
σιωπῶν] It is only the subsequent Κ. ΜῊ ΔΥΝΆΜ. ΛΑΛῆΣΑΙ that defines this more precisely as dumbness, which, however, is not apoplectic caused by the terror (Paulus), nor the consequence of the agitating effect of the vision (Lange), which consequence he himself recognised as a punishment; but it is a miraculous penalty.
ἀνθʼ ὧν] for the reason (by way of retribution) that; Luk 19:44; Act 12:23; 2Th 2:10; Hermann, ad Viger. p. 710; Ellendt, Lex. Soph. I. p. 170. The difficulties felt on account of the harshness of this measure (Paulus, Strauss, Bruno Bauer, comp. also de Wette), with which the impunity of others, such as Abraham and Sarah, has been compared, are, when the matter is historically viewed, not to be got rid of either by the assumption of a greater guilt which the Omniscient recognised (Calvin, comp. Lange, L. J. II. 1, p. 65, and even as early as Augustine), or by an appeal to the lesser age of Zacharias (Hoffmann), and the like; but to be referred to the counsel of God (Rom 11:33 f.), whose various measures do not indeed disclose themselves to human judgment, but at any rate admit of the reflection that, the nearer the dawn of the Messianic time, the more inviolably must the requirement of faith in the promise-and the promise was here given through an angel and a priest-come into prominent relief.
οἵτινες] qualitative (Kühner, II. p. 407), ita comparati ut, wherein is implied a reference that justifies the penal measure.
εἰς τ. καιρὸν αὐτ.] denotes the space of time appointed for the ΛΌΓΟΙ, till the completion of which it is still to hold that their fulfilment is setting in. Comp. the classical Ἐς ΚΑΙΡΌΝ, ΕἸς ΧΡΌΝΟΝ, ΕἸς ἙΣΠΈΡΑΝ, and the like, Bernhardy, p. 216. See also Luk 13:9.
[20] Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 343 f., makes some unimportant objections against the accuracy of the explanation of archangels. See in opposition to him, Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. I. p. 286.
Luk 1:21. The priests, especially the chief priests, were accustomed, according to the Talmud, to spend only a short time in the sanctuary; otherwise it was apprehended that they had been slain by God, because they were unworthy or had done something wrong. See Hieros. Joma, f. 43, 2; Babyl. f. 53, 2; Deyling, Obss. III. ed. 2, p. 455 f. Still the unusually long delay of Zacharias, which could not but strike the people, is sufficient in itself as a reason of their wonder.
ἐν τῷ χρονίζειν αὐτόν] not over (ἐπί, Luk 4:22, al.), or on account of (Mar 6:6, διά), but on occasion of his failure to appear. So also Sir 11:21; Isa 61:6. Rightly, Gersdorf, Ewald, render: when he, etc.
Luk 1:22-23. Ἐπέγνωσαν, ὅτι ὀπτασίαν κ.τ.λ.] by the inference ab effectu ad causam; and very naturally they recognise as the latter an appearance of God or an angel, since, in fact, it was in the sanctuary that the dumbness had come on, and the agitating impression might even cause death, Jdg 6:23, al. In spite of the οὐκ ἠδύνατο λαλῆσαι, Olshausen thinks that this ἐπέγνωσαν does not refer to the silence of Zacharias, but probably to the excitement in his whole appearance, which Bleek also mixes up.
αὐτός, he on his part, corresponding to that which they perceived.
ἦν διανεύων αὐτοῖς] he was employed in making signs to them (Sir 27:22; Lucian, V. H. 44), namely, that he had seen a vision.
ὡς ἐπλήσθ. κ.τ.λ.] namely, the week in which the class of Abia (see Luk 1:5) had the temple service. On the verb, comp. Luk 1:57; Luk 2:6; Luk 2:21 f.; also Gal 4:4; Eph 1:10
Luk 1:24 f. Μετὰ δὲ ταύτ. τ. ἡμέρ.] in which this vision had occurred, and he had returned at the end of the service-week to his house. Between the return and the conception we are not to place an indefinite interval.
περιέκρυβεν ἑαυτήν] she hid herself, withdrew her own person completely (περί, see Valckenaer) from the view of others.
μῆνας πέντε] is of necessity to be understood of the first, not of the last five months of pregnancy (in opposition to Heumann). See Luk 1:26; Luk 1:36; Luk 1:56-57.
λέγουσα· ὅτι κ.τ.λ.] the reason which was uttered by her for this withdrawal; hence ὅτι is not recitative, but to be rendered because, as at Luk 7:16 : because thus hath the Lord done to me in the days, in which He was careful to take away my reproach among men. Her reflection, therefore, was to this effect: “seeing that her pregnancy was the work of God, whose care, at the setting in of this state of hers, had been directed towards removing from her the reproach of unfruitfulness, she must leave to God also the announcement of her pregnancy, and not herself bring it about. God would know how to attain His purpose of taking away her reproach.” And God knew how to attain this His purpose. After she had kept herself concealed for five months, there occurred in the sixth month, Luk 1:26 ff., the annunciation to Mary, in which the condition of Elizabeth was disclosed to Mary, so that she rose up (Luk 1:39 ff.), etc. Hence the opinions are not in accordance with the text, which represent Elizabeth as having kept herself concealed from shame at being with child in her old age (Origen, Ambrose, Beda, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus), or in order that she might first assure herself of her condition (Paulus), and might in the meantime apply herself to devotion (Kuinoel), or to afford no handle to curiosity (Schegg), or “quo magis appareret postea repente graviditas” (Bengel), or even because it was necessary to keep herself quiet during the first months of pregnancy (de Wette). No; it was because with resignation and confidence she awaited the emerging of the divine guidance.
αἷς] without repetition of the preposition. See Bernhardy, p. 203; Bornemann, Schol. p. 5; Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 32.
ἐπεῖδεν] looked to it, i.e. took care for it. So more frequently ἐφοράω is used of the providence of the gods in the classical writers; Herod. i. 124; Soph. El. 170. Comp. Act 4:29
τὸ ὄνειδός μου] Comp. Gen 30:23. Unfruitfulness was a disgrace, as being a token of the divine disfavour (Psa 113:9; Isa 4:1; Isa 44:3; Isa 47:9; Hos 9:11); the possession of many children was an honour and blessing (Psalms 127, 128). Comp. the view of the Greeks, Herod. vi. 86; Müller, Dor. II. p. 192.
ἐν ἀνθρώποις] belongs to ἀφελεῖν; among men she had dishonour.
Luk 1:26-27. Τῷ ἕκτῳ] see Luk 1:24.
Ναζαρέτ] According to Matthew, Bethlehem was the dwelling-place of Joseph and Mary. See on Mat 2:23, Remark, and Schleiermacher, L. J. p. 51 ff.
ἐξ οἴκου Δαυίδ] applies not to Mary and Joseph (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Beza, Calovius, and others, including Wieseler in the Stud. u. Krit. 1845, p. 395), but merely to the latter, Luk 2:4, Luk 3:23 ff. The descent of Mary from David cannot at all be proved in the N. T. See on Mat 1:17, Remark 2. Comp. on Luk 1:36; Luk 2:4 f.
Luk 1:28-29. Εἰσελθών] namely, ὁ ἄγγελος (see the critical remarks). Paulus erroneously puts it: “a person who came in said to her.”
κεχαριτωμένη] who has met with kindness (from God).[21] Well remarks Bengel: “non ut mater gratiae, sed ut filia gratiae.” See Luk 1:30; and on χαριτόω in general, see Eph 1:6
On εὐλογ. σὺ ἐν γυναιξ. in the Textus receptus (but see the critical remarks), see Winer, p. 220 [E. T. 308]. It would be not a vocative, like κεχαριτωμένη, but a nominative, as the added σύ indicates: The Lord is with thee, blessed (κατʼ ἐξοχήν) art thou among women.
Luk 1:29. The Recepta (but see the critical remarks) would have to be explained: but she, when she looked upon him, was terrified at his saying, so that ἰδοῦσα only appears as an accessory element of the narrative, not as jointly a reason of her terror (in opposition to Bornemann, de Wette, and others), which would rather be simply ἐπὶ τῷ λόγῳ αὐτοῦ, as is shown by the text which follows καὶ διελογίζετο κ.τ.λ.
ποταπός] qualis, what sort of a: a question of wonder. Comp. on Mar 13:1 f. In accordance with its whole tenor raising her to so high distinction the greeting was to her enigmatical.
[21] Observe the ingenious similarity of sound in the words χαῖρε κεχαριτωμένη. Plays on words of a like kind are found among Roman Catholics with the contrasts of ave and Eva.
Luk 1:31. See on Mat 1:21.
Luk 1:32 f. Μέγας] Comp. Luk 1:15. And what greatness belonged to this promised One, appears from what is said in the sequel of His future!
υἱὸς ὑψίστου κληθήσ.] Description of His recognition as Messiah, as whom the angel still more definitely designates Him by καὶ δώσει κ.τ.λ. The name Son of God is not explained in a metaphysical reference until Luk 1:35.
τὸν θρόνον Δαυ. τοῦ πατρ. αὐτοῦ] i.e. the royal throne of the Messianic kingdom, which is the antitypical consummation of the kingdom of David (Ps. 132:11, 110), as regards which, however, in the sense of the angel, which excludes the bodily paternity of Joseph, David can be meant as ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ only according to the national theocratic relation of the Messiah as David’s son, just as the historical notion of the Messiah was once given. The mode in which Luke (and Matthew) conceived of the Davidic descent is plain from the genealogical table of ch. 3, according to which the genealogy passed by way of Joseph as foster-father.
εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας] from Isa 9:6; Dan 7:13 f. The conception of an everlasting Messianic kingdom (according to Psa 110:4) is also expressed in Joh 12:34; comp. the Rabbins in Bertholdt, Christol. p. 156. The “house of Jacob” is not to be idealized (Olshausen, Bleek, and others: of the spiritual Israel); but the conception of the kingdom in our passage is Jewish-national, which, however, does not exclude the dominion over the Gentiles according to the prophetic prediction (“quasi per accessionem,” Grotius).
βασιλ. ἐπί] as Luk 19:14; Rom 5:14.
Luk 1:34 f. How is it possible that this shall be the case?[22] namely, τὸ συλλαβεῖν ἐν γαστρὶ καὶ τεκεῖν υἱόν, Euthymius Zigabenus.
Οὐ ΓΙΝΏΣΚΩ] comp. Mat 1:18; Gen 19:8; Jdg 11:39; Num 31:17, since I have sexual intercourse with no man. In this sense the pure maiden knows no man. As, however, she is betrothed, Luk 1:27, her reply shows that she has understood the promise of the angel rightly as soon to be fulfilled, and not to be referred to her impending marriage with Joseph, but as independent of the marriage that was soon to take place. The ἄνδρα οὐ γινώσκω is thus simply the confession of the immaculate virgin conscience, and not (a misunderstanding, which Mary’s very betrothal ought to have precluded) the vow of perpetual virginity (Augustine, de virgin. 4, Gregory of Nyssa, Grotius, Jansen, Maldonatus, Bisping, and others), or the resolution to that effect (Schegg).
πνεῦμα ἅγιον] In accordance with the nature of a proper name, without the article. Moreover, see on Mat 1:18
ἘΠΕΛΕΎΣΕΤΑΙ ἘΠῚ ΣΈ] will descend upon thee (Act 1:8). This, as well as ἐπισκιάσει σοι, will overshadow thee (Act 5:15), is-the former without figure, the latter figuratively-a designation of the connection producing the pregnancy, which, however, is not conceived of in the form of copulation, for which the words are euphemistic expressions (Paulus, von Ammon, and older commentators), or yet under the notion of a bird which covers its eggs (Theophylact, comp. Grotius).[23] Certainly the expressions are correlates of ΓΙΝΏΣΚΩ, but as regards the effect, not as regards the form, since ἐπελεύσ. expresses simply the descent of the Spirit, and ἘΠΙΣΚΙΆΣ. the manifestation of divine power associated therewith in the form of a cloud (after the manner of the Old Testament theophanies, Exo 40:34; Num 9:15; 1Ki 8:10; comp. also Luk 9:34). Augustine and other Fathers have quite mistakenly laid stress in ἐπισκ. on the notion of coolness (in contrast to procreation in lust); comp. ΣΚΙΆΖΕΙΝ ΤῸ ΚΑῦΜΑ in Alciphr. iii. 2.
ΔΎΝΑΜΙς ὙΨΊΣΤΟΥ] without the article: power of the Highest will overshadow thee, will be that, which shall overshadow thee. This will set in in immediate consequence (καί) of the πνεῦμα ἅγιον ἐπελεύσεται ἐπὶ σέ. Strict dogmatic expositors, such as Theophylact, Calovius, have rightly (comp. Luk 24:49) distinguished between the Holy Spirit and the power of the Highest, but in doing so have already imported more precise definitions from the dogmatic system by explaining the power of the Highest of the Son of God, who with His majesty filled the body that had been formed by the Holy Spirit, and thus have, by a more precise description of the formation of the body, broken in upon the delicate veil which the mouth of the angel had breathed over the mystery.[24]
τὸ γεννώμενον ἅγιον] the holy thing that is being begotten shall (after His birth) be called Son of God. Most interpreters take τὸ γεννώμενον as that which is to be born (comp. Luk 1:13), which view, moreover, has drawn after it the old addition ἐκ σοῦ from Mat 1:16. But the context which immediately precedes points only to the begetting (Bengel, Bleek); and to this also points the neuter, which applies to the embryo (comp. on Mat 1:20, and see Fritzsche, ad Aristoph. Thesm. 564), as well as the parallel Mat 1:20. The subject, we may add, is τὸ ἅγιον, not ΤῸ ΓΕΝΝΏΜ. (Kuinoel: “proles veneranda” = ΤῸ ΓΕΝΝΏΜ. ΤῸ ἍΓΙΟΝ), as also Bornemann assumes, when he (comp. de Wette) takes ἍΓΙΟΝ predicatively: “proles tua, cum divina sit.” Not as holy, but as begotten by God’s power (διό), is the fruit of Mary called the Son of God. Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 117, explains: it shall be called holy, Son of God, so that those two appellations are to correspond to the two members of the preceding promise. So already Tertullian, as also Bengel and Bleek. But the asyndetic form, in which υἱὸς Θεοῦ would be subjoined, tells against this view all the more, that we should of necessity, in direct accordance with what precedes (ΚΑῚ ΔΎΝΑΜΙς Κ.Τ.Λ.), expect ΚΑῚ ΥἹῸς ΘΕΟῦ, especially after the verb, where no reader could anticipate a second predicate without καί. Comp. Justin, c. Tryph. 100: διὸ καὶ τὸ γεννώμενον ἐξ αὐτῆς ἅγιόν ἐστιν υἱὸς Θεοῦ.
[22] This question is only appropriate to the virgin heart as a question of doubt on the ground of conscious impossibility, and not as an actual wish to learn the how (τὸν τρόπον τοῦ πράγματος, Theophylact); comp. already Augustine: “inquirendo dixit, non desperando,” whereas the meaning of the question of Zacharias, ver. 18, is the converse.
[23] Approved also by Delitzsch, bibl. Psychol. p. 116 f., and Bleek. But this conception is here very much out of place, and is not implied even in מְרַחֶפֶת, Gen 1:2, which, besides, has nothing to do with the passage before us.
[24] Calovius: “Supervenit Spiritus non quidem σπερματικῶς sed δημιουργικῶς, guttulas sanguineas Mariae, e quibus concipienda caro Domini, sanctificando, easdem foecundas reddendo, et ex iisdem corpus humanum efformando.” Justin, Apol. I. 33, already rightly gives the simple thought of the chaste and delicate representation: κυοφορῆσαι παρθένον οὖσαν πεποίηκε. Schleiermacher, L. J. p. 62, erroneously affirms that the representation of Luke admits the possibility of Jesus being thought of as conceived with the participation of Joseph. It absolutely excludes any such notion.
Luk 1:36 f. Confirmation of the promise by the disclosure of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, which, in fact, was also a deviation from the order of nature (ἐν γήρει), and so far presented an analogy, although only in an inferior sense. “En domesticum tibi exemplum!” Grotius. After ἰδοὺ κ.τ.λ. an ἐστί was as little needed as an εἰμί at Luk 1:38.
συγγενίς] The nature of this relationship, which is not at variance with Joh 1:36, although questioned by Schleiermacher and others, is wholly unknown. It is, however, possible that Mary was of the stock of Levi (so Faustus the Manichean in Augustine, c. Faust. xxiii. 9; and recently, Schleiermacher, Schr. d. Luk. p. 26; Hilgenfeld, Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 177, and others), as the Test. XII. Patr. p. 542 makes the Messiah proceed from the stock of Judah (Joseph) and (comp. p. 546) from the stock of Levi.[25]
On the late form συγγενίς, see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 451 f.; and on the Ionic form of dative γήρει, Winer, p. 60 [E. T. 73 f.].
ΟὟΤΟς] subject: and this is the sixth month.
ὅτι οὐκ ἀδυνατ. κ.τ.λ.] Confirmation of that which has just been said of Elizabeth by the omnipotence of God. It is to be observed (1) that ΟὐΚ … ΠᾶΝ do not belong to one another, but of ΠᾶΝ ῬῆΜΑ it is said: ΟὐΚ ἈΔΥΝΑΤΉΣΕΙ (Fritzsche, Diss. II. in 2 Cor. p. 24 f.); further, (2) that the proposition is a general one; hence the future, which, however, is purposely chosen with a view to what was announced to Mary; see Dissen, ad Dem. de Cor. p. 369; (3) that there exists no reason for abandoning the purely Greek meaning of ἀδυνατεῖν, to be unable (Rettig in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 210), any more than of ῥῆμα, utterance (Luk 1:38), especially with the reading παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ (see the critical remarks). Hence the meaning is not: “With God nothing is impossible;” but rather: not powerless (but of success and efficacy) shall any utterance on the part of God be. So also Gen 18:14. Comp. Beza: “ῥῆμα, i.e. quicquid Deus semel futurum dixerit.”
[25] Thus the descent from the Davidic and priestly race might have been used for the glorification of Jesus. But from the height of the history of Jesus so little importance was attached to things of this nature that only the Davidic descent, as it was necessary in the case of the Messiah, had stress laid on it, and the family of Mary was not expressly specified at all. Comp. Ewald, Gesch. Chr. p. 177 f.
Luk 1:38. Behold the handmaid of the Lord! without a verb. Comp. Luk 1:36; Luk 5:12; Luk 5:18.
The natural explanation of the annunciation to Mary (Paulus) is at variance with the evangelic account; and as the latter unfolds simply, clearly, and delicately an external procedure, the objective is not to be rendered subjective and transferred, as a reciprocal operation of the theocratic Spirit of God and the emotional feeling of the Virgin, by means of poetic colouring to the soul of the latter (Lange, L. J. II. 1, p. 67). As history, believed even as it is related, the narrative arose, and that too independently of the preliminary history of Matthew, and even incompatibly with it,[26]-in consequence of the circumstance that the divine sonship of Jesus was extended to His bodily origination (see on Mat 1:18), an idea, which gave shape to legends dissimilar in character and gaining currency in different circles. Thus, e.g., it is clear that the history, adopted at Mat 1:19 ff., of Joseph’s perplexity and of the angelic message which came to him does not presuppose, but excludes the annunciation to Mary; for that Mary after such a revelation should have made no communication to Joseph, would have been not less psychologically unnatural, than it would have been a violation of the bridal relation and, indeed, of the bridal duty;[27] and to reckon on a special revelation, which without her aid would make the disclosure to her betrothed, she must have been expressly directed by the angelic announcement made to her, in order to be justified in deferring the communication of her pregnancy to her betrothed. We make this remark in opposition to the arbitrary presuppositions and shifts of Hug (Gutacht. I. p. 81 ff.), Krabbe, Ebrard, and others. According to the view invented by the last-named, it is assumed that Joseph had learned Mary’s pregnancy, immediately after the appearance of its earliest signs, from the pronubae (“suspicious women”); that immediately there ensued the appearance of the angel to him, and forthwith he took her home; and that for all this a period of at most fourteen days sufficed. Mark and John have rightly excluded these miracles of the preliminary history from the cycle of the evangelical narrative, which only began with the appearance of the Baptist (Mar 1:1); as, indeed, Jesus Himself never, even in His confidential circle, refers to them, and the unbelief of His own brothers, Joh 7:5, and in fact even the demeanour of Mary, Mar 3:21 ff., is irreconcilable with them.[28]
The angelic announcement made to Zacharias, which likewise withdraws itself from any attempt at natural explanation (Paulus, Ammon), appears as a parallel to the annunciation to Mary, having originated and been elaborated in consequence of the latter as a link in the chain of the same cycle of legends after the analogy of Old Testament models, especially that of Abraham and his wife. As in the case of the annunciation to Mary the metaphysical divine Sonship of Jesus, so in the announcement to Zacharias the extraordinary divine destination and mission of John (Joh 1:6) is the real element on which the formation of legend became engrafted; but to derive the latter merely from the self-consciousness of the church (Bruno Bauer), and consequently to take away the objective foundation of the history, is at variance with the entire N. T. and with the history of the church. For the formation of the legend, moreover, the historical circumstances, that John was the son of the priest Zacharias and Elizabeth, and a son born late in life, are to be held fast as premisses actually given by history (in opposition to Strauss, I. p. 135), all the more that for these simple historical data their general notoriety could not but bear witness. This also in opposition to Weisse and B. Bauer, who derive these traditions from the laboratory of religious contemplation. Further, as to what specially concerns the late birth of John, it has its historical precedents in the history of Isaac, of Samson, and of Samuel; but the general principle deduced from such cases, “Cum alicujus uterum claudit, ad hoc facit, ut mirabilius denuo aperiat, et non libidinis esse quod nascitur, sed divini muneris cognoscatur” (Evang. de Nativ. Mark 3), became the source of unhistorical inventions in the apocryphal Gospels,[29] as, in particular, the apocryphal account of the birth of Mary herself is an imitation of the history of John’s birth.
[26] Comp. Schleiermacher, L. J. p. 59 ff.
[27] Lange, L. J. II. p. 83 f., rightly acknowledges this, but, following older writers, thinks that Mary made the communication to Joseph before her journey to Elizabeth, but that he nevertheless (“the first Ebionite”) refused to believe her. This is not compatible with Matthew’s narrative, especially Luk 1:18. And what Lange further (p. 89) adds, that during Mary’s absence a severe struggle arose in his soul, and this state of feeling became the medium of the revelation made to him, is simply added.
[28] Schleiermacher is right in saying, L. J. p. 71: “These occurrences have been entirely without effect as regards the coming forward of Christ or the origination of faith in Him.”
[29] See, in general, R. Hofmann, das Leben Jesu nach d. Apokr. 1851; also Gelpke, Jugendgesch. des Herrn, 1842 (who, moreover, gives the Jewish legends).
