Chapter 1

1 The preface of Luke to his whole gospel. 5 The conception of John the Baptist, 26 and of Christ. 39 The prophecy of Elisabeth, and of Mary, concerning Christ. 57 The nativity and circumcision of John. 67 The prophecy of Zacharias, both of Christ, 76 and of John.

1. Forasmuch. [Prologue to Luke’s Gospel, Luke 1:1–4] Verses 1–4, which constitute Luke’s preface to his Gospel, are in splendid literary Koine, that is, the “common [language]” of the Greek-speaking Roman world. This introduction conforms to the best Greek literary models. It is polished, yet gracious and modest. For a transition in style, see on v. 5.

The similarity of this introduction to that of the book of Acts (Acts 1:1, 2), together with the fact that the book of Acts takes up the narrative at the very point where the Gospel of Luke lays it down (see ch. 24:50–53), suggests that Luke intended the two books to form a two-volume history of the early Christian church.

Many. There is no way of telling whether Luke includes Matthew and Mark in his reference to “many,” though for various reasons it is thought that at least Mark, and possibly Matthew, had already been written (see pp. 178, 179). “Many,” however, would seem to imply more than two, and it is therefore likely that the term here includes some written histories other than the Gospels. Luke cannot have had in mind the apocryphal gospels that are in existence today, for they were not written until many years later. It appears that at least some of the previous writers had been “eyewitnesses” of the things they recorded, and may therefore have belonged to the Twelve or the Seventy (see on v. 2).

Taken in hand. Gr. epicheireoµ, literally, “to put the hand to”; hence, “to undertake,” or “to attempt.” Some commentators understand Luke’s statement to imply that the writers he is referring to proceeded on their own, without the guidance of the Holy Spirit. But it is clear from the use of epicheireoµ in the papyri that such a conclusion is unwarranted and that Luke casts no reflection on any previous authors. They had meant well, and their accounts were not to be rejected as historical source material, though the men were not necessarily divinely inspired, as was Luke. Luke considers these writers in a favorable light, and in fact, classifies himself with them by the expression “me also” (v. 3).

To set forth in order. Gr. anatassomai, “to compile,” “to arrange,” “to compose.” The idea of chronological order or arrangement is not necessarily implied. Compare the Gr. pathexeµs (see on v. 3). These terms may suggest that accounts written by previous gospel writers had been incomplete, but in no way imply that they were inaccurate.

Declaration. Gr. dieµgeµsis, a “narrative.” It is composed of two Greek words meaning, literally, “to lead the way through.”

Which are most surely believed. Rather, “which have been accomplished.”

2. They. That is, the “eyewitnesses, and ministers.” The word “they” may also possibly refer to the “many” of v. 1.

Delivered. Gr. paradidoµmi “to hand over,” “to deliver,” or “to commit.” Here it refers simply to the handing down of information from one generation or group of people to another (see 1 Cor. 11:23; 15:3; 2 Tim. 2:2). Those who “received” truth were to “deliver” it to others. Paul and Luke were, so to speak, second-generation Christians and had “received” what they passed on to others.

Which. Rather, “who.” In the Greek the clause beginning here does not modify “us,” as it apparently does in the English, but rather the subject “they.” In other words, those who “delivered” the narratives were the “eyewitnesses,” and not those who received them.

From the beginning. That is, from the beginning of Jesus’ public ministry, though some of the “eyewitnesses” may also have been able to report circumstances connected with the infancy of John the Baptist and of Jesus.

Eyewitnesses. Gr. autoptai, “those who see with their own eyes.” John referred to himself as an eyewitness (John 1:14; 21:24; 1 John 1:1, 2). All of the Twelve, the seventy disciples, and the women who accompanied Jesus and His disciples and ministered to them were eyewitnesses, more or less “from the beginning.” In contrast, Luke, Paul, and Timothy might be called “ear-witnesses,” for their knowledge of the life and ministry of Jesus was derived from others. This apparent handicap, however, in no way diminishes the value of their testimony, for they received their information both through instruction from “eye-witnesses” and by divine revelation (1 Cor. 15:3–7; Gal. 1:11, 12).

The modesty here exhibited by Luke is excellent testimony in favor of the reliability and validity of the Gospel that bears his name. He was careful to state the exact truth, and laid no claim to being an “eyewitness,” as a forger might be expected to do. In fact, Luke himself here clearly states that his own understanding of the facts concerning the life and ministry of Christ came originally through the channel of eyewitness accounts. Thus it appears that the role of Inspiration in Luke’s case was not so much to impart original information as to guarantee the accuracy of what he recorded of the testimony of others. Luke was a historian who went to the original sources, but he was much more than that; he was an inspired historian.

It is clear from Luke’s experience that Inspiration functions in a manner consistent with the natural operation of the mental faculties and does not set them aside. Here is an inspired writer who was led by the Holy Spirit to give diligent study to the available oral and written source materials on the life of Christ, and then to combine into a connected narrative the information thus gathered. For further consideration of the manner in which Inspiration guides the human instrument in the use of extant historical documents, see F. D. Nichol, Ellen G. White and Her Critics, pp. 413–422.

