THAT the Gospel of Luke has a special aspect towards men at large, that it displays the grace of God towards the Gentiles who had been so long forgotten, or seemed to be so in the outward dealings of God, is very plain. Nevertheless some have found, as they thought, an insuperable difficulty to their admitting this to be the characteristic business of Luke, because we find, for instance, at the very beginning a striking occupation of the writer’s mind with the circumstances of the Jewish people before, at, and after the birth of Christ. In fact, none of the Gospels introduces us so thoroughly into the whole routine of their state and worship, with their relation to the worldly powers: first of all to the king that then ruled over them, Herod the Great; and, in the next chapter, to the Roman Empire.
But I think it will be found, if we look below the surface, that there is no real inconsistency between such a preface as we have in Luke and the general regard that he pays to the Gentiles in the rest of his Gospel. In fact, it answers closely to what we find in the ministry of the apostle who had Luke for his companion in labors. For although Paul was so emphatically the apostle of the Gentiles, the uncircumcision being delivered over to him as the circumcision was to Peter; none the less was it Paul’s habit in every place first to visit the Jews, or, as he says himself, “to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile.” So it is precisely that Luke begins with the Jew, discloses God working in the midst of the remnant of that people before we find the intimations of His mercy towards the Gentiles. So far from inconsistency on the part of Luke with his purpose, this very introduction of the Jews in the beginning of his Gospel seems even to be necessary; because God could not, so to speak, go out to the Gentiles according to the analogy of His dealings from the beginning and His promises to the Jewish people, unless there were first the manifestation of His goodness there and the unheeded effect of it as far as the Jews were concerned. God proves amply His mercy towards Israel before He turns to the nations. Israel would have none of Him or His Kingdom: the Gentiles would hear.
Hence we find that, although Luke’s be the Gentile Gospel, there is first this full and bold outline presented to us of the working of God’s grace among the Jews.
“There was in the days of Herod the king of Judea,19 a certain priest by name Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name Elisabeth.” Thus we have the living picture of the state of things then going on in Israel. There might be a foreign prince over them — an Edomite, and high priests in strange confusion, as we shall see shortly; but for all that there was a priest duly married to one of the daughters of Aaron, Zacharias, of the course of Abia. “And they were both just before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the LORD blameless.” Low as the state was in Israel and outwardly most irregular, nevertheless, in the midst of all there were godly ones: and the only thing that enabled any to walk after such a sort in Israel was the faith of the coming Messiah: this at least had not disappeared. On the contrary, God’s Spirit was working in the hearts of a few, preparing them for the One Who was coming. Zacharias and Elisabeth were among these few. They were expecting in faith, the effect of which, where it is real, is to give power of walking rightly. The only souls who walked well, even according to the law, were those who looked beyond the law to Christ. Those who merely rested in the law broke it, though the law might be their boast. On the contrary, such as looked for the Messiah were faithful, “walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the LORD blameless.”
It is the same thing in principle now. There are those who cry up the law as a rule of life, but such never carry themselves well even according to that standard. On the contrary, those who go forward in the sense of God’s grace, knowing the full deliverance of the believer in the redemption that is in Christ, do really manifest the righteousness of the law; as it is said, “What the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.” If I am walking after the law, I do not fulfill it; if I am walking after the Spirit, I do. The same doctrine appears in Galatians 5. If we walk according to the Spirit, there are good fruits: “against such there is no law.” On the contrary, the law justifies the fruits of the Spirit, but the Spirit never justifies the ways of any man who finds his rule of life in the law, which is and must be to a sinful man a rule of condemnation and death. There is no power of grace, unless Christ be the Object of the heart.
Such was the case with this godly pair in Israel. The aged priest and his wife were really (i.e., believingly) looking for the Messiah. Their hope was no fleshly desire to exalt themselves or their nation in earthly power; though it remains true that Israel will then be the head and the Gentiles the tail, when Messiah comes to close their last fiery tribulation and deliver them from their foes. But in that day the hearts of the godly remnant will be lifted above pride or vanity; they will bear to be exalted above all other peoples of the earth. Such is the Divine counsel according to prophecy which God will surely accomplish in its season.
Observe how faith leads to faithfulness. Those who merely look to the law (i.e., as much as God requires) never accomplish His righteous requirement. In every case one must be above any obligations in order to fulfill them. I must have faith in God’s object in order to fulfill God’s will. If my mind is occupied with Christ, I shall be able in the same measure to glorify God.