Luk 1:39. The angel’s communication, Luk 1:36, occasions Mary to make a journey to Elizabeth, and that with haste (μετὰ σπουδῆς, comp. Mar 6:25; Exo 12:11; Herod, iii. 4, iv. 5); for how much must her heart have now urged her to the interchange of the deepest feelings with the friend who, in like manner, was so highly favoured! Thus it is not merely “ne negligeret signum,” etc., Grotius. From Elizabeth she receives the confirmation of that which the angel had announced to her concerning Elizabeth. But before her departure the great promise of Luk 1:35 is already fulfilled to herself. With extraordinary delicacy the promised conception is not related in its realization (comp., on the other hand, Luk 1:24), and the veil of the unparalleled marvel is not attempted to be raised; but Luk 1:41-44 and the whole triumph of Mary, Luk 1:46 ff., presuppose that she appears before Elizabeth already as the mother of the Messiah, bearing Him in her womb. She herself is only made certain of the miracle, which has already occurred in her case, by the inspired communication which at once meets her from the mouth of her friend. Bengel is singularly arbitrary in transferring the conception, which in any case lies between Luk 1:38-39, to the moment when the child leaped in the womb of Elizabeth, which he concludes from γάρ in Luk 1:44.
εἰς τὴν ὀρεινήν] into the mountain-region
κατʼ ἐξοχήν, Aristot. H. A. v. 28; Jdt 1:6; Jdt 2:22; Jdt 4:7, al.; Plin. H. N. v. 14. The mountainous country in the tribe of Judah is meant. See Robinson, Pal. II. p. 422 ff., III. p. 188 ff.
εἰς πόλιν Ἰούδα] into a city of the tribe of Judah. Luke does not give any more precise definition, and therefore it is to be assumed that he himself had no more precise knowledge. Jerusalem, the capital, is certainly not meant (in opposition to Ambrose, Beda, Camerarius); which is clear, not indeed from the want of the article (comp. Luk 2:4; Luk 2:11; Bornemann in loc.), but from the unprecedented designation itself (in 2Ch 25:28 the reading is very doubtful, see the LXX.), and from the εἰς τὴν ὀρείνην [less] appropriate to Jerusalem. It may have been the priestly city of Hebron, Jos 21:11 (Baronius, Beza, Grotius, Lightfoot, Wolf, Rosenmüller, and others); but that it is meant as a matter of course under the “city of Judah” (see Ewald, p. 182), is not to be assumed, because in that case πόλιν could not dispense with the article (to the well-known city of Judah). Others (Valesius, Epp. 669; Reland, Pal. p. 870; Wetstein, Paulus, Kuinoel, Crome, Beitr. p. 45, et al.; comp. also Robinson, Pal. III. p. 193, and Ritter, Erdk. XV. p. 641) have regarded Juda as itself the name of the city: holding that it was the priestly city יוּטָה or יֻטָּה (Jos 21:16; Jos 15:55; comp. Robinson, II. p. 417), so that the name is wrongly written. We should have to refer this inaccuracy to Luke himself; but the whole hypothesis is an unnecessary makeshift.
Luk 1:41. Τὸν ἀσπασμ. τ. Μαρ.] the greeting of Mary. See Luk 1:40; Luk 1:44. This greeting on the part of Mary (not the communication of the angelic announcement, Luk 1:26 ff., as Kuinoel and others import) caused the leaping of the child (comp. Gen 25:22), and that as an exulting expression of the joy of the latter (Luk 1:44; Luk 6:23) at the presence of the Messiah[30] now in the womb of His mother. Elizabeth immediately through the Holy Spirit recognises the cause of the leaping. Comp. Hofmann, Weissag. u. Erfüll. II. p. 251 f. Calvin, Michaelis, Paulus, Olshausen, and many others reverse the matter, holding that the mental agitation of the mother had operated on the child (comp. also Lange, II. 1, p. 86), and that this circumstance had only afterwards, Luk 1:44, become significant to the mother. Analogous to the conception in our passage is Sohar Ex. f. xxiii. 91 f., xxv. 99: “Omnes Israelitae ad mare rubrum plus viderunt quam Ezechiel propheta; imo etiam embryones, qui in utero matris erant, viderunt id, et Deum S. B. celebrarunt.” A symbolical significance, expressive, namely, of the thought, that at the appearance of a higher Spirit the ideas that lie still unborn in the womb of the spirit of the world and of the people are quickened (Weisse), is foreign to the narrative,-a modern abstraction.
[30] Older Lutherans (see Calovius) have wrongly used this passage as a proof of the fides infantum. There is, in fact, here something unique in character and miraculous. The child of Elizabeth has already in the womb the Holy Spirit, ver. 15.
Luk 1:42 f. Ἀνεφώνησε] She cried out (only occurring here in the N. T.; comp. 1Ch 15:28; 1Ch 16:5; 2Ch 5:12; Polyb. iii. 33. 4; frequent in Plutarch), expressing the outburst of the being filled by the Spirit.
ὁ καρπὸς τ. κοιλ. σου] Designation of the embryo, that Mary bears in her womb. For the expression, comp. Gen 30:2; Lam 2:20.
καὶ πόθεν κ.τ.λ.] sc. γέγονεν. After the first outburst now follows a certain reflection, a humble pondering, from what cause (πόθεν, comp. on Mar 12:37) she was deemed worthy of this great happiness: ἀναξίαν ἑαυτὴν τῆς τοιαύτης ἐπιδημίας τῆς δεσποίνης ὁμολογεῖ, Euthymius Zigabenus.
ἵνα κ.τ.λ.] not equivalent to τὸ ἐλθεῖν τὴν μητ. κ.τ.λ., but telic: that the mother of my Lord (the Messiah, comp. Psa 110:1) should come to me,-this is the τοῦτο, in reference to which she asks πόθεν μοι. Comp. on Joh 6:29; Joh 17:3.
Luk 1:44 f. Γάρ] specifies the ground of knowledge, on which she declares Mary as the mother of the Messiah. She had the discernment of this connection through the Holy Spirit, Luk 1:41.
ὅτι] may either be the specification of the reason attached to μακαρία (Vulgate, Luther, Erasmus, Beza, Lange, and others), or the statement of the contents to πιστεύσασα (Grotius, Bengel, Paulus, Kuinoel, Bornemann, de Wette, Ewald, Bleek, and others). The latter is the correct view, since the conception-the chief point of the λελαλημένα, which Elizabeth has in view-is no longer future, but has already taken place. Hence: for blessed is she who has believed, that there shall be a fulfilment to all (Luk 1:31 ff.), etc. As to τελείωσις, comp. Jdt 10:9; Joh 19:28.
Luk 1:46 ff. An echo of the lyrical poetry of the Old Testament, especially of the song of praise of Hannah the mother of Samuel (1 Samuel 2). This psalm-like effusion from the heart of Mary (the so-called Magnificat) divides itself into four strophes, namely, (1) Luk 1:46-48 (as far as αὐτοῦ); (2) Luk 1:48 (from ἰδού onward) as far as Luk 1:50; (3) Luk 1:51-53; and (4) Luk 1:54-55. Each of these four strophes contains three verses. See Ewald, p. 181.
ἡ ψυχή μου] the mediating organ between πνεῦμα and body (Beck, bibl. Seelenl. p. 11 ff.; Delitzsch, bibl. Psychol. p. 222) which receives the impressions from without and from within, and here expresses by means of the mouth what has taken place in the πνεῦμα (hence ἠγαλλίασε in the aorist). The πνεῦμα is “the highest and noblest part of man, whereby he is qualified to grasp incomprehensible, invisible, eternal things; and is, in brief, the house within which faith and God’s word abide,” Luther (Ausl. 1521). Comp. Hahn, Theol. d. N. T. I. p. 411 ff. That the spirit of Mary exulted full of the Holy Spirit, was selfe-evident for the evangelist after Luk 1:35; an observation, such as that of Luk 1:41, concerning Elizabeth: ἐπλήσθη πνεύματος ἁγ., would now have been inappropriate in reference to Mary. ἀγαλλιάω, in the active, is only found here and at Rev 19:7 (Lachmann, Tischendorf), which reason, however, does not warrant the conjecture of ἀγαλλιάσεται (Valckenaer, Bretschneider).
σωτῆρι] benefactor. “Is est nimirum σωτήρ. qui salutem dedit,” Cicero, Verr. ii. 63.
ὅτι ἐπέβλεψεν ἐπὶ τ. ταπ. τ. δούλ. αὐτ.] as at 1Sa 1:11. Comp. Psa 31:8; also Luk 9:38. The expression of the adjectival notion by means of the substantive (comp. 2Ki 14:26; Psa 25:17) places the quality in the foreground. See Fritzsche, ad Rom. I. p. 367 f.; Bernhardy, p. 53. Mary means the lowliness of her person, in spite of which she is chosen of God to such greatness. She was in fact only an insignificant maiden from the people, an artisan’s betrothed bride.
ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν] from henceforth; for now, after Elizabeth’s inspired words, no further doubt could remain to Mary respecting her condition as mother of the Messiah; from henceforth, therefore, she could not but be the object of the general congratulation, whereof Elizabeth herself had just made a beginning.
πᾶσαι αἱ γενεαί] all generations.
Luk 1:49 f. Because the Mighty One did to me great things, in making me the mother of the Messiah.
καὶ ἅγιον κ.τ.λ.] not for οὗ τὸ ὄν. ἅγιον (Luther, Castalio, Bengel, and many, including Kuinoel), but lyrically unperiodic: and holy is His name! Hence, also, a full stop is not to be placed after δυνατός (Lachmann, Tischendorf, Bleek), but only a comma. To the might the holiness attaches itself.
εἰς γενεὰς κ. γενεάς] Comp. Isa 51:8; 1Ma 2:61; Test. XII. Patr. p. 568: unto generations and generations, i.e. ever onward from one generation to the following. The Recepta εἰς γενεὰς γενεῶν would mean: to the uttermost generations; these would be conceived of as forming a superlative. Analogous Greek superlative designations, especially from the dramatic writers, may be seen in Brunck, ad Oedip. R. 466; Bernhardy, p. 154.
τοῖς φοβουμ. αὐτ.] sc. ἐστι. It denotes the essence of theocratic piety. Comp. Exo 20:6; Psa 103:7.
Luk 1:51 ff. Mary now sees the Messianic catastrophe, which God will bring about by means of her son, and she announces it prophetically as having already happened; for she bears in fact the accomplisher of it already in her womb, and thus the work of God, which He is to execute, is before her enlightened gaze already as good as completed; in that way she sees and describes it.
The catastrophe itself is the restoration of the state of things to the divine rightful order, the overthrow of the Gentiles and the exaltation of the deeply-oppressed theocratic people (comp. Luk 1:68; Luk 1:71; Luk 1:74); the former are set forth by the words ὑπερηφάνους, δυνάστας, πλουτοῦντας; the latter, by ταπεινούς and πεινῶντας. This intended concrete application of the general expressions is put beyond doubt by ἀντελάβετο Ἰσραὴλ κ.τ.λ., Luk 1:54 f.
ὑπερηφάνους] such as are arrogant in the thoughts of their heart; διανοίᾳ is the dative of more precise definition; and on the notion (thinking and willing as directed outwards), comp. Beck, Seelenl. p. 58; on καρδία as the centre of the spiritual and psychic life, Delitzsch, bibl. Psychol. p. 248 ff.; finally, in διεσκόρπ. the haughty are conceived of as congregated and keeping together; comp. Mat 26:31; Act 5:37; Psa 89:10. “That through Christianity the proud were humbled” (de Wette), is not the thought expressed by Mary, but a generalization of it, as is also the “confusio diabolicae superbiae” (Calovius and others), and the like. Comp. Sir 10:14 ff.
Luk 1:52. He has cast down rulers from thrones, does not apply to the demons and Pharisees (Theophylact), but to the Gentile holders of power. Comp. on the idea of the overthrow of thrones in the times of the Messiah, Wis 5:23; Enoch xxxviii. 4, and Dillmann thereon.
Luk 1:53. ἀγαθῶν] not merely means of subsistence (Valckenaer, Bornemann, de Wette), but earthly possessions in general, among which the means of subsistence are included. Comp. Luk 12:18 f. De Wette, moreover, is in error in saying (comp. Olshausen) that it is spiritual hunger and spiritual satisfying that are to be thought of, and that the rich are a type of the wise men of this world. The whole is to be taken literally; the idealizing is not warranted according to the context. Comp. Psa 34:11.
ἐξαπέστ. κενούς] So that they retain nothing of their possessions, and have received nothing from the Messiah. On the expression, comp. Luk 20:10 f.; Job 22:9; Jdt 10:11; Hom. Il. ii. 298, Od. xiii. 214.
For descriptions of the divine inversion of relations from the classical writers, see Wetstein and Bornemann.
Luk 1:54 ff. What was expressed descriptively in Luk 1:51-53, and that by means of antitheses, is now definitely and particularly condensed in ἀντελάβετο Ἰσραὴλ παιδὸς αὐτοῦ (comp. Isa 41:8 f.), which is the summary of what has been previously said. The aorist is to be taken quite like the previous aorists.
ἀντελάβετο] He has interested Himself for Israel His servant (עֶבֶד). Comp. on ἀντελάβ., Act 20:35; Thuc. iii. 22; Diod. Sic. xi. 13. Euthymius Zigabenus explains it: ἐπεσκέψατο τὸν Ἰσραηλιτικὸν λαὸν, τὸν δοῦλον αὐτοῦ. Others, including Paulus, Glöckler, Kuinoel, take παιδός as filii (comp. Exo 4:22; Hos 11:1). But the theocratic notion of sonship is never expressed by παῖς (not even in Act 3:13).
μνησθῆναι ἐλέους] not: “ita ut perpetuo memor sit,” etc. (Kuinoel, Bleek), but: in order to be mindful of mercy. We have to note the connection with the ἕως αἰῶνος emphatically put at the end. God has interested Himself for Israel, in order to be mindful of mercy even to eternity, in order never again to forget mercy.
καθὼς ἐλαλ. πρὸς τ. πατ. ἡμ.] not indeed a parenthesis, but an inserted clause, which makes one feel that the telic μνησθῆναι ἐλέους takes place in consequence of the divine truthfulness.
τῷ Ἀβραὰμ κ. τ. σπέρμ. αὐτ.] Dativus commodi to μνησθῆναι. Comp. Psa 98:3; Xen. Cyr. i. 4. 12; Bornemann, Schol. p. 14 f. It might belong to ἐλάλησε (Euthymius Zigabenus, Erasmus, Luther, Calvin, Beza, Kuinoel), since λαλεῖν may be joined as well with πρός as with a dative; but against this may be urged κ. τῷ σπέρματι αὐτοῦ, which denotes[31] the whole posterity of Abraham without limitation, and therefore cannot be included in apposition to ΠΡῸς ΤΟῪς ΠΑΤΈΡΑς ἩΜῶΝ.
Observe, moreover, that here (comp. Luk 1:72) Abraham, the progenitor of the race, is conceived of as jointly affected by and interested in the destiny of his descendants; Isa 29:22 f.; Mic 7:20. Comp. Joh 8:56; Test. XII. Patr. p. 587. Abraham liveth unto God, Luk 20:38.
ἔμεινε δὲ κ.τ.λ.] but not until the delivery of Elizabeth (in opposition to Calvin, Maldonatus, and others); see Luk 1:57.
[31] In what manner it was the σπέρμα Ἀβραάμ that actually received the compassion (Romans 4, Galatians 4), was not here the question.
REMARK 1.
The harmonizers, even the most recent, have adopted very different ways for the fitting of this history into the narrative of Matthew. According to Lange, L. J. II. 1, p. 84 ff., Mary is driven to Elizabeth by her grief at being Ebionitically misjudged and discarded by Joseph; according to Hug, Gutacht. I. p. 85, Ebrard, Riggenbach, and others, she made the journey immediately after her marriage, which took place a few days after the beginning of her pregnancy! Luke says and knows nothing of either view.
REMARK 2.
The historical character of the Visitation of Mary stands or falls with that of the Annunciation. But the psychological and moral impossibility, that Mary, after the certainty as to her condition acquired while she was with Elizabeth, and after the theocratic inspiration with which she declares herself blessed on account of that condition, should not have made any communication at all to Joseph on the subject (as must nevertheless, according to Matthew, be assumed, so that thus our narrative and that of Mat 1:18 ff. exclude one another); further, the utter want of any trace elsewhere of such an intimate and confidential relation as, according to our history, must have subsisted between the two holy families; moreover, the design of the narrative to invest Jesus with a singular glory, according to which even the yet unborn John signifies his rejoicing homage before the Messiah when but just conceived in His mother’s womb; the circumstance, not to be explained away (see the untenable suggestion of Lange, p. 92), that it is only after the leaping of the babe that Elizabeth receives the Holy Spirit, and by means of this Spirit recognises from that leaping the mother of the Messiah as such; the hymnic scene annexed thereto, the poetic splendour and truth of which lifts it out of the historical sphere, in which subsequently the house of Mary was not the abode of the faith that is here proclaimed from the mouth of the Virgin with so lofty a triumph (Mar 3:31; Joh 7:3),-all this is not adapted to support or to uphold its historical character, even apart from the fact that tradition has not even conveyed to Luke the name of the mountain-town. The apocryphal poor and pale copy of the Annunciation and the Visitation may be seen in the Protevang. Jacobi, c. xi., xii.; according to which, moreover,-quite differently from the course followed by the modern Harmonists,-it is not till after the visitation, only in the sixth month of pregnancy, when Mary is recognised as in this condition and called to account by Joseph, that she asserts her innocence, and then the dream-revelation of the angel is imparted to Joseph (ch. xiii. f.).
Luk 1:57 f. Τοῦ τεκεῖν αὐτ.] genitive governed by ὁ χρόνος: the time, which had to elapse until her delivery. Comp. Luk 2:7; Luk 2:22; Gen 25:24.
ἵτι ἐμεγάλυνε κ.τ.λ.] that He has magnified (Mat 23:5; 2Co 10:15; 1Sa 12:24), namely, by this birth still bestowed, contrary to all expectation, in which they saw a proof of especially great divine compassion. The expression is quite as in Gen 19:19.
συνέχαιρον] they rejoiced together with her. Others, like Valckenaer (following the Vulgate): they congratulated her (see on Php 2:17). The former is more appropriate on account of Luk 1:14; and comp. Luk 15:6; Luk 15:9.
Luk 1:59 f. “With the circumcision was associated the giving of the name, Gen 21:3. See Ewald, Alterth. p. 110. Among the Greeks and Romans it took place on the dies lustricus. See Dougtaeus, Anal. II. p. 44 f.; Hermann, Privatalterth. § 32. 17.
ἦλθον] The subject is evident of itself, namely, the persons pertaining to the circumcision: “amici ad eam rem vocati,” Grotius. Any Israelite might be the circumciser (in case of necessity even a woman, Exo 4:25). See Lund, Heiligth., ed. Wolf, p. 949; Keil, Archäol. I. p. 307 f.
ἐκάλουν] They actually uttered this name (this took place immediately after the circumcision was performed; see Lund, l.c., Buxtorf, Synagog. 4): but the mother (for the father was still dumb) took exception to it, Luk 1:60. “Vere enim incipit actus, sed ob impedimenta caret eventu,” Schaefer, ad Phoen. 81; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 178 [E. T. 205].
The naming of the child after the father (Tob 1:9; Joseph. Antt. xiv. 1. 3) or after a relative (Luk 1:61; Lightfoot, p. 726) was very common, as it was also among the Greeks (Hermann, l.c. 18). On ἐπί, comp. Neh 7:63; Plut. Demetr. 2. The idea is: in reference to.
οὐχί, ἀλλὰ κληθ. Ἰωάνν.] The usual supposition (Paulus, Kuinoel, Ebrard, Bleek, following Calvin and others), that Zacharias after his return from the temple made known to Elizabeth by writing the words of the angel, Luk 1:13, is the more arbitrary, the less it is in keeping with the miraculous impress of the whole history. Theophylact is right in saying: ἡ δὲ Ἐλισάβετ ὡς προφῆτις ἐλάλησε περὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος; and Euthymius Zigabenus: ἐκ πνεύματος ἁγίου καὶ αὐτὴ τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ παιδὸς μεμάθηκε (comp. Origen and Ambrose), and this, indeed, at the moment of that ἐκάλουν, Luk 1:59, else it would not be easy to perceive why she should not at the very beginning have carried out the giving of the divinely-appointed name.
Luk 1:62 f. Ἐνένευον] They conveyed by signs to him the question (τό, see Krüger, ad Xen. Anab. iv. 4. 17; Kühner, II. p. 138), how (τί = τί ὄνομα, comp. Aesch. Ag. 1205) he perchance (ἄν, see Winer, p. 275 [E. T. 386]) would wish that the child (αὐτό, see the critical remarks) should be named. The making signs does not presuppose deafness and dumbness (Chrysostom, Theophylact, Euthymius Zigabenus, Jansen, Maldonatus, Lightfoot, Grotius, Wolf, and others, including Ewald), against which may be urged Luk 1:20; nor is it to be explained by the fact, that we are inclined to communicate by means of signs with dumb people as with deaf people (Bengel, Michaelis, Paulus, Olshausen, de Wette), which can only be arbitrarily applied to Zacharias, since he had only been dumb for a short time and people had previously been accustomed to speak with him. Probably it was only from the wish to spare the mother that the decision of the father, who had all along been listening to the discussion, was called for not aloud, but by signs.
πινακίδιον] probably a little tablet covered with wax. Tertullian, de idolol. 23 : “Zacharias loquitur in stylo, auditur in cera.”
ἔγραψε λέγων] scripsit haec verba. Comp. 2Ki 10:6; 1Ma 8:31; 1Ma 11:57. A Hebraism (לֵאמֹר). On the same usage in the Syriac, see Gesenius in Rosenmüller’s Rep. I. p. 135. An example from Josephus is found in Kypke, I. p. 211; Krebs, p. 98. The return of speech does not occur till Luk 1:64. Comp. Luk 1:20; Luk 1:13.
Ἰωάννης ἐστὶ τ. ὄν. αὐτοῦ] Shortly and categorically, in the consciousness of what had been already divinely determined: יוחנן שמו. “Non tam jubet, quam jussum divinum indicat,” Bengel.
ἐθαύμ.] because Zacharias agreed with Elizabeth in a name foreign to the family.
Luk 1:64. Ἀνεῴχθη … γλῶσσα αὐτοῦ] a zeugma; in the case of the tongue ἐλύθη may be mentally supplied; comp., on the other hand, Mar 7:35. This recovery of speech is to be regarded not as the effect of lively emotion (Gell. v. 9; Val. Max. i. 8. 3), or of the deliverance of his soul from the reproach that had oppressed it (Lange), or of his own will (Paulus), but of divine causation (Luk 1:20).
Luk 1:65 f. An historical digression, narrating the impression which these marvellous events at the circumcision produced in wider circles.
φόβος] not amazement, but fear, the first impression of the extraordinary (comp. Mar 4:41; Act 2:43).
αὐτούς] applies to Zacharias and Elizabeth. On περιοικεῖν τινα, comp. Herod. v. 78; Xen. Anab. v. 6. 16; Plut. Crass. 34.
διελαλεῖτο] were mutually talked of, Polyb. i. 85. 2, ix. 32. 1.
τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα] these utterances, which had occurred with such marvellous significance at the circumcision of the child from Luk 1:59 to Luk 1:64; Luk 2:19.
ἔθεντο … ἐν τῇ καρδ. αὐτῶν] Comp. שִׂים עַל לֶב (1Sa 21:12), and the Homeric τίθημι ἐν στήθεσσι, ἐν φρεσί, and see Valckenaer in loc. They made those utterances the subject of their further reflection. Comp. Luk 2:19.