3. It seemed good to me. It seemed appropriate to Luke to compose a complete, accurate, and authentic account of Christ’s life, perhaps with the thought in mind of recording some events that might have been omitted in previous accounts written by “many” (see on v. 1). These words reveal the way in which at least some of the Bible writers were led of God to prepare the inspired record. The impression conveyed to Luke’s mind by the Holy Spirit had the effect of making a certain course of action seem appropriate and desirable to him. In his account of the Jerusalem council at which consideration was given to the admission of Gentiles into the Christian church Luke quotes the apostles as writing to the believers at Antioch that the proposed course of action “seemed good” to them (see Acts 15:25). The brethren had counseled together, but their deliberations were guided by the Holy Spirit, and they explain confidently that “it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us” (v. 28). So it was with Luke; the Holy Spirit impelled him to write. But when he wrote, he wrote of his own free will, guided by God. For the manner in which the Holy Spirit guided the various Bible writers see EGW Supplementary Material, on 2 Peter 1:21.

Having had perfect understanding. Literally, “having followed after accurately.” Luke’s second reason for writing is the desire to pass on to others the benefits of his own thorough study of the life and teachings of Jesus. Apparently, Luke had begun at the beginning and had investigated everything. He offers his gospel narrative as being an accurate, thorough, and systematic presentation of the story of Jesus. These are characteristics of true scholarship. Whereas Matthew emphasizes the teachings of Jesus, and Mark, the incidents from His life ministry, Luke combines both elements in a more complete and systematic way than either of the others. Luke’s claim concerning his “understanding of all things” is no idle boast; 43 of some 179 sections of the synoptic narrative appear only in his Gospel. See pp. 191, 192.

The very first. That is, of the life of Jesus. Like an explorer, Luke traced the stream of events to their very beginning and followed the stream closely throughout its course. Accordingly, Luke sets forth the circumstances surrounding the birth and childhood of Jesus in far greater detail than do the other evangelists. Only Luke records five of the six events mentioned in the Gospels prior to the birth of Jesus (see p. 196).

In order. Gr. kathexesч, “one after another,” or “consecutively” (see on v. 1). Matthew consists largely of the discourses of Jesus arranged topically, whereas Mark deals with the events of Jesus’ life, grouping them together according to kind. The general arrangement of both Matthew and Mark is chronological, but chronological sequence was not their primary objective. They rearranged the order of the various incidents in harmony with the guiding purpose of their book. Luke, on the other hand, follows a rather strict chronological order. Matthew and Mark did not attempt such a presentation. See pp. 191, 192.

Most excellent. A title frequently used in addressing high government officials, comparable to the modern “your excellency.” The same term is used in referring to the Roman procurators of Judea (Acts 23:26; 24:3; 26:25). It is noteworthy to find a man of apparently high official rank accepting Christianity at this early period.

Theophilus. Literally, “friend of God.” There is little evidence to support the popular explanation that the name Theophilus did not represent any one person but was rather a general name used by Luke for Christians in general. However, the title “most excellent” seems definitely to imply that a real person is intended. Theophilus was probably a Gentile convert, as his Greek name implies.

4. Mightest know. Gr. epiginoµskoµ, “to know fully.” That is, Theophilus was to have knowledge in addition to what he already knew of “those things” wherein he had “been instructed.”

Certainty. Gr. asphaleia, that which will not fall, from the two words sphalloµ, “to totter,” “to fall,” and the prefix a, “not.” There is “certainty” to the facts of the Christian faith, and he who believes in them will be steadfast and secure against error.

Been instructed. Gr. kateµcheoµ, “to instruct,” or “to teach orally”; literally, “to sound down upon.” Kateµcheoµ is the source of our word “catechize.” It is rendered “informed” in Acts 21:21, 24, “instructed” in Acts 18:25, and “taught” in Gal. 6:6. This word may imply that Theophilus had thus far received only oral instruction, such as might appropriately precede baptism. It is possible that he was one of Luke’s converts, one whom Luke had “catechized.” Or it may be that Luke wrote these things out to meet false reports against Christianity.

5. In the days. [The Announcement to Zacharias, Luke 1:5–25. See The Nativity; a Suggestive Chronology of Christ’s Birth.] Dating by regnal years is very common in Greek literature. Examples for each year of the 1st Christian century still survive. Taking up the thread of his narrative, Luke leaves the literary Koine style of vs. 1–4, with its elegant idiom, and turns to a style Hebraistic in form and reminiscent of such OT narratives as those of the birth of Samuel. In fact chs. 1:5 to 2:52 are perhaps the most Hebraistic of all Luke’s writings. They nevertheless bear the characteristic marks of Luke as an author. The fact that the series of narratives here recorded was of so personal a nature that Mary “kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart” (ch. 2:19), along with the fact that the other gospel writers have little to say about these events, suggests the possibility that the information here recorded may not have been generally known among Christian believers in the early years of the apostolic church.

Inasmuch as Luke refers to many oral and written sources of information (see on vs. 1–3), some suggest that he may have learned of the events of the infancy of Jesus from Mary herself. It appears that the narrative is presented from the viewpoint of Mary, as Matthew presents Jesus’ birth narrative from the viewpoint of Joseph (Matt. 1).

