Bible Commentary

[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.

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

---

Luke begins his account of the life of Jesus by stating who he is writing it for, and he also provides a bit of insight into the methods he used to glean the information that follows. Luke follows the widespread Greek-style preface for histories of his time, which was intended to arouse interest and gain the trust of the reader (Green 1997:34).

1:1. First, he recognizes that many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative. It is possible that he is referring to narratives like Matthew and Mark, but there may have been others as well which are no longer available. It is also unclear what order Luke has in mind, but by stating that the content of his narrative will be the things which have been fulfilled among us indicate an emphasis in showing how God has been active in and through the historical events Luke records, and which continue to have ongoing significance for Luke’s readers (Green 1997:39-40). Luke does not simply want to explain the things that have happened in the life of Jesus, but more importantly, show how these events continue the great saga of God’s mission on earth through His people. The books of Luke and Acts show how the history of Israel is fulfilled in Jesus, and how God’s mission to the world continues through the church (Wright 2006: ).

1:2. Second, Luke is careful to note that he is only referring to those accounts which were written by eyewitnesses of the events, and that these individuals delivered their accounts directly to him. He did not get his information, either verbal or written, through secondhand sources. Furthermore, Luke was careful in selecting his sources by limiting them not just to witnesses, but to those who had their eyes opened by the Spirit to what they had witnessed (cf. Luke 24:13-35; Green 1997:41).

1:3. Having received these accounts, Luke decided to write his own. Why should he do so when there were already accounts by eyewitnesses? Becuase it seemed good to him. That is, he wanted to write an account. Frequently, the desires of our heart are from God, and should be pursued with passion, especially if they bring glory to God and fit within our gifts, talents, personality, and abilities. Luke certainly believed he had these, for he writes next that he had perfect understanding of all things from the very first. This doesn’ t mean that Luke understood everything about Jesus and knew every detail about His life, but rather that Luke had thoroughly investigated the events he records and could vouch for their accuracy. Such statements were expected from individuals who were writing historical accounts, especially if their account was for legal or official purposes.

Luke states next that he desired to write an orderly account. He does not elaborate on how he intends to organize his account. Possibly, his intent was to write a chronological narrative, but based on Luke’s usage of similar terminology when relating the same event in two different ways (cf. Acts 10:1-11:18), a strict chronological ordering seems unlikely (Green 1997:44). Instead, early historians often ordered their accounts in such a way to emphasize certain aspects of the narrative, in order to have the greatest impact on the reader. In other words, Luke is using a “persuasive order” (Green 1997:44).

Luke is writing this narrative for one person, the most excellent Theophilus. We don’t know who he was, but the term most excellent possibly indicates that Theophilus was a high-ranking Roman official, who may have been a patron of Luke (Malina 2003:224; Green 1997:44; Bock 1994:63). Of the various titles given to Roman officials, this is one of the highest. Some have written that the only Roman title higher than the one Luke uses here is “Caesar.”

It is also unclear if Theophilus is this person’s real name, since the name means “Lover of God.” It may be that Luke is writing to a man who wishes to keep his identity secret, or that the name refers to a general group of Christians. Most believe that Theophilus was an individual, and was probably a patron to Luke (Bock 1994:63). “Nevertheless, that the work is dedicated to Theophilus does not mean that Luke intended his work just for him. Other ancient writers dedicated their works to individuals, knowing full well that they were writing for a larger audiene (Bock 1994:64).

Curiously, in Acts, which was also written by Luke to Theophilus, Luke does not use the title “most excellent.” Instead, he simply writes to “Theophilus.” Why? Ultimately, the answer is unknown. Some speculate that Theophilus lost his position of prominence, maybe as a result of becoming a follower of Jesus.

1:4. Whoever Theophilus was, Luke writes to him so that he may know the certainty of the things in which he had previously been instructed. Apparently, Theophilus had been taught about the life of Christ before. By whom we are not told. Luke writes his account to confirm what Theophilus had learned as a new believer (Bock 1994:64).