Thus it was with Zacharias and his wife. They looked in faith for the Messiah: hence they were righteous, and walking in the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blamelessly. Nevertheless they had a disappointment of heart which answered to the state of things in Israel. “They had no child, because Elisabeth was barren; and they were both advanced in years.” They had prayed about it, as we find afterward. Though Zacharias seems even to have lost sight of his own prayer, yet God had not. And so “it came to pass, as he fulfilled his priestly service before God in the order of his course” — for here he was faithful to the requisition of daily duty― “it fell to him by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood, to enter into the temple of the LORD to burn incense. And all the multitude of the people were praying without at the hour of incense.” We have thus a full and lively setting forth of what was actually going on then in Israel. “And an angel of [the] LORD appeared to him standing on the right of the altar of incense.” In this form such a visit was unknown for a long while. It was a gracious intervention of God (not merely betimes, as we find in another Gospel, for the healing of sicknesses and weaknesses of the people, but) for the more glorious purpose of announcing the forerunner of the Messiah Himself. Was it so strange after all that he was to be born beyond nature of this godly couple? One could not have anticipated such a thing; but once announced as God’s intention, how wise and suitable our hearts see it to be! When Zacharias saw the angel he “was troubled, and fear fell upon him. But the angel said to him, Fear not, Zacharias, because thy supplication has been heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John” (i.e., the gift of God). “And he shall be to thee joy and rejoicing: and many shall rejoice at his birth.”20 It was calculated to strike the eye and heart of any godly Israelite, being manifestly God’s gift. The LORD was faithful to His people and His purposes. There were many who at this time were looking for the Messiah. We know even from heathen authors that there was a strong, general, and ancient tradition (no doubt derived from Balaam of old, and Daniel later, and the Septuagint), that at this time a great prince was to be born in Israel, who would lead that nation on to supremacy. Hence they would naturally heed this extraordinary birth, and the singular course of life which John the Baptist ever followed, as well as his preaching when the time for it was come.
“He shall be great before [the] LORD, and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with [the] Holy Ghost even from his mother’s womb.” He should be a Nazarite, separated to the LORD, not only in outward separation, but with inward and special power of God.21 “And many of the sons of Israel shall he turn to [the] LORD their God.” This would be the characteristic aim of his mission — to recall them to God from whom they had departed. “And he shall go before him in [the] spirit and power of Elias, to turn hearts of fathers to children, and disobedient ones to [the] thoughts of just [men] 15 to make ready for [the] LORD a prepared people.” Elijah was the prophet who took up the broken obligations of the people. Hence it is that he went to Horeb. Thence it was that Elias had his great commission from before God; there he went through the scene we have so strikingly described in his history. Horeb was the place where the law was given, and Elias went back thither, feeling how deeply the people had departed from God; John should now recall the people in the spirit and power of Elias. It is repentance; it is not of course the great work of God in putting away sin — that could only be done by one, even Jesus the Lord. Neither is it the power of the Holy Ghost shed upon Israel. This also could only be done by Christ. He is, as we find in John, “the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world... the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.” But John could at least do his own work by God’s grace given to him; he should go “before him in the spirit and power of Elias.” This is a remarkable testimony: first, because it is said he shall go before the LORD, i.e., before Jehovah; a plain statement of the dignity of Jesus. He was really Jehovah; and this messenger of His should go before His face, next, “in [the] spirit and power of Elias, to turn hearts of fathers to children.” There was no union, but alienation: everything was broken in Israel. Sin always produces such dislocations. But John should “turn the hearts of fathers to children;” that is, he would be used of God to unite them in affection, and also to instruct them morally, or lead “the disobedient to the wisdom of the just.”22 Hence, in all respects, both in affection and in moral power and wisdom, his mission was “to make ready for the LORD a prepared people.” Such would be John’s work — “to make ready for the LORD a prepared people.”
“And Zacharias said to the angel, How shall I know this, for I am an old man, and my wife advanced in years?” Unbelief works just when God was about to accomplish this signal mercy — a remarkable but by no, means infrequent case which we would do well to apply to our souls, That is, when God means mercy to us, we are too apt to limit the Lord; to doubt Him even when the blessing comes very close to us; to put some difficulty in the way, yielding to the suggestions of the enemy and the unbelief of our own hearts. Zacharias accordingly asks how he should know it.
The angel answers, “I am Gabriel 23 who stand before God; and I have been sent to speak to thee and to bring these glad tidings to thee. And, behold, thou shall be silent, and not able to speak, till the day in which these things shall take place, because thou hast not believed my words, such as shall be fulfilled in their time.” A measure of chastening was thus put upon Zacharias — a sign to others, but at the same time a rebuke to himself. The very fact that he was struck suddenly dumb would awaken the attention of the people. They would see that an extraordinary occurrence had taken place and might be led to think about it: On the other hand, when God had sent His angel to tell him that these things should be done; Zacharias showed his unbelief in requiring another sign.
Hence his chastening. God’s words should be fulfilled in their season spite of his unbelief. Mercy removes the stroke in due season.
“And the people were awaiting Zacharias, and they wondered at his delaying in the temple. But when he came out he could not speak to them: and they recognized that he had seen a vision in the temple. And he was making signs to them and continued dumb. And it came to pass, when the days of his service were completed, he departed to his house.” Each priest had to serve in his course from Sabbath to Sabbath; so when the week was up, he leaves. “Now after these days Elisabeth his wife conceived, and hid herself five months, saying, Thus has the LORD done to me in [these] days in which he looked on me, to take away my reproach among men.” The feeling of Elisabeth under the circumstances was just as godly as the unbelief of Zacharias was a striking witness of what is so natural to us all.24
This closes the opening incidents which the Spirit of God gives us by Luke.