The nativity section (chs. 1:5 to 2:52) consists of seven parts: (1) The announcement of the birth of John the Baptist (ch. 1:5–25), (2) the announcement of the birth of Jesus (vs. 26–38), (3) the visit of Mary to Elisabeth (vs. 39–56), (4) the birth of John the Baptist (vs. 57–80), (5) the birth of Jesus (ch. 2:1–20), (6) the circumcision and presentation of Jesus (vs. 20–38), (7) the boyhood of Jesus (vs. 39–52.

Herod. See pp. 39-42; The Hasmonaeans and the Herods, and Palestine Under the Herodians . The days of Herod were days of cruelty and oppression for the Jewish people, even though the king was a professed convert to the Jewish religion. His dissolute character stands forth in striking contrast with the character of Zacharias, and was more or less typical of the age in which he lived.

Judea. Writing, as he evidently did, primarily for non-Palestinian readers, it seems that Luke often uses the name Judea as a general term for the whole of Palestine (Luke 6:17; 7:17; Acts 10:37).

Zacharias. From the Heb. Zekaryah, “Jehovah remembers,” or “Jehovah has remembered.” This name was borne by the son of Jehoiada (2 Chron. 24:20), by the prophet Zechariah, and by many others.

The course of Abia. David divided the priesthood into 24 courses (1 Chron. 24:1–18; 2 Chron. 8:14), of which the course of Abijah (or Abia) was the eighth (1 Chron. 24:10). Sixteen of the courses were made up of descendants of Eleazar, and eight, of descendants of Ithamar, both sons of Aaron. Only four of the courses were represented by the priests who returned from Babylon after the Captivity, and Abijah was not among these (see on Ezra 2:36). But those who did return were nevertheless divided into 21 or 22 courses (expanded to 24 in NT times), and were assigned the names of the original courses (see on Neh. 12:1). According to Josephus, each course of priests was expected to serve for a week, from Sabbath to Sabbath (Antiquities vii. 14. 7 [365, 366]), semiannually. At the Feast of Tabernacles all 24 courses were expected to be present. Attempts to determine the time of year at which the course of Abijah came up for service, based on the course serving at the time the Romans destroyed the Temple in a.d. 70, are apparently of little or no value as far as the dating of Luke’s narrative is concerned.

Elisabeth. From the Heb. ФElishebaХ, meaning “my God has sworn,” or “my God is abundance,” the name of the wife of Aaron (Ex. 6:23).

6. Righteous. Apparently Zacharias and Elisabeth belonged to that small group who eagerly studied the prophecies and looked for the coming of the Messiah (DA 44, 47, 98). Among the Jews the term “righteous” had come to have a technical meaning, and referred to those who strictly observed the ritual law and rabbinical traditions. It is obvious, however, that with Zacharias and Elisabeth righteousness was much more than an external conformity to the law. They were not mere legalists, but conscientious and exemplary in their fixed purpose to worship God “in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24). Other members of this small, select circle that awaited the coming of the Messiah were Joseph and Mary (see on Matt. 1:16-19), and Simeon and Anna (see on Luke 2:25, 26, 38).

Before God. Prior to his conversion Paul felt that he had “the righteousness which is in the law,” and was “blameless” (Phil. 3:6; see Acts 23:1). But conversion brought to him the realization that such “righteousness” was without avail (see Rom. 2:24, 25; 1 Tim. 1:15). In the case of Zacharias and Elisabeth, however, their “righteousness” exceeded that of the scribes and Pharisees (Matt. 5:20), who did their good deeds to be “seen of men” (Matt. 6:1, 5). Zacharias and Elisabeth were righteous “before God.” They were noble successors to heroes of faith such as Noah (Gen. 6:9; 7:1; Heb. 11:7), Abraham (Heb. 11:8), Job (Job 1:8; 2:3), and Daniel (Dan. 5:11, 12; 10:11), of whose righteousness Heaven approved (see Eze. 14:14).

Commandments and ordinances. In the days of Zacharias and Elisabeth this meant living in harmony with both the moral law and the law of Moses.

Since all men “have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23; see also 1 John 3:4), all stand in need of someone to “deliver” them from death, the penalty of disobedience (Rom. 6:23; 7:24). The Deliverer is none other than Christ Jesus (chs. 7:25 to 8:4). But until the Saviour came into the world, God ordained a system of sacrifices (Heb. 9:1), which He “imposed on them until the time of reformation,” that is, until Christ should enter upon His priestly ministry (vs. 10, 11). In other words, Zacharias and Elisabeth purposed to obey God, sought salvation through the means provided, and as a result were accounted “righteous before God.”

7. No child. Among Oriental peoples childlessness has ever been looked upon as a great affliction. Often the Jews considered it to be divine punishment for sin (see on Lev. 20:20). Among the Jews, as among some Oriental peoples today, childlessness was considered adequate grounds for polygamy and concubinage, and was accepted as sufficient legal grounds for divorce.

How often have men who were chosen before birth to accomplish a great task for God been born in spite of age or sterility on the part of their parents (see Gen. 11:30; 17:17; 18:11; 25:21; 30:22–24; 1 Sam. 1:2, 8, 11). With men many things are impossible, but “with God nothing shall be impossible” (Luke 1:37). God often leads men to realize their own weakness, in order that when deliverance comes they may appreciate His might and power through personal experience. In the case of Elisabeth there was a double reason for not expecting children, for to lifelong barrenness was added old age.