τί ἄρα] quid igitur, under these circumstances, according to these auspices, what then now will, etc.; see Klotz, ad Devar. p. 176; Nägelsbach, Anm. z. Ilias, ed. 3, p. 10 f. Comp. Luk 8:25, Luk 12:42. On the neuter τί, which is more in keeping with the uncertainty and the emotion of the inquirers than τίς, comp. Act 12:18; Schaefer, Melet. p. 98; Bornemann, Schol. p. 15.
καὶ γὰρ χεὶρ κυρίου ἦν μετʼ αὐτοῦ] An observation of Luke, in which he would indicate that the people rightly asked this question, expecting something unusual of the child: for also (καὶ γὰρ, see the critical remarks) the hand of the Lord was with him. The emphasis rests on χεὶρ κυρίου, which, with καί, makes known to us the mighty help of God (so χεὶρ κυρίου very frequently in the O. T.; comp. also Hermann, ad Vig. p. 732) as in keeping with the ominous phenomena. Others, like Storr, Kuinoel, Paulus, Ewald, place these words too in the mouth of those asking the question (so also Rettig in the Stud. u. Krit. 1838, p. 219, who, following the Recepta. places a colon after καί: and others said). But this reflective specifying of a reason would have been superfluous in the mouth of those people, and little in keeping with the emotion of their question. And instead of ἦν they would have said ἐστί, inferring, namely, the help of God from the events at the circumcision; while the καί would be but tame and cumbrous.
Luk 1:67. After the historical episode of Luk 1:65 there now follows, in reference to εὐλογῶν τ. Θεόν, Luk 1:64, the hymn itself (the so-called Benedictus) into which Zacharias broke forth, and that on the spot (Kuinoel erroneously suggests that it was only composed subsequently by Zacharias). At the same time the remark ἐπλήσθη πνεύμ. ἁγ. is repeated, and the hymn is in respect of its nature more precisely designated as prophecy. It is, like that of Mary, Luk 1:46 ff. constructed in strophes, containing five strophes, each of three verses. See Ewald.
προεφήτευσε] denotes not merely prediction, but the utterance of revelation generally stimulated and sustained by the Spirit, which includes in it prediction proper. See on 1Co 12:10.
Luk 1:68 f. Zacharias’ hymn of praise concerns the great rause, which his new-born son is to serve-the Messianic deliverance and blessing of the people, which he now at once looks upon as already accomplished, for in his new-born son there has, in fact, already appeared the preparer of the way for the Messiah (Luk 1:16 f.). Comp. on Luk 1:51. The entire hymn bears the priestly character, which even the apostrophe to the infant, Luk 1:76, does not efface.
λύτρωσιν (comp. Luk 2:38) applies primarily to the Messianic deliverance under its political aspect Comp. Luk 1:71; Luk 1:51 ff.; Plut. Arat. 11 : λύτρ. αἰχμαλώτων. With this, however, Zacharias knew (comp. also Luk 1:16 f.) that the religious and moral regeneration of the people was inseparably combined, so as to form the one Messianic work, Luk 1:75; Luk 1:77; Luk 1:79.[32] The ἐπεσκέψ. is absolute, as in Sir 32:17 : he has looked to, he has made an inspection. Comp. Act 15:14.
ἤγειρε] still dependent upon ὅτι.
κέρας σωτηρίας] a horn of deliverance (genitive of apposition), i.e. a strong, mighty deliverance, according to the figurative use of the Hebrew קֶרֶן, 1Sa 2:10; Psa 18:3; Psa 89:18; Psa 132:16 f., Psa 148:14; Sir 47:5; Sir 47:7; Sir 47:11, al.; Gesenius, Thes. III. p. 1238; Grimm on 1Ma 2:48. See Rabbinical passages in Schöttgen, Hor. p. 258 f. ΚΈΡΑς· Ἡ ἸΣΧῪς ΠΑΡᾺ Τῇ ΘΕΊᾼ ΓΡΑΦῇ, ἘΚ ΜΕΤΑΦΟΡᾶς ΤῶΝ ΖΏΩΝ ΤῶΝ ΚΑΘΩΠΛΙΣΜΈΝΩΝ ΤΟῖς ΚΈΡΑΣΙ ΚΑῚ ΤΟΎΤΟΙς ἈΜΥΝΟΜΈΝΩΝ, Suidas. Comp. the Latin cornua addere, cornua sumere, and the like. It is true that Jensius (Ferc. lit. p. 34), Fischer (de vit. Lex. p. 214), and Paulus find the reference in the horns of the altar of burnt-offering which served as an asylum (1Ki 1:50; 1Ki 2:28 ff.; Bähr, Symbol. I p. 473 f.; Knobel on Exo 27:2). But apart from the inappropriate relation to the frequent use of the O. T. figure elsewhere, how inadequate for the due and distinct expression of the Messianic idea would be the conception of the mere protection, which was afforded by the laying hold of the horns of the altar!
ἤγειρε] excitavit, i.e. according to the context, he has made to grow up (ἐξανατελῶ, Psa 132:17).
τοῦ παιδὸς αὐτοῦ] Act 4:25.
[32] Hofmann appropriately remarks, Weissag. u. Erfüll. II. p. 253 (in opposition to Olshausen), that the purity of the Messianic views of Zacharias consists in the unadulterated reproduction of Old Testament knowledge.
Luk 1:70. No parenthesis.
τῶν ἁγίων] not used substantivally (Bornemann), but see Bernhardy, p. 322; Krüger, § 50. 9. 7.
ἀπʼ αἰῶνος] not absolutely, as though there had been prophets even ab orbe condito (“imo per os Adami,” Calovius), but relatively; when the oldest prophets emerged (and Moses already was such an one), was the commencement of prophecy since the beginning of the world. Comp. Gen 6:4; Act 3:21; Longin. 34: τοὺς ἀπʼ αἰῶνος ῥήτορας.
Luk 1:71 f. Σωτηρίαν] might be attached to ἐλάλησε, Luk 1:70 (Beza, Grotius, Ewald, and others), but it is simpler to retain καθὼς κ.τ.λ. as a parenthetical clause, like Luk 1:55, so that κέρας σωτηρ., Luk 1:69, is resumed by σωτηρίαν (yet only as to the fact, without the figure) for the sake of adding the more precise definition. Such a resumption may occur with δέ (Rom 3:22) and without it (Rom 3:26). See generally, Kühner, ad Xen. Mem. i. 1. 1. Without δέ the expression is more rhetorical.
The enemies and haters are the heathen, as in Luk 1:51 ff., not the demons, sin, and the like.
ποιῆσαι] Infinitive of the aim, as at Luk 1:54. In this our deliverance God designed to show mercy to (μετά, עִם, Luk 1:58; Luk 10:37) our fathers (comp. Luk 1:55, deeply afflicted by the decline of their people), and to remember (practically, by the fulfilment of what was therein promised) His holy covenant. Euthymius Zigabenus: διαθήκην γὰρ λέγει τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν· μνήμην δὲ αὐτῆς τὴν περάτωσιν.
Luk 1:73-75. Ὅρκον] neither accusative of more precise definition (Calvin, Beza, L. Bos, Rosenmüller), nor governed by μνησθῆναι (Euthymius Zigabenus, Olshausen, Bleek[33]), but climactic apposition to διαθήκης ἁγ. αὐτοῦ, in which the accusative is attracted by ὍΝ, Mat 21:42; 1Co 10:16; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 247 [E. T. 288]; Bornemann, Schol. p. 16 f.
πρός] denotes the swearing to. Comp. Horn. Od. xiv. 331, xix. 288. The expression with the dative is more usual. See the oath itself in Gen 22:16-18.
τοῦ δοῦναι κ.τ.λ.] in order to grant to us, the purpose, on account of which God swore the oath.
ἐκ χειρὸς κ.τ.λ.] more precisely defines the previous ἈΦΌΒΩς, and that as regards its objective relation. On the accusative ῥυσθέντας (not dative), see Bornemann, l.c.; Pflugk, ad Eur. Med. 815; Krüger, Gramm. Unters. III. § 148.
Luk 1:75. Religious-moral restoration of the people of God. As to the distinction between ὁσιότης and ΔΙΚΑΙΟΣΎΝΗ (Plat. Prot. p. 329 C), see on Eph 4:24. Holiness is the divine consecration and inner truth of righteousness, so that the latter without the former would be only external or seeming; both together constitute the justitia spiritualis.
[33] Μιμνήσκεσθαι is not seldom joined with an accusative by the classical writers (Hom. Il. vi. 222; Herod. vii. 18; Soph. O. R. 1057), but never in the N. T., although it is so in the LXX. and Apocrypha.
καὶ σὺ δέ] but thou also (see the critical remarks). See Hartung, Partikell. I. p. 181 f.; Ellendt, Lex Soph I. p. 884. The καί places the παιδίον-for even of him he has only what is great to say-on a parallel with the subject, to which hitherto in his song of praise to God his prophetic glance was directed (with the Messiah), and δέ is the continuative autem.
προπορ. γὰρ πρὸ προσώπου κυρ.] as at Luk 1:17, hence κύριος is God.
ἑτοιμάσαι ὁδοὺς αὐτοῦ see on Mat 3:3.
τοῦ δοῦναι κ.τ.λ.] Aim of ἑτοιμάσαι κ.τ.λ., and so final aim of προπορεύσῃ … κυρίου.
ἐν ἀφέσει ἁμαρτ. αὐτ.] In forgiveness of their sins, which is to be imparted to them through the Messiah (see Luk 1:78 f.) for the sake of God’s mercy (which is thereby satisfied; διὰ σπλ. ἐλ. Θεοῦ), they are to discern deliverance; they are to discern that salvation comes through the Messianic forgiveness of sins (comp. on Mar 1:4), and to this knowledge of salvation John is to guide his people. Accordingly, ἐν ἀφ. ἁμ. αὐτ. does not belong to σωτηρίας alone (τῆς γινομένης ἐν τῷ ἀφεθῆναι κ.τ.λ., Euthymius Zigabenus, Beza, Bengel, Kuinoel, Olshausen, Baumgarten-Crusius, de Wette, Bleek, and others), but to γνῶσιν σωτηρίας (Theophylact) = γνῶναι σωτηρίαν ἐν ἀφ. τ. ἁμ. αὐτ. So also Luther, Ewald, and others. Calvin aptly remarks: “Praecipuum evangelii caput nunc attingit Zacharias, dum scientiam salutis in remissions peccatorum positam esse docet.”
Luk 1:78 f. Διὰ σπλάγχνα ἐλέους κ.τ.λ.] is not to be separated from what precedes by punctuation, but to be immediately connected with ἐν ἀφ. ἁμ. αὐτ.: ἐν ἀφέσει δὲ ἁμαρτιῶν … τῇ διδομένῃ διὰ τὴν συμπάθειαν τοῦ ἐλέους αὐτοῦ, Euthymius Zigabenus. Comp. Theophylact. The reference to all that is said from προπορεύσῃ onwards, Luk 1:76 (Grotius, Kuinoel, de Wette, and others), is the more arbitrary, in proportion to the natural and essential connection that subsists between the forgiveness of sins and God’s compassion.
διά] not through, but for the sake of, see on Luk 1:77; σπλάγχνα is not merely, according to the Hebrew רחמים (see Gesenius), but also in the Greek poetical language, the seat of the affections, as, for instance, of anger (Arist. Ran. 1004) and of sympathy (Aesch. Ch. 407). So here. Comp. Col 3:12; Php 2:1. ἐλέους is genitivus qualitatis, and Θεοῦ ἡμῶν depends on σπλάγχνα ἐλέους: for the sake of the compassionate heart of our God.
ἐν οἷς] instrumental: by virtue, of which.
ἐπεσκέψατο ἡμᾶς ἀνατολὴ ἐξ ὕψ.] to be taken together: has visited us, etc., has become present to ns with His saving help (comp. Xen. Cyr. v. 4. 10; Sir 46:14; Jdt 8:33; Luk 7:16), It is appropriate to ἀνατ. ἐξ ὕψ., as the latter is personified. The figurative designation of the Messiah: Dayspring from on high, is borrowed from the rising of the sun (Rev 7:2; Mat 5:45; Hom. Od. xii. 4; Herod. iv. 8), or as is more in keeping with the ἐξ ὕψιστου, from the rising of a bright-beaming star of the night (Num 24:17; Valck. ad Eur. Phoen. 506), not (in opposition to Beza, Scultetus, Lightfoot, Wetstein) from an ascending shoot (צֶמַח, Isa 4:2; Jer 23:5; Jer 33:15; Zec 3:8; Zec 6:12), against which may be urged ἐξ ὕψ. and ἐπιφᾶναι.[34] Comp. Isa 9:2.
ἘΠΙΦᾶΝΑΙ] Infinitive of the aim. On the form see Lobeck, ad Phryn. p. 25 f.
τοῖς ἐν σκότει κ. σκ. θαν. καθημ.] those who sit in darkness and (climactic) the shadow of death-a picturesque delineation of the people totally destitute of divine truth and the true ζωή (ἡμῶν, Luk 1:79).
The shadow of death (צַלְמֶוֶת) is such a shadow as surrounds death (personified), and they are sitting in this shadow, because death is ruling among them, namely, in the spiritual sense, the opposite of the true life whose sphere is the light of divine truth. Moreover, comp. Isa 9:2, and on Mat 4:16; on καθημ. also, Nägelsbach, Anm. z. Ilias, ed. 3, p. 65.
τοῦ κατευθῦναι κ.τ.λ.] The aim of ἐπιφᾶναι κ.τ.λ., and so the final aim of ἐπεσκέψατο κ.τ.λ. Comp. on τοῦ δοῦναι, Luk 1:77. “Continuatur translatio, nam lux dirigit nos,” Grotius. Observe also the correlation of ΤΟῦ ΠΌΔΑς with the preceding ΚΑΘΗΜΈΝΟΙς.
ΕἸς ὉΔῸΝ ΕἸΡΉΝ.] in viam ad salutem (Messianam) ducentem. ΕἸΡΉΝΗ = שָׁלוֹם, opposite of all the misery denoted by ΣΚΌΤΟς Κ.Τ.Λ. (hence not merely peace). It has another sense in Rom 3:17. But comp. Act 16:17.
[34] Bleek wishes to combine the two senses, and infers from this that the source whence Luke drew was Greek and not Hebrew, because צמח would not have admitted a reference to the rising of the sun. But the whole mixing up of two incongruous figures is excluded by ver. 79; hence the inference drawn by Bleek (see also his Einleit. p. 277 f.), and approved by Holtzmann, falls to the ground. The source may have been Greek; but if it was Hebrew, צמח need not have stood in it.
Luk 1:80. A summary account (comp. Jdg 13:24) of the further development of John. More particular accounts were perhaps altogether wanting, but were not essential to the matter here.
ηὔξανε] the bodily growing up, and, connected therewith: ἐκρατ. πνεύμ., the mental gaining of strength that took place εἰς τὸν ἔσω ἄνθρωπ. (Eph 3:16). Comp. the description of the development of Jesus, Luk 2:40; Luk 2:52. ψυχῇ is not mentioned, for the πνεῦμα is the ἡγεμονικόν, in whose vigour and strength the ψυχή shares. Comp. Delitzsch, Psychol. p. 217.
ἦν ἐν τοῖς ἐρήμοις] in the well-known desert regions. It is the desert of Judah ἐξοχήν that is meant (see on Mat 3:1). In that desert dwelt also the Essenes (Plin. N. H. v. 17). How far their principles and askesis, which at least could not have remained unknown to John, may have indirectly exercised an influence on his peculiar character, cannot be determined; a true Essene this greatest and last phenomenon of Israelitish prophecy certainly was not; he belonged, like some God-sent prophet higher than all partisan attitudes in the people, to the whole nation.
ἀναδείξεως αὐτοῦ πρὸς τ. Ἰσρ.] His being publicly made known to Israel, when he was announced to the Israelites as the forerunner of the Messiah. This was done on the command of God by John himself. See Luk 3:2-6. ἀνάδειξις is the making known (renuntiatio) of official nomination; Polyb. xv. 26. 4; Plut. Mark 8; see Wetstein. Comp. Luk 10:1.
Luke is the only Evangelist who makes a preface to his Gospel, for the purpose of explaining briefly the motive which induced him to write. By addressing a single individual he may appear to have acted foolishly, instead of sounding the trumpet aloud, as was his duty, and inviting all men to believe. It appears, therefore, to be unsuitable that the doctrine which does not peculiarly belong to one person or to another, but is common to all, should be privately sent to his friend Theophilus. Hence some have been led to think that Theophilus is an appellative noun, and is applied to all godly persons on account of their love of God; but the epithet which is joined to it is inconsistent with that opinion. Nor is there any reason for dreading the absurdity which drove them to adopt such an expedient. For it is not less true that Paul’s doctrine belongs to all, though some of his Epistles were addressed to certain cities, and others to certain men. Nay, we must acknowledge, if we take into account the state of those times, that Luke adopted a conscientious and prudent course. There were tyrants on every hand who, by terror and alarm, were prepared to obstruct the progress of sound doctrine. This gave occasion to Satan and his ministers for spreading abroad the clouds of error, by which the pure light would be obscured. Now, as the great body of men cared little about maintaining the purity of the Gospel, and few considered attentively the inventions of Satan or the amount of danger that lurked under such disguises, every one who excelled others by uncommon faith, or by extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, was the more strongly bound to do his utmost, by care and industry, for preserving the doctrine of godliness pure and uncontaminated from every corruption. Such persons were chosen by God to be the sacred keepers of the law, by whom the heavenly doctrine committed to them should be honestly handed down to posterity. With this view therefore, Luke dedicates his Gospel to Theophilus, that he might undertake the faithful preservation of it; and the same duty Paul enjoins and recommends to Timothy, (2Ti 1:14.)
1.Forasmuch as many. He assigns a reason for writing which, one would think, ought rather to have dissuaded him from writing. To compose a history, which had already employed many authors, was unnecessary labor, at least if they had faithfully discharged their duty. But no accusation of imposture, or carelessness, or any other fault, is in the slightest degree insinuated. It looks, therefore, as if he were expressing a resolution to do what had been already done. I reply, though he deals gently with those who had written before him, he does not altogether approve of their labors. He does not expressly say that they had written on matters with which they were imperfectly acquainted, but by laying claim to certainty as to the facts, he modestly denies their title to full and unshaken confidence. It may be objected that, if they made false statements, they ought rather to have been severely censured. I reply again, they may not have been deeply in fault; they may have erred more from want of consideration than from malice; and, consequently, there would be no necessity for greater fierceness of attack. And certainly there is reason to believe that these were little more than historical sketches which, though comparatively harmless at the time, would afterwards, if they had not been promptly counteracted, have done serious injury to the faith. But it is worthy of remark that, in applying this remedy through Luke to unnecessary writings, God had a wonderful design in view of obtaining, by universal consent, the rejection of others, and thus securing undivided credit to those which reflect brightly his adorable majesty. There is the less excuse for those silly people, by whom disgusting stories, under the name of Nicodemus, or some other person, are, at the present day, palmed upon the world.
Are most surely believed among us The participle πεπληροφορημένα, which Luke employs, denotes things fully ascertained, and which do not admit of doubt. The old translator has repeatedly fallen into mistakes about this word, and through that ignorance has given us a corrupted sense of some very beautiful passages. One of these occurs in the writings of Paul, where he enjoins every man to be fully persuaded in his own mind, (Rom 14:5,) that conscience may not hesitate and waver, tossed to and fro (Eph 4:14) by doubtful opinions. Hence, too, is derived the word πληροφορία , which he erroneously renders fullness, while it denotes that strong conviction springing from faith, in which godly minds safely rest. There is still, as I have said, an implied contrast; for, by claiming for himself the authority of a faithful witness, he destroys the credit of others who give contrary statements.
Among us (17) has the same meaning as with us. (18) He appears to make faith rest on a weak foundation, its relation to men, while it ought to rest on the Word of God only; and certainly the full assurance (πληροφορία) of faith is ascribed to the sealing of the Spirit, (1Th 1:5; Heb 10:22.) I reply, if the Word of God does not hold the first rank, faith will not be satisfied with any human testimonies, but, where the inward confirmation of the Spirit has already taken place, it allows them some weight in the historical knowledge of facts. By historical knowledge I mean that knowledge which we obtain respecting events, either by our own observation or by the statement of others. For, with respect to the visible works of God, it is equally proper to listen to eye-witnesses as to rely on experience. Besides, those whom Luke follows were not private authors, but were also ministers of the Word By this commendation he exalts them above the rank of human authority; for he intimates that the persons from whom he received his information had been divinely authorized to preach the Gospel. Hence, too, that security which he shortly afterwards mentions, and which, if it does not rest upon God, may soon be disturbed. There is great weight in his denominating those from whom he received his Gospel ministers of the Word; for on that ground believers conclude that the witnesses are beyond all exception, as the Lawyers express it, and cannot lawfully be set aside.
Erasmus, who has borrowed from Virgil (19) a phrase used in his version, did not sufficiently consider the estimation and weight due to a Divine calling. Luke does not talk in a profane style, but enjoins us in the person of his friend Theophilus to keep in view the command of Christ, and to hear with reverence the Son of God speaking through his Apostles. It is a great matter that he affirms them to have been eye-witneses, but, by calling them ministers, he takes them out of the common order of men, that our faith may have its support in heaven and not in earth. In short, Luke’s meaning is this: “that, since thou now hast those things committed faithfully to writing which thou hadst formerly learned by oral statements, thou mayest place a stronger reliance on the received doctrine.” It is thus evident that God has employed every method to prevent our faith from being suspended on the doubtful and shifting opinions of men. There is the less room for excusing the ingratitude of the world, which, as if it openly preferred the uncertainty arising out of vague and unfounded reports, turns from so great a Divine favor with loathing. But let us attend to the remarkable distinction which our Lord has laid down, that foolish credulity may not insinuate itself under the name of faith. Meanwhile, let us allow the world to be allured, as it deserves, by the deceitful baits of foolish curiosity, and even to surrender itself willingly to the delusions of Satan.
(17) Inter nos.
(18) Apud nos.
(19) Quorum pars magna fui. — Virg. AEn.
3. Having carefully examined all things The old translator has it, having followed out all things; (20) and the Greek verb παρακολουθεῖν is taken metaphorically from those who tread in the footsteps of others, that nothing may escape them. So that Luke intended to express his close and laborious investigation, just as Demosthenes employs the same word, when, in examining an embassy against which he brings an accusation, he boasts of his diligence to have been such, that he perceived every thing that had been done as well as if he had been a spectator.
(20) Omnia assequuto.
Luke very properly begins his Gospel with John the Baptist, just as a person who was going to speak about the daylight would commence with the dawn. For, like the dawn, he went before the Sun of Righteousness, which was shortly to arise. Others also mention him, but they bring him forward as already discharging his office. Luke secures our respect for him, while he is yet unborn, by announcing the miracles of divine power which took place at the earliest period of his existence, and by showing that he had a commission from heaven to be a prophet, ere it was possible for men to know what would be his character. His object was that John might afterwards be heard with more profound veneration, when he should come forth invested with a public office to exhibit the glory of Christ.