It was the angel Gabriel who was sent to Daniel to make known of old the Messiah’s coming and cutting off in the famous prophecy of the seventy weeks. Now he comes to Mary, the espoused of Joseph, and announces to her, “the virgin” of a still older prophet, the birth of that Messiah.25 No wonder that he salutes her as a favored one, with whom the Lord was. Blessed was she among women! Mary,26 though troubled, pondered what might be the meaning of this salutation. The angel bids her not fear, for she has found favor with God. She is the chosen channel of the wondrous purposes which should yet fill the world as well as her own people with blessing — the appointed mother she is to be of One in Whom God was about to solve all the difficulties that sin had brought into the world by a righteous triumph over it — nay, to make it possible for God to bless those who believed, sinners though they had been, and to make them righteously triumph through and with Himself.
Therefore he says, “Behold, thou shalt conceive in the womb, and bear a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus” — a Divine Saviour.27 “He shall be great, and shall be called Son of [the] Highest,28 and the Lord God shall give him the throne of David his father.” This is another and quite different glory, which evidently combines with saving power His title of Messiah. “And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for the ages; and of his kingdom. there shall not be an end.” Even in the lowest domain, how far is His Kingdom from being a mere human dominion!
“But Mary said to the angel, How shall this be, since I know not a man?” She does not doubt, but she asks confidingly. Hence there is no smiting dumb nor any sign of unbelief, as in the case of Zacharias, who asked, “Whereby shall I know this?” There may be a question in the spirit which needs an answer, but betrays no lack of faith. There might be one not to dissimilar in form; but which really sprang from unbelief. God does not judge according to appearance, but the heart.
The angel accordingly explains in all grace to Mary. “[The] Holy Spirit shall come upon thee,29 and power of [the] Highest overshadow thee.” It was not to be nature, but Divine power. “Therefore the holy thing also which shall be born [of thee] shall be called Son of God,” and not merely Son of man. This is exceedingly important. “Son of God” is a title that belongs to our Lord both in His Divine glory before He became a man and here; for, in this place when He became a man, He did not cease to be Son of God. As incarnate He was still the Son of God. So, again, when He rose from the dead, the same thing was true; He was the Son of God as risen again. It is plain therefore that it is a title that appertains to Him in the three conditions in which Scripture represents our Lord. He was the Son of God when He was purely and simply a Divine Person; Son of God when He became a man; Son of God when risen from the dead and gone out of this world to heaven.
But there is another thing also to note, that His taking manhood did not in the smallest degree connect Him with the taint of man’s fallen nature. This was absolutely counteracted by the singularity of His conception, which was effected through the power of the Holy Ghost. “Wherefore the holy thing also which shall be born [of thee] shall be called Son of God.”30 Thus He was holy, not merely in His Divine nature, but in His humanity. He was emphatically the Holy One of God: without this not only would salvation have been impossible for us, but even His own acceptance as man would have been out of the question.30a We have therefore in this passage the most important truth as to the birth of this wondrous Child, and the union of the Divine and human natures in the person of Christ. Much here given is peculiar to Luke. Mary is informed also of what God was doing to her cousin Elisabeth, for as the angel added “with God nothing shall be impossible.”31 She bows at once to the will of the LORD, with the words, “Behold the bondmaid of [the] LORD; be it to me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.”
Mary then arises, enters into the house of Zacharias and salutes her kinswoman, Elisabeth, which gives occasion to the wonderful obeisance that was paid even by the unborn babe, Elisabeth’s child, to her the predestined mother of the Messiah, in honor to the Messiah himself.32 The consequence was that Elisabeth, filled with the Holy Ghost, breaks out into an acknowledgment of the place God had given Mary. “And whence [is] this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” It is remarkable how beautifully it is owned that even the child that was yet to be born was the Lord. We find just the same thing with Mary herself. She has no notion of being taken out of the place of a needy sinner, whilst the miraculous birth of John does not detract from Elisabeth’s sense of the Messiah, but rather adds to her sense of it. She owns at the same time that God has shown singular favor to cry’s soul. “Blessed is she that has believed; for there shall be a fulfillment of the things spoken to her from [the] LORD.”33 She knew that what had happened to her husband was because of unbelief, and contrasts with it Mary’s meek, because believing, heart.
