The Grace Commentary

[Note: This is the “Old” version of the Grace Commentary on Luke. It will be updated to the new version soon.]

---

The first chapter of Luke revealed some of the great Messianic expectations. The Messiah, it was believed, would overthrow enemy occupation, restore righteousness and justice on the earth, set right all wrongs, and remove oppression from the land. The Messiah would then rule and reign over all the earth from the throne of David in Jerusalem, thus fulfilling the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants.

Chapter two, however, begins to reveal that the life of Jesus the Messiah would not exactly fit the expectations. The circumstances surrounding His birth were certainly not kingly. Instead, it was a humble, lonely event. These circumstances were somewhat caused by the exercise of power from a selfish and greedy foreign emperor. It was just this sort of abuse of power the Jewish people expected the Messiah to stop, and yet when Jesus was born, He and His family experienced troubles as a result of this ruler. Later, after his birth, the people who visited him and pronounced prophecies about Him also begin to show that all will not be exactly as expected with this Messiah.

So while this may not have been the birth which the Jewish people expected for their Messiah, it shows that even from birth, the Messiah suffered along with His people, and experienced the same hardships as they. If deliverance came, it would come from one who suffered among them, not from a rich and pampered king, who knew nothing of pain and hardship.

2:1-2. As with the beginning of chapter 1 (1:5), this second chapter begins with an historical time reference. This helps validate the historical accuracy of the events Luke records. Furthermore, the two time references reveal the scope of ministry of John and Jesus. The birth of John is introduced with a time reference to a local king, King Herod of Judea. John would later have confrontations with the son of King Herod, Herod Antipas, which would result in John being put to death. The birth of Jesus is here introduced with a time reference to the emperor of the known world, Caesar Augustas. While Jesus would not directly have conflict with Caesar, the kingdom of God which Jesus inaugurated would be in direct conflict with the Roman Empire, and Jesus would be put to death by the Romans, but gain the final victory in His resurrection. So while the time reference for John anticipates his local and limited ministry, the time reference for Jesus anticipates His worldwide and eternal influence (Green 1997:58-59, 125).

Caesar Augustus was a Roman Emperor, and reigned from January 16, 27 BC to August 19, 14 AD. At birth, he was named Gaius Octavius Thurinus, and became the adopted son of Julius Caesar. When Julius Caesar died, Octavius became emperor, and became Gaius Julius Caesar Octavianus, or Octavian Caesar for short. Through a series of military and political maneuvers, he introduced the “Peace of Rome” (Pax Romana) across all conquered lands, and became the sole ruler and emperor over the Roman empire (cf. Green 1997:58-59, 125). As a result of his accomplishments, he took on the title “Augustas” which is a religious title meaning “Majesty” or “Illustrious One.” It is a name of divinity, and carries the idea of being “of the gods.” He also described himself as “Emperor Caesar, son of god” (imperator Caesar divi filius) and “the firstborn head” of the Senate gathering (primum caput).

During his reign, he began requiring Roman citizens to pay homage to him, not only through taxation, but also through pledging their allegiance with the phrase “Caesar is Lord.” After his death, all Roman Emperors followed these practices. The average reader at the time of Luke would have recognized and understood all of this historical background when he writes about “Caesar Augustas.” Luke writes about Caesar Augustas, not just to provide a historical time reference, but to introduce the inevitable clash of kingdoms that would result between the Kingdom of God announced by the Messiah, and the Kingdom of Man led by Caesar Augustas (cf. Bock 1994:202; Green 1997:122).

Luke records that Caesar Augustas made a decree…that all the world should be registered. All the world refers only to the Roman Empire (Evans 2003:49). However, there is much debate about the historical accuracy of Luke’s statement. Luke writes that this decree first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria. Historical documents from that time period reveal that Quirinius became governor of Syria in 6/7 AD, and began his rule by carrying out the census commanded by Caesar Augustas. However, Matthew records that the birth of Jesus took place during the reign of Herod the Great (Matt 2:1). The problem is that Herod the Great died in 4 BC, roughly ten years before Quirinius become governor and carried out the Roman census. Numerous theories have been proposed, ranging from historical error by Luke or Matthew, to alternate translations of Luke 2:1-2 (e.g., “this was the first census, before Quirinius became governor of Syria”), or even an earlier governorship by Quirinius (Pentecost 1981:56-57. For an excellent discussion of this issue, see Bock 1994:903ff). There is even some question about why Joseph had to go to Bethlehem in the first place, since no known census required this. Maybe a particular cultural practice was followed (Bock 1994:204) or that he owned land in Bethlehem, and so had to return to register with his land (Evans 2003:49; Pentecost 1981:58; cf. Barclay 1975:21).

The best option is to believe that there is no error, and that we do not yet have all the historical facts (Wallace 1996:304; Wright 2004:23) . We can believe that a census did take place for the purpose of taxation. Prior to the census, the Jewish people paid taxes to the King, who in turn, paid tribute to Rome. But the result of a census would be direct taxation of the Jewish people to the Roman Emperor, who had set himself up as God. This would be viewed by the Jewish people as essentially equal to slavery, and nearly identical to idol worship. As a result, a census like this would often result in revolt (Acts 5:37). The census was a reminder to Israel that they were dominated by Rome, and were demanded to pay homage to Caesar (Green 1997:123). “For the Jews this [census] was more than an irritation, it was an assault on their ancestral rights and their holy land, which was now degraded to a mere province of the vast Roman Empire. …The fact that Jesus’ birth was linked to the taking of the census perhaps also contributed to the view that he might be the expected Messiah, that precisely in Israel’s darkest hour God would send a deliverer” (Bosch 1991:26).

2:3. As a result of the decree, all went to be registered, everyone to his own city. The fact that Luke records this proves that there are historical circumstances of which we are ignorant. The census by Quirinius in 6/7 AD did not require people to return to their ancestral home. Some hypothesize then that this was an earlier census carried out by Quirinius in Judea when Herod the Great was king, and which followed the Israelite custom of requiring families to return to their ancestral home for registration. This was due to the fact that in Israel, land was tied to the family.

But again, whatever the historical events, the point is that this event would be seen by the majority of Jewish people as a terrible inconvenience, all for the purposes of having to pay more taxes to an occupying government. Nevertheless, God used these troubling circumstances to take Joseph and Mary to Bethlehem for the birth of the Messiah, in fulfillment of prophecy (Mic 5:2).

2:4. Joseph was one of those affected by the registration, and so he left Nazareth and went southinto Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem. Jerusalem was traditionally thought of as “The City of David”(cf. 1 Chr 11:7), and when Luke first begins to mention that Joseph and Marywent…into Judea, to the city of David, the reader would expect Luke to refer to Jerusalem. After all, the royal city is where the Messiah should be born. But Luke does not mention Jerusalem, butBethlehem. This is the city of David’s ancestral family (1 Sam 16; 17:12-16, 58; 20:6), and can therefore be called “the city of David” (Bock 1994:204; Green 1997:127; Malina 2003:231). Therefore, Joseph, because he was of the house and lineage of David had to travel to Bethlehem. Matthew 1 contains the genealogical record of Joseph showing this royal lineage. The journey from Nazareth to Bethlehem was about 80 miles. Both towns were quite small, probably less than 100 people lived in each (Malina 2003:231), emphasizing once again the humble situation of the birth of Jesus.

2:5. Joseph did not go alone, but traveled to Bethlehem with Mary, his betrothed wife. Though not yet officially married, Jewish culture considered betrothed couples to be married in all ways except the physical union (Bock 1994:205). So Mary traveled with Joseph. And of course, she was with child. Luke does not reveal how far along she was in her pregnancy.

2:6. Since so little is known about this type of census, it is also unknown how long Joseph and Mary would have had to remain in Bethlehem. It appears that they were there for quite some time, since Luke writes that while they were there, the days were completed for her to be delivered. Many Christmas pageants portray Mary as beginning to have birth pains while on the road to Bethlehem, and once they arrive, Joseph abandons her in a stable while he frantically runs around the village trying to find a warm and clean place for Mary to give birth. The harsh innkeeper turns him away because he is too busy with his guests, and so Joseph and Mary must make do with the only shelter they can find, a stable filled with animals. Though this makes for a great story, it probably did not happen in exactly that fashion. The origins of such details probably arose from the apocryphal Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew 13 and the Protevangelium of James 17:3-18:1 (Bock 1994:206). These sources are notoriously unreliable embellishments of the life of Jesus, and should not be trusted.

Based on what Luke writes, it seems likely that Joseph left Nazareth with plenty of time to get to Bethlehem (Malina 2003:232). The text says that while they were there the time came for Mary to give birth. This seems to indicate that they had been in Bethlehem for some time, a few days at least. Furthermore, in an honor-shame culture, hospitality to relatives (and even non-relatives) was expected. If Bethlehem was the town of his ancestors, he certainly would have had relatives in Bethlehem who would have provided housing for Joseph, and his pregnant, betrothed wife.

2:7. Due to a misunderstanding of Middle Eastern culture, and longstanding tradition, modern readers of this text believe that Mary gave birth in a stable “out back” behind an inn. Though Joseph would have tried to stay with relatives, the text seems to indicate that Joseph and Mary tried to obtain a room in the inn. But the word Luke uses for “inn” is not the typical Greek word for “inn” (pandocheion, used in Luke 10:25-37), but is kataluma which is best translated “house” or “guest room” (Bailey 2008:32; Bock 1994:208; Green 1997:128). Luke uses kataluma in 22:10-12 to refer to the upper guest room where Jesus and His disciples would eat the Passover meal.