Well stricken in years. Literally, “advanced in their days,” from a characteristic Hebrew idiom (see Gen. 24:1; Joshua 13:1), which simply means “advanced in age.”

8. It came to pass. Gr. egeneto, from ginomai, “to become,” or “to be.” The expression, when appearing at the beginning of a narrative section, as here, is the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew formula wayehi, “it came to pass,” so common in the OT. The expression is consistently omitted in some modern translations inasmuch as the sense is clear and complete without it.

His course. See on v. 5.

9. His lot was. Gr. lagchanoµ, “to obtain by lot.” Owing to the large number of priests, not all might officiate at any given service. Therefore lots were cast to determine who should participate each morning and each evening. According to Jewish tradition, the priests stood in a semicircle and each held up one or more fingers to be counted. Naming some number, such as 70, the “president” began counting and continued till the number selected indicated who was chosen. The first lot determined who should cleanse the altar of burnt offering and prepare the sacrifice, and the second, who was to offer the sacrifice and cleanse the candlestick and the altar of incense. The third lot, which determined who was to offer incense, was most important. The fourth lot determined who was to burn the pieces of the sacrifice on the altar and perform the concluding part of the service. Lots cast in the morning applied also to the evening service, except that the lot was cast anew for the burning of the incense.

To burn incense. The offering of incense was considered the most sacred and important part of the daily morning and evening services. These hours of worship, at each of which a lamb was offered (Ex. 29:38–42) for a burnt offering, were known as the morning and evening “burnt offering,” or “sacrifice” (2 Chron. 31:3; Ezra 9:4, 5), or as “the time of incense” (Luke 1:10; see Ex. 30:7, 8). These were hours of prayer for all Israelites, whether in attendance at the service, at home, or in foreign lands. As the incense ascended from the golden altar the prayers of Israel ascended with it to God (Rev. 8:3, 4; see on Ps. 141:2) for themselves and for their nation, in daily consecration (PP 352, 353). At this service the officiating priest prayed for the pardon of Israel’s sins and for the coming of the Messiah (DA 99).

The privilege of officiating at the golden altar on behalf of Israel was considered a high honor, and Zacharias was in every respect worthy of it. This privilege usually came to each priest but once in a lifetime, and was therefore the great moment of his life. As a rule no priest might officiate at the altar more than once, and it is possible that some of the priests never had this opportunity.

The priest chosen by lot to offer the incense—in this case Zacharias—selected two of his fellow priests to assist him, one to remove the old coals from the altar and the other to lay upon it new coals taken from the altar of burnt offering. These two priests retired from the holy place after their assignments were completed, and the priest chosen by lot then arranged the incense upon the coals, and as he did so made intercession for Israel. As the cloud of incense arose, it filled the holy place and even passed above the veil into the most holy place. The altar of incense was immediately before the veil, and although actually within the holy place, it seems to have been considered as belonging to the most holy (see on Heb. 9:4). The golden altar was “an altar of perpetual intercession” (PP 353), for day and night the holy incense diffused its fragrance throughout the sacred precincts of the Temple (PP 348).

10. Multitude. Gr. pleµthos, a favorite word with Luke, who uses it 25 times, as compared with 7 times by all the other NT writers combined. Some commentators have suggested that Zacharias was officiating at the morning service; others think it was the evening service. In the time of Christ the morning sacrifice was offered about 9 o’clock and the evening sacrifice about 3 o’clock. At either of these times a throng of considerable size might gather (see Acts 2:6, 15). Perhaps the aged and pious Simeon and Anna (see on Luke 2:25, 36) mingled, unnoticed, in the group of worshipers at this very service and lifted their hearts in prayer for the coming of the Messiah.

Without. That is, outside the sanctuary, but within the sacred courts of the Temple.

11. Appeared. From the record it seems that the appearance of the angel was not merely in vision, but was actually apparent to normal sense perceptions.

Angel of the Lord. This was the angel Gabriel (see on v. 19), who more than five centuries previously had appeared to Daniel to announce the time of Messiah’s coming (Dan. 9:21, 25). Now, with the Saviour’s coming near, Gabriel appears to announce the birth of the prophet who is to prepare the people for the coming of the Promised One.

The right side. Of the altar. This was the south side, the positions being reckoned from the point of view of the altar’s facing the east. The right side was often a position of honor (see Matt. 25:33; Acts 7:55, 56; Heb. 1:3; etc.), and Zacharias should have recognized the position as an indication of favor, but did not (DA 97, 98; see PP 351).

12. Fear fell upon him. The reaction of the aged priest could scarcely be considered unexpected or unnatural (see Judges 6:22; 13:22; Luke 2:9; 9:34; Acts 19:17).

13. Fear not. Often the first words of celestial beings when addressing men (Gen. 15:1; 21:17; Luke 1:30; 2:10). The agencies of heaven are constantly at work to remove fear from the hearts of consecrated men and women (see Heb. 1:14; 2:15) and to substitute for it “the peace of God, which passeth all understanding” (Phil. 4:7). Perfect understanding of God and love for Him remove all fear from the human heart (see Matt. 6:30–34; 1 John 4:18).