Mary answers,34 “My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirits35 hath rejoiced in God my Saviour, For he hath looked upon the low estate of his bondmaid; for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.” It is remarkable how simply Scripture has met beforehand the monstrous unbelief of man which lowers God as much as it exalts a human being. Mary had no thought of exaltation. She says, “All generations shall call me blessed,” but not a blesser. She was the object of blessing, not, the giver or mediatrix of it. “For the Mighty One hath done to me great things; and holy [is] his name [not a word of her own]. And his mercy is to generations and generations to them that fear him [not that pray to or worship me]. He hath wrought strength with his arm; he hath scattered haughty [ones] in the thought of their heart. He hath put down rulers from thrones, and exalted the lowly” — alluding to her own place as well as Elisabeth’s. “He hath filled the hungry with good things; and sent the rich empty away. He hath helped Israel, his servant, in order to remember mercy; as he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed forever.” It is remarkable how Jewish the character of the joy is, and the acknowledgment of the mercy.
So Mary abides with her cousin three months, and then returns to her own house.36 “But the time was fulfilled for Elisabeth that she should bring forth; and she gave birth to a son. And her neighbors and kinsfolk heard how [the] LORD had magnified his mercy with her; and they rejoiced with her.” The general thought was to call37 the child after his father’s name; but the mother, who alone can speak for it, directs him to be called John. Zacharias is appealed to and writes, “John is his name.” And immediately the punishment of his unbelief departs from him. His tongue was loosed and he spoke and praised God; which filled all around with fear, astonishment, and anticipation of what this Child would be.
Zacharias breaks forth into a strain of praise.38 “Blessed be [the] LORD the God of Israel; because he hath visited and wrought redemption for his people, and raised up a horn of salvation for us in the house of David, his servant.” It is remarkable the grace that does not so much look at his own house as at the house of God’s servant David. There was faith here. During the season of his dumbness Zacharias has pondered the ways of the LORD; and the Holy Ghost, as He had filled Elisabeth, as He had filled the babe from his mother’s womb, so now filled Zacharias, who prophesies the end of these wonders. “That we should be delivered from our enemies, and out of the hand of all who hate us; to fulfill39 mercy with our fathers, and remember his holy covenant; [the] oath which he swore to Abraham, our father, to give us, that, saved out of the hand of our enemies, we should serve him without fear.”39a It is important to observe how thoroughly this savors of Old Testament hopes. It is not a question of sins merely, but of being delivered from their enemies, which last is assuredly not, nor ought to be, the feeling of the Christian now. Does not the Christian serve God, delivered from his sins, in the midst of his enemies? So when the Lord comes, it is simply a taking him up out of the midst of his enemies when the time of deliverance comes. Here then the language is, “That we being saved out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear, in piety and righteousness before him all our days.” Such is the expectation of Israel according to the Psalms and the Prophets.
“And thou, child, shalt be called [the] prophet of [the] Highest; for thou shalt go before the face of [the] LORD to make ready his ways” — an allusion clearly to Malachi as well as to Isaiah
“To give knowledge of salvation41 to his people by [the] forgiveness of their sins.” It is not that the Jews will be without the remission of their sins; they will have that beside deliverance from their enemies. All this is “on account of [the] bowels of mercy of our God; whereby Ethel day-spring from on high has visited us, to shine upon them who were sitting in darkness and in [the] shadow of death, to guide our feet into [the] way of peace.” Such will be the condition in which the Jews will be finally met by God; there will be a special darkness more immediately before the light shines out upon them.
It was when they were in bitter degradation under the Gentiles, as well as in the moral darkness, that the Lord came the first time; still more will this be the case when He comes again. There will be renewed bondage under the power of the West; a stranger king will reign in the land, and a special delusive power of Satan will be there, but the Lord will appear to the discomfiture of all their foes and the full deliverance of His people Israel.
Meanwhile “the child grew, and was strengthened in spirit; and he was in the deserts until the day of his shewing to Israel.”42 We have seen that, before the large universal character of the Gospel of Luke appears — the grace of God to man — there is the utmost care to show the goodness and forbearance of the Lord in meeting Israel as they then were. Thus they have the responsibility of refusing their Messiah, before God lays the foundation of the richest grace to man generally.
Endnotes
19 Verse 5. — “Judæa.” This seems to stand for the whole land or manifestly in Acts 10:3737That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; (Acts 10:37), and in the Gospel at 6:17, 7:17, and 23:5. In 2:4, 5:17, however, it probably represents the limited territory of Judah: (see verse.39).
20 Verse 13. — The are seven pieces of dialogue in this and the chapters following, which are more or less rhapsodical utterances, and go under the name of “canticles.” Margoliouth says: “The evidence is strongly in Favor of their having been originally in Hebrew verse” (address on Synoptic Gospels at University College, London). Cf: note 4 F with reference to the suggestion of Schleiermacher (p. 25) and others (as Burkitt), that these are Luke’s free compositions; see also Godet, i,, p. 216 f., and Sanday, “Outlines of the Life of Christ,” who regards chapters 1 and 2 as “the most archaic thing in the New Testament” (p. 166), and Briggs’ “of the first degree of historic importance” (p. 164f).