The average home at this time consisted of one room, with an upper and lower portion. The upper portion was where the family lived, ate, and slept. The lower portion is where the animals stayed at night. This was both to keep them safe, and to provide heat for the family at night. If visitors arrived, they would room with the family in the upper portion of the room. Sometimes, families with more financial means would also have a separate guest room for visitors to stay in, either above or to the side of the main family living area. But whether the family they were staying with had an extra guest room or not, it appears from the text that when Joseph and Mary arrived, the room was already full, probably with other guests who had arrived for the census, and so Mary and Joseph had to stay down below where livestock would usually be housed (Plummer 1960:54; Wright 2004:21). Generally, due to the fluids that accompanied birth, peasant women gave birth in the lower, “stable” portion of their home (Malina 2003:333). The text of Luke does not indicate the presence of any animals (Wright 2004:21).

Though this is not the lonely and frantic series of events that many Westerners have imagined, the scene is still full of trouble, disappointment, and confusion. Doubtless, this is not the birth location that either Mary or Joseph imagined God would provide for the long-awaited Messiah, the object of all Jewish prophecies and expectations.

This is especially true in light of the other circumstances of the birth. Luke records that when Marybrought forth her firstborn Son [she] wrapped Him in swaddling clothes, and laid Him in a manger. As her firstborn, Jesus would have had the rights of inheritance, which would have included the royal birthright through Joseph (Bock 1994:207; Green 1997:128). Also, as the firstborn, Joseph and Mary would have to redeem Jesus, as they do in 2:23.

Swaddling clothes were strips of linen which were tightly wrapped around a newborn to make the child feel secure, and to help straighten the limbs (cf. Ezek 30:21 where strips of linen are used to strengthen and straighten a broken limb). Wrapping newborn children tightly with linen was an ancient custom (Ezek 16:4), but is still in use today (Bailey 2004:28). Some have indicated that the same type of cloth used as burial clothes was also used here as swaddling cloths (Pentecost 1981:60). Luke may indeed have this in mind since later in his account, he uses similar terminology to write about the burial of Jesus.

2:7: “wrapped him . . . in bands of cloth, and laid him in a manger”
23:53: “wrapped [him]. . in a linen cloth, and laid it in a tomb”

The manger that Mary laid Jesus in was an animal feeding trough, most likely made of wood, hewn stone, or a depression in the wall. The point is that the birth of the Messiah was lowly and humble, in stark contrast to Messianic expectations and the life of Caesar Augustas (Kittlel 1974:IX,54). It foreshadows a Messiah who “has nowhere to lay His head” (Luke 9:58). The frequent mention of the “manger” in this section is due to the fact that it serves as a sign to the shepherds in verses 8-20.

The point in this passage that Luke is making is twofold. First, the life and mission of the Messiah will not be as commonly expected. Rather than coming in power, riches, honor, and glory, after His parents have been displaced by a foreign ruler, Jesus arrives in obscurity, poverty, and humility. The second point Luke is making is related to the first. The Kingdom of this Messiah will be the exact opposite of the kingdoms of this world (Green 1997:58). “The birth of this little boy is the beginning of a confrontation between the kingdom of God – in all its apparent weakness, insignificance and vulnerability – and the kingdoms of the world” (Wright 2004:23).

[Note: This is the “Old” version of the Grace Commentary on Luke. It will be updated to the new version soon.]

---

The song of Zacharias begins to provide an answer to the question asked by his friends and relatives in verse 66: “What kind of child will this be?” The song of Zacharias, like the song of Mary in verses 46-55, has traditionally been named after the first word in the Latin: Benedictus, which means “Blessed.” Luke the song of Mary, the song of Zacharias, focuses on the Messiah which is to come, the redemption He will bring, and how the son of Zacharias, John, will prepare the way for this Messiah.

This is a song of redemption for Zacharias as well. Up until this point in the narrative, he has been portrayed in a negative light, as one who doubts the word from God through Gabriel even though he had every reason to believe it. He has now had nine months to be alone with his thoughts, and the words almost certainly reflect what he has learned during this period of silence. Aside from containing numerous allusions to the Psalms and the Prophets, the words he speaks echo Mary’s song of faith, as well as the prayer of Hannah in 1 Samuel 2. The similarity to Hannah’s prayer is especially appropriate since Zachariah’s son will prepare the way for the Messiah, the King of Israel, just as Hannah’s son, Samuel, prepared the way for King David.

1:67. His song is both a praise to God for what He has done, and a prophesy about what God will do in the future. Both of these were a result of being filled with the Holy Spirit. Using Exodus terminology (vv. 68, 71, 74; cf. Ps 106:10) he praises God for the salvation that is to come through the Messiah (1:68-75), and he prophecies that his newborn son will be the prophet who will prepare the way for this Messiah (1:76-79).

Even though Zacharias is prophesying about two different individuals, his entire statement forms a chiasm which reveals the central point Zacharias is making. He believes the Abrahamic Covenant is finally coming true. Verses 75 and 79 do not fit into the chiasm, but that is because these verses conclude the section about Jesus and John respectively. The chiasm is as follows:

A 68 – Visited by God

B 69 – Horn of Salvation

C 70 – Prophets since the world began

D 71 – Salvation from Enemies

E 72 – Mercy promised to fathers

E’ 73 – Covenant to father Abraham

D’ 74 – Salvation from Enemies

C’ 76 – Prophet of the Highest

B’ 77 – Knowledge of Salvation

A’ 78 – Visited by Dayspring

1:68. Zacharias begins with blessing the Lord God of Israel. It is He who has accomplished the great things Zacharias proclaims. The primary thing Zacharias praises God for is that He has visited and redeemed His people. Redemption is the grand theme of Scripture, wherein God seeks to buy back for Himself that which has been stolen from Him and sold into slavery and bondage. This was especially true of His people Israel, and Zacharias uses lots of Exodus, Jubilee, and Davidic dynasty terminology to present this idea (Green 1997:116-117). The people were not only in bondage spiritually and morally to sin and the legalistic requirements of human religion, but also physically to the Roman Empire. The expectation revealed by Zacharias here and in the following statements is that God will rescue and deliver them from all such enemies.

1:69. The primary means by which God would accomplish this redemption of Israel was through the Messiah. Zacharias speaks of the Messiah as a horn of salvation. In Scripture, horns are frequently a symbol of strength and power, as with the horns of an oxen (Deut 33:17), and the horns on a helmet (Ps 75:4-5, 10). This figure is also used to describe God (2 Sam 22:3; Ps 18:2, cf. Bock 1994:180). Finally, the horn could also be an allusion to the horn that would sprout from David (1 Sam 2:1, 10; 2 Sam 22:3). All these horn images fit within the battle-imagery that First Century Israelites would have had for the coming Messiah.

This helps the reader understand what Zacharias means by salvation. Despite modern usage, in Scripture, the term salvation is rarely used in reference to receiving eternal life and gaining entrance into heaven. Rather, it is most often used of gaining deliverance from physical harm, sickness, and enemies. In this context, Zacharias proclaims that God will provide salvation to Israel through delivering her from Roman occupation (cf. 1:71, 74). So the phrase horn of salvation refers to a coming Messiah who will be strong to deliver Israel from all her enemies (Bock 1994:180).

This is emphasized further in the next phrase, where Zacharias refers to the house of His servant David. Zacharias knows that Mary and Joseph were of royal descent and that their son will restore the Davidic throne in Israel. It may be that Zacharias has in mind the Davidic Covenant from 2 Samuel 7 wherein God promised to deliver him (and all Israel) from enemies, provide peace and prosperity in the land, and set up David and his family on the throne of Israel forever. This, however, was not only the expectation and hope from the time of David, but from the beginning of the world, as Zacharias says next.

1:70. The promises of redemption and deliverance from enemies is a theme found throughout all Scripture, as all the holy prophets testified. This was the hope and longing since the world began.Ever since sin and rebellion were introduced, people longed to return to Eden, to be restored unto fellowship with God, to gain deliverance from oppression, and once again have God walk among them.

1:71. Zacharias returns for a second time to the theme of salvation from our enemies. This was the great longing of Israel, and the ultimate sign that the Messiah had come. The Exodus from Egypt was a prototype of kind of deliverance that Israel looked for. It was not just the freedom from enemies and oppression they longed for, but also the signs and miracles, the restoration of the land and throne, and the regaining of peace and prosperity. All of this would be accomplished when the Israelites were removed from beneath the oppressive hand of all who hate them. So once again, the salvation in view refers to deliverance or preservation, whether it be deliverance of a nation, or physical preservation of health. In context here, “the salvation is from enemies and from the hand of those who hate” (Bock 1994:182).

1:72-73. All of this was to happen in accordance with the mercy…promised to our fathers. This merciful deliverance was promised to all the forefathers of Israel, but Zacharias has a specific promise in mind. He speaks of the holy covenant which he specifies as the oath which He swore to our father Abraham. God’s covenant with Abraham (Gen 12:1-3; 17:7; 22:16-18; 26:3, 24) is primarily about blessing. In a few short verses, blessing is mentioned four times.