Is heard. Literally, “was heard.” Some believe that the “prayer” heard was Zacharias’ prayer for the coming of the Messiah. From a study of the prophecies, particularly those of Daniel, Zacharias knew that the time for the Messiah to appear was at hand. For many years he had prayed for the realization of Israel’s hope, and now Gabriel assured him that the fulfillment of these prophecies was at hand (see DA 98). Others believe that the “prayer” heard was a previous prayer of Zacharias for a son. In years gone by Zacharias had no doubt prayed for a son (see Gen. 15:1, 2, 25:21; 30:22; 1 Sam. 1:10, 11; etc.). It is not likely, as some commentators suggest, that Zacharias prayed for a son upon this occasion, for his response to the angel (Luke 1:18) implies that he had already given up hope of having a son.

John. Gr. Ioµanneµs, from the Heb. Yochanan, or Yehochanan, meaning “Jehovah is gracious.” Various persons had borne this name (see 2 Kings 25:23; 1 Chron. 3:15; 26:3; 2 Chron. 17:15; Ezra. 10:6, 28; Neh. 12:13; Jer. 40:8).

14. Thou shalt have joy. Verses 14–18 are in the metrical form characteristic of Hebrew poetry, in which there is rhythm and repetition of thought rather than of measure and sound. The birth of a son to Elisabeth would bring Zacharias personal joy, but this personal joy would become a joy to all who should heed the message of the son and thereby be “prepared for the Lord” (v. 17; ch. 2:32).

15. Be great. In the estimation of Heaven it is not wealth, rank, noble descent, or intellectual gifts that constitute greatness. God values moral worth and prizes the attributes of love and purity. John was great “in the sight of the Lord” (see Matt. 11:11) in contrast with Herod, “great” in the sight of men who crave rank, wealth, and power. John was a great servant of his fellow men; Herod was a great tyrant over them. John lived for others; Herod lived for self alone. John was great in the same way that Elijah was great, in turning “many of the children of Israel … to the Lord their God” (Luke 1:16). Herod was great in the same way that Nimrod was great (see on Gen. 10:9–12), in leading men to doubt and oppose God (Gen. 10:9, 10; see ch. 11:2–4). See pp. 41, 42; see on Matt. 11:13, 14.

Wine. Gr. oinos (see below under “strong drink”).

Strong drink. Gr. sikera, a loan word from the Aramaic shikraХ and the Heb. shekar (see on Num. 28:7). Shekar may be wine or any intoxicating drink like wine, whether made from barley or distilled from honey or dates. The root of the Hebrew verb means “to drink to the full,” “to drink to hilarity,” or “to be drunken.” Some commentators have thought that Luke’s use of the two terms oinos, “wine,” and sikera, “strong drink,” shows that intoxicating beverages made of grapes are not included in the term sikera. But this distinction is not justified because: (1) Sikera is simply a Greek transliteration of the Heb. shekar, which includes all intoxicating drinks. (2) The poetic form of vs. 14–17 does not justify a distinction as to kind between “wine” and “strong drink” any more than between “joy” and “gladness” in v. 14. When we speak of working with “might and main” we do not refer to two separate and distinct sources of power; we simply mean the exertion of all our strength. In the same way, Luke, or rather the angel Gabriel, uses the two terms merely to emphasize the exclusion of anything intoxicating.

Like Samson (Judges 13:4, 5) and Samuel (see on 1 Sam. 1:22), John the Baptist was a Nazirite from birth (DA 102). At all times a Nazirite (see on Gen. 49:26; Num. 6:2) was to keep the appetites and passions under strict subjection to principle (see on Judges 13:5). The important task assigned to John the Baptist would call for mental strength and spiritual insight, that he might stand as an example before the people of his time. In a similar way those who participate in the task of proclaiming the second coming of Christ must purify their lives “even as he is pure” (1 John 3:3).

Filled with the Holy Ghost. Rather than with strong drink (see Eph. 5:18). When at Pentecost the apostles were “filled with the Holy Ghost” (Acts 2:4, 15–17), they were accused of being “full of new wine” (v. 13). With those whom God has chosen for His service there must be no doubt as to the type of stimulation that moves them to action. The lower form of stimulation excludes the higher form. John was to be illuminated, sanctified, and guided by the influence of the Holy Spirit. In his Gospel and in the book of Acts, Luke mentions the Holy Spirit more than 50 times, compared with 13 times by all the other gospel writers combined.

From his mother’s womb. John’s very existence was due to the will and power of God, not of man. He came into the world with his assigned lifework, and was to be dedicated to God from the very first. It was possible for the Holy Spirit to “fill” John from birth because the Spirit had first been able to fill John’s mother, Elisabeth, directing and controlling her life. During the early years of the children, parents are to stand in the place of God to them (PP 308). “Happy are the parents whose lives are a true reflection of the divine” (PK 245). It was through the Holy Spirit that Mary received wisdom to cooperate with heavenly agencies in the development and training of Jesus (DA 69). Mothers today who choose to live in communion with God may expect the Divine Spirit to mold their little ones, “even from their earliest moments” (DA 512). Thus our children, like John the Baptist, may enjoy the happy privilege of being “filled with the Holy Ghost.” See on ch. 2:52.