The passages are: — (1.) 1:13-17; (2.) 1:28, 30-33, 35-37 f.; (3.) 1:42-45; (4.) 1:46-55; (5.) 1:68-79; (6.) 2:10-12, 14; (7.) 2:29-32, 34f.
22 Verse 17. — Plummer refers to Ecclesiasticus 48:10 (see R. V.), languishing of parental affection. Augustine’s idea (adopted by Calvin) was that by the “fathers” is meant the patriarchs (see Isa. 29:2222Therefore thus saith the Lord, who redeemed Abraham, concerning the house of Jacob, Jacob shall not now be ashamed, neither shall his face now wax pale. (Isaiah 29:22) f.; 43:16).
23 Verse 19. — “Gabriel.” Tobit 12:15, speaks of seven archangels (naming Raphael”). The Book of Enoch adds “Uriel.” These are the sources of Milton’s nomenclature. In canonical Scripture (but see Rev. 1:4, 3:1, 4:5) not more than two archangels are named, Gabriel (Dan. 8., 9.), herald of goodness, and Michael (Dan. 10, 12; Jude 99Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. (Jude 9); Rev. 12:77And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, (Revelation 12:7)) of wrath. The Jews have said that “Gabriel flies with two wings; Michael with one.”
25 Verse 26 ff. — We here enter upon the Birth story, as to which Harnack (“What is Christianity?” p. 31) says, “The oldest tradition knew nothing of any stories of Jesus’ ‘birth.’” The whole question of the Virgin birth will be discussed below at verse 34 ff. As to “Nazareth,” see note 46.
26 Verse 27 f — Mary as a name represents the Old Testament “Miriam,” in Aramaic “Mariam,” as in Greek here. According to the Protevangelium of James, she was fifteen years of age at the time. The ancient belief was that she died in the Year 64.
The question has been raised whether the words “of the House of David” go with “Virgin” (B. Weiss, Godet) or with “man”, (De Wette, Meyer). Chrysostom and Bengel say with both. Cf. verse 32 and note there; also 69, and see note in chapter 3. on the Genealogy. Its being said of Joseph would have no meaning in this connection, when actually applied to him, in 2:4, it is introduced as something fresh: Cf. on verse 32. On the infancy, see Nicoll, “The Incarnate Saviour,” chapter 1, pp. 14-16, in particular.
27 Verse 31. — “Jesus.” The name (Jeshua), Neh. 8:1717And all the congregation of them that were come again out of the captivity made booths, and sat under the booths: for since the days of Jeshua the son of Nun unto that day had not the children of Israel done so. And there was very great gladness. (Nehemiah 8:17), was very common among the Jews of the time. In Col. 4:1111And Jesus, which is called Justus, who are of the circumcision. These only are my fellowworkers unto the kingdom of God, which have been a comfort unto me. (Colossians 4:11), mention made of a Jesus, surnamed Justus, one of the Circumcision. One of the Lord’s ancestors, according to the flesh, bore the same name, see 3:29 (R.V.). The Talmud, in order to get rid of the original meaning of “the name” (Jas. 2:77Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called? (James 2:7)), although using “Jeshua” of all others bearing it, regularly speaks of the Lord by the clipped tame Jesu.
28 Verse 32. — “The Highest.” The O. T. Elyon. It was the usual designation of GOD among the Hellenistic Jews of the Dispersion. Again in varies 35, 76.
“His father David.” Mary was probably of the tribe of Judah (B. Weis,).
29 Verse 34 ff. — Five verses here enshrine Luke’s narrative of the supernatural (virgin) birth of the Lord Jesus.
Schanz forsakes his usually sensible exegesis — but what is a Roman writer here to do? — by taking Mary’s words as a vow of virginity, which is excluded by verse 27.
“The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee,” etc. Cf. Acts 1:88But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth. (Acts 1:8). For the “overshadow,” see Ex. 40:3131And Moses and Aaron and his sons washed their hands and their feet thereat: (Exodus 40:31). Pfleiderer “It is not God himself, lay God’s Holy Spirit, who begets Jesus” (“Primitive Christianity,” ii., p. 117 f) a remark certainly not derivable from the exact words of the Evangelists, which represent the Holy Spirit’s action only as the procuring cause. The article is absent, as again in 2:13.
30 “Shall be called Son of God.” The “therefore” shows that we have not here the Eternal Sonship. The Messiah (see note on 2:11) had to be, transcendently, Son of God (verse 35); next, Son of Man (see note on v. 21), if He was to take up the Davidic claims; and child of a virgin (verse 27).
1. As Son of God, He should be both Priest and Victim (L. A. Sabatier, “The Atonement,” p. 53, comparing John 17:1919And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. (John 17:19), and Heb. 8:22A minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. (Hebrews 8:2)), and fulfill at the same time the types of “burnt offering,” and “sin offering.”