Luke seeks to help Theophilus, as a new believer, answer questions that he may have had. Some of these questions are:

“Is Christianity what I believed it to be, a religion sent from God? Why should a Gentile suffer frustration for joining what was originally a Jewish movement? Is the church suffering God’s judgment because it has been too generous with God’s salvation? Will the rest of God’s promises come to pass? Has most of Israel rejected the promise? Can one really be sure Jesus is the fulfillment of God’s promise and that he brings God’s salvation both now and in the future?” (Bock 1994:65)

Bailey, Kenneth E. 1983. Poet & Peasant and Through Peasant Eyes. Combined Edition. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Bailey, Kenneth E. 2004. Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels. Downers Grove: IVP.

Barclay, William. 1975. The Gospel of Luke. Rev. ed. The Daily Study Bible Series. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.

Barclay, William. 1975. The Mind of Saint Paul. New York: Harper & Row.

Beale, G. K. and Carson, D. A., eds. 2007. Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker.

BKC. Walvoord, John & Zuck, Roy, eds. 1983. Bible Knowledge Commentary: New Testament. Wheaton: Victor.

Blomberg, Craig L. 1990. Interpreting the Parables. Downers Grove: IVP.

Bock, Darrell. 1994. Luke 1:1-9:50. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker.

Bock, Darrell. 1996. Luke. The NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Boice, James Montgomery. 1963. The Parables of Jesus. Chicago: Moody.

Bosch, David J. 1991. Transforming Mission: Paradigm Shifts in Theology of Mission. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis.

Brown, Raymond, et al., eds. 1990. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Burton, Henry. 1890. The Gospel According to St. Luke. New York: Armstrong.

Carter, Warren. 2006. The Roman Empire and the New Testament: An Essential Guide. Nashville: Abingdon.

Clements, Roy. 1995. A Sting in the Tale. Downers Grove: IVP.

Capon, Robert Farrar. 2002. Kingdom, Grace, Judgment. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Courson, Jon. 2003. Jon Courson’s Application Commentary. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

Culbertson, Philip. 1995. A Word Fitly Spoken. Albany, NY: State University of New York.

Davidson, F., ed. 1953. The New Bible Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

EBC. Gaebelein, Frank E., ed. 1984. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Edersheim, Alfred. 1988. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah. McLean, VA: MacDonald.

Edersheim, Alfred. 1994. The Temple: Its Ministry and Services. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Evans, Craig. 2003. The Bible Knowledge Background Commentary. Matthew-Luke. Colorado Springs: Victor.

Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 1981. The Gospel According to Luke.Vol. 1. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.

Flusser, David. 1968. The Sage from Galilee. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Ford, J. Massyngberde. 1984. My Enemy is My Guest: Jesus and Violence in Luke. Maryknoll, NY: Orbis.

Fuchs, Daniel. 1985. Israel’s Holy Days in Type and Prophecy. Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux.

Geikie, Cunningham. 1888. The Life and Words of Christ. London: Cassell.

GNTC. Wilkin, Robert, ed. 2010. The Grace New Testament Commentary. 2 vols. Denton, TX: GES.

Govett, Robert. 1989. Govett on the Parables. Miami Springs, FL: Schoettle.

Grant, Michael. 1975. The Twelve Caesars. New York: Scribner.

Green, Joel B. 1997. The Gospel of Luke. The New International Commentary on the New Testament.Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Green, Joel; McNight, Scot; and Marshall, I. Howard. 1992. The Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels.Downers Grove: IVP.

Henry, Matthew. 1997. Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible. Nashville, TN: Nelson.

Hoehner, Harold W. 1977. Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Horsley, Richard A. 2003. Jesus and Empire: The Kingdom of God and the New World Disorder.Minneapolis: Fortress.

Hubbard, David Allen. 1981. Parables Jesus Told. Downers Grove: IVP.

IDB. Buttrick, George, ed. 1962. The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Nashville: Abingdon.