16. Turn to the Lord. That is, by repentance. John’s baptism was a “baptism of repentance” (see Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; Acts 13:24; 19:4). Repentance, or turning from sin, was the keynote of his message. Men must repent if they would be “prepared for the Lord” (Luke 1:17) and if they would enter His kingdom (see Matt. 3:2; 4:17; 10:7). John’s work was to persuade men to forsake their sins and to urge them to seek the Lord their God. This was the work that Elijah accomplished (see on 1 Kings 18:37). The OT narrative closes (see Mal. 3:1; 4:5, 6), and the NT narrative opens, on the theme of “the children of Israel” turning “to the Lord their God” (see Luke 1:16).

17. Go before him. As specifically prophesied by Isaiah (see on Isa. 40:3–5) and Malachi (see on Mal. 3:1). This is the task assigned to the remnant church today.

In vs. 16, 17 there is an inspired jewel of truth that lies half hidden. In v. 16 Luke affirms that John the Baptist would turn many of the children of Israel to the “Lord,” and then follows immediately with the comment: “He [John the Baptist] shall go before him [obviously the Messiah, but also the “Lord their God” of v. 16].” Clearly, though perhaps cryptically, Luke here points to the divinity of the Messiah.

The spirit and power of Elias. The dauntless courage of Elijah in days of apostasy and crisis (see 1 Kings 17:1; 18:1–19, 36–40) had made the prophet a symbol of thoroughgoing reformation and loyalty to God. A similar work was now needed in order to turn the hearts of men to the faith of their fathers (see John 8:56; 1 Peter 1:10, 11). The work of John the Baptist as the forerunner of the Messiah had been made a matter of prophetic record (see Isa. 40:1–11; Mal. 3:1; 4:5, 6), as those who studied the Scriptures knew. Even the scribes recognized that “Elias must first come” before the coming of the Messiah (Matt. 17:10; Mark 9:11, 12). His message was one of reform and repentance (see Matt. 3:1–10). John resembled Elijah, not only in the work he was to do and in the fearlessness with which he was to proclaim truth (see 1 Kings 21:17–24; Matt. 3:7–10), but even in his manner of life and in his general appearance (see Matt. 3:4; see on 2 Kings 1:8). Both prophets suffered persecution (see 1 Kings 18:10; 19:2; Matt. 14:10).

Prophecies concerning the forerunner of the Messiah were so strikingly fulfilled in John the Baptist that the common people and also their leaders recognized the resemblance of John to Elijah (see John 1:19–21). Even after the death of John the priests, scribes, and elders did not dare deny that John was a prophet (Matt. 21:24–27; Mark 11:29–33; Luke 20:3–7). Nor did the heartless Herod dare take the life of John until circumstances seemingly drove him to do so (Matt. 14:3–11; Mark. 6:17–28; DA 222). John denied that he was Elijah in person (John 1:21), but Jesus affirmed that John came in fulfillment of the prophecies of the coming of Elijah (Matt. 11:9–14; 17:10–13). This fact was fully understood by the disciples (Matt. 17:13).

The very work accomplished by Elijah and John the Baptist is needed today. In these days of moral corruption and spiritual blindness there is need of voices that will fearlessly proclaim the coming of the Lord to the people of earth. The call of this hour is for men and women who will order their lives as did John and Elijah of old, and who will call upon others to do the same. There is needed a work of earnest reform, not only without the church, but within it as well. God calls upon all who would love and serve Him to go forth “in the spirit and power of Elijah” (3T 61, 62).

Hearts of the fathers. The context here and in Mal. 4:5, 6 suggests that figurative language is being used. Gabriel’s message was given in the literary form of Hebrew poetry, in which rhythm of thought is used instead of meter (see Vol. III, pp. 17–28). The “children of Israel” are to be turned to the “Lord their God,” their heavenly Father (Luke 1:16); the “disobedient,” to the “wisdom of the just” (v. 17). The work of John was to turn the hearts of the disobedient children of Israel in his generation to the wisdom of their just Father in heaven by turning their attention to the experiences of their “fathers” (see 1 Cor. 10:11). This was the very work Elijah had accomplished (see 1 Kings 18:36, 37). As spiritual descendants of our father Abraham (Gal. 3:29) we should, like him, in faith turn our hearts to God (Heb. 11:8–13, 39, 40), and ever remember the way by which He has led the “fathers” in ages past (see LS 196).

The declaration of Malachi, here cited by Luke, has also been explained literally as applying to parental responsibility in bringing up children in “the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). One of the first results of true conversion is the strengthening of family ties. Genuine reform ever does so. The home is certainly included in the work of reform here described as being an important aspect of making “ready a people prepared for the Lord.” See on v. 15.

Wisdom. Gr. phroneµsis, “a minding [to do so and so],” “understanding,” “intention.” The “wisdom” of which the angel speaks is of the kind that leads a man to turn from disobedience to obedience, from injustice to justice. This transformation comes about not so much as the result of intellectual knowledge but from a change of mind (see Rom. 12:2) that accompanies a change of heart (see Eze. 11:19; 18:31; 36:26). It is only when a man loves God that he wills to obey God (John 14:15; 15:10). It is when the affections are set “on things above” (Col. 3:2) that true “wisdom” takes possession of the heart and life.