The Christadelphian theory that the Sonship began with the birth of the Lord, so as to preclude His pre-existence, is but a popular echo of unbelieving “scientific” theology. Its advocates are materialistic Unitarians. Swedenborgians, on the other hand, confess the pre-existence. For Loisy’s assertion (“Synoptic Gospels,” vol. i., p. 194.) that this idea is “not expressly formulated nor even suggested in the Synoptic Gospels,” see note on 10:22.
The Lord is spoken of as “Son of God” in this Gospel (1) by others, in 3:22; 4:3, 9, 41; 8:28; 9:35 and 20:9. (2) By Himself in 10:22 (“The Son”) as in 22:70 in answer to the high priest’s adjuration. He speaks of God as His “Father” in 2:49; 9:26; 10:21f.; 22:29, 42; 23: 34, 46; 24:49.
2. That JESUS should be legal heir of Joseph belongs rather to the consideration of Matthew’s narrative; but see note on the Genealogy below, and also that on 8:20, with regard to indispensable requirements of such a claim.
3. The virginity of Mary is also developed by Matthew; who cites Isa. 7:1414Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7:14), attaching to that prediction a meaning not previously given to it by the Jews; so that Dolman, who notes this little-known circumstance, treats it as supporting the truth of the narrative, on the ground that a virgin-birth was not looked for (“Words of Jesus,” p. 276). As D. Smith says, “the history was not as sceptics insinuate, adapted to the prophecy, but the prophecy to the history” (p. 528). Pfleiderer (op. cit., ii., p. 346) in connection with Mark 3:2121And when his friends heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him: for they said, He is beside himself. (Mark 3:21) (cf. note 41 in “Exposition” of that Gospel), objects that Mary could not have joined His brethren in treating JESUS as out of His senses if she had known of a supernatural birth. But there is absolutely nothing in Mark’s text to show that she did participate in their impression. The Marcon incident does not clash with her attitude in verse 34 here.
J. H. Newman, preaching on the Incarnation (Sermons, vol. ii., p. 5), said: “As in the beginning woman was formed of man by Almighty power, so now, by a like mystery, but a reverse order, the new Adam was fashioned from the woman.... He had no earthly father; He abhorred to have one.” The great recent German theologian, Dorner, has remarked: “As Son of Man, the Lord cannot have been the son of any particular man:” see his “Christian Doctrine,” ii., pp. 146-451.
Nowhere in the Old Testament is there any mention of a human father of the Messiah (Delitzsch, “Messianic Prophecies”) cf. Ps. 22:10.
The Syriac of Sinai, in Matt. 1:1616And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. (Matthew 1:16), has “Joseph begot Jesus”; that version, hover, in the same context speaks of Mary as a virgin; so that its “begot” must be understood in a juridical sense, as manifestly in the Greek of verse 8; “Joram begot Uzziah,” and of verse 13, “Zerubbabel begot Abiud.” The Curetonian Syriac follows the traditional text.
The stages in the New Testament view of the Lord’s Person are doubtless three, as stated by Lobstein (p. 65f.): —
(1) In Mark, corresponding more to the popular Messianic belief or theocratic view of the Divine Sonship. Such would supply, according to his parable, the “green blade of the doctrine.” As to Mark’s being said not to have heard of the Virgin Birth (Menzies, Clodd, etc.), see note 57 in “Exposition” of that Gospel. Critics are careful to say as little as possible about Mark’s “silence” as to Joseph which, however, so impressed Baur that he maintained the critics’ first Evangelist was acquainted with the Virgin Birth.
(2) Of the independent records of Matthew and Luke, either of which would be alien to the Jewish mind, Matthew’s is the more objective (public) account, proceeding, it seems likely, from Joseph; Luke’s, the more subjective (private) account, probably derived ultimately from Mary (cf. Godet, i., p.162f.), through her son James (as suggested by Bishop Chase, referring to Acts 21:1818And the day following Paul went in with us unto James; and all the elders were present. (Acts 21:18)),: Although he “begins with the Jew” (Exposition) and so corroborates Matthew’s specially Jewish testimony, his record was designed for Gentile readers, many of whom would be familiar with legendary stories of virgin-births (Pfleiderer, “Early Christian Conception of Christ,” pp. 35-43), as of Buddha (Paul Carus), who would not be alienated by the representation of such a supernatural event. Here the Church would receive the “ear” of Mark’s parable.
(3) In the Prologue of John’s Gospel. As to the fourth Evangelist’s supposed silence upon this subject, see Neander, “Life of Christ,” p. 17, and note 21 in the Exposition of the last Gospel; also note 42 There, on Gardner’s fancy (“Exploratio Evangelica,” p. 239) that John meant to protest against the Virgin Birth, or that writer’s notion that the words to Nicodemus in 3:6 could be used against it. This last stage would represent the “full blade in the ear.”