5.In the days of Herod This was the son of Antipater, whom his father elevated to the throne, and labored with such assiduity and toil to advance, that he was afterwards surnamed Herod the Great Some think that he is here mentioned by Luke, because he was their first foreign king; and that this was a suitable time for their deliverance, because the scepter had passed into a different nation. But they who speak in this manner do not correctly understand Jacob’s prophecy, (Gen 49:10,) in which the advent of the Messiah is promised not merely after the royal authority had been taken from the Jews, but after it had been removed from the tribe of Judah. The holy patriarch did not even intimate that the tribe of Judah would be stripped of its supremacy, but that the government of the people would steadily remain in it until Christ, in whose person its permanency would at length be secured. When the Maccabees flourished, the tribe of Judah was reduced nearly to a private rank; and shortly afterwards, John, the latest leader of that race, was slain. But even at that time, its power was not completely annihilated; for there still remained the Sanhedrim, or Council selected out of the family and descendants of David, which possessed great authority, and lasted till the time of Herod, who, by a shocking slaughter of the judges, revenged the punishment formerly inflicted on himself, when he was condemned for murder, and forced to undergo voluntary exile, in order to escape capital punishment.
It was not, therefore, because he was of foreign extraction, that the reign of Herod broke the scepter of the tribe of Judah, (Gen 49:10;) but because whatever relics of superior rank still lingered in that tribe were entirely carried off by his robbery. That its royal dignity had crumbled down long before, and that by slow degrees its supremacy had nearly given way, does not imply such a discontinuance as to be at variance with Jacob’s prophecy. For God had promised two things seemingly opposite; that the throne of David would be eternal, (Psa 89:29,) and that, after it had been destroyed, he would raise up its ruins, (Amo 9:11;) that the sway of his kingly power would be eternal, and yet that there should come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, (Isa 11:1.) Both must be fulfilled. That supremacy, therefore, which God had bestowed on the tribe of Judah, was suffered by him to be broken down for a time, that the attention of the people might be more strongly directed to the expectation of Christ’s reign. But when the destruction of the Sanhedrim appeared to have cut off the hope of believers, suddenly the Lord shone forth. Now, it belongs to the arrangement of history to mark the date of the transaction; but for no light reason did the word king mark, at the same time, the wretchedness of that period, in order to remind the Jews, that their eyes ought now to be turned to the Messiah, if they would sincerely keep the covenant of God.
Zacharias, of the course of Abia We learn from sacred history, (1Ch 24:3,) that the families of the priests were arranged by David in certain classes. In this matter David attempted nothing contrary to what the law enjoined. God had bestowed the priesthood on Aaron and his sons, (Exo 28:1.) The other Levites were set apart to inferior offices, (Num 3:9.) David made no change in this respect; but his object was, partly to secure that nothing should be done in tumult and disorder, partly to oppose ambition, and at the same time to provide that it should not be in the power of a few persons, by taking the whole service into their own hands, to leave the greater number unemployed at home. Now in that arrangement, Abijah, son of Eleazar, held the eighth rank, (1Ch 24:10.) Zacharias, therefore, belonged to the priestly family, and to the posterity of Eleazar who had succeeded his father in the high priest’s office, (Num 20:28.) In what manner Elisabeth, who was of the daughters of Aaron, could be Mary’s cousin, ( v. 36,) I will explain in the proper place. It is certainly by way of respect that Luke mentions the genealogy of Elisabeth; for Zacharias was permitted by the law to take to wife a daughter of any private Levite. From the equal marriage, therefore, it is evident that he was a man respected among his own rank.
6. And they were both righteous before God He awards to them a noble testimony, not only that among men they spent holy and upright lives, but also that they were righteous before God This righteousness Luke defines briefly by saying that they walked in all the commandments of God Both ought to be carefully observed; for, although praise is bestowed on Zacharias and Elisabeth for the purpose of showing us that the lamp, whose light went before the Son of God, was taken not from an obscure house, but from an illustrious sanctuary, yet their example exhibits to us, at the same time, the rule of a devout and righteous life. In ordering our life, (Psa 37:23,) therefore, our first study ought to be to approve ourselves to God; and we know that what he chiefly requires is a sincere heart and a pure conscience. Whoever neglects uprightness of heart, and regulates his outward life only by obedience to the law, neglects this order. For it ought to be remembered that the heart, and not the outward mask of works, is chiefly regarded by God, to whom we are commanded to look. Obedience occupies the second rank; that is, no man must frame for himself, at his own pleasure, a new form of righteousness unsupported by the Word of God, but we must allow ourselves to be governed by divine authority. Nor ought we to neglect this definition, that they are righteous who regulate their life by the commandments of the law; which intimates that, to the eye of God, all acts of worship are counterfeit, and the course of human life false and unsettled, so far as they depart from his law.
Commandments and ordinances differ thus. The latter term relates strictly to exercises of piety and of divine worship; the latter is more general, and extends both to the worship of God and to the duties of charity. For the Hebrew word הקים, which signifies statutes or decrees, is rendered by the Greek translator δικαιώματα, ordinances; and in Scripture הקים usually denotes those services which the people were accustomed to perform in the worship of God and in the profession of their faith. Now, though hypocrites, in that respect, are very careful and exact, they do not at all resemble Zacharias and Elisabeth. For the sincere worshippers of God, such as these two were, do not lay hold on naked and empty ceremonies, but, eagerly bent on the truth, they observe them in a spiritual manner. Unholy and hypocritical persons, though they bestow assiduous toil on outward ceremonies, are yet far from observing them as they are enjoined by the Lord, and, consequently, do but lose their labor. In short, under these two words Luke embraces the whole law.
But if, in keeping the law, Zacharias and Elisabeth were blameless, they had no need of the grace of Christ; for a full observance of the law brings life, and, where there is no transgression of it, there is no remaining guilt. I reply, those magnificent commendations, which are bestowed on the servants of God, must be taken with some exception. For we ought to consider in what manner God deals with them. It is according to the covenant which he has made with them, the first clause of which is a free reconciliation and daily pardon, by which he forgives their sins. They are accounted righteous and blameless, because their whole life testifies that they are devoted to righteousness, that the fear of God dwells in them, so long as they give a holy example. But as their pious endeavors fall very far short of perfection, they cannot please God without obtaining pardon. The righteousness which is commended in them depends on the gracious forbearance of God, who does not reckon to them their remaining unrighteousness. In this manner we must explain whatever expressions are applied in Scripture to the righteousness of men, so as not to overturn the forgiveness of sins, on which it rests as a house does on its foundation. Those who explain it to mean that Zacharias and Elisabeth were righteous by faith, simply because they freely obtained the favor of God through the Mediator, torture and misapply the words of Luke. With respect to the subject itself, they state a part of the truth, but not the whole. I do own that the righteousness which is ascribed to them ought to be regarded as obtained, not by the merit of works, but by the grace of Christ; and yet, because the Lord has not imputed to them their sins, he has been pleased to bestow on their holy, though imperfect life, the appellation of righteousness The folly of the Papists is easily refuted. With the righteousness of faith they contrast this righteousness, which is ascribed to Zacharias, which certainly springs from the former, and, therefore, must be subject, inferior, and, to use a common expression, subordinate to it, so that there is no collision between them. The false coloring, too which they give to a single word is pitiful. Ordinances, they tell us, are called commandments of the law, and, therefore, they justify us. As if we asserted that true righteousness is not laid down in the law, or complained that its instruction is in fault for not justifying us, and not rather that it is weak through our flesh, (Rom 8:3.) In the commandments of God, as we have a hundred times acknowledged, life is contained, (Lev 18:5; Mat 19:17;) but this will be of no avail to men, who by nature were altogether opposed to the law, and, now that they are regenerated by the Spirit of God, are still very far from observing it in a perfect manner.
7. And they had no child By an extraordinary purpose of God it was appointed that John should be born out of the common and ordinary course of nature. The same thing happened with Isaac, (Gen 17:17; Gen 21:1,) in whom God had determined to give an uncommon and remarkable demonstration of his favor. Elisabeth had been barren in the prime of life, and now she is in old age, which of itself shuts up the womb. By two hinderances, therefore, the Lord gives a twofold, surprising exhibition of his power, in order to testify, by stretching out his hand, as it were, from heaven, that the Prophet was sent by himself, (Mal 3:1; Joh 1:6.) He is indeed a mortal man, born of earthly parents; but a supernatural method, so to speak, recommends him strongly as if he had fallen from heaven
9. According to the custom of the priest’s office The law enjoined that incense should be offered twice every day, that is, every morning and at even, (Exo 30:7.) The order of courses among the priests had been appointed by David, as we have already explained; and, consequently, what is here stated as to incense was expressly enjoined by the law of God. The other matters had been arranged by David, (1. h 24:3,) that each family might have its own turn, though David ordained nothing which was not prescribed by the law: he only pointed out a plan by which they might individually perform the service which God had commanded.
The word temple (νὰος) is here put for the holy place; which deserves attention, for it sometimes includes the outer court. Now, Zacharias is spoken of as going into the temple, which none but priests were permitted to enter. And so Luke says that the people stood without, there being a great distance between them and the altar of incense; for the altar on which the sacrifices were offered intervened. It ought to be observed also that Luke says before God: for whenever the priest entered into the holy place, he went, as it were, into the presence of God, that he might be a mediator between him and the people. For it was the will of the Lord to have this impressed upon his people, that no mortal is allowed to have access to heaven, without a priest going before; nay that, so long as men live on the earth, they do not approach the heavenly throne, so as to find favor there, but in the person of the Mediator. Now, as there were many priests, there were not two of them permitted to discharge, at the same time, the solemn office of intercession for the people; but they were so arranged in classes, that only one entered the Holy Place, and thus there was but one priest at a time. The design of the incense was to remind believers that the sweet savor of their prayers does not ascend to heaven except through the sacrifice of the Mediator; and in what manner those figures apply to us must be learned from the Epistle to the Hebrews.
12. Zacharias was troubled Though God does not appear to his servants for the purpose of terrifying them, yet it is advantageous and even necessary for them to be struck with awe, (Psa 33:8,) that, amidst their agitation, they may learn to give to God the glory due unto his name, (Psa 29:2.) Nor does Luke relate only that Zacharias was terrified, but adds that fear fell upon him; intimating that he was so alarmed as to give way to terror. The presence of God fills men with alarm, which not only leads them to reverence, but humbles the pride of the flesh, naturally so insolent that they never submit themselves to God until they have been overcome by violence. Hence, too, we infer that it is only when God is absent, — or, in other words, when they withdraw from his presence, — that they indulge in pride and self-flattery; for if they had God as a Judge before their eyes, they would at once and unavoidably fall prostrate. And if at the sight of an angel, who is but a spark of the Divine light, this happened to Zacharias, on whom the commendation of righteousness is bestowed, what shall become of us miserable creatures, if the majesty of God shall overwhelm us with its brightness? We are taught by the example of the holy fathers that those only are impressed with a lively sense of the Divine presence who shake and tremble at beholding him, and that those are stupid and insensible who hear his voice without alarm.
13. Fear not, Zacharias The glory of God, it ought to be observed, is not so appalling to the saints as to swallow them up entirely with dread, but only to cast them down from a foolish confidence, that they may behold him with humility. As soon, therefore, as God has abased the pride of the flesh in those who believe in him, he stretches out his hand to raise them up. He acts differently towards the reprobate; for at whatever time they are dragged before the tribunal of God, they are overwhelmed by absolute despair: and thus does God justly reward their vain delights, in which they give themselves up to the intoxicating antonness of sin. We ought, therefore, to accept this consolation, with which the angel soothes Zacharias, that we have no reason to fear, when God is gracious to us. For they are greatly mistaken who, in order to enjoy peace, hide themselves from the face of God, whereas we ought to acquaint ourselves with him and be at peace, (Job 22:21.)
Thy prayer is heard Zacharias may seem to have acted an improper part, and inconsistent with the nature of his office, if, on entering the Holy Place in the name of all the people, he prayed as a private man that he might obtain offspring; for, when the priest sustained a public character, he ought, in forgetfulness as it were of himself, to offer prayers for the general welfare of the Church. If we say that there was no absurdity in Zacharias, after performing the chief part of the prayer, devoting the second part of it to private meditations about himself, the reply will not be without weight. But it is hardly probable that Zacharias did, at that time, pray to obtain a son, of which he had despaired on account of his wife’s advanced age; nor indeed can any precise moment be drawn from the words of the angel. I interpret it, therefore, simply that his prayer was at length heard, which he had poured out before God for a long period. That the desire of having children, if it be not excessive, is consistent with piety and holiness, may be gathered from Scripture, which assigns to it not the lowest place among the blessings of God.
Thou shalt call his name John The name was given, I think, to the Baptist in order to heighten the authority of his office. יהוהנן, (1. h 3:15,) for which the Greeks employ ᾿Ιωάννης, signifies in Hebrew the grace of the Lord Many suppose that the son of Zacharias was so called, because he was beloved of God. I rather think that it was intended to recommend not the grace which God bestowed upon him as a private individual, but that grace which his mission would bring to all. The force and weight of the name are increased by its date; for it was before he was born that God inscribed on him this token of his favor.
14. He shall be to thee joy The angel describes a greater joy than what Zacharias could derive from the recent birth of a child; for he informs him that he would have such a son as he had not even ventured to wish. He even proceeds farther to state that the joy would not be domestic, enjoyed by the parents alone, or confined within private walls, but shared alike by strangers, to whom the advantage of his birth should be made known. It is as if the angel had said that a son would be born not to Zacharias alone, but would be the Teacher and Prophet of the whole people. The Papists have abused this passage for the purpose of introducing a profane custom in celebrating the birth-day of John. I pass over the disorderly scene of a procession accompanied by dancing and leaping, and licentiousness of every description, strangely enough employed in observing a day which they pretend to hold sacred, and even the amusements authorized on that day taken from magical arts and diabolical tricks, closely resembling the mysteries of the goddess Ceres. It is enough for me, at present, to show briefly that they absurdly torture the words of the angel to mean the annual joy of a birth-day, while the angel restricts his commendation to that joy which all godly persons would derive from the advantage of his instruction. They rejoiced that a prophet was born to them, by whose ministry they were led to the hope of salvation,
15. For he shall be great He confirms what he said about joy, for John had been selected for a great and extraordinary purpose. These words are not so much intended to extol his eminent virtues as to proclaim his great and glorious office; as Christ, when he declares that among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist, (Mat 11:11,) refers less to the holiness of his life than to his ministry. What follows immediately afterwards, he shall drink neither wine nor strong drink, must not be understood to mean that John’s abstemiousness was a singular virtue, but that God was pleased to distinguish his servant by this visible token, by which the world would acknowledge him to be a continual Nazarite. The priests too abstained from wine and strong drink, while they were performing their duties in the temple, (Lev 10:9.) The same abstinence was enjoined on the Nazarites, (Num 6:3,) until their vow should be fulfilled. By a striking mark God showed that John was dedicated to him to be a Nazarite for his whole life, as we learn was also the case with Samson, (Jud 13:3.) But we must not on this ground imagine that the worship of God consists in abstinence from wine, as apish copyists select some part of the actions of the fathers for an object of imitation. Only let all practice temperance, let those who conceive it to be injurious to drink wine abstain of their own accord, and let those who have it not endure the want with contentment. As to the word σίκερα, I fully agree with those who think that, like the Hebrew word שכר, it denotes any sort of manufactured wine.
He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost These words, I think, convey nothing more than that John would manifest such a disposition as would hold out the hope of future greatness. By disposition I mean not such as is found even in ungodly men, but what corresponds to the excellence of his office. The meaning is, the power and grace of the Spirit will appear in him not only when he shall enter upon his public employment, but even from the womb he shall excel in the gifts of the Spirit, which will be a token and pledge of his future character. From the womb, means from his earliest infancy. The power of the Spirit, I acknowledge, did operate in John, while he was yet in his mother’s womb; but here, in my opinion, the angel meant something else, that John, even when a child, would be brought forward to the public gaze, accompanied by extraordinary commendation of the grace of God. As to fullness, there is no occasion for entering into the subtle disputations, or rather the trifling, of the sophists; for Scripture conveys nothing more by this word than the pre-eminent and very uncommon abundance of the gifts of the Spirit. We know, that to Christ alone the Spirit was given without measure, (Joh 3:34,) that we may draw out of his fullness, (Joh 1:16;) while to others it is distributed according to a fixed measure, (1. o 12:11; Eph 4:7.) But those who are more plentifully endued with grace beyond the ordinary capacity, are said to be full of the Holy Ghost. Now, as the more plentiful influence of the Spirit was in John an extraordinary gift of God, it ought to be observed that the Spirit is not bestowed on all from their very infancy, but only when it pleases God. John bore from the womb a token of future rank. Saul, while tending the herd, remained long without any mark of royalty, and, when at length chosen to be king, was suddenly turned into another man, (1. a 10:6.) Let us learn by this example that, from the earliest infancy to the latest old age, the operation of the Spirit in men is free.
16. And many of the children of Israel shall he bring back These words show the shamefully dissolute conduct which then prevailed in the Church, for those in whom conversion to God could take place must have been apostates. And certainly corrupt doctrine, depraved morals, and disorderly government, were such as to render it next to a miracle that a very few continued in godliness. But if the ancient Church was so awfully dissolute, it is a frivolous pretext by which the Papists defend their own superstitions, that it is impossible for the Church to err, particularly since they include under this designation not the genuine and elect children of God, but the crowd of the ungodly.
But John appears to have more ascribed to him here than belongs to man. For conversion to God renews men to a spiritual fife, and therefore is not only God’s own work, but surpasses even the creation of men. In this way ministers might seem to be made equal, and even superior, to God viewed as Creator; since to be born again to a heavenly life is a greater work than to be born as mortals on the earth. The answer is easy; for when the Lord bestows so great praise on the outward doctrine, he does not separate it from the secret influence of his Spirit. As God chooses men to be his ministers whose services he employs for the edification of his Church, he at the same time operates by them, through the secret influence of his Spirit, that their labors may be efficacious and fruitful. Wherever Scripture applauds this efficacy in the ministry of men, let us learn to attribute it to the grace of the Spirit, without which the voice of man would have spent itself uselessly in the air. Thus, when Paul boasts that he is a minister of the Spirit, (2. o 3:6,) he claims nothing separately for himself, as if by his voice he penetrated into the hearts of men, but asserts the power and grace of the Spirit in his ministry. These expressions are worthy of remark; because Satan labors, with amazing contrivance, to lower the effect of doctrine, in order that the grace of the Spirit connected with it may be weakened. The outward preaching, I acknowledge, can do nothing separately or by itself; but as it is an instrument of divine power for our salvation, and through the grace of the spirit an efficacious instrument, what God hath joined together let us not put asunder, (Mat 19:6.)
That the glory of conversion and faith, on the other hand, may remain undivided with God alone, Scripture frequently reminds us that ministers are nothing in themselves; but in such cases he compares them with God, that no one may wickedly steal the honor from God and convey it to them. In short, those whom God, by the aid of the minister, converts to himself, are said to be converted by the minister, because he is nothing more than the hand of God; and both are expressly asserted in this passage. Of the efficacy of the doctrine we have now said enough. That it lies not in the will and power of the minister to bring men back to God, we conclude from this that John did not indiscriminately bring all back, (which he would unquestionably have done, if every thing had yielded to his wish,) but only brought those back whom it pleased the Lord effectually to call. In a word, what is here taught by the angel is laid down by Paul in his Epistle to the Romans, that faith cometh by hearing, (Rom 10:17,) but that those only to whom the Lord inwardly reveals his arm (Isa 53:1; Joh 12:38) are so enlightened as to believe.
17. And he shall go before him By these words he points out what would be John’s office, and distinguishes him by this mark from the other prophets, who received a certain and peculiar commission, while John was sent for the sole object of going before Christ, as a herald before a king. Thus also the Lord speaks by Malachi,
“Behold, I will send my messenger, and he shall prepare the way before me,”
(Mal 3:1.)
In short, the calling of John had no other design than to secure for Christ a willing ear, and to prepare for him disciples. As to the angel making no express mention of Christ in this passage, but declaring John to be the usher or standard-bearer of the eternal God, we learn from it the eternal divinity of Christ. With the spirit and power of Elijah By the words spirit and power, I understand the power or excellency of the Spirit, with which Elijah was endued; for we must not here indulge in a dream like that of Pythagoras, that the soul of the prophet passed into the body of John, but the same Spirit of God, who had acted efficaciously in Elijah, afterwards exerted a similar power and efficacy in the Baptist. The latter term, power, is added, by way of exposition, to denote the kind of grace which was the loftiest distinction of Elijah, that, furnished with heavenly power, he restored in a wonderful manner the decayed worship of God; for such a restoration was beyond human ability. What John undertook was not less astonishing; and, therefore, we ought not to wonder if it was necessary for him to enjoy the same gift.
That he may bring back the hearts of the fathers Here the angel points out the chief resemblance between John and Elijah. He declares that he was sent to collect the scattered people into the unity of faith: for to bring back the hearts of the fathers is to restore them from discord to reconciliation; from which it follows, that there had been some division which rent and tore asunder the people. We know how dreadful was the revolt of the people in the time of Elijah, how basely they had degenerated from the fathers, so as hardly to deserve to be reckoned the children of Abraham. Those who were thus disunited Elijah brought into holy harmony. Such was the reunion of parents with children, which was begun by John, and at length finished by Christ. Accordingly, when Malachi speaks of “turning the hearts of the fathers to the children,” (Mal 4:5,) he intimates that the Church would be in a state of confusion when another Elijah should appear; and what was that state is plain enough from history, and will more fully appear in the proper place. The doctrine of Scripture had degenerated through countless inventions, the worship of God was corrupted by very gross superstition, religion was divided into various sects, priests were openly wicked and Epicureans, the people indulged in every kind of wickedness; in short, nothing remained sound. The expression, bring back the hearts of the fathers to the children, is not literally true; for it was rather the children who had broken the covenant and departed from the right faith of their fathers, that needed to be brought back But though the Evangelist does not so literally express that order of bringing back, the meaning is abundantly obvious, that, by the instrumentality of John, God would again unite in holy harmony those who had previously been disunited. Both clauses occur in the prophet Malachi, who meant nothing more than to express a mutual agreement.
But as men frequently enter into mutual conspiracies which drive them farther from God, the angel explains, at the same time, the nature of that bringing back which he predicts, the disobedient to the wisdom of the just. This deserves attention, that we may not foolishly allow ourselves to be classed with ungodly men under a false pretense of harmony. Peace is a sounding and imposing term, and, whenever the Papists meet with it in scripture, they eagerly seize upon it for the purpose of raising dislike against us, as if we, who are endeavoring to withdraw the world from its base revolt, and bring it back to Christ, were the authors of divisions. But this passage affords a fine exposure of their folly, when the angel explains the manner of a genuine and proper conversion; and declares its support and link to be the wisdom of the just Accursed then be the peace and unity by which men agree among themselves apart from God.
By the wisdom of the just is unquestionably meant Faith, as, on the contrary, by the disobedient are meant Unbelievers. And certainly this is a remarkable encomium on faith, by which we are instructed, that then only are we truly wise unto righteousness when we obey the word of the Lord. The world too has its wisdom, but a perverse and therefore destructive wisdom, which is ever pronounced to be vanity; though the angel indirectly asserts that the shadowy wisdom, in which the children of the world delight, is depraved and accursed before God. This is therefore a settled point, that, with the view of becoming reconciled to each other, men ought first to return to peace with God.