Primarily, the blessing is for Abraham, to give him a land of his own, and to make his name great. This was fulfilled in Israelite history, but now that Israel was under Roman occupation, Zacharias and the other Israelites of his day were looking for a renewal of this blessing. They wanted the land to be restored to them. But the blessings were not just for Abraham and his descendants in regard to land and honor. The Abrahamic Covenant goes on to say that Abraham himself (including his descendants) will be a blessing to others. So much so, that eventually all the families of the earth will be blessed through Abraham (Gen 12:3). So the Abrahamic Covenant is not just blessings for Abraham and his descendants, but has ramifications for the entire world. He and his descendants are to be a blessing to every family in history. All the prophets attest to this as well, as Zacharias stated previously.

Now that the central point of the chiasm has been made, Zacharias begins to work his way back out, repeating what has been said before, as a way to emphasize that all these things will happen in fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant.

1:74. Zacharias states that the purpose of the Abrahamic Covenant is not just to be delivered from the hand of our enemies, but that, once delivered, the people of Israel might serve him without fear. God expects His people to serve Him whether they are delivered from their enemies or not. However, enemies often threaten God’s people with harm if they obey God. It is only when such enemies are re removed that God’s people can obey Him without fear. Once again, this idea is reminiscent of the Exodus, when God told the people of Israel that He was delivering them so that they might worship Him (Exod 7:16; Josh 24;14; cf. Green 1997:117).

1:75. This verse concludes the statements of Zacharias about the Messiah and what He will accomplish. He will remove enemies, deliver Israel, and bring in a time of peace and prosperity during which Israel will serve in holiness and righteousness before Him all the days of our life. Jewish tradition asserts that if all the Jews in the world could keep the Sabbath for two days, the Messiah would come. Zacharias reveals that when the Messiah does come, and the kingdom is inaugurated, all Israel will obey—not just the Sabbath laws, but all of God’s laws, and not just for two days, but for their entire lives. And Zacharias is not interested in simple, outward obedience, but obedience which is inner, of the heart, in holiness and righteousness. Such service involves all aspects of life, and becomes a life of worship (Rom 12:1-2).

Though Zacharias has concluded the section on the Messiah, the chiasm is not yet complete. He finishes the chiasm by talking about the future prophetic ministry of his son, John. The fact that both the Messiah and John have a part in this chiasm shows that their lives and ministries will be intertwined. Further, though John is born first and will begin his ministry first, Zacharias speaks of him second. Though John prepares the way for the Messiah, he is of lesser importance, like an emissary before the king (cf. John 1:27; Luke 3:16).

1:76. John, the child of Zacharias, will fulfill Jewish prophecies, and will himself be called the prophet of the Highest. He will become Israel’s greatest prophet (Luke 3:1-22; 7:28).. In the next few statements, Zacharias reveals two prophetic tasks that his son will accomplish. First, he will go before the face of the Lord to prepare His ways. There is some confusion about whothe Lord refers to. Though some see it as a reference to God (Bock 1994:188), it seems most natural to take the title as a reference to Jesus (Green 1997:118). It fits the immediate context best, and in the wider context, other uses of “Lord” also refer to Jesus (1:17, 43; 2:11). However, not too much should be read into the term. In First Century usage, any master or king could be called “Lord.” In Jewish thinking, the Messiah would be their Lord and King, but nobody imagined He would be a divine incarnation of God. So John, in fulfillment of prophecy, will go before the coming King to both announce his immanent arrival as well as prepare the way for Him (3:4; Isa 40:3).

1:77. The second prophetic task John will accomplish is in giving knowledge of salvation to His people. This salvation is parallel to that of verse 69, and primarily refers to the deliverance of Israel from her enemies. Though this ultimately was the task of the Messiah, the prophetic forerunner would have a role in starting the process by calling Israel to national repentance (cf. Luke 3:1-20). As stated earlier, the Messiah would come (with the associated blessings) when all Israel turned from sin and lived in obedience to God. This is what Zacharias means when he bases salvation on the remission of their sins. Remission (Gk. aphesis) does not refer to “forgiveness” but is closer to “liberty” or “freedom” (cf. Luke 3:3; 4:18-19; 25:47).

The Jewish people understood that while Rome was their physical enemy, their occupation by Rome was only the result of a greater enemy—their sin and rebellion as a nation. In this way, national sin and enemy occupation were one and the same thing. If the nation was delivered from one, it must logically have deliverance from the other as well.

So verse 77 is not about gaining eternal life and entrance into heaven, but about the great Jewish hope of finally being freed from the twin enemies of sin and Roman occupation. (Compare Luke 24:47 where Jesus tells His followers to continue this mission of bringing peace and freedom to all nations.) “For Luke, the reconciliation of God’s people and deliverance from enemies are both part of the one divine movement” (Green 1997:115). Remission of sins, or liberty from sins, is both freedom from the captivating and addictive power of sin, and from the dire political and national consequences of sin for the people of Israel.

1:78. This great deliverance will be based upon the tender mercy of our God. This statement is rooted in Psalm 130:7-8 where redemption and freedom are a result of God’s love (Green 1997:118). Here, they are a result of God’s mercy, which fits well with what the friends and relatives of Zacharias had said about Elizabeth, namely, that God had shown mercy to her (1:58). The central point of the chiasm was that God was now going to perform the mercy which He promised to the forefathers. In this way, since mercy is shown to Elizabeth, she is pictured as a type, or model, of Israel. Though shamed and disgraced in her old age, God miraculously intervened, and in His mercy, provided a son. Israel was disgraced under Roman occupation, but now, after many years of pain, a son had been born who would prepare the way for the promised Messiah.

Zacharias describes his son as the Dayspring from on high. Though most take this as a reference to the Messiah, it is best taken as a reference to John. Grammatically, the noun could refer to either. Furthermore, the word dayspring (Gk. anatole) might best be translated as “branch” which would seem to support the view that Zacharias is referring to the Messiah (Lightfoot 1989:29; Green 1997:121; Bock 1994:191). However, in context, the coming light seems to be something different than the dayspring (which has caused all the discussion).. Therefore, the dayspring could be understood as the branches that come out of the sun and precede it in the sunrise. The dayspring is not the sun, but the branch of light which comes before the sun. It is the few minutes of light right before the first rays of sun appear on the horizon. It is the brightening of the horizon before the sun actually rises. In this context, it appears that Zacharias believes his son John is this light, the forerunner to the actual Light of the world.

1:79. Verse 78 concluded the parallel statements in the chiasm, but Zacharias must now conclude the section about his son John. He states that there are two reason his son has come as the dayspring, the light before the dawn. The first is to give light to those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death. This describes the people of Israel and their distress under Roman occupation. It describes a life of fear and hopelessness. “The OT images appear to refer to those who are oppressed spiritually and physically, like Israel before the exodus (Psa 107:10; Isa 9:2; 42:7; 49:9-10; 59:8-9; Mic 7:8). They refer to people locked up in ignorance, on the edge of death. Threatened with rejection, they lack righteousness, do not demonstrate justice, and stand in need of release and forgiveness” (Bock 1994:193). Just as the first glimmer of light brings hope after a long night of wandering lost in an unfamiliar forest, so the birth and ministry of John would provide a glimmer of hope to those who faced nothing but darkness and death.

Secondly, the ministry of John would guide our feet into the way of peace. Again, the Jewish people longed for peace, and John would be the prophet who would help lead them there.

1:80 The section concludes with a statement about John growing up. This statement summarizes thirty years of preparation, of which we know very little. What is known comes from this verse alone. It says John grew and became strong in spirit, which refers to being filled, or controlled, by the Spirit. Luke goes on to record that John was in the deserts till the day of his manifestation to Israel. His primary place of preparation for ministry was in the desert, a place of solitude. This was true of many of the great prophets of Israelite history (e.g., Moses), and reminds the reader of the prophets about John that he would be a voice of one crying in the wilderness (3:4; Isa 40:3).

Luke’s summary statement “is reminiscent of Gen 20:21; Judg 13:24-25, where similar summaries of childhood and youth are given. It also anticipates the similar, but more developed [and therefore superior] report of Jesus’ maturation in 2:40-52, and the summary of the growth of the ‘Word of God’ in the Acts of the Apostles’ (Green 1997:120).

[Note: This is the “Old” version of the Grace Commentary on Luke. It will be updated to the new version soon.]

---

The narrative now shifts back to Elizabeth and the birth of her son and how the birth of John removes shame from both her and Zacharias. Their reversal foreshadows that of Israel under the ministry of John and the Messiah that would follow. However, the unique circumstances of the naming of their child hints that redemption may come in an unexpected manner.

1:57. Just as God has promised to Zacharias as Elizabeth, when the time came for her to be delivered…she brought forth a son. Earlier, when the angel told Zacharias this would happen, Zacharias doubted and so was struck mute. Yet despite his unbelief, God’s Word was now being accomplished.

1:58. It was customary for a woman to have her neighbors and relatives with her at the time of her delivery, and Mary was probably among them (cf. 1:56). The friends and family would come over every night for seven days to rejoice with the proud parents (cf. 1:14).

There was undoubtedly lots of rejoicing, for they had heard how the Lord had shown great mercy to her by giving her a child in her old age. In Jewish culture, the lack of children was a cause of great shame, which many considered to be a curse from God. By giving Elizabeth a son, God had removed this shame from her. Furthermore, Elizabeth had indication from her husband (he certainly wrote to her some of what the angel had told him) and from Mary (1:41-45) that her son would be an honored prophet, the one who would prepare the way for the Messiah. Her shame was not simply removed; she was abundantly honored (Green 1997:107).