And so of the Apostle Paul, as in Rom. 1:33Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; (Romans 1:3)f. “Paul,” writes Pfleiderer, “is anything, rather than a Jew in his Christological exegesis of the Old Testament. Here he leaves all Jewish tradition on one side and gives vent to his mythological gain; whence he derives it, it would be hard to tell. No road leads up to the divinity (sic) of Christ from the Old Testament” (op. cit., ii., p. 115). Such a theory as this we may hold, with Orr, “is the death of all its predecessors in its admission that the idea of the V.B. was familiar to Paul” (see 1 Cor. 15:4747The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven. (1 Corinthians 15:47); also Gal. 4:44But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, (Galatians 4:4), γενομένος, “ come,” rather than, as in Luke 7:2828For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he. (Luke 7:28), of the Baptist, γεννητός, “born”) and the early Christians. (cf. chapters 3, 5, of Dr. R. J. Cooke’s “The Incarnation and Modern Criticism” (1907)). It is because of the difficulty felt in being consistent in this respect that negative critics have fallen back on the device of tracing the belief to Gentile myths, going back to Babylonian (Orr, p. 27 of pamphlet); but Harnack, to his credit, dissociates himself from this part of the business.
The miraculous conception is recognized first, outside the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, in the Letter of Ignatius to the Ephesians, and in the recently recovered Apology of Aristides. It begins to be denied by Cerinthus (Irenæus, 1:26), probably within the lifetime of the Apostle John (cf. above under Gardner). So repugnant must it have been to the severely austere morality of Jews, that “the mere fact that it arose on Jewish, soil is a singular attestation of the Evangelic story” (D. Smith, p. 52, after Neander, p. 15). Orr, referring to present-day criticism allied with the system of the Jewish “Ebionites,” remarks: “It is a curious irony which makes the narrowest and most retrograde of Jewish-Christian sects (the ancient Nazarenes, or more tolerant party, accepted the belief) the true representatives of Apostolic Christianity” (“The Virgin Birth,” p. 164f.).
This matter forms an essential part of the larger question as to the distinction which is made between the “historical Jesus” and “the Christ of the Creeds.” Thus Pfleiderer: “Primitive Christianity has transferred the Jesus of history into the Christ of faith... has identified the ‘self-existing Christ’ with the heavenly Son of Man of the Apocalypse and the Son of God and Logos... has finally brought this eternal heavenly Being down to earth to become man, to die, to return to Heaven, there to share the throne and sovereignty of God until His future coming to judge the world” (“Early Christian Conception,” p. 160f.). Lain Schmidt: “He (i.e., JESUS) would have been utterly bewildered by the Nicene creed” (p. 383); and Gardner: “There is no demonstrable connection ween the ‘Jesus of history’ and the Christ of Christian experience.” These are typical expressions of what goes under the name of the “New (Modern) Theology” from three countries of “modern civilization.” But listen to one who, advanced critic as he is, is careful in his statements — Wellhausen — who writes. “The historical Jesus, like a leading card, has been playas against Christianity.... To divorce Him from the effect of His history is to be unjust to Him Whence came faith in Him as religious Ideal save from Christianity?... We cannot go back even if we would.” (“Introduction to the First Three Gospels,” p. 114.),
H. Holtzmann and Harnack question the two verses, as if an interpolation. On the same side, besides Lobs (above) write Drummond, Wernle (pp. 81-83. Cf. booklet in E. T.), and Schmiedel (“Encyclopædia Biblica,” art. “Mary”), J. Weiss, etc.; whilst in defense of the V.B. the following, besides Orr, may be consulted: — Dorner, B. Weiss, Godet (pp. 213-216), Zahn, Fairbairn, Bruce, Gore and Sanday, etc. See further, besides notes referred to above, those on 2:41 and 48; 4:22; and 18:19.
30a The “holy thing” (cf. Matt. 1:2020But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. (Matthew 1:20)). This distinctly traverses Dr. Boses’, saying that the Lord was “not holy by nature” (“The Gospel in the Gospels,” p. 163). The position taken by the American professor is a curious comment on his countryman Prof. Foster’s claim as against “orthodox” scholars, to “intellectual” honesty. JESUS was from the outset “holy,” cf. John 10:3636Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God? (John 10:36), although “made of a woman” (Gal. 4:66And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. (Galatians 4:6)); see Job 25:44How then can man be justified with God? or how can he be clean that is born of a woman? (Job 25:4). On the connection of this with His sinlessness, see Orr, pamphlet on the “Virgin Birth,” p. 29. A pulpit, if not academical, utterance of Schleiermacher should be noted: “It is the experience of all without exception that in everyone who has appeared on earth, endowed only as the children of men, sin has sooner or later developed. So it would have been in the Redeemer Himself if he had been Horn His birth like other children. ... If Christ had been a sinner even in the least degree, could He have been our Saviour?” (“Selections from Foreign Pulpit Literature,” vol. xvi., p. 279 ff.).
Bruce has well said: “A sinless man is as much a miracle in the moral world, as a virgin birth is a miracle in the physical world” (“Apologetics,” p. 410, in criticism of the view taken by Abbott in “Onesimus,” bk. iii., par. 7).
For the translation of verse 35, cf. American Revision.