ISBE. Bromiley, Geoffrey W., ed. 1979. The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. 4 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Jeremias, Joachim. 1972. The Parables of Jesus. London: SCM.

Jones, Stephen D. 1997. Rabbi Jesus: Learning from the Master Teacher. Macan, GA: Peake Road.

Kaiser, Walter, C. et. al. 1996. Hard Sayings of the Bible. Downers Grove: IVP.

Keener, Craig S. 1994. The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament. Downers Grove: IVP.

Kendall, R. T. 2004. The Complete Guide to the Parables. Grand Rapids: Chosen.

Lightfoot, John. 1989. Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica. Vol. 3.Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Longenecker, Bruce W. 2003. The Lost Letters of Pergamum. Grand Rapids: Baker.

Louw, Johannes E., and Eugene A. Nida. 1989. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains. 2 vols. 2nd ed. New York: United Bible Societies.

Maclaren, Alexander. 1982. Expositions of Holy Scripture. 17 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker.

Malina, Bruce J. and Rohrbaugh, Richard L. 2003. Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels.Minneapolis: Fortress.

Marshall, I. Howard. 1978. The Gospel According to Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Morgan, G. Campbell. 1943. The Parables and Metaphors of Our Lord. Old Tappan, NJ: Revell.

McGee, J. Vernon. 1983. Thru the Bible. 5 vols. Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

Metzger, Bruce M. 2002. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. 2nd ed. Freiburg, Germany: United Bible Society.

Neusner, Jacob. 1988. The Mishnah. A New Translation. New Haven, CT: Yale.

Neuwirth, Yehoshua Y. 1984. Shemirath Shabbath: A Guide to the Practical Observance of Shabbath,English edition, prepared by W. Grangewood. Jerusalem: Feldheim.

Neyrey, Jerome H., ed. 1991. The Social World of Luke-Acts. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

NIDNTT. Brown, Colin, ed. 1986. The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. 1981.The Words and Works of Jesus Christ: A Study of the Life of Christ. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. 1982. The Parables of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Kregel.

Pfeiffer, Charles and Harrison, Everett, eds. 1971. The New Testament and Wycliffe Bible Commentary.New York: Iverson.

Plummer, Alfred. 1960. Gospel According to Luke, 5th ed. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T & T Clark.

Radmacher, Earl; Allen, Ronald; House, Wayne, eds. 1999. Nelson’s New Illustrated Bible Commentary.Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

Ryrie, Charles C. 1984. The Miracles of Our Lord. Neptune, NJ: Loizeaux.

Schweizer, Eduard. 1984. The Good News According to Luke. Atlanta: John Knox.

Schweizer, Eduard. 1986. Lordship and Discipleship. London: SCM.

Shepard, J. W. 1939. The Christ of the Gospels. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Spurgeon, C. H. 2003. The Miracles and Parables of Our Lord. 3 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker.

Stern, David H. 1992. Jewish New Testament Commentary. Baltimore, MD: Jewish New Testament.

TDNT. Kittel, Gerhard & Friedrich, Gerhard, eds. 1963-1974. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Transl. by Geoffrey Bromiley. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.

Trench, R. C. 1949. Notes on the Miracles or Our Lord. Grand Rapids: Baker.

Trueblood, Elton. 1964. The Humor of Christ. New York: Harper & Row.

Vincent, Marvin. 1985. Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament. 4 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Wallace, Daniel. 1996. Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics – An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Wenham, David. 1989. The Parables of Jesus. Downers Grove: IVP.

Wiersbe, Warren. 1989. The Bible Exposition Commentary: New Testament. Colorado Springs: Victor.

Wright, J. H. Christopher. 2006. The Mission of God: Unlocking the Bible’s Grand Narrative. Downers Grove: IVP.

Wright, N. T. 1992. The New Testament and the People of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God. Vol. 1). Minneapolis: Fortress.

Wright, N. T. 1996. Jesus and the Victory of God (Christian Origins and the Question of God. Vol. 2).Minneapolis: Fortress.