A people prepared. The people of Noah’s day were not prepared for the Flood (ch. 17:27), nor were the people of Sodom for the destruction that overtook that city. The children of Israel who left Egypt were not prepared to enter the Promised Land (Heb. 3:19). The people of Christ’s day were not prepared to meet Him, and therefore “received him not” (see John 1:11). However, owing largely to the ministry of John the Baptist, there were some who were ready to receive Him. We are likewise counseled to be “ready” (Matt. 24:44), for it is those who are “ready” that will go in with Christ to the marriage (Matt. 25:10). It is the Christian who keeps the hope of our Lord’s return burning brightly in his heart who will be “prepared for the Lord” when He comes (see Heb. 9:28; 2 Peter 3:11, 12; 1 John 3:3).

18. Whereby shall I know? The promise seemed too good to be true! No doubt for years Zacharias had prayed for a son (see on v. 13), and now that his prayer was about to be answered his faith did not rise to accept the answer. How often men see difficulties in the way of the fulfillment of the promises of God, forgetting that “with God nothing shall be impossible” (v. 37). Thus it was with Sarah (see Gen. 18:11, 12), with Moses (see Ex. 4:1, 10, 13), with Gideon (see Judges 6:15–17, 36–40), and with the believers praying at the house of Mary for Peter’s release (see Acts 12:14–16). Even Abraham, who “staggered not at the promise of God” (Rom. 4:20), felt the need of tangible evidence upon which to rest his faith (see Gen. 15:8; 17:17).

I am an old man. The retirement age for Levites was 50 (see on Num. 8:24). However, priests retired from active service only when age or infirmity made it physically impossible for them to minister at the altar. Abraham and Sarah were described as “well stricken in age” when they were 99 and 89 years of age respectively (Gen. 18:11). At about the age of 92, Joshua was called “old and stricken in years” (see on Joshua 13:1), though he lived to be 110 (Joshua 24:29). David was said to be “old and stricken in years” (1 Kings 1:1) at the time of his death, in his 71st year (2 Sam. 5:4, 5). It is probably safe to conclude that Zacharias was between 60 and 70 years of age, perhaps closer to the latter.

Well stricken in years. See on v. 7.

19. Gabriel. Gr. Gabrieµl, from the Heb. GabriХel, meaning “man of God.” The Hebrew word used for “man” is geber, implying a “man of strength.”

Gabriel occupies the position from which Lucifer fell (DA 693; GC 493), and stands next in honor and rank to Christ Himself (DA 98, 99, 234; Dan. 10:21). It was Gabriel who appeared to Daniel (Dan. 8:16; 9:21) to announce the coming of “the Messiah the Prince” (Dan. 9:25). In NT times he appeared to Zacharias (Luke 1:19), to Mary (vs. 26, 27), and probably it was he who appeared to Joseph (see on Matt. 1:20). It was Gabriel who strengthened Christ in Gethsemane (DA 693), who intervened between Him and the mob (DA 694), and who opened the tomb and bade the Saviour come forth (DA 779, 780). Gabriel was also one of the two angels who accompanied Christ through life (DA 793) and appeared to the disciples on Olivet as Christ ascended to heaven (DA 832; cf. 780). It was Gabriel who appeared to John on Patmos (DA 99; see on Rev. 1:1) and who spoke of himself as “thy fellowservant, and [the fellowservant] of thy brethren the prophets” (Rev. 22:9).

Stand in the presence. This expression is used in the OT of high officials ministering at court (1 Kings 10:8; 12:6; Prov. 22:29; Dan. 1:19). By this simple statement that reveals the honored position that is his in heaven, Gabriel accredits himself to Zacharias as a representative of God. Of guardian angels it is said that they “do always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 18:10).

Gabriel is, as it were, the “prime minister” of heaven, the leader of the angelic host “sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation” (Heb. 1:14). He is, in a special sense, the ambassador of heaven to this earth (DA 99). Not only has Gabriel fellowshiped with righteous men on earth; he has associated also with others. It was none other than he who appeared at the Persian court to influence Cyrus and Darius to issue the decree authorizing the rebuilding of the Temple (Dan. 10:13, 20; 11:1). He is the angel of prophecy, the one commissioned of Heaven to order the affairs of men in harmony with the will of God.

According to Jewish tradition Gabriel is the angel of judgment, and is one of four archangels, who alone have access to the divine presence at all times.

To shew … glad tidings. Gr. euaggelizoµ, “to proclaim good news,” or “to announce glad tidings” (see on ch. 2:10).

20. Be dumb. Zacharias had expressed doubt at the angel’s word. Now he received a sign which was at the same time a penalty for unbelief. His lack of faith brought both judgment and blessing. His unbelief was cured immediately and thoroughly. At the same time his affliction was a means of drawing the attention of the people to the announcement of the birth of the forerunner of the Messiah. Not only did the condition of Zacharias attract the attention of the assembled multitude in the Temple courtyard (v. 22); it gave him an opportunity to communicate what he had seen and heard (DA 99), in a way they would never forget.

In some respects the experience of Zacharias is similar to that of Ezekiel in being made dumb (see Eze. 3:26) and remaining so (ch. 24:27) until the fulfillment of his message (ch. 33:22).