1:59. After the week of celebration, it was customary, on the eighth day…to circumcise the child in accordance with the Abrahamic Covenant. Circumcision was a sign that, as a people, they were set apart for God. Though it was generally the Jewish custom to name a child on the day of their birth, Zacharias and Elizabeth wait until the day of the circumcision. They may be following a local custom (Green 1997:109; cf. Bock 1994:166).

Ideally, the father would preside over the ceremony, but since Zacharias was unable to speak, probably one of the local priests filled in for him. It was the ordinary custom that boys be named after a male relative (Bock 1994:166). Generally, the only other option was to give a child a prophetically significant name. In this case, the name’s meaning was important and would predict something about the life of the child. In this instance, they would have called him by the name of his father, Zacharias.

Zacharias would have been a good name. Not only was it the name of the father, but it means “the one whom Yahweh remembers.” God had certainly remembered Zacharias and Elizabeth in their old age, and He was remembering Israel by sending them the long hoped-for prophet, the one who would prepare the way for the Messiah.

1:60. Just as they were about to name the boy after his father, Zacharias, Elizabeth said, “No; he shall be called John.” This would also be interpreted as bringing shame to Zacharias. Though Zacharias now had a son, which was honorable, he was not able to preside over the naming ceremony. Since he was a priest and the father, this would have been shameful. And now, it appears that his wife, Elizabeth, is trying to bring him more shame by refusing to let them name their son after Zacharias, and instead requesting that he be named John.

1:61. The friends and relatives are bewildered, and so ask, “There is no one among your relatives who is called by this name.” Since Elizabeth has announced that her son will not be named Zacharias, the next option would be to name him after some other relative. But there was no one by the name of John among their relatives. They were bewildered about why the boy would be named John.

1:62. The fact that they made signs to his father indicates that he was both deaf and mute. This fits with what the angel told him in 1:20. The best translation of 1:20 would be “you will be silent” meaning, your world will be silent, neither hearing nor speaking. So the friends and relatives motion to Zacharias, asking what he would have him called.

1:63. Since Zacharias was unable to speak, he asked for a writing tablet. The writing tablet was a flat piece of wood covered in wax which could be written on, and then smoothed out again (Bock 1994:168). In this instance, he did not want to be misunderstood, and so put down exactly what he had been told. He wrote, saying, “His name is John.”

They all marveled at what Zacharias had written. Since he was deaf, he “had not heard his wife’s choice of a name for their son. That he agrees with her, then, it itself cause for amazement” (Green 1997:110). Even though he was able to write, she was most likely unable to read. So he would not have been able to communicate to her the name their son was to be named. Luke does not tell us how Elizabeth knew to name her son John (Bock 1994:167). However it happened, the agreement between Elizabeth and Zacharias caused amazement in those who were present.

John means, “God has been gracious” which is exactly what God had been to Elizabeth and Zacharias in giving them a son. God’s gift to them also foreshadows the gift of God’s Son which would be revealed to the world through the ministry of John.

1:64. As a result of Zacharias’ obedience, his mouth was opened and his tongue loosed, and he spoke, praising God. This is an act of God’s grace as well. When the angel told Zacharias he would be silent, he was told it would last until the things he had been told were fulfilled (1:20). This vague time frame could have lasted until the ministry of John was complete (cf. 1:15-17; contra. Green 1997:110). But God is gracious to Zacharias and gives him his speech back.

The first words out of the mouth of Zacharias are praise to God. He has not been able to say a word for nine months, and now that he can speak, he only wants to praise God. Luke does not tell us what he said, but it may have included the song of Zacharias recorded in verses 67-79.

1:65-66. Along with rejoicing came fear…on all who dwelt around them and all these sayings were discussed throughout all the hill country of Judea. Fear is often a reaction When God works in miraculous ways, a natural reaction is to wonder what God is about to do next. The news spread about what had happened to Zacharias and Elizabeth, and people began to wonder “What kind of child will this be?” The non-traditional birth and the non-traditional naming caused the people to question who John would be and what he would do. Luke’s aside to the reader and the hand of the Lord was with him invites the reader to similarly ponder the significance of these events, and what kind of man John will grow up to be.

This question is answered by Zacharias in 68-79. Just as the birth of John removed the shame of his parents, so also, John will prepare the way for one who will remove the shame upon Israel, and that of the whole world.

[Note: This is the “Old” version of the Grace Commentary on Luke. It will be updated to the new version soon.]

---

Luke 1:46-55 contains the a statement from Mary about her unborn Son. It is often referred to as the Magnificat. This is the first word of Mary’s song in the Latin Vulgate, and means “To magnify.” Mary’s song is all about magnifying Jesus. Though He has not yet been born, she wants to sing His praises and magnify His name. Her words contain numerous allusions to other similar songs from the Hebrew Scriptures, and contains many of the traits of Hebrew poetry as found in the book of Psalms.

It could be asked why Luke included Mary’s song in the narrative. It seems a bit out of place, and the narrative would flow quite naturally without it. The same can be said of Zacharias’ song in 1:68-79. There are at least three reasons Luke includes these songs from Mary and Zacharias.

First, the songs offer praise to God for sending the Messiah.

Second, the songs tie beautifully with poetry and prophecy from the Hebrew Scriptures. This shows a tie between the Messiah they were hoping for and the Messiah who has come. The song of Mary is very similar to Hannah’s prayer for her miracle son (1 Samuel 2), as well as many of the Psalms (e.g., Psalms, 8, 33, 47, 100, 135, 136). Mary’s song, which is ten verses long, contains fifteen discernable quotations from the Hebrew Scripture and contains extensive parallelism, a prominent feature of Hebrew poetry (cf. Green 1997:98-101).

Third, and most importantly for the theme and flow of Luke’s gospel, the songs of Mary and Zacharias help reveal the expectations that Jewish people of that time had for the Messiah. Luke is trying to answer various questions for his reader like “Who is this Jesus? What did He do?” Near the beginning of his gospel, he wants to show what people expected the Messiah to be and do. No one can reveal this better than Mary, the mother of Jesus, and Zacharias, a priestly leader. As will be seen, they both expected Jesus to be a leader who would right wrongs, restore Israel, and reverse injustice. These Messianic expectations continue to pop up throughout Luke and Acts, and are frequently confirmed by Jesus Himself (e.g., 4:18-19; 5:12-32; 6:21-26; 14:1-33; 16:19-31; 18:9-43). However, “God’s triumph over those who oppose him it itself a redemptive act, placing his opponents in a position whereby they might elect to join God’s project” (Green 1997:102).

1:46-47. Through parallelism, Mary shows that her whole being is praising God. While it could be argued that she views the soul and spirit as separate, with the rejoicing of the spirit preceding that of the soul, her main point is that her entire inner person is actively engaged in giving glory to God for what He has done (Green, 1997:102).

Also, not too much should be read into her use the term Lord when she makes it parallel to God my Savior in close proximity Elizabeth’s use of the term Lord in 1:43. All this shows is that the term Lordcan refer to any figure of authority, whether it is the Messiah (1:43), an angel (1:45), or God Himself (1:46-47).

In the rest of her song, Mary explains why her entire being is praising God for the benefits that will come through her Son. She praises God for what He will do for her(1:48-49), what He will do for the world (1:50-53), and what He will do for Israel (1:54-55).

Verses 48-49 speak first about the benefit to Mary.

1:48. Mary understands that she was in a lowly state. This speaks not only of her low position in society, but also her low position before God. Paul uses the same term in Philippians 3:21 to speak of our body of humiliation, which is in direct contrast to the body of glorification we will receive in heaven. In using this term, Mary may be acknowledging her own sinfulness and unworthiness to be the mother of the Messiah.

Mary also refers to herself as the maidservant of God, which reveals her desire to serve Him.

Mary states that as a result of her service all generations will call me blessed. This is not a statement of pride, but is a remembrance of what the angel had already told her. When he appeared, he proclaimed, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you. Blessed are you among women” (1:28). However, as blessed as Mary is, Jesus reveals that His followers can be even more blessed. At one point, when He is teaching, a woman shouts out from the crowd, “Blessed is the womb that bore you…” Jesus responds by saying, “More than that, blessed are those who hear the Word of God and keep it!” (Luke 11:27-28)

1:49. Mary states the reason she will be called blessed. God has done great things for her, and holy is His name. It is not because of her holiness that she will be called blessed, but because God is holy.God gets all the praise, glory, and honor for what He has done in Mary.

1:50. Mary now moves to speak about the benefits that will come to the world through the child that she carries (1:50-53). She speaks of the blessings that will come to the world using terminology similar to how she spoke of herself. What God has done for her, He will also do for the world (Green 1997:104). In this section, she contrasts what God will do for the lowly and humble with what He will do to the proud and arrogant. The Lukan theme of reversal is evident in this section. Those whom the world exalts, God humbles, and those who are humble in the eyes of the world, God lifts up.

Luke 1:50 is probably a quote from Psalm 103:17. Mary’s song seems to be explaining, or expanding, upon this text. Through parallelism and chiasm (e.g., “humble” in v 48 and 52; “great things” in v 49 matches “mighty deeds” in v 51), this verse also seems to be her central point.

Mary begins by saying that mercy will be shown to those who fear God. Mercy is when God does not give to a person what they actually do deserve, and is a theme that is found in prophetic writings concerning the coming of the day of the Lord. Such mercy will be shown only to those who fear God, that is, live in respectful obedience to Him. Mary is certainly an example of this, but she reveals that she is not only speaking of herself, but is thinking of all those who live in the future, from generation to generation.