What immediately follows about making ready a people prepared for the Lord, agrees with that clause, that John, as the herald of Christ, would go before his face, (Mal 3:1;) for the design of his preaching was to make the people attentive to hear the instruction of Christ. The Greek participle κατεσκευασμένον, it is true, does not so properly mean perfection as the form and adaptation by which things are fitted for their use. This meaning will not agree ill with the present passage. John was commissioned to fit or mould to Christ a people which, formerly ignorant and uneducated, had never shown a desire to learn.
And Zacharias said to the angel Next follows the doubt of Zacharias, and the punishment which the Lord inflicted on his unbelief. He had prayed that he might obtain offspring, and now that it is promised, he distrusts, as if he had forgotten his own prayers and faith. It might, at first sight, appear harsh that God is so much offended by his reply. He brings forward his old age as an objection. Abraham did the same; and yet his faith is so highly applauded that Paul declares, he
“considered not his own body now dead, neither yet the deadness of Sarah’s womb,” (Rom 4:19,)
but unhesitatingly relied on the truth and power of God. Zacharias inquires how, or by what proof, he might arrive at certainty. But Gideon was not blamed for twice asking a sign, (Jud 6:17.) Nay more, we are shortly after this informed of Mary’s objection, How shall this be, since I know not a man? ( ver. 34,) which the angel passes over as if it contained nothing wrong. How comes it then that God punishes Zacharias so severely, as if he had been guilty of a very heinous sin? I do acknowledge that, if the words only are considered, either all were equally to blame, or Zacharias did nothing wrong. But as the actions and words of men must be judged from the state of the heart, we ought rather to abide by the judgment of God, to whom the hidden secrets of the heart are naked and opened, (Heb 4:13.)
Unquestionably, the Lord beheld in Zacharias something worse than his words may bear, and therefore his anger was kindled against him for throwing back with distrust the promised favor. We have no right, indeed, to lay down a law to God which would not leave him free to punish in one the fault which he pardons in others. But it is very evident that the case of Zacharias was widely different from that of Abraham, or Gideon, or Mary. This does not appear in the words; and therefore the knowledge of it must be left to God, whose eyes pierce the depths of the heart. Thus God distinguishes between Sarah’s laugh (Gen 18:12) and Abraham’s, (Gen 17:17,) though the one apparently does not differ from the other. The reason why Zacharias doubted was, that, stopping at the ordinary course of nature, he ascribed less than he ought to have done to the power of God. They take a narrow and disparaging view of the works of God, who believe that he will do no more than nature holds out to be probable, as if his hand were limited to our senses or confined to earthly means. But it belongs to faith to believe that more can be done than carnal reason admits. Zacharias had no hesitation with regard to its being the voice of God, but as he looked too exclusively at the world, an indirect doubt arose in his mind if what he had heard would really happen. In that respect he did no slight injury to God, for he went so far as to reason with himself, whether God, who had undoubtedly spoken to him, should be regarded as worthy of credit.
At the same time, we ought to know that Zacharias was not so unbelieving as to turn aside wholly from the faith; for there is a general faith which embraces the promise of eternal salvation and the testimony of a free adoption. On the other hand, when God has once received us into favor, he gives us many special promises, — that he will feed us, will deliver us from dangers, will vindicate our reputation, will protect our life; — and so there is a special faith which answers particularly to each of these promises. Thus, it will sometimes happen, that one who trusts in God for the pardon of his sins, and for salvation, will waver on some point, — will be too much alarmed by the dread of death, too solicitous about daily food, or too anxious about his plans. Such was the unbelief of Zacharias; for while he held the root and foundation of faith, he hesitated only on one point, whether God would give to him a son. Let us know, therefore, that those who are perplexed or disturbed by weakness on some particular occasion do not entirely depart or fall off from the faith, and that, though the branches of faith are agitated by various tempests, it does not give way at the root. Besides, nothing was farther from the intention of Zacharias than to call in question the truth of a divine promise; but while he was convinced generally that God is faithful, he was cunningly drawn by the craft and wiles of Satan to draw a wicked distinction. It is all the more necessary for us to keep diligent watch: for which of us shall be secure against the snares of the devil, when we learn that a man so eminently holy, who had all his life maintained strict watchfulness over himself, was overtaken by them?
19. I am Gabriel By these words the angel intimates that it was not his veracity, but that of God who sent him, and whose message he brought, that had been questioned; and so he charges Zacharias with having offered an insult to God. To stand before God signifies to be ready to yield obedience. It implies that he is not a mortal man, but a heavenly spirits — that he did not fly hither at random, but, as became a servant of God, had faithfully performed his duty: and hence it follows that God, the author of the promise, had been treated with indignity and contempt in the person of his ambassador. Of similar import is the declaration of Christ, “he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me,” (Luk 10:16.) Although the preaching of the gospel is not brought to us from heaven by angels, yet, since God attested by so many miracles that he was its author, and since Christ, the Prince and Lord of angels, once published it with his own mouth, (Heb 1:2,) that he might give it a perpetual sanction, its majesty ought to make as deep an impression upon us, as if all the angels were heard loudly proclaiming its attestation from heaven. Nay, the apostle, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, not satisfied with elevating the word of the gospel, which speaks by the mouth of men, to an equality with the law brought by angels, draws an argument from the less to the greater.
“If the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompence of rewards”
(Heb 2:2,)
“ of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God,”
(Heb 10:29,)
whose “voice shakes not the earth only, but also heaven?” (Heb 12:26.) Let us learn to render to God the obedience of faith, which he values more highly than all sacrifices. Gabriel means the strength, or power, or pre-eminence of God, and this name is given to the angel on our account, to instruct us that we must not ascribe to angels any thing of their own, for whatever excellence they possess is from God. The Greek participle, παρεστηκὼς, (standing,) is in the past tense, but everybody knows that the past tense of such verbs is often taken for the present, and particularly when a continued act is expressed. The word εὐαγγελίσασθαι (to convey glad tidings) aggravates the crime of Zacharias; for he was ungrateful to God, who kindly promised a joyful and desirable event.
20. And, behold, thou shalt be dumb It was suitable that this kind of punishment should be inflicted on Zacharias, that, being dumb, he might await the fulfillment of the promise, which, instead of interrupting it by noisy murmurs, he ought to have heard in silence. Faith has its silence to lend an ear to the Word of God. It has afterwards its turn to speak and to answer Amen, according to that passage,
“I will say to them, Thou art my people, and they shall say,
Thou art my God,” (Hos 2:23.)
But as Zacharias had rashly interrupted the Word of God, he is not allowed this favor of breaking out immediately in thanksgiving, but is denied for a time the use of his tongue, which had been too forward. Yet God is pleased graciously to mitigate the punishment, first, by limiting its duration to ten months, and next by not withholding from Zacharias the favor which he was unworthy to enjoy. With the same gentleness does he treat us every day: for when our faith is weak, and we throw out many obstacles, the truth of God, in continuing to flow toward us, must of necessity break through them with a kind of violence. That is the angel’s meaning, when he reproaches Zacharias with unbelief, and yet declares that those things which Zacharias did not believe would be accomplished in due time And so Zacharias is not a little relieved by learning that his fault has not made void the promise of God, which will afterwards be displayed in a more remarkable manner. It does sometimes happen that, notwithstanding the opposition made by unbelievers, the Lord bestows and fulfils what he had promised to them. We have a remarkable instance of this in King Ahaz, who rejected the promised safety, and yet was delivered from his enemies, (Isa 7:12.) But that resulted, without any advantage to him, in the salvation of the chosen people. It was otherwise with Zacharias, in whom the Lord chastises, and at the same time pardons, the weakness of faith.
21. And the people were waiting Luke now relates that the people were witnesses of this vision. Zacharias had tarried in the temple longer than usual. This leads to the supposition that something uncommon has happened to him. When he comes out, he makes known, by looks and gestures, that he has been struck dumb. There is reason to believe, also, that there were traces of alarm in his countenance. Hence they conclude that God has appeared to him. True, there were few or no visions in that age, but the people remembered that formerly, in the time of their fathers, they were of frequent occurrence. It is not without reason, therefore, that they draw this conclusion from obvious symptoms: for it was not an ordinary occurrence, [it was not a common accident, but rather an astonishing work of God, (22) ] that he became suddenly dumb without disease, and after a more than ordinary delay came out of the temple in a state of amazement. The word temple, as we have already mentioned, is put for the sanctuary, where the altar of incense stood, (Exo 30:1.) From this place the priests, after performing their sacred functions, were wont to go out into their own court, for the purpose of blessing the people.
(22) Ce n'estoit point un accident commun, mais plustost une ceuvre ad-mirable de Dieu —Fr.
23. When the days were fulfilled Λειτουργία is employed by Luke to denote a charge or office, which passed, as we have said, to each of them in regular order, (1. h 24:3.) We are told that, when the time of his office had expired, Zacharias returned home. Hence we conclude that, so long as the priests were attending in their turns, they did not enter their own houses, that they might be entirely devoted and attached to the worship of God. For this purpose galleries were constructed around the walls of the temple, in which they had “chambers,” (1. g 6:5.) The law did not, indeed, forbid a priest to enter his house, but, as it did not permit those who ate the show-bread to come near their wives, (1. a 21:4,) and as many persons were disposed to treat sacred things in an irreverent manner, this was probably discovered to be a remedy, that, being removed from all temptations, they might preserve themselves pure and clear from every defilement. And they were not only discharged from intercourse with their wives, but from the use of wine and every kind of intoxicating drink, (Lev 10:9.) While they were commanded to change their mode of living, it was advantageous for them not to depart from the temple, that the very sight of the place might remind them to cultivate such purity as the Lord had enjoined. It was proper also to withdraw every means of gratification, that they might devote themselves more unreservedly to their office.
The Papists of the present day employ this as a pretense for defending the tyrannical law of celibacy. They argue thus. The priests were formerly enjoined to withdraw from their wives, while they were engaged in religious services. Most properly is perpetual continence now demanded from the priests, who not in their turn, but every day, offer sacrifices; more especially since the importance of religious services is far higher than it was under the law. But I should like to know why they do not also abstain from wine and strong drink. For we are not at liberty to separate commandments which God has joined, so as to keep the one half and disregard the other. Intercourse with wives is not so expressly forbidden as the drinking of wine, (Eze 44:21.) If, under the pretense of the law, the Pope enjoins celibacy on his priests, why does he allow them wine? Nay, on this principle, all priests ought to be thrown into some retired apartments of the churches, to pass their whole life immured in prisons, and excluded from the society of women and of the people.
It is now abundantly clear that they wickedly shelter themselves under the law of God, to which they do not adhere. But the full solution of the difficulty depends on the distinction between the law and the gospel. A priest stood in the presence of God, to expiate the sins of the people, to be, as it were, a mediator between God and men. He who sustained that character ought to have had something peculiar about him, that he might be distinguished from the common rank of men, and recognised as a figure of the true Mediator. Such, too, was the design of the holy garments and the anointing. In our day the public ministers and pastors of the church have nothing of this description. I speak of the ministers whom Christ has appointed to feed his flock, not of those whom the Pope commissions, as executioners rather than priests, to murder Christ. Let us therefore rest in the decision of the Spirit, which pronounces that “marriage is honorable in all,” (Heb 13:4.)
24. And hid herself This appears very strange, as if she had been ashamed of the blessing of God. Some think that she did not, venture to appear in public, so long as the matter was uncertain, for fear of exposing herself to ridicule, if her expectation were disappointed. In my opinion, she was so fully convinced of the promise made to her, that she had no doubt of its accomplishment. When she saw a severe punishment inflicted on her husband for “ speaking unadvisedly with his lips,” (Psa 106:33,) did she, for five successive months, cherish in her mind a similar doubt? But her words show clearly that her expectation was not doubtful or uncertain. By saying, thus hath the Lord done to me, she expressly and boldly affirms that his favor was ascertained. There might be two reasons for the delay. Until this extraordinary work of God was manifest, she might hesitate to expose it to the diversified opinions of men, for the world frequently indulges in light, rash, and irreverent talking about the works of God. Another reason might be that, when she was all at once discovered to be pregnant, men might be more powerfully excited to praise God. [For, when the works of God show themselves gradually, in process of time we make less account of them than if the thing had been accomplished all at once, without our having ever heard of it—Fr. ] It was not, therefore, on her own account, but rather with a view to others, that Elisabeth hid herself
25. Thus hath the Lord done to me She extols in private the goodness of God, until the time is fully come for making it generally known. There is reason to believe that her husband had informed her by writing of the promised offspring, in consequence of which she affirms with greater certainty and freedom that God was the author of this favor. This is confirmed by the following words, when he looked, that he might take away my reproach; for she assigns it as the cause of her barrenness that the favor of God had been at that time withdrawn from her. Among earthly blessings, Scripture speaks in the highest terms of the gift of offspring. And justly: for, if the productiveness of the inferior animals is his blessing, the increase and fruitfulness of the human race ought to be reckoned a much higher favor. It is no small or mean honor, that God, who alone is entitled to be regarded as a Father, admits the children of the dust to share with him this title. Let us, therefore, hold this doctrine, that
“children are an heritage of the Lord,
and the fruit of the womb is his reward,”
(Psa 127:3.)
But Elisabeth looked farther; for, though barren and old, she had conceived by a remarkable miracle, and contrary to the ordinary course of nature.
That he might take away my reproach Not without reason has barrenness been always accounted a reproach: for the blessing of the womb is enumerated among the signal instances of the divine kindness. Some think that this was peculiar to the ancient people: because Christ was to come from the seed of Abraham. But this had no reference, except to the tribe of Judah. Others think more correctly that the multiplication of the holy people was happy and blessed, as was said to Abraham, “I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth,” (Gen 13:16;) and again,
“Tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: so shall thy seed be,”
(Gen 15:5.)
But we ought to connect the universal blessing, which extends to the whole human race, with the promise made to Abraham, which is peculiar to the church of God, (Gen 13:15.) Let parents learn to be thankful to God for the children which he has given them, and let those who have no offspring acknowledge that God has humbled them in this matter. Elisabeth speaks of it exclusively as a reproach among men: for it is a temporal chastisement, from which we will suffer no loss in the kingdom of heaven.
26. Now in the sixth month It was a wonderful dispensation of the divine purpose, and far removed from the ordinary judgment of men, that God determined to make the beginning of the generation of the herald more illustrious than that of his own Son. The prophecy respecting John was published in the temple and universally known: Christ is promised to a virgin in an obscure town of Judea, and this prophecy remains buried in the breast of a young woman. But it was proper that, even from the birth of Christ, that saying should be fulfilled,
“ it pleased God by foolishness to save them that believe,”
(1. o 1:21.)
The treasure of this mystery was committed by him to a virgin in such a manner, that at length, when the proper time came, it might be communicated to all the godly. It was, I own, a mean kind of guardianship; but whether for trying the humility of faith, or restraining the pride of the ungodly, it was the best adapted. Let us learn, even when the reason does not immediately appear, to submit modestly to God, and let us not be ashamed to receive instruction from her who carried in her womb Christ the eternal “ wisdom of God,” (1. o 1:24.) There is nothing which we should more carefully avoid than the proud contempt that would deprive us of the knowledge of the inestimable secret, which God has purposely “hid from the wise and prudent, and revealed ” to the humble and “to babes, ” (Luk 10:21.)
It was, I think, for the same reason that he chose a virgin betrothed to a man There is no foundation for Origen’s opinion, that he did this for the purpose of concealing from Satan the salvation which he was preparing to bestow on men. The marriage was a veil held out before the eyes of the world, that he who was commonly “supposed to be the son of Joseph ” (Luk 3:23) might at length be believed and acknowledged by the godly to be the Son of God. Yet the entrance of Christ into the world was not destitute of glory; for the splendor of his Godhead was manifested from the commencement by his heavenly Father. Angels announced that “a Savior was born,” (Luk 2:11;) but their voice was only heard by the shepherds, and traveled no farther. One miracle, — everywhere published by “the wise men who came from the east, ” (Mat 2:1) that they had seen a star which proclaimed the birth of the Highest King,—may have been highly celebrated. Yet we see how God kept his Son, as it were, in concealment, until the time of his full manifestation arrived, and then erected for him a platform, that he might be beheld by all.
The participle μεμνηστευμένην, which is employed by the Evangelist, signifies that the virgin had then been engaged to her bridegroom, but was not yet given as a wife to her husband. For it was customary among Jewish parents to keep their daughters some time at home, after they had been betrothed to men; otherwise, the law relating to the seduction of a “ betrothed damsel” (Deu 22:23) would have been unnecessary. Luke says that Joseph was of the house of David; for families are usually reckoned by the names of the men; but on this point we shall speak more fully in another place.
28. Hail, thou who hast obtained favor The angel’s commission being of an astonishing and almost incredible description, he opens it with a commendation of the grace of God. And certainly, since our limited capacities admit too slender a portion of knowledge for comprehending the vast greatness of the works of God, our best remedy is, to elevate them to meditation on his boundless grace. A conviction of the Divine goodness is the entrance of faith, and the angel properly observes this order, that, after preparing the heart of the virgin by meditation on the grace of God, he may enlarge it to receive an incomprehensible mystery. For the participle κεχαριτωμένη, which Luke employs, denotes the undeserved favor of God. This appears more clearly from the Epistle to the Ephesians, (Eph 1:6,) where, speaking of our reconciliation to God, Paul says, God “ hath made us accepted (ἐχαρίτωσεν) in the Beloved:” that is, he has received into his favor, and embraced with kindness, us who were formerly his enemies.
The angel adds, the Lord is with thee To those on whom he has once bestowed his love God shows himself gracious and kind, follows and “ crowns them with loving-kindness,” (Psa 103:4.) Next comes the third clause, that she is blessed among women. Blessing is here put down as the result and proof of the Divine kindness. The word Blessed does not, in my opinion, mean, Worthy of praise; but rather means, Happy. Thus, Paul often supplicates for believers, first “grace” and then “peace,” (Rom 1:7; Eph 1:2,) that is, every kind of blessings; implying that we shall then be truly happy and rich, when we are beloved by God, from whom all blessings proceed. But if Mary’s happiness, righteousness, and life, flow from the undeserved love of God, if her virtues and all her excellence are nothing more than the Divine kindness, it is the height of absurdity to tell us that we should seek from her what she derives from another quarter in the same manner as ourselves. With extraordinary ignorance have the Papists, by an enchanter’s trick, changed this salutation into a prayer, and have carried their folly so far, that their preachers are not permitted, in the pulpit, to implore the grace of the Spirit, except through their Hail, Mary (23) But not only are these words a simple congratulation. They unwarrantably assume an office which does not belong to them, and which God committed to none but an angel. Their silly ambition leads them into a second blunder, for they salute a person who is absent.
(23) “Ave, Maria.”
29. When she had seen him, she was agitated Luke does not say that she was agitated by the presence of the angel, but by his address. Why then does he also mention his presence? (24) The reason, I think, is this. Perceiving in the angel something of heavenly glory, she was seized with sudden dread arising out of reverence for God. She was agitated, because she felt that she had received a salutation, not from a mortal man, but from an angel of God. But Luke does not say that she was so agitated as to have lost recollection. On the contrary, he mentions an indication of an attentive and composed mind; for he afterwards adds, and was considering what that salutation would be: that is, what was its object, and what was its meaning. It instantly occurred to her that the angel had not been sent for a trifling purpose. This example reminds us, first, that we ought not to be careless observers of the works of God; and, secondly, that our consideration of them ought to be regulated by fear and reverence.
(24) “Cur ergo aspectus etiam meminit ?” Calvin's allusion is brought out more clearly in his own vernacular. “Pourquoy donc dit-il, Quand elle l'eut veu ?” — “Why then does he say,When she had seen him?”
30. Fear not, Mary He bids her lay aside fear. Let us always remember—what arises from the weakness of the flesh—that, whenever the feeblest ray of the Divine glory bursts upon us, we cannot avoid being alarmed. When we become aware, in good earnest, of the presence of God, we cannot think of it apart from its effects. (25) Accordingly, as we are all amenable to his tribunal, fear gives rise to trembling, until God manifests himself as a Father. The holy virgin saw in her own nation such a mass of crimes, that she had good reason for dreading heavier punishments. To remove this fear, the angel declares that he has come to certify and announce an inestimable blessing. The Hebrew idiom, Thou hast found favor, is used by Luke instead of, “God has been merciful to thee:” for a person is said to find favor, not when he has sought it, but when it has been freely offered to him. Instances of this are so well known, that it would be of no use to quote them.
(25) “Neque otiosam imaginari licet.” — “Car nous ne pouvons point apprehender à bon escient la presence de Dieu, sinon avec ses effects.”
31. Behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb The angel adapts his words, first to Isaiah’s prophecy, (Isa 7:14,) and next to other passages of the Prophets, with the view of affecting more powerfully the mind of the virgin: for such prophecies were well known and highly esteemed among the godly. At the same time, it ought to be observed that the angel did not merely speak in private to the ear of the virgin, but brought glad tidings, ( εὐαγγέλιον ,) which were shortly afterwards to be published throughout the whole world. It was not without the purpose of God, that the agreement, between ancient prophecies and the present message respecting the manifestation of Christ, was so clearly pointed out. The word conceive is enough to set aside the dream of Marcion and Manichaeus: for it is easy to gather from it that Mary brought forth not an ethereal body or phantom, but the fruit which she had previously conceived in her womb.
Thou shalt call his name Jesus The reason of the name is given by Matthew: for he shall save his people from their sins, (Mat 1:21 .)And so the name contains a promise of salvation, and points out the object for which Christ was sent by the Father into the world, as he tells us that he “came not to judge the world, but to save the world,” (Joh 12:47.) Let us remember that not by the will of men, but by the command of God, was this name given to him by the angel, that our faith may have its foundation, not in earth, but in heaven. It is derived from the Hebrew word ישע, salvation, from which comes הושיע, which signifies to save. It is a waste of ingenuity to contend that it differs from the Hebrew name יהושוע, (Jehoshua or Joshua.) The Rabbins everywhere write the word Jesu; and they do this with evident malice, that they may not bestow on Christ an honorable name, but, on the contrary, may insinuate that he is some pretended Jew. Their manner of writing it, accordingly, is of no more importance than the barking of a dog. The objection that it is far beneath the dignity of the Son of God to have a name in common with others, might equally apply to the name Christ, or Anointed But the solution of both is easy. What was exhibited in shadow under the law is fully and actually manifested in the Son of God; or, what was then a figure is in him a substance. There is another objection of as little weight. They assert that the name of Jesus is not worthy of veneration and awe, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, (Phi 2:9,) if it does not belong exclusively to the Son of God. For Paul does not attribute to him a magical name, as if in its very syllables majesty resided, but his language simply means that Christ has received from the Father the highest authority, to which the whole world ought to submit. Let us then bid adieu to such imaginations, and know, that the name Jesus was given to Christ, in order that believers may be instructed to seek in him what had formerly been shadowed out under the Law.
32. He shall be great The angel had said the same thing about John the Baptist, and yet did not intend to make him equal to Christ. But the Baptist is great in his own class, while the greatness of Christ is immediately explained to be such as raises him above all creatures. For to him alone this belongs as his own peculiar prerogative to be called the Son of God. So the apostle argues.
Unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? (Heb 1:5.)