31 Verse 37. — cf. verse 35, and note on 2:11 (Theotokos, cf. note 51).
32 Verse 42. — Cf. Judith 13:18.
33 Verse 45. — These words Bunyan represents as coming to the remembrance of Christiana and her party as soon as they had crossed the “Slough of Despond” (“Pilgrim’s Progress,” Pt. ii.).
34 Verses 46-55. — The “Magnificat.” The Virgin was familiar with the old Testament Scriptures, especially the Psalms, where compare 45:3; 98:3; try 107:9; 132:1, 6, 7, 15. That Luke resorted to the vocabulary of the Save at; (note 4 F) to record the Aramaic utterances of Mary (verse 48) in Greek May readily believed; but to say that he freely composed them (cf. note 20) another matter. Ryle aptly refers to Col. 3:1616Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom; teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord. (Colossians 3:16) for the lesson conveyed by Ha, beautiful canticle. Hort’s marginal reading “Elizabeth” instead of “Mary,” in verse 46, is that of three old Latin MSS., and was known to Origen. It seems to have no support from Greek copies.
35 “Soul... spirit.” Cf. Ps. 103:1; “all that is within me” (Mackeren). How closely connected, and yet distinct, “soul” and “spirit” are, is shown by Heb. 4:1212For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. (Hebrews 4:12). The difference broadens in the adjectives, “soulish” and “spiritual” in 1 Cor. 15:4646Howbeit that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual. (1 Corinthians 15:46). “All through Scripture,” writes Professor Laidlaw, “spirit denotes life as coming from God; sofa, life as constituted in the man” (“Hastings Dictionary of the Bible,” iv., p. 167). The “spirit” is the energy of a man. As for the soul, in it “lies the center of his personality” (Orr, “God’s Image in Man,” p. 51). The view, however, of the writer last quoted, that “spirits that had bodies could not be called souls” (ibid.), is questionable, as “soul” in Scripture has not “always” the connotation of body; see Lev. 26:1111And I will set my tabernacle among you: and my soul shall not abhor you. (Leviticus 26:11); Judg. 10:1616And they put away the strange gods from among them, and served the Lord: and his soul was grieved for the misery of Israel. (Judges 10:16); Isa. 42:11Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles. (Isaiah 42:1). If that were so, there could be no objection to Nautzsch’s saying (ibid., art. “Religion of the Old Testament”) that in prophetic times Jehovah was conceived of as having bodily forma apparently based on such passages as Ex. 33:2323And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen. (Exodus 33:23).
For the tripartite organism of man see Gen. 2:77And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Genesis 2:7). It is brought out clearly in 1 Thess. 5:2323And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. (1 Thessalonians 5:23). “Breath of lives” in Genesis seems to suggest a continuity for the spirit which science recognizes in respect of the body. If this be so, the Creationists Traducianists (see Liddon, “Elements of Religion,” pp. 98-104, represented by Romanists and Lutherans respectively, share truth between them.
37 Verse 59. — The word ἐκάλουγ is well rendered by Carr, “were for calling.” The naming of a child was by Jewish custom independent of its circumcision.
38 Verses 68-79. — The “Benedictus.” For the vocabulary here, et Ps. 18:2: 132:17. This canticle seems specially modeled on the prophets (Plummer). In verse 77 “salvation,” not found in Matthew and Mark, is a link with John’s Gospel (cf. note 1). “Since the world began”; American Revision, “of old.”
39 Verse 72. — “To fulfil” (ποιεῖν), cf. 10:37 (“show,” see note there), and in the Old Testament,. Gen. 21:2323Now therefore swear unto me here by God that thou wilt not deal falsely with me, nor with my son, nor with my son's son: but according to the kindness that I have done unto thee, thou shalt do unto me, and to the land wherein thou hast sojourned. (Genesis 21:23); Josh. 2:1212Now therefore, I pray you, swear unto me by the Lord, since I have showed you kindness, that ye will also show kindness unto my father's house, and give me a true token: (Joshua 2:12); Judg. 1:2424And the spies saw a man come forth out of the city, and they said unto him, Show us, we pray thee, the entrance into the city, and we will show thee mercy. (Judges 1:24); Ps. 119:65.
39a Verse 74. — See Dr. Chalmers’ sermon on “The Right Fear and the Right faith.”
40 Verse 75. — “Piety,” ὁσιότης, Carr: “A conscientious obedience to God.... a wider word than δικαιοσύη, obedience to law.”
41 Verse 77. — “Deliverance”; or “salvation” (σωτηρία), Cf. Psalms of Solomon 17:36: Messiah’s removal of sin by His powerful word.
“Zacharias and Elizabeth” forms subject of a discourse by Dr. Whyte in his “Bible Character’s,” No. LXXII.
42 Verse 80. — Some think that here, as at 2:40; 2:52; 4:13; there is mark of the conclusion of a separate document each time. The idea is discredited, amongst others, by Ramsay, p. 86 f.