1:51. In contrast to those who fear God are those who are proud in the imagination of their hearts.These people think they are greater than they are, and that others should give them the praise and honor they think they deserve. They want to receive the honor and glory that is due to God. To such people, God has shown strength with His arm and He has scattered them. Mary’s words recall common themes throughout Israelite history where God tears down the proud and powerful, while raising up the humble and obedient. This has begun to happen with her own exaltation, and she expects that God will continue this process through the work of her son, the Messiah.

1:52. Verse 52 forms a chaism with verse 51. The same ideas are repeated, but in reverse order. Mary is speaking both of what God has done in the past, and she anticipates what God will do through the Messiah in the future. She expects God to put down the mighty from their thrones, while exaltingthe lowly. She may also be expressing a bit of surprise that God has chosen to send the Messiah, the King of Jews, not through the expected route of palaces, kings, and privilege, but through a poor and lowly young woman.

1:53. This is most likely an allusion to Psalm 107:9. In this way, Mary expresses a typical Messianic expectation, that He will fill the hungry with good things, while the rich will be sent away empty. At the time of Mary, the poor and downtrodden had few legal rights and no recourse to defend themselves against wrongs by the rich and powerful. When the Messiah comes, He would reverse all this.

1:54. Mary now moves in 1:54-55 to talking about the blessings that will come specifically to Israel as a result of the Messiah. She sees the Messiah’s arrival as God setting out to help His servant Israel.Israel had been groaning under the weight of oppression, and the expectation was that the Messiah would set them free. God had not forgotten them, but would finally act in remembrance of His mercy. Based on what Mary said about God’s mercy in verse 50, it is assumed that Israel fears and obeys God, or at least be brought to a place where God can restore the nation to it’s place among the nations.

1:55. Mary states that God will act this way, to fulfill the promises which had been spoken to thefathers and specifically the covenant promises to Abraham and to his seed forever. By mentioningAbraham and his seed the reader is reminded of God’s promise to send the Messiah through the seed of Abraham (Gen 12:1-3; 17:19; 22:18; 26:4; 28:14). Mary believes that God will fulfill this covenant promise through the baby in her womb.

Mary’s song ends abruptly, and the narrative continues in verse 56. By ending with a statement about the Abrahamic covenant, Mary reveals her belief that the Messiah in her womb will fulfill all the covenant promises to Israel.

1:56. Mary stayed with Elizabeth for three months which means she probably stayed until Elizabeth had given birth to John, which is the next event Luke relates to us. After this, Mary returned to her house in Nazareth. She would have been about three months pregnant, and just beginning to show. Undoubtedly she felt some fear at facing her parents and Joseph, her betrothed, but knew that if, according to His word, God could miraculously give sons to her and Elizabeth and could also restore speech to Zacharias, then He would protect her (as He promised in 1:35) from anything she might face in Nazareth.

[Note: This is the “Old” version of the Grace Commentary on Luke. It will be updated to the new version soon.]

---

Luke 1:39-45 reveal the confirmation that both Mary and Elizabeth received about the divine origins and purposes for their sons. They receive this confirmation through the testimony of two sources that would be surprising for Luke’s first century readers: an unborn child and a woman. Such unconventional methods would cause the reader to wonder what sort of life and ministry these two unborn children will lead.

1:39-40. After Gabriel revealed to Mary that though she was a virgin, she would bear a son, shearose…and went into the hill country…to a city of Judah. She went to visit Zacharias and…Elizabeth. It is not known what city they lived in, but the hill country was in the vicinity of Jerusalem, about 70 miles away. It would have been very rare (even improper) for a woman of Mary’s age to travel alone so far from home (Malina 2003:229). “Until she entered the bridal chamber, a girl lived in seclusion in her home” (Green 1997:94).

It appears that Mary left Nazareth without informing Joseph of her conception. Undoubtedly, Mary knew that the punishment for being pregnant out of wedlock was death by stoning. If it was discovered that the groom-to-be was also guilty, he could be stoned as well. If he was not guilty, he would still incur intense shame from the betrayal of his betrothed. Possibly, Mary fled Nazareth not only to protect herself, but also Joseph, from ridicule, shame, and possible death.

Also, and though we cannot be certain about motives, Mary may have gone to visit Elizabeth to help her through the final three months of her pregnancy. These months are difficult for any woman, let alone one who is well advanced in years (1:18). Mary’s presence was undoubtedly welcome, especially since Zacharias was mute (and possibly deaf as well, cf. 1:62).

Upon arriving where Elizabeth lived, Mary greeted Elizabeth. It was proper custom for Mary to greet Elizabeth first, since Elizabeth was Mary’s superior in every visible way. “She is the daughter of Aaron, the wife of a priest, the elder of these two women” (Green 1997:94, 96). And yet, Elizabeth reverses this custom, and elevates Mary instead.

1:41. When Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary…the babe leaped in her womb. Luke revealed to his readers earlier the promise of Gabriel that John would be filled with the Spirit from within the womb (1:15). Being filled with the Spirit is always for the purpose of accomplishing God’s will and purposes. Here, though the babe cannot walk or talk, when he hears the sound of Mary’s voice, he leaped in Elizabeth’s womb. This action points to the typical Israelite belief that God knows His prophets even before they are born (Malina 2003:229). The greatness of John as a prophet is shown here, since he begins his prophetic work from within the womb (Green 1997:95). Bock points to a rabbinic parallel where Hebrew it is reported that the unborn children of Hebrew mothers sang songs from within the womb at the parting of the Red Sea during the exodus from Egypt (1994:135).

Elizabeth is also filled with the Holy Spirit. This filling gave to Elizabeth the revelation that Mary is also pregnant, and that the babe which Mary bore is the Lord (Bock 1994:136). Luke records this in verses 42-45.

1:42-44. Under the influence of the Spirit, Elizabeth first pronounces a blessing upon Mary, and uponthe fruit or child, in her womb. Under inspiration, she also recognizes that the babe which Mary carries is her Lord. By referring to the unborn child as my Lord, Elizabeth states her submission to Him (Green 1997:96). As with 1:32, 35, when Elizabeth calls Jesus her “Lord,” she is not making a statement about the child’s divinity. Rather, she recognizes Him as her superior (Bock 1994:137).

With the blessing of Mary, and the greater blessing of her unborn child, Mary is raised to a position of prominence above both Zacharias and Elizabeth, and the unborn Jesus is raised to a position of honor above all (cf. Green 1997:51).

1:45. Elizabeth also recognizes, by the filling of the Spirit, that Mary had believed the message which had been spoken to her. Furthermore, she affirms that there would be a fulfillment of those things which were told her from the Lord. In this way, the fears of Mary for her safety and that of her child are calmed. If God has said that she and Elizabeth would miraculously conceive, and both of them have, and then God confirmed His promises through the confirmation of a unborn baby, then God would also work miraculously if necessary to protect Mary and the baby she carried.

[Note: This is the “Old” version of the Grace Commentary on Luke. It will be updated to the new version soon.]

---

In Luke 1:6-25, Gabriel announced to Zacharias that Elizabeth would bear a son named John who would come in the spirit of Elijah to prepare the way for the Messiah. Luke now writes about a very similar event when Gabriel announces to a young, unmarried girl that she would be the the mother of the Messiah. The parallels (both similarities and contrasts) between the two accounts are numerous and purposeful (cf. Green 1997:83-84; Bock 1994:102). Zacharias, the priestly, educated, elderly male, is shown to have less faith and obedience than a young, unmarried, unschooled girl. This reveals a great theme of reversal that is prominent in Luke (where God uses those that the world would not), as well as Luke’s emphasis on women as being vitally important for God’s purposes. Both would have been jarring and radical ideas in Luke’s day.

The overall picture that Luke reveals is that God is at work, not just for Zacharias and Elizabeth (the privileged and honored) or Mary (insignificant and despised, but honored), but for all Israel, and especially, for all who are oppressed. “God is intervening in human history to bring forth an everlasting kingdom” (Green 1997:84).

1:26. In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy (cf. 1:24, 36), the angel Gabriel–the same angel that appeared to Zacharias (1:19)–was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth. Galilee was the region around the Sea of Galilee where Jesus would carry out most of his public ministry. Nazareth was a small town in this region with a population of about 200 (Malina 2003:7). It was not honorable to be from Nazareth (cf. Isa 9:1; 1 Macc 5;15; Matt 4:13-16; Luke 22:59; John 1:46; 7:41; Acts 2:7). The first contrast between Zacharias and Mary is in their honor. Mary was a nobody from Nazareth, while Zacharias was an honorable priest.

1:27. Gabriel was sent to a virgin whose name was Mary. Luke uses the technical term for virgin,(parthenon) so there is no doubt about her state. She confirms her viginity in 1:34. Mary’s name means “excellence” (Bock 1994:107).

Luke also reveals that Mary was betrothed which was like a modern engagement, but more binding. A Jewish marriage consisted of two parts, the betrothal, and about a year later, the actual marriage ceremony. During the betrothal period, the woman legally belonged to her groom, and he referred to her as his wife (Bock 1994:107). A betrothal could only be broken through a writ of divorce. Any child that was born to a woman during the period of betrothal would be regarded as teh groom’s, if he accepted care for the child (Bock 1994:108).