Angels and kings, I admit, are sometimes dignified with this title in Scripture; but they are denominated in common the sons of God, on account of their high rank. But it is perfectly clear and certain, that God distinguishes his own Son from all the others, when he thus addresses him particularly, Thou art my Son, (Psa 2:7.) Christ is not confounded either with angels or with men, so as to be one of the multitude of the sons of God; but what is given to him no other has a right to claim. The sons of God are kings, not certainly by natural right, but because God has bestowed on them so great an honor. Even angels have no right to this distinction, except on account of their high rank among creatures, in subordination to the Great Head, (Eph 1:21.) We too are sons, but by adoption, which we obtain by faith; for we have it not from nature: Christ is the only Son, the only-begotten of the Father, (Joh 1:14.)
The future tense of the verb, he shall be called the Son of the Highest, is tortured by that filthy dog (26) Servetus to prove that Christ is not the eternal Son of God, but began to be so considered, when he took upon him our flesh. This is an intolerable slander. He argues that Christ was not the Son of God before he appeared in the world clothed with flesh; because the angel says, He shall be called On the contrary, I maintain, the words of the angel mean nothing more than that he, who had been the Son of God from eternity, would be manifested as such in the flesh, (1. i 3:16;) for to be called denotes clear knowledge. There is a wide difference between the two statements, — that Christ began to be the Son of God, which he was not before, — and that he was manifested among men, in order that they might know him to be the person who had been formerly promised. Certainly, in every age God has been addressed by his people as a Father, and hence it follows, that he had a Son in heaven, from whom and by whom men obtained the sonship. For men take too much upon them, if they venture to boast of being the sons of God, in any other respect than as members of the only-begotten Son, (Joh 1:18.) Certain it is, that confidence in the Son alone, as Mediator, inspired the holy fathers with confidence to employ so honorable an address. That more complete knowledge, of which we are now speaking, is elsewhere explained by Paul to mean, that we are now at liberty not only to call God our Father, but boldly to cry, Abba, Father, (Rom 8:15; Gal 4:6.)
The Lord God will give unto him the throne of his father David We have said that the angel borrows from the prophets the titles which he bestows on Christ, in order that the holy virgin might more readily acknowledge him to be the Redeemer formerly promised to the fathers. Whenever the prophets speak of the restoration of the church, they direct all the hope of believers to the kingdom of David, so that it became a common maxim among the Jews, that the safety of the church would depend on the prosperous condition of that kingdom, and that nothing was more fitting and suitable to the office of the Messiah than to raise up anew the kingdom of David. Accordingly, the name of David is sometimes applied to the Messiah. “ They shall serve the Lord their God, and David their king,” (Jer 30:9.) Again, “my servant David shall be a prince among them,” (Eze 34:24.) “They shall seek the Lord their God, and David their king,” (Hos 3:5.) The passages in which he is called “ the son of David” are sufficiently well known. In a word, the angel declares that in the person of Christ would be fulfilled the prediction of Amos, “ In that day will I raise up the tabernacle of David that is fallen,” (Amo 9:11.)
(26) The use of such epithets may not be easily reconciled to the refinements of modern taste; but, three centuries ago, few readers would be startled by them, and they are much more sparingly employed by Calvin than by many of his contemporaries. Not to mention that Paul says, Beware of dogs, (Phi 3:2,) and that the statement, Without are dogs, (Rev 22:15,) bears the impress of the Alpha and Omega, (Rev 22:13,) Servetus, to whom the epithet “filthy” is applied, had denied the fundamental doctrine of our Lord's supreme Divinity, and had luxuriated in the most revolting and blasphemous expressions. — Ed.
33. And he shall reign over the house of Jacob As salvation was promised, in a peculiar manner, to the Jews, (the covenant having been made with their father Abraham, Gen 17:7,) and Christ, as Paul informs us, “was a minister of the circumcision,” (Rom 15:8,) the angel properly fixed his reign in that nation, as its peculiar seat and residence. But this is in perfect accordance with other predictions, which spread and extend the kingdom of Christ to the utmost limits of the earth. By a new and wonderful adoption, God has admitted into the family of Jacob the Gentiles, who formerly were strangers; though in such a manner that the Jews, as the first-born, held a preferable rank; as it is said, “The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion,” (Psa 110:3.) Christ’s throne was, therefore, erected among the people of Israel, that he might thence subdue the whole world. All whom he has joined by faith to the children of Abraham are accounted the true Israel. Though the Jews, by their revolt, have separated themselves from the church of God, yet the Lord will always preserve till the end some “remnants” (Rom 11:5;) for his “calling is without repentances” (Rom 11:29.) The body of the people is apparently cut off; but we ought to remember the mystery of which Paul speaks, (Rom 11:25,) that God will at length gather some of the Jews out of the dispersion. Meanwhile, the church, which is scattered through the whole world, is the spiritual house of Jacob; for it drew its origin from Zion.
For ever The angel points out the sense in which it was so frequently predicted by the prophets that the kingdom of David would be without end. It was only during his own reign and that of Solomon, that it remained wealthy and powerful Rehoboam, the third successor, hardly retained a tribe and a half. The angel now declares that, when it has been established in the person of Christ, it will not be liable to destruction, and, to prove this, employs the words of Daniel, (Dan 7:14,) of his kingdom there shall be no end (27) Though the meaning of the words is, that God will for ever protect and defend the kingdom of Christ and the church, so that it shall not perish on the earth “as long as the sun and moon endure,” (Psa 72:5,) yet its true perpetuity relates to the glory to come. So then, believers follow each other in this life, by an uninterrupted succession, till at length they are gathered together in heaven, where they shall reign without end.
(27) Daniel's prediction referred to runs thus: “His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.” The angel does not employ these words; but his departure from them is not strongly marked, and it can scarcely be doubted that he had this passage in his eye. — Ed.
34. How shall this be? The holy virgin appears to confine the power of God within as narrow limits as Zacharias had formerly done; for what is beyond the common order of nature, she concludes to be impossible. She reasons in this manner. I know not a man: how then can I believe that what you tell me will happen? We ought not to give ourselves very much trouble, (28) to acquit her of all blame. She ought immediately to have risen by faith to the boundless power of God, which is not at all lettered to natural means, but sways the whole world. Instead of this, she stops at the ordinary way of generation. Still, it must be admitted that she does not hesitate or inquire in such a manner as to lower the power of God to the level of her senses; but is only carried away by a sudden impulse of astonishment to put this question. That she readily embraced the promise may be concluded from this, that, though many things presented themselves on the opposite side, she has no doubt but on one point.
She might instantly have objected, where was that throne of David? for all the rank of kingly power had been long ago set aside, and all the luster of royal descent had been extinguished. Unquestionably, if she had formed her opinion of the matter according to the judgment of the flesh, she would have treated as a fable what the angel had told her. There can be no doubt that she was fully convinced of the restoration of the church, and easily gave way to what the flesh would have pronounced to be incredible. And then it is probable that the attention of the public was everywhere directed at that time to the prediction of Isaiah, in which God promises that he would raise up a rod out of the despised stem of Jesse, (Isa 11:1.) That persuasion of the kindness of God, which had been formed in the mind of the virgin, led her to admit, in the fullest manner, that she had received a message as to raising up anew the throne of David. If it be objected that there was also another prediction, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, (Isa 7:14,) I reply, that this mystery was then very imperfectly understood. True, the Fathers expected the birth of a King, under whose reign the people of God would be happy and prosperous; but the manner of its accomplishment lay concealed, as if it had been hidden by a veil. There is no wonder, therefore, if the holy virgin puts a question on a subject hitherto unknown to her.
The conjecture which some have drawn from these words, that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd. She would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and would have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage; which could not have been done without mockery of God. Although the Papists have exercised barbarous tyranny on this subject, yet they have never proceeded so far as to allow the wife to form a vow of continence at her own pleasure. Besides, it is an idle and unfounded supposition that a monastic life existed among the Jews.
We must reply, however, to another objection, that the virgin refers to the future, and so declares that she will have no intercourse with a man. The probable and simple explanation is, that the greatness or rather majesty of the subject made so powerful an impression on the virgin, that all her senses were bound and locked up in astonishment. When she is informed that the Son of God will be born, she imagines something unusual, and for that reason leaves conjugal intercourse out of view. Hence she breaks out in amazement, How shall this be? And so God graciously forgives her, and replies kindly and gently by the angel, because, in a devout and serious manner, and with admiration of a divine work, she had inquired how that would be, which, she was convinced, went beyond the common and ordinary course of nature. In a word, this question was not so contrary to faith, because it arose rather from admiration than from distrust.
(28) “Nec vero magnopere laborandum est.” This is bold language, and must have sounded harsh and irreverent to a Popish ear: but in his French version Calvin uses still less ceremony. “We must not tease ourselves much to find out a way of vindicating her entirely“ — “Or il ne nous faut pas beaucoup tormenter a trouver facon de la justifier entierement.” — Ed.
35. The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee The angel does not explain the manner, so as to satisfy curiosity, which there was no necessity for doing. He only leads the virgin to contemplate the power of the Holy Spirit, and to surrender herself silently and calmly to his guidance. The word ἐπελεύσεται, shall come upon, denotes that this would be an extraordinary work, in which natural means have no place. The next clause is added by way of exposition, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: for the Spirit may be regarded as the essential power of God, whose energy is manifested and exerted in the entire government of the world, as well as in miraculous events. There is an elegant metaphor in the word ἐπισκιάσει , overshadow. The power of God, by which he guards and protects his own people, is frequently compared in Scripture to a shadow, (Psa 17:8; Psa 57:1; Psa 91:1.) But it appears to have another and peculiar meaning in this passage. The operation of the Spirit would be secret, as if an intervening cloud did not permit it to be beheld by the eyes of men. Now, as God, in performing miracles, withholds from us the manner of his proceedings, so what he chooses to conceal from us ought to be viewed, on our part, with seriousness and adoration.
Therefore also the holy thing which shall be born This is a confirmation of the preceding clause: for the angel shows that Christ must not be born by ordinary generation, (29) that he may be holy, and that he may be the Son of God; that is, that in holiness and glory he may be high above all creatures, and may not hold an ordinary rank among men. Heretics, who imagine that he became the Son of God after his human generation, seize on the particle therefore as meaning that he would be called the Son of God, because he was conceived in a remarkable manner by the power of the Holy Spirit. But this is a false conclusion: for, though he was manifested to be the Son of God in the flesh, it does not follow that he was not the Word begotten of the Father before the ages. On the contrary, he who had been the Son of God in his eternal Godhead, appeared also as the Son of God in human flesh. This passage not only expresses a unity of person in Christ, but at the same time points out that, in clothing himself with human flesh, Christ is the Son of God. As the name, Son of God, belonged to the divine essence of Christ from the beginning, so now it is applied unitedly to both natures, because the secret and heavenly manner of generation has separated him from the ordinary rank of men. In other passages, indeed, with the view of asserting that he is truly man, he calls himself the Son of man, (Joh 5:27;) but the truth of his human nature is not inconsistent with his deriving peculiar honor above all others from his divine generation, having been conceived out of the ordinary way of nature by the Holy Spirit. This gives us good reason for growing confidence, that we may venture more freely to call God our Father, because his only Son, in order that we might have a Father in common with him, chose to be our brother.
It ought to be observed also that Christ, because he was conceived by a spiritual power, is called the holy seed For, as it was necessary that he should be a real man, in order that he might expiate our sins, and vanquish death and Satan in our flesh; so was it necessary, in order to his cleansing others, that he should be free from every spot and blemish, (1. e 1:19.) Though Christ was formed of the seed of Abraham, yet he contracted no defilement from a sinful nature; for the Spirit of God kept him pure from the very commencement: and this was done not merely that he might abound in personal holiness, but chiefly that he might sanctify his own people. The manner of conception, therefore, assures us that we have a Mediator separate from sinners, (Heb 7:26.)
(29) “Christum opportere absque viri et mulieris coitu nasci.”
36. And, behold, Elisabeth thy cousin By an instance taken from her own relatives, the angel encourages the faith of Mary to expect a miracle. If neither the barrenness nor the old age of Elisabeth could prevent God from making her a mother, there was no better reason why Mary should confine her view within the ordinary limits of nature, when she beheld such a demonstration of divine power in her cousin He mentions expressly the sixth month; because in the fifth month a woman usually feels the child quicken in the womb, so that the sixth month removes all doubt. True, Mary ought to have placed such a reliance on the bare word of God as to require no support to her faith from any other quarter; but, to prevent farther hesitation, the Lord condescends to strengthen his promise by this new aid. With equal indulgence does he cheer and support us every day; nay, with greater indulgence, because our faith is weaker. That we may not doubt his truth, testimonies to confirm it are brought by him from every direction.
A question arises, how Elisabeth, who was of the daughters of Aaron, (Luk 1:5,) and Mary, who was descended from the stock of David, could be cousins This appears to be at variance with the law, which prohibited women from marrying into a different tribe from their own, (Num 36:6.) With respect to the law, if we look at its object, it forbade those intermarriages only which might “remove inheritances from tribe to tribe,” (Num 36:7.) No such danger existed, if any woman of the tribe of Judah married a priest, to whom an inheritance could not be conveyed. The same argument would hold if a woman of the tribe of Levi passed into another tribe. It is possible that the mother of the holy virgin might be descended from the family of Aaron, and so her daughter might be cousin to Elisabeth.
37. For no word shall be impossible with God If we choose to take ῥη̑μα, word, in its strict and native sense, the meaning is, that God will do what he hath promised, for no hinderance can resist his power. The argument will be, God hath promised, and therefore he will accomplish it; for we ought not to allege any impossibility in opposition to his word But as a word often means a thing in the idiom of the Hebrew language, (which the Evangelists followed, though they wrote in Greek,) (30) we explain it more simply, that nothing is impossible with God We ought always, in- deed, to hold it as a maxim, that they wander widely from the truth who, at their pleasure, imagine the power of God to be something beyond his word; for we ought always to contemplate his boundless power, that it may strengthen our hope and confidence. But it is idle, and unprofitable, and even dangerous, to argue what God can do unless we also take into account what he resolves to do. The angel does here what God frequently does in Scripture, employs a general doctrine to confirm one kind of promise. This is the true and proper use of a general doctrine, to apply its scattered promises to the present subject, whenever we are uneasy or distressed; for so long as they retain their general form, they make little impression upon us. We need not wonder if Mary is reminded by the angel of the power of God; for our distrust of it diminishes very greatly our confidence in the promises. All acknowledge in words that God is Almighty; but, if he promises any thing beyond what we are able to comprehend, we remain in doubt. (31) Whence comes this but from our ascribing to his power nothing more than what our senses receive? Thus Paul, commending the faith of Abraham, says, that he
“gave glory to God, being fully persuaded that what he had promised he was able also to perform,” (Rom 4:20.)
In another passage, speaking of the hope of eternal life, he sets before him the promise of God. “I know,” says he,
“whom I have believed, and I am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him,” (2. i 1:12.)
This may seem to be a small portion of faith; for no man, however wicked, openly denies God’s claim to be Almighty. But he who has the power of God firmly and thoroughly fixed in his heart will easily surmount the other obstacles which present themselves to faith. It ought to be observed, however, that the power of God is viewed by true faith, if I may use the expression, as efficacious (32) For God is and wishes to be acknowledged as powerful, that by the accomplishment itself he may prove his faithfulness.
(30) “Laquelle ont suivie les Evangelistes, combien qu'ils escrivissent en Grec.” — Fr.
(31) “Haesitamus.” — “We are in a state of uncertainty, without being able to convince ourselves of it.” — “Nous sommes en branle sans pouvoir nous y asseurer.” — Fr.
(32) “Effectualem.” — “We must observe that true faith apprehends the power of God, not in the air, but with its results.” — “Il faut noter que la vraye foy apprehende la puissance de Dieu, non point en l'alr, mais avec ses effects.”
38. Behold the handmaid of the Lord The holy virgin does not allow herself to dispute any farther: and yet many things might unquestionably have obtruded themselves, to repress that faith, and even to draw off her attention from what was said to her by the angel. But she stops the entrance of opposing arguments, and compels herself to obey. This is the real proof of faith, when we restrain our minds, and, as it were, hold them captive, so that they dare not reply this or that to God: for boldness in disputing, on the other hand, is the mother of unbelief. These are weighty expressions, Behold the handmaid of the Lord: for she gives and devotes herself unreservedly to God, that he may freely dispose of her according to his pleasure. Unbelievers withdraw from his hand, and, as far as lies in their power, obstruct his work: but faith presents us before God, that we may be ready to yield obedience. But if the holy virgin was the handmaid of the Lord, because she yielded herself submissively to his authority, there cannot be worse obstinacy than to fly from him, and to refuse that obedience which he deserves and requires. In a word, as faith alone makes us obedient servants to God, and gives us up to his power, so unbelief makes us rebels and deserters. Be it unto me This clause may be interpreted in two ways. Either the holy virgin, leaving her former subject, (33) betakes herself suddenly to prayers and supplications; or, she proceeds in the same strain (34) to yield and surrender herself to God. I interpret it simply that she is convinced of the power of God, follows cheerfully where he calls, trusts also to his promise, and not only expects, but eagerly desires, its accomplishment. [We must also observe that she is convinced on the word of the angel, because she knows that it proceeded from God: valuing its credit, not with reference to him who was its messenger, but with reference to him who was its author. (35) ]
(33) “Laissant son premier propos.”
(34) “Uno contextu.” — “En continuant le fil de son propos.”
(35) “Il faut aussi noter qu'elle s'asseure sur la parole de l'Ange, par ce qu'elle sait qu'elle est procedee de Dieu: pesant la dignite d'icelle non a cause de celuy qui en estoit le messager, mais a cause de celui qui en estoit l'autheur.”
39. And Mary arising This departure mentioned by Luke proves that Mary’s faith was not of a transitory nature: for the promise of God does not fade away with the presence of the angel, but is impressed upon her mind. The haste indicates a sincere and strong affection. We may infer from it that the Virgin disregarded every thing else and formed a just estimate of this grace of God. But it may be inquired, what was her object in undertaking this journey? It certainly was not made for the mere purpose of inquiry: for she cherished in her heart by faith the Son of God as already conceived in her womb. Nor do I agree with those who think that she came for the purpose of congratulating Elisabeth. (41) I think it more probable that her object was, partly to increase and strengthen her faith, and partly to celebrate the grace of God which both had received. (42)
There is no absurdity in supposing, that she sought to confirm her faith by a view of the miracle, which had been adduced to her with no small effect by the angel. For, though believers are satisfied with the bare word of God, yet they do not disregard any of his works which they find to be conducive to strengthen their faith. Mary was particularly bound to receive the assistance which had been offered, unless she chose to reject what the Lord had freely given to her. Besides, the mutual interview might arouse both Elisabeth and herself to higher gratitude, as is evident from what follows. The power of God became more remarkable and striking by taking in at one view both favors, the very comparison of which gave no small additional luster. Luke does not name the city in which Zacharias dwelt, but only mentions that it belonged to the tribe of Judah, and that it was situated in a hilly district. Hence we infer that it was farther distant than Jerusalem was from the town of Nazareth.
(41) “Gratulandi causa;” — “pour faire caresse a sa cousine.”
(42) “Illustrandae ultro citroque gratiae Dei;” — “de celebrer et magnifier la grace de Dieu faite a l'une et a l'autre.”
41. When Elisabeth heard It is natural that sudden joy, on the part of a pregnant woman, should cause a motion of the child in her womb; but Luke intended to express an extraordinary occurrence. No good purpose would be served by involving ourselves in intricate questions, if the child was aware of the presence of Christ, or felt an emotion of piety: it is enough for us that the babe started by a secret movement of the Spirit. Luke does not say that the feeling belonged to the child, but rather intimates that this part of the Divine operation took place in the mother herself, that the babe started in her womb The expression, she was filled with the Holy Ghost, means that she was suddenly endued with the gift of prophecy to an unusual extent: for the gifts of the Spirit had not formerly been wanting in her, but their power then appeared more abundant and extraordinary.
42. Blessed art thou She seems to put Mary and Christ on an equal footing, which would have been highly improper. But I cheerfully agree with those who think that the second clause assigns the reason; for and often signifies because. Accordingly, Elisabeth affirms, that her cousin was blessed on account of the blessedness of her child. To carry Christ in her womb was not Mary’s first blessedness, but was greatly inferior to the distinction of being born again by the Spirit of God to a new life. Yet she is justly called blessed, on whom God bestowed the remarkable honor of bringing into the world his own Son, through whom she had been spiritually renewed. And at this day, the blessedness brought to us by Christ cannot be the subject of our praise, without reminding us, at the same time, of the distinguished honor which God was pleased to bestow on Mary, in making her the mother of his Only Begotten Son.
43. And whence is this to me? The happy medium observed by Elisabeth is worthy of notice. She thinks very highly of the favors bestowed by God on Mary, and gives them just commendation, but yet does not praise them more highly than was proper, which would have been a dishonor to God. For such is the native depravity of the world, that there are few persons who are not chargeable with one of these two faults. Some, delighted beyond measure with themselves, and desirous to shine alone, enviously despise the gifts of God in their brethren; while others praise them in so superstitious a manner as to convert them into idols. The consequence has been, that the first rank is assigned to Mary, and Christ is lowered as it were to the footstool. (43) Elisabeth, again, while she praises her, is so far from hiding the Divine glory, that she ascribes everything to God. And yet, though she acknowledges the superiority of Mary to herself and to others, she does not envy her the higher distinction, but modestly declares that she had obtained more than she deserved.
She calls Mary the mother of her Lord This denotes a unity of person in the two natures of Christ; as if she had said, that he who was begotten a mortal man in the womb of Mary is, at the same time, the eternal God. For we must bear in mind, that she does not speak like an ordinary woman at her own suggestion, but merely utters what was dictated by the Holy Spirit. This name Lord strictly belongs to the Son of God “manifested in the flesh,” (1. i 3:16,) who has received from the Father all power, and has been appointed the highest ruler of heaven and earth, that by his agency God may govern all things. Still, he is in a peculiar manner the Lord of believers, who yield willingly and cheerfully to his authority; for it is only of “his body” that he is “the head,” (Eph 1:22.) And so Paul says, “though there be lords many, yet to us,” that is, to the servants of faith, “there is one Lord,” (1. o 8:5.) By mentioning the sudden movement of the babe which she carried in her womb, (ver. 44,) as heightening that divine favor of which she is speaking, she unquestionably intended to affirm that she felt something supernatural and divine.
(43) “Christo velut in subsellium redacto.” Subsellium is evidently not employed here to convey a shade of the honor belonging to the seats.
45. And blessed is she that believed It was by a hidden movement of the Spirit, as is evident from a former statement of Luke, that Elisabeth spoke. The same Spirit declares that Mary is blessed because she believed, and by commending Mary’s faith, informs us generally in what the true happiness of men consists. Mary was blessed, because, embracing in her heart the promise of God, she conceived and brought forth a Savior to herself and to the whole which the Judges occupied; as when Cicero proposes to appeal from the Senate to the popular assembly, ”a subselliis in rem deferre.” Calvin may have had in his eye such a phrase as “imi subsellii vir,” and his meaning is fully brought out by his own version, “sur le marchepied.” — Ed world. This was peculiar to her: but as we have not a drop of righteousness, life, or any other benefit, except so far as the Lord presents them to us in his Word, it is faith alone that rescues us from the lowest poverty and misery, and makes us partakers of true happiness.