Wright, N. T. 2004. Luke for Everyone. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.

Young, Brad H. 1995. Jesus the Jewish Theologian. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Young, Brad H. 1998. The Parables: Jewish Tradition and Christian Interpretation. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Young, Brad H. 2007. Meet the Rabbis: Rabbinic Thought and the Teachings of Jesus. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Zodhiates, Spiros. 1998. Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament. Chattanooga, TN: AMG.

ZIBBC. Arnold, Clinton E., ed. 2002. Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary. 4 vols.Grand Rapids: Zondervan.

Articles on Luke

Eriksson, Anders. n.d. “The Old is Better: Parables of Patched Garment and Wineskins as Elaboration of a Chreia in Luke 5:33-39 about Feasting with Jesus,” online: http://ars-rhetorica.net/Queen/Volum…s/Eriksson.pdf, accessed October 21, 2010.

Mead, A. H. 1988. “Old and New Wine. St. Luke 5:39” Expository Times 99:8 (Nov:1988): 234-235.

This introduction to the Gospel of Luke is little more than a hypothesis, and is not even complete. Think of it as an initial rough draft that will be filled in with more details as the commentary progresses.

Authorship of Luke

Luke was not one of Christ’s apostles, but was a traveling companion to Paul. Therefore, Luke is not an eyewitness to the evens in his Gospel, but writes as an historian who has carefully investigated the matters about which he writes (Luke 1:1-4).

Luke was a Gentile, not a Jew, and tradition indicates that he was a physician. This is supported by his inclusion of many medical details in his account that the other Gospel writers ignore.

Furthermore, because of Luke’s precision as a doctor, and desire for accuracy in his account, he wrote a top-notch history of the life of Christ. Historians who are not Christians have studied the way Luke writes, and they agree that he is a skilled and accurate writer.

He writes in a very orderly way, and gives more specific details about the life of Christ than Matthew, Mark or John. For example, did you know that over 50 percent of Luke’s gospel is unique? It contains materials found nowhere else. Without Luke, certain periods of Christ’s life and ministry would be unknown to us. He has a greater focus on individuals than do the other gospels. Luke mentions thirteen women not found in the other gospels. He contains more of the miracles and parables than the other Gospels, and there are at least 29 events in the life of Christ recorded in Luke that are not found in any other Gospel (Deffinbaugh, 1).

Audience of Luke

Luke seems primarily to be writing to Theophilus (1:1-4), who may have been some sort of high-ranking Roman government official. This man had apparently heard much about Jesus, and Luke is writing to confirm the truth of what Theophilus heard.

Date of Luke

Coming soon…

Historical Setting of Luke

Coming soon…

Purpose of Luke

Coming soon…

Themes in Luke

God is the primary actor. See Green, 1997:50

There are Great Reversals. The first shall be last, and the last shall be first. Zacharias and Mary. Herod and Religious rulers vs. shepherds. Rich vs. poor (and the priority position of the latter).

More Coming soon…

Luke and 1 Samuel

In my reading, I recently came across the following insight into the theme and structure of Luke. It comes from N.T. Wright’s book, The New Testament and the People of God (pp. 378-383).

When John begins his work with the words ‘In the beginning…’, we know he is imitating the start of Genesis. When Matthew opens with ‘The book of the generation…’, we know he is evoking a regular link-phrase, again from Genesis. But what is Luke up to? His formal and rounded prologue (1:1-4) evokes the literary openings of several works of the Hellenistic period, including, interestingly, two of Josephus’ books. He is intending this book to be placed, not in the first instance within the Jewish, biblical world (it will include that, but is not contained by it) but within the general world of serious Hellenistic writing, not least history-writing.

As soon as this intention is announced, however, Luke leads us off into a small corner of the Hellenistic world, and introduces us, like Shakespeare beginning a play with a pair of minor characters, to Elizabeth and Zachariah, who are to become the parents of John the Baptist. No Roman emperors. no state occasions, no flourish of Hellenistic trumpets; just the pious elderly Jewish couple, in the latter days of Herod, longing for a child. For those with ears to hear, however, Luke is after all doing much the same as John and Matthew. This time, though, the allusion is not to Genesis, the creation of the world, but to 1 Samuel, the creation of Israel’s monarchy.