Mary was betrothed to a man named Joseph who was of the house of David. Though it was honorable to be of the house of David, there was also a sense of shame, since the house of David had been deposed and no longer sat on the throne in Jerusalem (cf. 1:5), despite divine promises to David (2 Sam 7:11-33). Mary’s betrothal to Joseph was probably arranged by her parents. Joseph was probably much older than Mary. He could have been in his late twenties or thirties, possibly into his forties. Mary, on the other hand, was probably in her early teens, and may have been as young as twelve (Bock 1996:57; Green 1997:86).

1:28. Gabriel greets her with the words, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!” Gabriel had used a similar greeting when he brought a message to Daniel about the interpretation of the vision of 70 weeks (Dan 9:23). Not even the priestly Zacharias was greeted with such a blessing. In this way, the angelic greeting raises Mary above Zacharias to the point of matching (even surpassing) the greatness of the prophet Daniel (cf. Green 1997:87)

1:29. When Mary saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was. When Gabriel appeared to her, and spoke his greeting, it is unlikely that Mary immediately recognized him as an angel. Also, since Nazareth was so small, she undoubtedly knew every man in the village. Furthermore, it was quite rare for any man to greet a woman (such as a wife or daughter) in such a way, let alone a stranger (Lightfoot 1989:25). Therefore, Mary’s reaction is understandable. She was troubled that a strange man would appear to her while she is alone. She certainly wondered at his words of blessing to her (Bock 1994:110).

1:30-31. Gabriel tries to calm her fears by stating that she has found favor with God. This implies that she has been chosen by God to perform some special task (Bock 1994:111). The angel explains that she will conceive…and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. As with the promise to Zacharias, the angel tells Mary what to name her miraculous son: Jesus. The name is vitally important on many different levels. First of all, it means “Savior” or “The Lord Saves” (Bock 1994:129-130) which becomes a theme to the song she sings in verses 47-55. As a title, “Savior” refers not only to the work of Jesus to forgive sins, but was a political statement as well. Many of the Greek and Roman military leaders were referred to as Saviors (Ford 1983:16).

Second, Jesus is the Greek form of the Hebrew Joshua. When Hellenistic Jews read their Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, the books would read “Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Jesus, Judges. Throughout the narrative concerning Joshua, the Greek reader would readJesus.” …Thus for the Greek the successor of Moses is Jesus. It is Jesus who conquers Canaan and establishes the twelves tribes in teh promised land. Jesus, the son of Nun, was teh military man par excellence in Israelite history because he gained the promised land of the Hebrews, gained it through military prowess” (Ford 1983:16). Of course, Hebrew readers would not read “Jesus” but “Joshua.” So also, when they spoke of Jesus of Nzareth, they would have called him “Joshua of Nazareth.” The naming of Jesus implies that He will be a militaristic leader. The following words of Gabriel the war angel, only seem to confirm this.

1:32 The message of Gabriel to Mary about Jesus is one of redemption and restoration. The words spoken by Gabriel clearly echo the promises of the Davidic Covenant in 2 Samuel 7:9-16 (Ford 1984:17). The implication in all that Gabriel says is that Jesus (Joshua) has come to take back the throne of David from the usurpers. The term Son of the Highest is Messianic and does not necessarily imply divinity (Lightfoot 1989:25; Green 1997:90; Bock 1994:113-114). In this context, it refers specifically to the Messiah as an heir to the throne of David. Luke writes that God will give Him the throne of His father David. The reader is reminded of the statement in verse 27, where Joseph was of the house of David, but not on the throne. Instead, a Roman-appointed usurper was on the throne (1:5). Through Jesus, God would now restore the throne of David to the rightful heir.

1:33. The reign of Jesus would not be temporary, but He He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end. This speaks of the restoration of Israel to her rightful place among the nations as Jesus rules from Jerusalem, and reminds the readers again of the prophecy spoken by Gabriel to Daniel hundreds of years earlier (Dan 7:27). There is little in Gabriel’s pronouncement that would lead the reader to think of anything beyond the national restoration of Israel and the reinaguration of the Davidic dynasty (Green 1997:88).

1:34. Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?” The phraseknow a man is a Hebrew idiom for sexual intercourse (cf. Gen 4:1). Mary wants to know how she will conceive since she is still a virgin. Also, in light of the statement by Gabriel that Jesus would sit on the throne of “His father David” (v. 33) Mary might have thought that she was being accused of sleeping with Joseph, who was of the house of David. Her question here is also a statement that she is still pure in her betrothal to Joseph.

Based on what happened to Zacharias when he asked a nearly identical question in verse 18, the reader expects Mary to get struck mute here as well. She, however, is not chided for her question. There are several possible explanations.

First, whereas Zacharias had been praying for a son (1:13), it is doubtful that Mary had been praying for a son, since she was a virgin. Therefore, her question is much more natural. Zacharias, since he had been praying for a son, should have responded with praise and rejoicing, not questions of doubt.

Second, Zacharias’ question indicated a lack of belief. He asked how he could know the truth of what the angel had said. Since Zacharias didn’t know the truth of what he was being told, he didn’t believe it, as the angel indicates (1:20). Also, the fact that he was seeking a sign shows that he doubted the validity of the angels words. He wanted verification. Mary’s question, on the other hand, does not indicate lack of belief. She was not seeking a sign, but was simply asking about the mechanics of what she had been told (Bock 1994:118). She didn’t question the truth of what she had been told; she simply wanted to know how God was going to make her pregnant since she was a virgin (1:34). Though the angel only explained that it would be a miracle, she believed and said “Let it be done to me” (1:38). So the primary differences between Zacharias and Mary are prayer for, and faith in, the promises of God.

The contrast between the two is stark, especially from a first century perspective. Zacharias was a man, a priest, and elderly. From a first century perspective, he should be the one who is wise and full of faith. Mary, however, was a young, unmarried woman. She would have been viewed as ignorant, unlearned, and as such, not capable of great faith. However, the tables are turned, the roles are reversed, and a young, untrained woman is shown to be wiser and more full of faith than an experienced, learned, religious leader. This is emphasized even further in Mary’s song (often referred to as the Magnificat) in Luke 1:46-55.

1:35. So rather than strike her mute, the angel provides her with an explanation, namely, that her conception will be a miracle wrought by the Holy Spirit. The angel’s terminology that the Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you does not suggest sexual activity (Green 1997:90; Bock 1994:122), but indicates that God’s glorious presence will take the place of a husband for Mary in empowering and protecting her (Malina 2003:228; Bock 1994:122). It also anticipates Pentecost (cf. Acts 1:8).

The angel also tells Mary that her son will be Holy and will be called the Son of God, which is Messianic terminology (cf. vv. 32; 3:38; Green 1997:89; Bock 1994:123-125). “She certainly is not portrayed as perceiving an announcement of a divine child here” (Bock 1994:125).

1:36-37. The angel goes on to tell Mary that Elizabeth her relative has also conceived a son in her old age and has been pregnant for six months. By revealing this to Mary, the angel has provided a sign of confirmation to her that what she has said will come true. As she will see evidence that god has worked a miracle in Elizabeth, Mary will know that God will work a miracle in her also, for with God nothing will be impossible.”

1:38. Mary accepts the word of the angel, giving herself as a maidservant to the Lord. She is willing to do whatever God asks of her. With this statement, Mary is essentially giving up her right to marry Joseph. By giving herself to God as a maidservant, she is placing herself in the household of God, and removing herself from the household of her father and that of Joseph (Green 1997:92). “Mary, who seemed to measure low in any ranking–age, family, heritage, gender, and so on–turns out to be the one favored by God, the one who finds her status and identity in her obedience to God and participation in his salvific will” (Green 1997:92).

[Note: This is the “Old” version of the Grace Commentary on Luke. It will be updated to the new version soon.]

---

So far in the narrative section of 1:5-25, Zacharias has been shown that against all odds, God answers prayer (v. 13), especially in relation to God’s promises in Scripture. The nation of Israel wondered if God would ever provide a Messiah, and Zacharias wondered if God would ever provide him a son. God was now bringing both to fruition in answer to their prayers. Zacharias’ response in Luke 1:18-25 foreshadows the response of Israel.

1:18. Upon hearing that God would provide a son to Zacharias in response to his prayers (1:13), the response of Zacharias is surprising. Rather than rejoice at receiving an answer to prayer, he reveals doubt by asking “How shall I know this?” He is not asking how God can accomplish what the angel proclaimed, but rather, how he can know the truth of what the angel has proclaimed. He is asking for a sign for verification of the angel’s words (Bock 1994:91). Asking for signs, though allowable, is frequently an indication of doubt (Luke 11:16, 29-30) and are not subject to popular demand (Bock 1994:96). Zacharias does, of course, give a justification for his doubt, in that he is an old man, and [his] wife is well advanced in years.

1:19. The angel proclaims that Zacharias an know the truth of what has been said because the angel is Gabriel, who stands in the presence of God. The word angel means “messenger” and messages from God through His messengers (i.e., angels) can always be trusted. Gabriel is nearly always associated with prophetic proclamations and events (cf. Dan 8:15-16; 9:21). It is difficult to guess tone of voice in written words, but one cannot almost hear incredulity in the voice of Gabriel as he speaks these words to Zacharias. He is saying, “My appearance before you in the Holy Place should be sign enough! The message I have proclaimed should be rejoiced in, not questioned and doubted!”

Gabriel says that God Himself sent Gabriel to bring…these glad tidings (lit., “good news”). The good news, or gospel, that the angel proclaims includes the entire message of 1:13-17 (Bock 1994:92).