There is great weight in this clause, for there shall be a fulfillment to those things which have been told her The meaning is, faith gives way to the divine promises, that they may obtain their accomplishment in us. The truth of God certainly does not depend on the will of men, but God remains always true, (Rom 3:4,) though the whole world—unbelievers and liars—should attempt to ruin his veracity. Yet, as unbelievers are unworthy to obtain the fruit of the promises, so Scripture teaches us, that by faith alone they are powerful for our salvation. God offers his benefits indiscriminately to all, and faith opens its bosom (44) to receive them; while unbelief allows them to pass away, so as not to reach us. If there had been any unbelief in Mary, that could not prevent God from accomplishing his work in any other way which he might choose. But she is called blessed, because she received by faith the blessing offered to her, and opened up the way to God for its accomplishment; while faith, on the other hand, shuts the gate, and restrains his hand from working, that they who refuse the praise due to its power may not feel its saving effect. We must observe also the relation between the word and faith, from which we learn that, in the act of believing, we give our assent to God who speaks to us, and hold for certain what he has promised to us that he will do. The phrase, by the Lord, is of the same import with an expression in common use, on the part of God; for the promise had been brought by the angel, but proceeded from God alone. Hence we infer that, whether God employs the ministrations of angels or of men, he wishes equal honor to be paid to his Word as if he were visibly descending from heaven.
(44) “Sinum expandit;” — “mais la foy, par maniere dire, tend son giron pour les recevoir ;” —“ but faith, so to speak, holds its lap to receive them.”
Now follows a remarkable and interesting song of the holy virgin, which plainly shows how eminent were her attainments in the grace of the Spirit. There are three clauses in this song. First, Mary offers solemn thanksgiving for that mercy of God which she had experienced in her own person. Next, she celebrates in general terms God’s power and judgments. Lastly, she applies these to the matter in hand, treating of the redemption formerly promised, and now granted to the church.
46.My soul magnifieth Here Mary testifies her gratitude, as we have already said. But as hypocrites, for the most part, sing the praises of God with open mouth, unaccompanied by any affection of the heart, Mary says that she praises God from an inward feeling of the mind. And certainly they who pronounce his glory, not from the mind, but with the tongue alone, do nothing more than profane his holy name. The words soul and spirit are used in Scripture in various senses, but, when employed together, they denote chiefly two faculties of the soul; spirit being taken for the understanding, and soul for the seat of the affections. To comprehend the meaning of the holy virgin, it must be observed that what is here placed second is first in order; for the excitement of the will of man to praise God must be preceded by a rejoicing of the spirit, (47) as James says, “Is any merry? let him sing psalms,” (Jas 5:13.) Sadness and anxiety lock up the soul, and restrain the tongue from celebrating the goodness of God. When the soul of Mary exults with joy, the heart breaks out in praising God. It is with great propriety, in speaking of the joy of her heart, that she gives to God the appellation of Savior Till God has been recognised as a Savior, the minds of men are not free to indulge in true and full joy, but will remain in doubt and anxiety. It is God’s fatherly kindness alone, and the salvation flowing from it, that fill the soul with joy. In a word, the first thing necessary for believers is, to be able to rejoice that they have their salvation in God. The next ought to follow, that, having experienced God to be a kind Father, they may “offer to him thanksgiving,” (Psa 50:14.) The Greek word σωτὴρ, Savior, has a more extensive signification than the Latin word Servator; for it means not only that he once delivers, but that he is “the Author of eternal salvations” (Heb 5:9.)
(47) “Car avant que la volonte de l' homme soit mise en train de louer Dieu, il faut qu'il y ait devant une alaigrete et resiouissance d'esprit.” — “For before the will of man is set agoing to praise God, there must be previously a cheerfulness and rejoicing of spirit.”
48. Because he hath looked She explains the reason why the joy of her heart was founded in God to be, that out of free grace he had looked upon her. By calling herself low she disclaims all merit, and ascribes to the undeserved goodness of God every occasion of boasting. For ταπείνωσις, lowness, does not here denote — as ignorant and uneducated men have foolishly imagined — “submission, or modesty, or a quality of the mind,” but signifies “ a mean and despicable condition.” (48) The meaning is, “ I was unknown and despised, but that did not prevent God from deigning to cast his eyes upon me.” But if Mary’s lowness is contrasted with excellence — as the matter itself and the Greek word make abundantly plain — we see how Mary makes herself nothing, and praises God alone. And this was not the loud cry of a pretended humility, but the plain and honest statement of that conviction which was engraven on her mind; for she was of no account in the eyes of the world, and her estimation of herself was nothing more.
From this time She announces that this kindness of God will be kept in remembrance throughout all generations But if it is so remarkable, that it ought to be proclaimed every where by the lips of all men, silence regarding it would have been highly improper in Mary, on whom it was bestowed. Now observe, that Mary makes her happiness to consist in nothing else, but in what she acknowledges to have been bestowed upon her by God, and mentions as the gift of his grace. “ I shall be reckoned blessed,” she says, “ through all ages.” Was it because she sought this praise by her own power or exertion? On the contrary, she makes mention of nothing but of the work of God. Hence we see how widely the Papists differ from her, who idly adorn her with their empty devices, and reckon almost as nothing the benefits which she received from God. (49) They heap up an abundance of magnificent and very presumptuous titles, such as, “ Queen of Heaven, Star of Salvation, Gate of Life, Sweetness, Hope, and Salvation.” Nay more, to such a pitch of insolence and fury have they been hurried by Satan, that they give her authority over Christ; (50) for this is their pretty song, “ Beseech the Father, Order the Son.” (51) None of these modes of expression, it is evident, proceeded from the Lord. All are disclaimed by the holy virgin in a single word, when she makes her whole glory to consist in acts of the divine kindness. If it was her duty to praise the name of God alone, who had done to her wonderful things, no room is left for the pretended titles, which come from another quarter. Besides, nothing could be more disrespectful to her, than to rob the Son of God of what is his own, to clothe her with the sacrilegious plunder.
Let Papists now go, and hold us out as doing injury to the mother of Christ, because we reject the falsehoods of men, and extol in her nothing more than the kindness of God. Nay, what is most of all honorable to her we grant, and those absurd worshippers refuse. (52) We cheerfully acknowledge her as our teacher, and obey her instruction and commands. There certainly is no obscurity in what she says here; but the Papists throw it aside, trample it as it were under foot, and do all they can to destroy the credit of her statements? (53) Let us remember that, in praising both men and angels, there is a general rule laid down, to extol in them the grace of God; as nothing is at all worthy of praise which did not proceed from Him.
He who is mighty hath done to me wonderful things She informs us, that the reason why God did not in this case employ the assistance of others was, to make his own power more illustrious. And here we must recall what she formerly said, that God had looked upon her, though she was mean and despicable. Hence it follows, that those praises of Mary are absurd and spurious which do not altogether exalt the power and free grace of God.
(48) “Les Latins, traduisans ce passage du Grec, ont us, du mot d'Humi- lite, lequel les barbares et sots parleurs de Latin, prennent ici comme en Francois, pour une facon de faire contraire a l'arrogance, assavoir quand une personne s'estime rien: mais il se prend autrement, assavoir pour Petitesse; c'est a dire, condition basse et meprisee.” — “The Latins, translating this passage from the Greek, have used the word Humility, which barbarians and fools talking Latin take here, as in French, for a manner of acting opposed to pride: but it is taken differently, namely, for Meanness, that is, a low and despicable condition.”
(49) “En cela nous voyons coment les Papistes accordent mal avec elle, lesquels sans jugement la parent de nouvelles louanges forgees en leurs cerveaux; et cependant ne tiennent quasi conte do tous les biens que’lle a eus de Dieu.” — “In this we see how ill the Papists agree with her, who without judgment adorn her with new praises forged in their own brains; and yet make no account, as it were, of all the benefits which she had from God.”
(50) “Qui plus est, Satan les a transportez en une telle rage et forcenerie, qui’ls n’ont point eu de honte du luy attributer l’authorite de commander a Christ.” — “What is more, Satan has carried them away to such a rage and fury, that they are not ashamed to attribute to her authority to command Christ.”
(51) “Roga Patrem, jube Natum.”
(52) “En ce faisant, nous luy accordons ce qui luy est le plus honorable, en lieu que ces habiles gens, qui la servent a contrepoil, l’en despouillent.” — “In doing this we grant to her what is the most honorable, while those clever people, who serve her the wrong way, take it from her.”
(53) “Fidem ejus dictis abrogant;” — “dementent la vierge en tant qu'en eux est;” — “as far as lies in them, they make the virgin a liar.”
49. And holy is his name This is the second part of the song, in which the holy virgin celebrates in general terms the power, judgments, and mercy of God. This clause must not be viewed as a part of the preceding one, but must be read separately. Mary had extolled the grace of God, which she had experienced in her own person. Hence she takes occasion to exclaim, that holy is his name, and his mercy endures throughout all generations The name of God is called holy, because it is entitled to the highest reverence; and whenever the name of God is mentioned, it ought immediately to remind us of his adorable majesty.
The next clause, which celebrates the perpetuity of the Divine mercy, is taken from that solemn form of covenant,
“I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an everlasting covenant,”
(Gen 17:7)
and again,
“who keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations,” (Deu 7:9.)
By these words, he not only declares, that he will always be like himself, but expresses the favor which he continues to manifest towards his own people after their death, loving their children, and their children’s children, and all their posterity. Thus he followed the posterity of Abraham with uninterrupted kindness; for, having once received their father Abraham into favor, he had made with him “an everlasting covenant.”
But as not all who are descended from Abraham according to the flesh are the true children of Abraham, Mary confines the accomplishment of the promise to the true worshippers of God, to them that fear him: as David also does:
“The mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children’s children; to such as keep his covenant, and to those that remember his commandments to do them,”
(Psa 103:17.)
While God promises that he will be merciful to the children of the saints through all generations, this gives no support to the vain confidence of hypocrites: for falsely and groundlessly do they boast of God as their Father, who are the spurious children of the saints, and have departed from their faith and godliness. (54) This exception sets aside the falsehood and arrogance of those who, while they are destitute of faith, are puffed up with false pretenses to the favor of God. A universal covenant of salvation had been made by God with the posterity of Abraham; but, as stones moistened by the rain do not become soft, so the promised righteousness and salvation are prevented from reaching unbelievers through their own hardness of heart. Meanwhile, to maintain the truth and firmness of his, promise, God has preserved “a seed,” (Rom 9:29.)
Under the fear of the Lord is included the whole of godliness and religion, and this cannot exist without faith. But here an objection may be urged. What avails it that God is called merciful, if no man finds him to be so unless he deserves his favor? For, if the mercy of God is upon them that fear him, godliness and a good conscience procure his grace to men, and in this way men go before his grace by their own merits. I reply, this is a part of his mercy, that he bestows on the children of the godly fear and reverence for his majesty. This does not point out the commencement of his grace, as if God were idly looking down from heaven, to see who are worthy of it. All that is intended is, to shake off the perverse confidence of hypocrites, that they may not imagine God to be bound to them, because they are the children of saints according to the flesh: the divine covenant having another and very different object, that God may have always a people in the world, by whom he is sincerely worshipped.
(54) “Car c'est a tort et fausses enseignes qu'ils se glorifient d'avoir Dieu pour leur Pere, puis qu’ils sont enfans bastards des saincts, et ont desvoye de leur foy et sainctete.” — “For it is improperly and under false colors that they boast of having God for their Father, since they are bastard children of the saints, and have departed from their faith and holiness.”
51. He hath done might This means, “he hath wrought powerfully.” The arm of God is contrasted with every other aid: as in Isaiah, “I looked, and there was none to help,” (Isa 63:5;) “therefore,” says he elsewhere,
“his arm brought salvation unto him;
and his righteousness, it sustained him,” (Isa 59:16.)
Mary therefore means: God rested satisfied with his own power, employed no companions in the work, called none to afford him aid. What immediately follows about the proud may be supposed to be added for one of two reasons: either because the proud gain nothing by endeavoring, like the giants of old, to oppose God; or, because God does not display the power of his arm for salvation, except in the case of the humble, while the proud, who arrogate much to themselves, are thrown down To this relates the exhortation of Peter,
“Humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God,”
(1. e 5:6.)
He hath scattered (56) the proud in the thought of their heart (57) This expression is worthy of notice: for as their pride and ambition are outrageous, as their covetousness is insatiable, they pile up their deliberations to form an immense heap, and, to say all in a single word, they build the tower of Babel, (Gen 11:9.) Not satisfied with having made one or another foolish attempt beyond their strength, or with their former schemes of mad presumption, they still add to their amount. When God has for a time looked down from heaven, in silent mockery, on their splendid preparations, he unexpectedly scatters the whole mass: just as when a building is overturned, and its parts, which had formerly been bound together by a strong and firm union, are widely scattered in every direction.
(56)διεσχόρπισεν,, he utterly discomfits, a metaphor derived from putting to flight a defeated enemy. The word not unfrequently occurs in the Septuagint, but very rarely in the classical writers; though one example is adduced by Kuinoel from Aelian, Var. Hist. 13:46: τοὺς μέν διεσχόζπισεν, οὓς, (read τοὺς)δὲ ἀπέχτειενε. ” — Bloomfield's Greek Testament.
(57) “La ou nous avons rendu, Il a dissipe, le mot Grec signifie proprement, Il a escarte ou espars.”
52. He hath cast down the nobles This translation has been adopted, for the sake of avoiding ambiguity: for though the Greek word δυνάσται is derived from δύναμις , power, it denotes governors and eminent rulers. (58) Many persons think that δυνάστας is a participle. They are said by Mary to be cast down from their thrones, that obscure and unknown persons may be elevated in their room; and so she ascribes to the providence and judgments of God what ungodly men can the game of Fortune. (59) Let us understand, that she does not ascribe to God a despotic power,—as if men were tossed and thrown up and down like balls by a tyrannical authority,—but a just government, founded on the best reasons, though they frequently escape our notice. God does not delight in changes, or elevate in mockery to a lofty station, those whom he has determined immediately to throw down. (60) It is rather the depravity of men that overturns the state of things, because nobody acknowledges that the disposal of every one is placed in His will and power.
Those who occupy a higher station than others are not only chargeable with disdainfully and cruelly insulting their neighbors, but act in a daring manner towards Him to whom they owe their elevation. To instruct us by facts, that whatever is lofty and elevated in the world is subject to God, and that the whole world is governed by his dominion, some are exalted to high honor, while others either come down in a gradual manner, or else fall headlong from their thrones. Such is the cause and object of the changes which is assigned by David, “He poureth contempt upon princes,” (Psa 107:39;) and by Daniel,
“He changeth the times and the seasons:
he removeth kings, and setteth up kings,” (Dan 2:21.)
We see, indeed, how the princes of the world grow extravagantly insolent, indulge in luxury, swell with pride, and are intoxicated with the sweets of prosperity. If the Lord cannot tolerate such ingratitude, we need not be surprised.
The usual consequence is, that those whom God has raised to a high estate do not occupy it long. Again, the dazzling luster of kings and princes so overpowers the multitude, that there are few who consider that there is a God above. But if princes brought a scepter with them from the womb, and if the stability of their thrones were perpetual, all acknowledgment of God and of his providence would immediately disappear. When the Lord raises mean persons to exalted rank, he triumphs over the pride of the world, and at the same time encourages simplicity and modesty in his own people.
Thus, when Mary says, that it is God who casteth down nobles from their thrones, and exalteth mean persons, she teaches us, that the world does not move and revolve by a blind impulse of Fortune, but that all the revolutions observed in it are brought about by the Providence of God, and that those judgments, which appear to us to disturb and overthrow the entire framework of soclety, are regulated by God with unerring justice. This is confirmed by the following verse, He hath filled the hungry with good things, and hath sent the rich away empty: for hence we infer that it is not in themselves, but for a good reason, that God takes pleasure in these changes. It is because the great, and rich, and powerful, lifted up by their abundance, ascribe all the praise to themselves, and leave nothing to God. We ought therefore to be scrupulously on our guard against being carried away by prosperity, and against a vain satisfaction of the flesh, lest God suddenly deprive us of what we enjoy. To such godly persons as feel poverty and almost famine, and lift up their cry to God, no small consolation is afforded by this doctrine, that he filleth the hungry with good things
(58) “Le mot Grec (δυνάσται) vient de Puissance, comme si on disoit, Les puissans: mais il signifie les gouverneurs et gras seigneurs.” — “The Greek word comes from power, as if she had said, ‘The Mighty:' but it means governors and great lords.”
(59) “Ludam Fortunae;” — “le jeu ou la roue de la Fortune;” — “the game or wheel of Fortune.”
(60) “Il ne faut pas penser que pour se jouer des hommes il les esleve amsi haut, et puis les abaisse.” — “We must not imagine that, to amuse himself with men, he raises them so high, and then sinks them low.”
54. He hath lifted up his servant Israel In this last clause the general statements are applied by Mary to the present occasion. The meaning is, God has now granted the salvation which he had formerly promised to the holy fathers. And first, the verb ἀντιλαμζάνεσθαι , to lift up, contains an elegant metaphor: (61) for the state of the nation was so fallen, that its entire restoration could not be expected on ordinary principles. And then God is said to have lifted up Israel, because he stretched out his hand, and lifted him up when lying prostrate. Religion had been polluted in innumerable ways. The public instruction retained almost nothing pure. The government of the Church was in the greatest confusion, and breathed nothing but shocking barbarity. The order of civil society no longer subsisted. The great body of the people were torn like wild beasts by the Romans and Herod. So much the more glorious was the restoration, which a state of affairs so desperate did not allow them to expect. Παιδὸς may here be taken either for child or for servant: but the latter signification is more appropriate. Israel is called, in this as in many other places, the servant of God, because he had been received into the family of God.
So as to be mindful Mary assigns the reason why the nation, when verging to ruin, was received by God; or rather, why God lifted it up when already fallen. It was to give an illustration of his mercy in its preservation. She expressly mentions that God had remembered his mercy, which he might appear in some sort to have forgotten, when he permitted his people to be so fearfully distressed and afflicted. It is customary to ascribe affections to God, as men conclude from the event itself, that he is offended with them, or that he is reconciled. Now, as the human mind forms no conception of the divine mercy, except so far as it is presented and declared in his own word, Mary directs her own attention and that of others to the promises, (62) and shows that, in the accomplishment of them, God has been true and faithful. In this sense, Scripture makes frequent mention of God’s mercy and truth, (Mic 7:20;) because we shall never be convinced of his fatherly kindness toward us, unless his word, by which he hath bound himself to us, be present to our recollection, and unless it occupy, as it were, an interterm is here, as at Act 20:35, and often in the classical writers, used metaphorically in the sense of to protect, support.” — Bloomfield. mediate position between us, to link the goodness of God with our own individual salvation. By these words Mary shows, that the covenant which God had made with the fathers was of free grace; for she traces the salvation promised in it to the fountain of unmixed mercy Hence too we infer, that she was well acquainted with the doctrine of Scripture. The expectation of the Messiah was at that time, indeed, very general, but few had their faith established on so pure a knowledge of Scripture.
(61) “ ᾿Αντιλαμβάνεσθαι , denotes properly to lay hold of any thing, or person, by the hand, in order to support it when it is likely to fall; but the
(62) “Marie se propose les promesses, et nous ramene tous a la consideration d'icelles.” — “Mary presents to herself the promises, and leads us all to the consideration of them.”
55. To Abraham and to his seed If you read these words in close connection with the close of the former verse, there appears to be an improper change of the case. Instead of τῶ ᾿Αβραὰμ καὶ τῶ σπέρματι, it ought to have been (πρὸς)τὸν ᾿Αβραὰμ καὶ τὸ σπέρμα, , as he spake TO our fathers, TO Abraham and TO his seed (63) But, in my opinion, there is no such close connection. Mary does not merely explain who the Fathers were to whom God spake, but extends the power and result of the promises to all his posterity, provided they are the true seed of Abraham. Hence it follows, that the matter now in hand is, the solemn covenant which had been made, in a peculiar manner, with Abraham and his descendants. For other promises, which had been given to Adam, and Noah, and others, referred indiscriminately to all nations. As many of the children of Abraham, according to the flesh, have been cut off by their unbelief, and have been thrown out as degenerate from the family of Abraham, so we, who were strangers, are admitted to it by faith, and regarded as the true seed of Abraham. Let us therefore hold that, in consequence of God having formerly spoken to the fathers, the grace offered to them belongs equally to their posterity; and also, that the adoption has been extended to all nations, so that those, who were not by nature children of Abraham, may be his spiritual seed
(63) Without attempting to make clear to the English reader the nature of this difficulty, which a Greek scholar will readily enough comprehend, it may suffice to say that the words, as he spake to our fathers, should be read as a parenthesis, and the words now under consideration will then be connected in the following manner: So as to be mindful (or, in remembrance) of his mercy to Abraham, and to his seed, for ever. —Ed.
The amount of this narrative is, that the birth of John was distinguished by various miracles, which gave reason to expect, that something great and remarkable would appear in the child himself at a future period. For the Lord determined to confer upon him from the womb remarkable tokens, that he might not afterwards come forward, as an obscure and unknown person, from the crowd, to discharge the office of a Prophet. First Luke relates, that Mary remained about three months with her cousin, — or, in other words, till the birth of the child: for it is probable that she had no other reason for staying so long, but to enjoy the exhibition of divine grace, which had been suggested to her by the angel for the confirmation of her faith.
58. And her neighbors and relatives heard It may admit of doubt, whether the wonderful kindness of God was estimated by those persons from the simple fact of her being blessed with a child, or whether they had previously heard that an angel appeared to Zacharias, and promised to him a son. This was certainly no ordinary divine favor, that, out of the course of nature, a barren woman at a very advanced age had brought forth a child. It is possible that, on this ground alone, they magnified the divine goodness. On the eighth day, from a sense of duty or from courtesy, as is customary on such occasions, some people assemble; but God takes occasion from it to make them witnesses and spectators of his power and glory. There can be no doubt but the extraordinary birth brought a greater crowd. They had reckoned it a prodigy to see an old and barren woman suddenly become pregnant; and now that the child is born, their astonishment is renewed and increased. We infer from the words of Luke that, though they circumcised their children at home, they were not wont to do so without collecting a numerous assembly: and with good reason, for it was a common sacrament of the church, and it was not proper to administer it in a secret or private manner.
59. And they called him Zacharias, by the name of his father We know that names were originally given to men, either from some occurrence, or even by prophetic inspiration, to point out some secret work of God. After a long period, when there was such a profusion of names, that it became inconvenient to form new ones every day, people satisfied themselves with the old and received names, and called their children by the names of their ancestors. Thus before the father of John, there were many called Zacharias, and perhaps they were the descendants of the “son of Barachias, ” (Mat 23:35 .)Use and wont, we are aware, is generally taken for law, and so these persons contended that the prevailing custom should be observed as to the name of the child. Though we must not imagine that there is any sacredness in names, yet no judicious person will deny that, in this matter, believers ought to make a godly and profitable selection. They ought to give their children such names as may serve to instruct and admonish them, and consequently to take the names of holy fathers — for the purpose of exciting their children to imitate them — rather than adopt those of ungodly persons.