The story of Elizabeth and Zachariah in Luke 1:5-25, 39-45, 57-80 is without a doubt intended to take the reader’s mind back to the story of Hannah and Elkanah in 1 Samuel 1:1-2:11. This time it is the father (Zechariah), not the mother (Hannah), who is in the Temple, and he himself a priest, not merely appearing before one as hannah does before Eli. But the story has not only the same shape (the couple whose longing for a child is taken up within the divine purpose) but also the same triumphant conclusion (Hannah’s song is picked up by both Mary’s and Zechariah’s). And in both there is a longer purpose waiting to be uncovered, a purpose which encompasses the message of judgment and salvation for Israel.

It is, first, a message of judgment. Samuel, Hannah’s son, will announce to Eli that his days, and his sons’s days, are numbered, and that the ark of Israel’s God will be taken away. John, Elizabeth’s son, will declare divine judgment on Israel, a message which will be picked up by John’s associate and successor, Jesus, in ever more explicit warnings against Jerusalem and the Temple. The story of David, which grows out of that of Samuel, is from the beginning a story of warning for the house of Saul; it is because Israel’s god has decided to reject Saul that David is anointed in the first place. David’s story progresses through his life as an outcast, leading a motley crew of followers in the Judaean wilderness, and reaches its initial climax at the moment when Saul and Jonathan are slain and he, David, is anointed king over Israel. And one of his first acts is to go to Jerusalem to take the city as his capital. Jesus’ story progresses through his wondering with his motley followers in Galilee and elsewhere, and reaches its initial climax when he comes to Jerusalem amid expectations that now at last Israel’s God was to become king. This is a message of judgment for the existing regime.

It is also a message of salvation. The highest moment in the story of Samuel is not his denunciation of Israel, but his anointing of the young David. On that occasion, according to 1 Samuel 16:13, ‘the spirit of YHWH came mightily upon David from that day forward.’ This was the David of whose son Israel’s God said, later in the narrative, that he would establish his kingdom for ever, and moreover that ‘I will be a father to him, and he shall be a son to me’ (2 Samuel 7:14). The highest moment in the story of John is not his prophetic warning of wrath to come, but his baptism of Jesus, the occasion when, according to Luke 3;22, ‘the Holy Spirit descended upon [Jesus] in bodily form like a dove’, and when a voice from heaven announced him, in words full of Davidic overtones, ‘You are my son, the beloved; with you I am well pleased.’ Within the often-remarked artistry which enables Luke to draw a complete picture with a few strokes of his pen, he has said as clearly as he can that John the Baptist is playing Samuel to Jesus’ David. And, with that, the Hellenistic and Roman kingdoms of the world, the world to which Luke’s prologue so nobly addresses itself, receive notice that there is a new kingdom, a kingdom of Israel’s god, and that the young man now anointed by his cousin in the Jordan is the king through whom it is to be set up.

The story of salvation continues in parallel. David’s anointing is followed, in the narrative of 1 Samuel, by his taking on Goliath single-handed, as the representative of Israel. Jesus’ anointing is followed at once by his battle with Satan. David returns from his encounter to a rapturous popular welcome and the jealousy of Saul; Jesus returns from his encounter to make what is in effect a messianic proclamation in Nazareth, as a result of which he is rejected by his fellow-townsmen, though welcomed enthusiastically by others. David eventually leaves the court to wander as a hunted fugitive with his band of followers; Jesus spends much of Luke’s gospel traveling with his band of followers, sometimes being warned about plots against his life.