1:20. As a result of Zacharias’ lack of faith, Gabriel does indeed give Zacharias a sign: he will be mute until the day John is born. The reason is because Zacharias did not believe the message which was spoken to him. Being struck mute may have been grounds for Zacharias to be removed from his priestly office, since in some cases, it was considered a blemish (Lightfoot 1989:23). Even if he was allowed to remain in his position, being struck mute was a disciplinary sign, not only because he was a priest and required the use of his voice to fulfill his duties, but also because in that society, speaking for the family was a male role, and being struck mute would render him passive, and therefore dishonored (Malina 2003:226; Green 1997:79).

1:21-23. The exchange between Zacharias and Gabriel took more time than was usual for the lighting of the incense, and so the people… marveled that he lingered so long in the temple. It is possible that some of them thought maybe he had been struck dead by God, thereby confirming the suspicion that Elizabeth’s barrenness was a result of sin. A delay would cause those outside to worry (Bock 1994:94). However, when Zacharias did come out, he could not speak to them; and they perceived that he had seen a vision in the temple, for he beckoned to them and remained speechless. A final blessing was expected from the priest when he returned from the Holy Place, and it appears that Zacharias performed this blessing with hand motions rather than words (Bock 1994:95). Visions were rare and coveted blessings, and so in this way, some of Zacharias’ reproach was removed. When his time in the temple was complete, he departed to his own house.

1:24-25. Soon after Zacharias arrived home, his wife Elizabeth conceived. Though her conception was in the normal manner, it was nevertheless miraculous due to her age. In this way, her conception has many parallels to the conception of Sarah (Gen 21:1-2; see the list by Green 1997:53-55), and Rachel (Gen 25:21; 30:22-23). Such allusions point the reader to the fact that “God’s purpose has not drawn to a close but, quite the contrary, is manifestly still being written. Luke regards his opening chapters as though they were the continuation of the story rooted in the Abrahamic covenant” (Green 1997:57, 81).

There are several possible explanations for why Elizabeth hid herself five months. First, this could be a medical note from Luke. Since there were so many complications that could take place during the first five months of pregnancy, a woman was not considered officially “pregnant” until five months had passed. Second, she may also be afraid that the village would not believe that she was pregnant until she began to show at about five months (Malina 2003:226). Finally, it was also possible that in order to maintain the Nazarite purity of child within her womb, she decided it was easiest to remain at home (Lightfoot 1989:24). There are other possibilities as well not mentioned here, but the bottom line is that Luke writes that Elizabeth withdrew, but did not explain why (cf. Bock 1994:97-98).

By miraculously letting Elizabeth conceive, God removed her reproach among people. As a barren woman, she would have been treated as one cursed by God (Malina 2003:226). Now that she was pregnant, God had removed this stigma from her, and all who thought ill of her would not only see that God had not only blessed her, but done so in miraculous fashion. Her reproach and shame had been removed (Bock 1994:98-99), and her son would usher in another miraculous son, who would remove the reproach of all people (cf. Col 1:21-22).

[Note: This is the “Old” version of the Grace Commentary on Luke. It will be updated to the new version soon.]

---

1:11-12. Due to the fact that Elizabeth was barren, and barrenness was usually associated with a divine curse, Zacharias probably expected the worse when an angel of the Lord appeared to him in the Holy Place. It is understandable that he was troubled, and fear fell upon him. In Scripture, the appearance of an angel nearly always causes fear (Exod 15;16; Judg 6;22-23; 13:6, 22; 2 Sam 6:9; Isa 6;5; Dan 8:16-17; 10:10-11). If Zacharias had some unknown sin for which his wife was barren, he could have been struck dead. Luke mentions that the angel stood on the right side of the altar of incense. Tradition states that the altar was placed just east of the entrance to the Holy of Holies, so if the angel stood on the right of the altar of incense, it would appear that he had just come out from the Holy of Holies (Lightfoot 1989:18).

1:13. The angel Gabriel (cf. v. 19) immediately tries to calm Zacharias’ fears by telling Zacharias to not be afraid. There may have been good reason to be afriad, as Gabriel is one of God’s principle war angels (Ford 1984:14). The angel is not there to harm Zacharias, but rather, to proclaim good news and announce an answer to his prayer. From a Jewish perspective, Zacharias had never been as close to God as he was when he went in to offer incense at the altar (Green 1997:70). Therefore, he probably took this opportunity to pray to God for a son. He probably also prayed for “divine intervention on behalf of Israel” (Green 1997:71). God provides for both requests with one answer.

Gabriel tells Zacharias that in answer to his prayer, not only will Elizabeth bear a son, but that they should call his name John. This is not a predication, but a command. “John” means “God is gracious” which is echoed in 1:58, 60 (Green 1997:74). The fact that God had selected the name of his child before he was even conceived indicates that this would be used greatly by God. And this is what the angel confirms to Zacharias in verses 14-17.

1:14. Not only will Zacharias and Elizabeth have joy and gladness when their son is born, but many will rejoice as his birth. The angel provides five reasons why many will rejoice.

1:15. The first reason many will rejoice at the birth of John is because he will be great in the sight of the Lord. Though the narrative does not fully explain here how great John will be, Luke reveals later that according to Jesus, John was the greatest of all Hebrew prophets, because he prepared the way for the Messiah (cf. Isa 40:3; Luke 7:27-28).

The angel explains next that John shall drink neither wine nor strong drink. This was certainly not something John would do naturally and would be quite rare in the biblical world (Green 1997:75), but was something Zacharias and Elizabeth would have to instruct John in. In a culture that frequently drank wine or beer with meals, someone who did not drink alcohol generally did so as part of a vow, or to perform service to God, to publicly show that they were setting themselves apart from culture for God’s use. This is Luke’s first mention of the Holy Spirit, and he deliberately contrasts drinking wine and being filled with the Spirit (Green 1997:75; cf. Eph 5:18).

It is possible that John’s abstinence was intended to be part of the Jewish Nazarite vow, which can be read about in Numbers 6:1-21, but the absence of a command to keep John’s hair from being cut makes it less than certain. Only two other times in Scripture do parents make similar vows on behalf of their unborn children: Samson (Judg 13:4-5) and Samuel (1 Sam 1:11). Both men were Judges of Israel, though Samuel was also a priest and Israel’s first prophet (1 Sam 3:20; Acts 3:24). Samson did not live in full accordance with his Nazarite vows, but Samuel did, and was the prophet who inaugurated the reign of King David. Zacharias is about to learn that his son will also prepare the way for a king.

Third, the angel explains that John will also be filled with the Holy Spirit. In Israelite history, only select individuals (such as prophets and kings) were filled with the Holy Spirit, and even then, only for a specific time to accomplish specific tasks. That John will be filled with the Holy Spirit indicates that God has selected him for a very special purpose.

Furthermore, John would not only be filled, but filled from his mother’s womb. It was very rare for a child to be filled with the Holy Spirit, let alone from before the child was even born! The indication here is that there was even divine work for the child to do while in his mother’s womb (cf. 1:44; Green 1997:75) and that since he was filled with the Spirit before he was even born, John would be filled with the Spirit for his entire life. God had great purposes for John.

1:16. The fourth reason many will rejoice about John is that he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God. The idea here is one of repentance. Israel, as the people of God, had been straying from God, and John would be influential in bringing many of them back to God. John fulfills through his preaching and baptisms at the Jordan (cf. Luke 3:1-22).

It is noteworthy that through parallelism, “fathers” (possibly forefathers) seems to be equated with “the disobedient,” and “children” with wisdom and righteousness (Green 1997:76; cf. Mal 2:6; 3:18). This lays groundwork for later teaching by Jesus about becoming like little children and living under the new wine of the kingdom rather than the old wine of the traditions of the fathers (but cf. Bock 1994:89-90).

1:17. The final reason is that the ministry of John will be in the spirit and power of Elijah, one of Israel’s greatest prophets. One may expect that John, like Elijah (and Elisha who was also “in the spirit of Elijah”), would be a great performer of miracles. However, we read of no such miracles by John in the Gospels. In this way, Luke reveals that the power of the Spirit can also be manifested in prophetic speech and boldness in proclaiming the Word of God (Green 1997:78; Bock 1994:88).

But more than just being a great prophet, the Scriptures predict that one like Elijah would be the forerunner for the long-awaited Messiah. The angel is here announcing that John would be that forerunner. To reinforce this, he quotes from the Hebrew Scriptures that John, in the spirit of Elijah, will‘turn the hearts of the fathers to the children.’ This quote is from Malachi 4:6, which in context is talking about Elijah (Mal 4:5), and shows us that John will help restore unity and peace within Israel. Malachi 4:6 is the last verse in the English Old Testament. Thought not the last of the Hebrew writing prophets, he probably wrote his prophecy around 445 BC. And just as Zacharias had been waiting a long time for a son, so Israel had been waiting a long time for another prophet to arrive, especially one in the spirit of Elijah who would prepare the way for the Messiah.

The angel follows his quote from Malachi with a pronouncement that John will also turn the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord. Though not exactly quotes, these are further allusions to other Hebrew prophets, such as Isaiah 40:1-5 (cf. Luke 3:4-6). The goal of John is to restore justice and righteousness among the people of Israel so that they would be ready to receive the Lord, that is, their King.

[Note: This is the “Old” version of the Grace Commentary on Luke. It will be updated to the new version soon.]