60. And his mother answering said It is uncertain if Elisabeth spoke this by inspiration. But when Zacharias saw the punishment inflicted on him for being too slow in believing, he probably informed his wife by writing what the angel had enjoined respecting the name, (Luk 1:13,) otherwise he would not have obeyed the command of God. Why this name was given to the Baptist by divine authority, I have already explained. The relatives, though unacquainted with the reason, are affected by the strangeness of the occurrence, particularly as they conjecture it did not take place without design.
64. And his mouth was instantly opened God puts honor on the birth of his prophet by restoring speech to his father: for there can be no doubt that this benefit was delayed till that day with the express object and design of fixing the eyes of men upon John. Zacharias spake, blessing God He did so, not only for the purpose of testifying his gratitude, but to inform his relatives and neighbors, that this punishment had been inflicted on him, because he had been too slow to believe: for he was not ashamed to unite with his own dishonor the praises of the divine glory. Thus it became universally known, that the birth of the child was not an accidental or ordinary event, but had been promised by an announcement from heaven. (65)
(65) “Mais selon la promesse expresse de Dieu, qui avoit este apportee et revelee par l'ange.” — “But according to the express promise of God, which had been brought and revealed by the angel.”
65. And fear fell upon all This fear mentioned by Luke proceeded from a feeling of the divine power: for the works of God ought to be contemplated by us with such reverence as to affect our minds with seriousness. (66) God does not amuse us with his miracles, but arouses the senses of men, which he perceives to be in a dormant state. (67) Luke says also that the report of those things was circulated in all the mountainous district of Judea And yet many derived no advantage from the temporary impression of the power of God: for, when John began to exercise his office as an instructor, there were few that remembered what wonders had attended his birth. It was not merely, however, for the sake of those who heard them, that God determined to spread abroad the report of those events, but to establish, in all ages, the certainty of the miracle, which was then universally known. Meanwhile, a general mirror of human ingratitude is here placed before our eyes: for, while trifling and frivolous occurrences remain firmly in our minds, those which ought to produce a constant recollection of divine favors immediately fade and disappear.
Luke does not speak of stupid men, or actual despisers of God: for he says that they put them in their heart: that is, they applied eagerly to the consideration of them. Some probably continued to remember, but the greater part rapidly shook off the fear which they had experienced. It deserves our notice that they were far from mistaking the design, when they interpreted the miracles which they saw as relating to the future excellence of the child: for such, we have said, was the design of God, that John should afterwards come forth with the highest reputation. And the hand of the Lord was with him The meaning is, that the grace of God was strikingly visible in many respects, and showed manifestly that he was not an ordinary person. It is a figurative mode of expression, and denotes that the power of God was as fully manifested as if his hand had been visibly seen, so that all readily acknowledged the presence of God.
(66) “Que nous en soyons touchez et esmeus a bon escient.” — “That we may be touched and moved by them in good earnest.”
(67) “Dieu en faisant miracles ne se joue point pour nous servir de passe- temps, mais reveille nos sens, lesquels il voit estre abrutis et en dormis.” — “God, in working miracles, does not amuse himself to supply us with pastime, but arouses our senses, which he sees to be stupified and asleep.”
67. Zacharias was filled with the Holy Ghost We have lately explained this phrase to mean, that the servants of God received more abundantly the grace of the Spirit, of which, at other times, they were not destitute. Thus we read, that the Spirit was given to the prophets: not that on other occasions they wanted it, but that the power of the Spirit was more fully exerted in them, when the hand of God, as it were, brought them into public view, for the discharge of their office. We must observe, therefore, the manner in which Luke connects the two clauses: he was filled with the Holy Ghost, and prophesied This implies that divine inspiration, at that time, rested upon him in an extraordinary measure, in consequence of which he did not speak like a man or private person, but all that he uttered was heavenly instruction. Thus also Paul connects prophecy with the Spirit.
“Quench not the Spirit: despise not prophesyings,”
(1. h 5:19.)
which teaches us that to despise instruction is to “quench” the light of “the Spirit.” This was a remarkable instance of the goodness of God, that not only did Zacharias recover the power of speech, which he had not enjoyed for nine months, but his tongue became the organ of the Holy Spirit.
68. Blessed be the Lord God Zacharias commences with thanksgiving, and in the raptures of the prophetic spirit describes the fulfillment of the redemption formerly promised in Christ, on which the safety and prosperity of the church depended. The reason why the Lord, to whose government the whole world is subject, is here called the God of Israel, will more fully appear from what follows, that to the seed of Abraham, in a peculiar manner, the Redeemer had been promised. Since, therefore, God had deposited with one nation only his covenant, of which Zacharias was about to speak, he properly mentions the name of that nation, for which the grace of salvation was especially, or at all events in the first instance, designed.
The word ἐπεσκέψατο , he hath visited, contains an implied contrast: for the face of God had been turned away for a time from the unhappy children of Abraham. To such a depth of calamity had they sunk, and with such a mass of distresses were they overwhelmed, that no one entertained the thought that the eye of God was upon them. This visitation of God, which Zacharias mentions, is declared to be the cause and origin of redemption. The statement may be resolved in this manner. God looked upon ( ἐπεσκέψατο ) his people, that he might redeem them Now, as those whom God redeems must be prisoners, and as this redemption is spiritual in its nature, we conclude from this passage, that even the holy fathers were made free from the yoke of sin and the tyranny of death, only through the grace of Christ; for it is said that Christ was sent as a Redeemer to the holy and elect people of God. But it will be objected, if redemption was brought by Christ at that time when he appeared clothed in flesh, it follows, that those believers who died before he came into the world were “all their lifetime” slaves of sin and death: which would be highly absurd. I reply, the power and efficacy of that redemption, which was once exhibited in Christ, have been the same in all ages.
69. He hath raised up the horn of salvation That is, saving power: (71) for, when the throne of David was cast down, and the people scattered, the hope of salvation had to all appearance perished. Zacharias alludes to the predictions of the prophets, which hold out that a sudden revival would take place, when the state of affairs should have become melancholy and desperate. This mode of expression is borrowed from the passage,
“There will I make the horn of David to bud: I have ordained a lamp for mine anointed,” (Psa 132:17.)
But if it is only in Christ that God has put forth his power to save us, we are not at liberty to depart from that method, if we desire to obtain salvation from God. Let it be also observed, that this horn brings salvation to believers, but terror to the ungodly, whom it scatters, or bruises and lays prostrate.
Of his servant David He is so denominated, not only because, like any one of the godly, he worshipped God, but for this other reason, that he was his chosen servant to rule and save his people, and thus to represent, along with his successors, the person and office of Christ. Though there remained among the Jews, at that time, no trace of a kingdom, Zacharias, resting on the promises of God, does not hesitate to call David the servant of God, in whom God gave an example of the salvation which was to come. (72) Now that the throne of Christ is erected amongst us, that thence he may govern us, it follows that he is actually appointed to us the author of salvation.
(71) “C'est a dire, une vertu et puissance pleine de salut.” — “That is, a power and might full of salvation
(72) “Specimen futurae salutis;” — “pource que Dieu l'avoit dresse pour figure et tesmoignage du salut a venir;” — “because God had set him up for a figure and proof of the salvation to come.”
70. As he spake That the salvation which is said to have been brought by Christ may not be thought doubtful on the score of novelty, he adduces as witnesses all the Prophets, who, though they were raised up at different times, yet with one consent teach, that salvation is to be expected from Christ alone. Nor was it the sole design of Zacharias to celebrate the truth and faithfulness of God, in performing and fulfilling what he formerly promised. His object rather was to draw the attention of believers to the ancient predictions, that they might embrace, with greater certainty and cheerfulness, the salvation offered to them, of which the Prophets from the beginning had testified. When Christ comes forth adorned, (73) with the testimonies of all the Prophets, our faith in him rests on a truly solid foundation.
He calls them holy prophets, to secure for their words greater authority and reverence. They were not inconsiderable or ordinary witnesses, but were of the first rank, (74) and furnished with a public commission, having been separated from the common people, for that purpose, by divine authority. To inquire minutely how each of the prophets gave testimony to Christ, would lead us into a long dissertation. Let it suffice for the present to say, that they all uniformly make the hope of the people, that God would be gracious to them, to rest entirely on that covenant between God and them which was founded on Christ, and thus speak plainly enough of the future redemption, which was manifested in Christ. To this purpose are many striking passages, which contain no dark prophecies respecting Christ, but point him out, as it were, with the finger. But our chief attention is due to the signature of the divine covenant; for he that neglects this will never understand any thing in the prophets: as the Jews wander wretchedly (75) in reading the Scripture, in consequence of giving their whole study to words, and wandering from the main design.
(73) “Ornatus;” — “revestu et garni d'excellens tesmoignages de tous les Prophetes;” — “clothed and adorned with excellent testimonies of all the Prophets.”
(74) “Classicos testes.” This is a fine allusion to the Roman division into classes, (mentioned by Livy, 1:43,) from the first of which classes, as carrying greater weight and respectability, “testes,” witnesses were selected for signing Testaments, — a department of Conveyancing, which all civilized nations have guarded by the most careful provisions, and in which authenticity is peculiarly and indispensably necessary. Calvin's vernacular brings out, though with less elegance, the meaning in which classicos testes is here used, — “bons, suffisans, et sans reproche;” — “good, sufficient, and without reproach.” — Ed.
(75) “Misere vagantur.” — “Les Juifs ne font que tracasser et se tormenter sans profit toute leur vie;” — “the Jews do but vex and tease themselves without advantage all their life.”
71. Salvation from our enemies Zacharias explains more clearly the power and office of Christ. And certainly it would be of little or no advantage to learn that Christ was given to us, unless we also knew what he bestows. For this reason he states more fully the purpose for which the horn of salvation was raised up: that believers may obtain salvation from their enemies Unquestionably, Zacharias was well aware, that the principal war of the church of God is not with flesh and blood, but with Satan and all his armament, by which he labors to accomplish our everlasting ruin. Though the Church is also attacked by outward foes, and is delivered from them by Christ, yet, as the kingdom of Christ is spiritual, it is chiefly to Satan, the prince of this world, and all his legions, that the present discourse relates. Our attention is also directed to the miserable condition of men out of Christ, lying prostrate under the tyranny of the devil: otherwise, out of his hand, out of his power, Christ would not deliver his own people. This passage reminds us that, so long as the Church continues her pilgrimage in the world, she lives amongst her foes, and would be exposed to their violence, if Christ were not always at hand to grant assistance. But such is the inestimable grace of Christ, that, though we are surrounded on every side by enemies, we enjoy a sure and undoubted salvation. The mode of expression may seem harsh, salvation from our enemies; but the meaning is obvious. No machinations or power, no wiles, no attacks will prevent our being delivered from them and saved “ in the Lord with an everlasting salvatlon,” (Isa 45:17.)
72. To perform the mercy Zacharias again points out the fountain from which redemption flowed, the mercy and gracious covenant of God. He assigns the reason why God was pleased to save his people. It was because, being mindful of his promise, he displayed his mercy. He is said to have remembrance of his covenant, because there might be some appearance of forgetfulness during that long delay, in which he allowed his people to languish under the weight of very heavy calamities. We must carefully attend to this order. First, God was moved by pure mercy to make a covenant with the fathers. Secondly, He has linked the salvation of men with his own word. (76) Thirdly, He has exhibited in Christ every blessing, so as to ratify all his promises: as, indeed, their truth is only confirmed to us when we see their fulfillment in Christ. Forgiveness of sins is promised in the covenant, but it is in the blood of Christ. Righteousness is promised, but it is offered through the atonement of Christ. Life is promised, but it must be sought only in the death and resurrection of Christ. This too is the reason why God commanded of old, that the book of the law should be sprinkled with the blood of the sacrifice, (Exo 24:8; Heb 9:19.) It is also worthy of notice, that Zacharias speaks of the mercy performed in his own age, as extending to the fathers who were dead, and who equally shared in its results. Hence it follows, that the grace and power of Christ are not confined by the narrow limits of this fading life, but are everlasting; that they are not terminated by the death of the flesh, for the soul survives the death of the body, and the destruction of the flesh is followed by the resurrection. As neither Abraham, nor any of the saints, could procure salvation to himself by his own power or merits, so to all believers, whether living or dead, the same salvation has been exhibited in Christ.
(76) “Il a lie le salut des hommes avec sa parole, comme dependant d'icelle.” — “He has bound the salvation of men with his word, as depending on it.”
73. According to the oath There is no word in the Greek original for the preposition according to: but it is a common and well understood principle of language, that when the accusative case is put absolutely, there is a preposition to be understood, by which it is governed. The oath is mentioned, for the purpose of expressing more fully the firmness and sacredness of his truth: for such is his gracious condescension, that he deigns to employ his name for the support of our weakness. If his bare promises do not satisfy us, let us at least remember this confirmation of them; and if it does not remove all doubt, we are chargeable with heinous ingratitude to God, and insult to his holy name.
To give to us Zacharias does not enumerate the several points of God’s covenant, but shows that God’s purpose, in dealing so kindly and mercifully with his people, was to redeem them.
74. That being delivered out of the hand of our enemies His purpose was, that, being redeemed, they might dedicate and consecrate themselves entirely to the Author of their salvation. As the efficient cause of human salvation was the undeserved goodness of God, so its final cause is, that, by a godly and holy life, men may glorify his name. This deserves careful attention, that we may remember our calling, and so learn to apply the grace of God to its proper use. We must meditate on such declarations as these:
“God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness,”
(1. h 4:7.)
We are “redeemed with a great price,” (1. o 6:20,) “the precious blood of Christ,” (1. e 1:18,) not that we may serve “the lusts of the flesh,” (2. e 2:18,) or indulge in unbridled licentiousness, but that Christ may reign in us. We are admitted by adoption into the family of God, that we, on our part, may yield obedience as children to a father. For “the kindness and love (φιλανθρωπία) of God our Savior toward man,” (Titus 3:4,) “hath appeared unto all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly,” (Titus 2:11,12.) And so Paul, when he wishes powerfully to exhort believers to consecrate themselves to God, “in newness of life,” (Rom 6:4,) and, “putting off, concerning the former conversation, the old man,” (Eph 4:22,) to render to him a “reasonable service,” “beseeches them by the mercies of God,” (Rom 12:1.) Scripture is full of declarations of this nature, which show that we “frustrate the grace” (Gal 2:21) of Christ, if we do not follow out this design.
That we may serve him without fear This deserves our attention: for it implies that we cannot worship God in a proper manner without composure of mind. Those who are ill at ease, who have an inward struggle, whether God is favorable or hostile to them, whether he accepts or rejects their services,—in a word, who fluctuate in uncertainty between hope and fear, will sometimes labor anxiously in the worship of God, but never will sincerely or honestly obey him. Alarm and dread make them turn from him with horror; and so, if it were possible, they would desire that there were, “no God,” (Psa 14:1.) But we know, that no sacrifice is acceptable to God, which is not offered willingly, and with a cheerful heart. Before men can truly worship God, they must obtain peace of conscience, as David speaks, “There is forgiveness with thee, that thou mayest be feared,” (Psa 130:4 :) for those to whom God has given peace are graciously invited and led to approach him willingly and with a cheerful desire to worship him. Hence too Paul deduces that maxim, that “whatsoever is undertaken without faith is sin,” (Rom 14:23.) But since God reconciles men to himself in Christ, since by his protection he keeps them safe from all fear, since he has committed their salvation to his own hand and guardianship, we are justly declared by Zacharias to be delivered by his grace from fear. And so the prophets describe it as peculiar to his reign, that,
“they shall sit every man under his vine, and under his fig-tree, and none shall make them afraid,” (Mic 4:4.)
75. In holiness and righteousness As the rule of a good life has been reduced by God to two tables, (Exo 31:18,) so Zacharias here declares, that we serve God in a proper manner, when our life has been framed to holiness and righteousness. Holiness, beyond all question, denotes—as even Plato knew the duties of godliness, (77) which relate to the first table of the law. Righteousness, again, extends to all the duties of charity: for God requires nothing more from us in the second table of the law, than to render to every one what belongs to him. It is added, before him, to instruct believers, that it is not enough if their lives are decently regulated before the eyes of men, and their hands, and feet, and whole body, restrained from every kind of open wickedness: but they must live according to the will of God, who is not satisfied with professions of holiness, but looks chiefly on the heart.
Lastly, That no man may consider his duties to be at an end, when he has worshipped God for a certain period, Zacharias declares that men have been redeemed on the condition (78) that they shall continue to devote themselves to the worship of God all the days of their life And certainly, as redemption is eternal, the remembrance of it ought never to pass away; as God adopts men into his family for ever, their gratitude ought not to be transitory or of short continuance; and, in a word, as “Christ both died and rose, and revived” for them, it is proper that he should be “Lord both of the dead and living,” (Rom 14:9.) So Paul, in a passage which I lately quoted, enjoins us to
“live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world; looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ; who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works,”
(Titus 2:12-14.)
(77) “Le mot de Sainctete comprend tout ce dont nous sommes redevables a Dieu pour adorer et honorer sa majeste.” — “The word Holiness includes all that we owe to God for adoring and honoring his majesty.”
(78) “Hac lege redemptas esse homines.” — “Zacharie dit que les hommes ont este rachetez a la charge de s'appliquer a servir Dieu tout le temps de leur vie.” — “Zacharias says that men have been redeemed upon condition of applying themselves to serve God all the time of their life. ”
76. And thou, child Zacharias again returns to commend the grace of Christ, but does this, as it were, in the person of his son, by describing briefly the office to which he had been appointed as an instructor. Though in a little infant eight days old he does not yet observe prophetical endowments, yet turning his eyes to the purpose of God, he speaks of it as a thing already known. To be called means here to be considered and openly acknowledged as the prophet of God. A secret calling of God had already taken place. It only remained that the nature of that calling should be manifested to men. But as the name Prophet is general, Zacharias, following the revelation brought to him by the angel, affirms that he would be the usher (80) or herald of Christ. He says, thou shalt go before the face of the Lord: that is, thou shalt discharge the office of turning men by thy preaching to hear the Lord. The reason why John, when he had nearly finished his course, affirmed that he was not a prophet of God, is explained by me at the proper place, (Joh 1:21,) and in what manner he was to prepare his ways we shall afterwards see.
(80) “Apparitorem.” — “Heraut.”
77. To give knowledge of salvation Zacharias now touches the principal subject of the gospel, when he says that the knowledge of salvation consists in the forgiveness of sins. As we are all “by nature the children of wraths” (Eph 2:3,) it follows, that we are by nature condemned and ruined: and the ground of our condemnation is, that we are chargeable with unrighteousness. There is, therefore, no other provision for escaping eternal death (81) but by God
“reconciling us unto himself, not imputing our trespasses unto us,”
(2. o 5:19.)
That this is the only righteousness which remains to us before God, may be easily gathered from the words of Zacharias. For whence comes salvation, but from righteousness? But if the children of God have no other way of obtaining the knowledge of salvation except through the forgiveness of sins, it follows, that righteousness must not be sought in any other quarter. Proud men attempt to forge and manufacture a righteousness out of the merits of good works. True righteousness is nothing else than the imputation of righteousness, when God, out of free grace, acquits us from guilt. Besides, it ought to be observed that Zacharias is not speaking of “ strangers from the covenants of promise,” (Eph 2:12) but of the people of God. Hence it follows, that not only does the commencement of righteousness depend on the forgiveness of sins, but it is by imputation (82) that believers are righteous before God to the very end: for they cannot appear before his tribunal in any other way than by betaking themselves daily to a free reconciliation.
(81) “Mortis ;” —“ La mort mortelle.”
(82) “Imputative, ut italoquar.” — “Par imputation, c'est a dire, d'autant que la justice de Christ laur est imputee.” — “By imputation, that is to say, in so far as the righteousnes of Christ is imputed to them”
78. Through the bowels (83) of mercy In so great a benefit Zacharias justly extols the mercy of God, and not satisfied with merely calling it the salvation which was brought by Christ, he employs more emphatic language, and says that it proceeded from the very bowels of the mercy of God. He then tells us metaphorically, that the great mercy of God has made the day to give light to those who were sitting in darkness Oriens, in the Latin version of this passage, is not a participle: for the Greek word is ἀνατολή , that is, the Eastern region, as contrasted with the West. Zacharias extols the mercy of God, as manifested in dispelling the darkness of death, and restoring to the people of God the light of life. In this way, whenever our salvation is the subject, we ought to raise our minds to the contemplation of the divine mercy. There appears to be an allusion to a prediction of Malachi, in which Christ is called “the Sun of Righteousness,” and is said to “arise with healing in his wing,” (Mal 4:2,) that is, to bring health in his rays.
(83) “Par les entrailles de la misericorde, ou, par l'affection misericordieuse.” — “By the bowels of mercy, or, by the merciful affection.”
79. That he might give light to those who were sitting in darkness As to light and darkness, there are similar modes of expression in Isaiah: such as,
“The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined,”
(Isa 9:1;)
and in many other passages. These words show, that out of Christ there is no life-giving light in the world, but every thing is covered by the appalling darkness of death. Thus, in another passage, Isaiah testifies that this privilege belongs peculiarly to the church alone.
“Behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the Lord shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee,”
(Isa 60:2.)
But how could it be said that the Israelites, on whose hearts the Lord always shone by faith, were sitting in the shadow of death? I reply, the godly, who lived under the law were surrounded on every side by the darkness of death, and beheld at a distance, in the coming of Christ, the light that cheered and preserved them from being overwhelmed by present death. Zacharias may have had in view the wretched condition of his own age. But it is a general truth, that on all the godly, who had ever lived, or who were afterwards to live, there arose in the coming of Christ a light to impart life: for it even diffused life over the dead. To sit is of the same import as to lie: (84) and so Isaiah enjoins the Church, “Arise, for thy light is come,” (Isa 60:1.)
To guide our feet By this expression Zacharias points out, that the highest perfection of all excellence and happiness is to be found in Christ alone. The word Peace might indeed be taken in its literal sense, which would not be unsuitable: for the illumination brought by Christ tends to pacify the minds of men. But as the Hebrew word שלום, peace, denotes every kind of prosperity, Zacharias intended, I doubt not, to represent Christ as the author of perfect blessedness, that we may not seek the smallest portion of happiness elsewhere, but may rest on Christ alone, from a full conviction that in him we are entirely and completely happy. To this purpose are those words of Isaiah,
“The sun shall be no more thy light by day, neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee: but the Lord shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy God thy glory,” (Isa 60:19.)
But if the mere sight of his Son, while still a child, led Zacharias to discourse in so lofty a strain respecting the grace and power of Christ, before he was born, are not they so much the more ungrateful, who, now that Christ has died, and risen, and ascended to heaven, and sat down at his Father’s right hand, speak disrespectfully of him and of his power, to which the Holy Spirit bore testimony, while he was still in his mother’s womb? We must bear in mind what I have already mentioned, that Zacharias spake not from himself, but that the Spirit of God directed his tongue.
And the child grew This is added by Luke for continuing the thread of the history. First, he mentions that John became strong in spirit: which implies that the great and uncommon excellence of the child gave proof that there dwelt in him a Heavenly Spirit. Next, he tells us, that John remained unknown in the deserts till the day of his showing, that is, till the day on which the Lord had pur-posed to bring him into public view. Hence we conclude, that John, though he was fully aware of his calling, made no advances before the appointed time, but awaited the call of God.
(84) “ Estre assis emporte autant comme estre couch, ou veautre.”— “To sit is of the same import as to be lying or wallowing.”