None of this is to imply that the parallel with 1 Samuel is the only, or even necessarily the main, key to Luke’s gospel. But the close similarity so far suggests strongly (against classical form-criticism) that Luke is not simply collecting bits of tradition and stringing them together at random; and it suggests, too (against the main forms of redaction-criticism) that the arrangement which Luke is adopting is not simply in pursuit of a home-made scheme of theology invented against the background of events at the start of the second Christian generation, but that he is telling his story in a particular way in order that it may say, as much by its shape and outline as by its detailed content: this story is the climax towards which Israel’s history has been building all along.

When we come to the end of the gospel, and to the start of Acts, the Davidic parallel is still clear. It is made explicitly in, for instance, Luke 10:41-44 (the question about David’s Lord and David’s son); in the messianic material in the crucifixion scene (23:35-43); and in the note of fulfilment, particularly of royal hopes, in 24;26, 44-49. Luke is insisting that Jesus dying on the cross, and Jesus risen from the dead, is to be understood in Davidic categories. He has become king in the paradoxical way demanded as the true fulfilment of the Jewish scriptures. The start of Acts picks up exactly where Luke left off: now that the Davidic king has been exalted, the message of salvation is to go out to the world. It is as though Luke were to say: after the death of David came his son Solomon, to whom the world came to hear wisdom, and to whom the nations were subject. Now, after the death and resurrection of David’s true son Jesus, the true Davidic kingdom has been established, and the nations will become subject to it. The end of Acts, as we remarked earlier, completes this picture, with the kingdom of Israel’s God announced in Rome openly and unhindered.

…Luke is telling the story of Jesus as the fulfilment, the completion, of the story of David and his kingdom.

…Luke believed that, prior to Jesus, Israel’s story had yet to reach its climax. the exile was not over; redemption had yet to appear. …[In Jesus], he believed, the exile became most truly exilic, sin was finally dealt with, and redemption at last secured. But at the same time Luke clearly grasped the equally important Jewish belief that when Israel was redeemed the whole world would be blessed.

…He told the story of Jesus as a Jewish story, indeed as the Jewish story, much as Josephus told the story of the fall of Jerusalem as the climax of Israel’s long and tragic history. But he told it in such a way as to say to his non-Jewish Greco-Roman audience: here, in the life of this one man, is the Jewish message of salvation that you pagans need.

My purpose in outlining is not to nail down the narrative of Luke into “subject sections” but to get a picture of the flow of the story. If looking at an outline of a story ruins the narrative for you, ignore this post.

The purpose of Luke is to instruct Gentile believers about the words and works of Christ so that they might know how to live the Christian life in a world dominated by pagan influences.

I. Introduction to the Son of Man (1:1–4:13)

A. Purpose (1:1-4)
B. Birth of Christ (1:5–2:38)
C. Childhood of Christ (2:39-52)
D. Preparation of Christ (3:1–4:13)

II. Ministry of the Son of Man (4:14–9:50)

A. Presentation of Christ (4:14-30)
B. Power of Christ (4:31–6:11)

1. Authority with the Word (4:31-35)
2. Authority over demons (4:36-37)
3. Authority over sickness (4:38-44)
4. Authority over nature (5:1-11)
5. Authority over leprosy (5:12-16)
6. Authority to forgive sin (5:17-26)
7. Authority over culture (5:27-32)
8. Authority over tradition (5:33-39)
9. Authority over the Sabbath (6:1-11)

C. Preparation of Christ’s Disciples (6:12–9:50)

1. Choosing the Apostles (6:12-19)
2. Telling: Teaching the Disciples with Words (6:20-49)
3. Showing: Teaching the Disciples by Example (7:1–8:56)
4. Doing: Teaching the Disciples by Experience (9:1-17)
5. The Final Exam (9:18-20)
6. Commencement (9:21-36)

III. Rejection of the Son of Man (9:37–19:27)

A. Opposition to Christ (9:37–11:54)
B. Instructions due to Rejection (12:1–19:27)

IV. Crucifixion and Resurrection of the Son of Man (19:28–24:53)

A. Final Week of Christ (19:28–23:56)
B. Resurrection of Christ (24:1-53)