---

1:8-9. During the two weeks that Zacharias was serving as priest in Jerusalem that year, his lot fell to burn incense in the temple. This was an offering of incense which was to be burned twice daily in the temple (Exod 30:7-8). It was burned in the Holy Place at the Altar of Incense, right outside the Holy of Holies. The altar was considered part of the furnishings in the Holy of Holies (Exod 30:6), but since incense had to be burned on it daily, and only the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies one time a year on the Day of Atonement, the Altar was placed right at the veil, outside the Holy of Holies.

Since it was a great honor to burn incense, it was determined by lot which priest would burn the incense on a particular day (Lightfoot 1989:15). The casting of lots was a Middle Eastern method of making decisions (cf. Prov 16:33; Jonah 1:7; Acts 1:26). Lightfoot explains that the lots were determined by the priests standing in a circle, and then beginning with a certain man, the ruler of the Sanhedrin counts around the circle until a person is chosen for the particular task (1989:16).

Due to the vast number of priests in Israel (between 18-32,000), only those who had never before offered the incense were eligible to participate in the casting of lots (Green, 1997:68; Bock 1994:79). So a priest was only given this honor once in his entire life, and many priests were never chosen at all. It was “a once-in-a-lifetime experience” (Malina 2003:225). On this day, the lot fell to Zacharias.

1:10. As Zacharias went in to burn incense, a multitude of the people was praying outside. Though entering the Holy Place to light incense was not nearly so serious as entering the Holy of Holies, it nevertheless should be performed with great caution. At all times the priests were to maintain personal holiness, but this was especially true when they ministered before the Lord and approached the veil (cf. Lev 21:23). Certainly, every priest who entered the Holy Place remembered what happened to Nadab and Abihu when they approached in an unprescribed manner–fire came out from the Most Holy Place and consumed them (Lev 10:1-2).

As Zacharias entered the Holy Place to burn the incense, he likely felt some trepidation. All priests naturally experienced the fear of the Lord as they entered, but Zacharias probably had some extra concern due to the fact that his wife remained barren. If there was a sin which God was judging them for, and which Zacharias was unaware of, entering the Holy Place without having been cleansed of that sin would be a death sentence.

Possibly, various members of the multitude were there for similar reasons. They wanted to see, once and for all, whether Zacharias was as righteous and blameless as he appeared. God was going to provide the answer this day when Zacharias entered the Holy Place. Most, of course, were simply there to pray. A later tradition states that while the priest was in the Holy Place making the offering, the people outside prayed, “May the merciful God enter the Holy Place and accept with favor the offering of his people” (Bock 1994:80).

[Note: This is the “Old” version of the Grace Commentary on Luke. It will be updated to the new version soon.]

---

Luke begins by laying some social, cultural, political, and religious groundwork. The tension in the story becomes palpable as Luke pits the promises of God against both the political aspirations of human rulers and the faith-testing circumstances of life. This tension between historic reality and prophetic expectations surfaces frequently in the birth narrative (1:5-2:52), and shows that Jesus has come to both fulfill and redirect the prophetic expectations of the Jewish people (see Green 1997:59 for more).

The birth narratives are not just about Jesus, but also about John. Luke weaves a beautiful tapestry through intertwining the parallel birth and childhood narratives of John and Jesus (Green 1997:47), which is a typical pattern used by Luke throughout his writings. As the two are compared and contrasted, Luke shows Jesus to be superior in every way. “John is born out of barrenness; Jesus is born of a virgin. John is great as a prophet before the Lord; Jesus is great as the promised Davidic ruler. John paves the way; Jesus is the Way” (Bock 1994:68).

Furthermore, the birth narratives reveal information about John and Jesus to the reader which characters in the story will have to discover on their own. In this way, the birth narratives anticipate and foreshadow the rest of the gospel (Green 1997:49). The reader is led to ask, “Will the characters discover the truth about Jesus?” As the reader watches the characters (including John, see 7:18-23) learn about who Jesus really is, the reader is led on a similar path of discovery to see if what has been revealed about Jesus in the birth narratives is in fact true.

1:5a. Luke masterfully begins his narrative by mentioning Herod, the king of Judea. This not only provides a time period for the following events (King Herod ruled from 74 BC – 4 AD), but also sets the stage for the entire narrative. The presence of King Herod on the throne in Jerusalem would have been a sore spot for the Jews during this time (cf. Green 1997:58).

First of all, this was because Herod was a terribly wicked and ruthless king. The Roman Empire had a policy of controlling regions in their Empire through native kings or military strongmen. Palestine was one of the last areas to be conquered by the Roman military, but after victory, “Julius Caesar and Marc Antony chose the ruthless young military strongman Herod to control Palestine. …It took Herod three years and the help of considerable Roman military aid to subdue his subjects, who put up persistent resistance. Once in control, however, he established massive military fortresses and ruled with an iron fist, allowing no dissent and requiring demonstrations of allegience to his own and Roman rule. Indeed, Herod became the emperor Augustus’s favorite client king” (Horsley 2003:32).

Near the end of his life, he became more paranoid and ruthless than usual and had his wife and several of his sons executed because he thought they were trying to take the throne. These actions caused Caesar Augustus to state that it was better to be Herod’s pig (Gk. hus) than his son (Gk. huios; Horsley 2003:33). Later, as Matthew 2 reveals, he ordered that all Jewish boys two years old and younger be killed. Again, this was an attempt to preserve the throne. As he neared death, he feared that nobody would mourn his passing, and so he ordered that when he died, many prominent men of the city be killed. In this way, there would be mourning in Jerusalem on the day of his death.

However, the primary reason the Jews did not like Herod on the throne is that by their understanding of Scripture, he had no right to rule over Israel. In Genesis 49:10, God promised that the scepter would not depart from Judah until Shiloh (i.e., the Messiah) comes. In other words, the authority to rule Israel would remain with the tribe of Judah until the Messiah arrived. Though it had been a long time since any person from the tribe of Judah had sat on the throne in Jerusalem, the Jewish Rabbis had decided that Genesis 49:10 could still be fulfilled through the authority of the Jewish ruling council, the Sanhedrin, and specifically, in their right to practice capital punishment on Jewish criminals.

Nevertheless, the tension in the story remains. Herod, an Idumean (of the Edomites), was on the throne. Though he could trace his ancestry back to Abraham, it was through Esau, not Jacob. So from a Jewish perspective, Herod had no right to rule, and yet the Roman government had set him up as “The King of the Jews.” His presence on the throne posed a threat to the promises of God.

1:5b. Luke next introduces Zacharias and Elizabeth. The name Zacharias means “Yahweh has remembered again” and Elizabeth means either “my God is the one by whom I swear” or “my God is fortune” (Bock 1994:76-77). The names of both individuals fit well with the account which follows.

Luke also records some of the genealogical record for Zacharias and Elizabeth, which for a Jew, is like a badge of honor.

Zacharias was a priest of the division of Abijah. There were some 32,000 priests in Israel at this time, divided into 24 divisions (Green 1997:68). Each division would serve in the Temple for two separate weeks out of the year (Lightfoot 1989:11; Bock 1994:76), and the rest of the year they would serve and minister in their home town. The order of Abijah is eighth in the rotation (1 Chr 24:10), which means that Zacharias probably served sometime in December-January.

Elizabeth, being a descendant of Aaron, was also from a priestly family. Though not required, it was considered honorable if a priest marrioed a woman from a priestly line, as this helped preserve the pure priestly lineage (Lightfoot 1989:13; Bock 1994:76). It was also honorable for Elizabeth, being a descendant of Aaron and married to a priest (Green 1997:61). Luke records all of this to show that Zacharias and Elizabeth were doing everything to the laws and traditions of the Jews, and their position was one of privilege and prestige.

1:6. The key thing about this couple, however, is what Luke records next: they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless. With this description, Luke draws a parallel between Zacharias and Abraham (Gen 15;6; 17:1; 18:19; 26:5). Luke reveals that Zacharias and Elizabeth were devout Jews, obedient to the entire Jewish law. As obedient and faithful Jews, and with their priestly pedigree, there were many promises of God that they could expect to be fulfilled to them. One of them was that if the Israelites obeyed God and remained faithful to Him (as Zacharias and Elizabeth had done), God would bless them with children (cf. Exod 23:22-26; Deut 7:12-14). Therefore, “we can hardly anticipate any news of childlessness — or any other tragedy for that matter” (Green 1997:65; cf. Bock 1994:78).

1:7. However, Luke records that Zacharias and Elizabeth had no child, because Elizabeth was barren, and they were both well advanced in years. Due to the promises of God in the Hebrew Scriptures, Israelites believed that if a woman was barren, it was because God was punishing the couple for sin committed by either the husband or the wife.

This raises the tension about how an obedient and faithful Israelite couple could be past the child-bearing years, and yet be without children (Malina 2003:225). “Childlessness was a sign of divine punishment and a source of shame…a consequence of God’s curse” (Green 1997:65-66). Quite possibly, there were many whispers and rumors in the Jewish community that Zacharias and Elizabeth were not as righteous as they appeared. After all, the logic was clear: she was barren, and God’s promises do not fail. Therefore, she or Zacharias must have sinned (cf. this line of thinking in John 9 when the disciples encounter a man who was blind from birth). Though she was honored for being of a priestly family, she was dishonored for being barren (Green 1997:61).

The barrenness of Elizabeth is parallel to the barrenness of Israel. Like Elizabeth, Israel was barren in that it had no prophet, no king, and the land was being ruled by foreigners. As the narrative unfolds, Luke shows that by removing shame and reproach from Elizabeth, God also begins to remove the shame and reproach upon Israel (see Green 1997:62). In both situations, God will perform the impossible.