Believest not. Though it was not easy for Abraham to grasp the reality of God’s promise that his own son should be his heir (see Gen. 15:2, 3; 17:17, 18), he was ready to take the Lord at His word (see Gen. 15:6). He “was strong in faith” and “staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief” (see Rom. 4:19–22). It seems that Zacharias, though “righteous” and “blameless” before God (Luke 1:6), did not measure up to Abraham when it came to the exercise of faith.

21. Waited. Literally, “were waiting,” that is, kept on waiting. Zacharias remained alone in the holy place longer than usual. Custom required that the priest offering incense at the morning and evening hours of prayer should not prolong his stay in the holy place, lest the people have occasion for anxiety. Furthermore, the people were not free to leave until the officiating priest came forth to pronounce the Aaronic benediction (see Num. 6:23–26). According to the Talmud, the offering of the incense at the golden altar was to be conducted with dispatch.

22. Could not speak. As the officiating priest came forth from the holy place after offering the incense, he was expected to raise his hands and pronounce a blessing upon the waiting throng.

Seen a vision. As Zacharias came forth his face was aglow with the glory of God (DA 99). His very appearance, in a sense, was an unspoken benediction, for the formula of blessing included the words, “The Lord make his face shine upon thee” (Num. 6:25), and, “The Lord lift up his countenance upon thee” (v. 26). The first represented the graciousness of God, and the second, His gift of peace. No doubt many among the assembled worshipers thought of Moses as he returned from Mt. Sinai (see Ex. 34:29, 30, 35).

He beckoned. Rather, “he kept beckoning,” that is, making motions in an endeavor to explain to the people what had happened. Eventually, and perhaps by writing as well as beckoning, he succeeded in communicating to them what he had seen and heard (DA 99).

Speechless. Gr. koµphos, “blunted,” or “dull.” This could refer to speech or hearing or both. The narrative seems to imply that Zacharias became deaf as well as dumb (see on v. 62).

23. Ministration. Gr. leitourgia, a common Greek word denoting “public service.” In the LXX, leitourgia is used of the ministry of the priest in behalf of the congregation. The term is used in Heb. 8:6 and 9:21 of the “ministry” of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary.

Each “course” of priests remained on duty at the Temple from one Sabbath to the next. According to Jewish tradition, it was customary for the retiring set of priests to offer the morning incense on the Sabbath day, and for the incoming group to offer the evening incense. Accordingly, the “course of Abia,” to which Zacharias belonged (see on v. 5), remained on duty till the next Sabbath. Zacharias might have considered his experience with the angel sufficient to warrant his retiring early and returning home. But he chose to remain at his appointed post until released from service. The wording of v. 23 strongly implies that several days of his term of duty remained, and that therefore the appearance of the angel did not occur on the Sabbath day.

His own house. In “the hill country” of Judea (v. 39). Of the eight Judean towns assigned by Joshua to the priests (see on Joshua 21:9; cf. 1 Chron. 6:57–59), Hebron and Hilen (Holon) seem to qualify best for location in “the hill country.” Whether Hilen was rebuilt after the Captivity, and whether the cities originally assigned the priests by Joshua were theirs in the time of Christ, is not known. See on Luke 1:39.

24. Hid herself. Why Elisabeth concealed herself for the first five months of pregnancy is not clear. No known Jewish custom would have required her to do so, and the context implies that she did so voluntarily. Some commentators suggest that she remained at home until it would be evident that her “reproach” (see on v. 25) was removed. Others think that the mention of a period of five months is inserted merely in anticipation of Mary’s visit in the sixth month. It may be, however, that in anticipation of the dedicated life John was to live, as a Nazirite (see on v. 15), Elisabeth sought to remove herself from the usual contacts with society and to give thought and study to the responsibility of rearing a child to whom so important a task as that assigned John was to be entrusted. Such a motive would seem to be fully in harmony with Elisabeth’s character (see v. 6).

25. Reproach. That is, the misfortune of being childless presumably, according to the Jews, the greatest misfortune that could come to a woman (Gen. 30:1; 1 Sam. 1:5–8; see on Luke 1:7). Barrenness was commonly thought to be a visitation of God (see Gen. 16:2; 30:1, 2; 1 Sam. 1:5, 6), and prayer was in such circumstances made for His favor (see Gen. 25:21; 1 Sam. 1:10–12), that He would “remember” those thus afflicted. When conception occurred following prayers such as these it was said that God “remembered” them (see Gen. 30:22; 1 Sam. 1:19). Throughout the Scriptures children are thought of as being a blessing bestowed by God (see Gen. 33:5; 48:4; Ex. 23:26; Joshua 24:3; Ps. 113:9; 127:3; 128:3). In contrast, among heathen nations children were commonly exposed or offered as burnt offerings to their gods.

26. The sixth month. [The Annunciation, Luke 1:26–38. See The Nativity; a Suggestive Chronology of Christ’s Birth.] That is, the sixth month after the appearance of Gabriel to Zacharias (v. 11), and Elizabeth’s conception (v. 24), as specifically stated by the angel (see v. 36).

Gabriel. See on vs. 11, 19.

Nazareth. An obscure Galilean town not mentioned in the OT or the Talmud, or included by Josephus in a list of 204 towns of Galilee (see on Matt. 2:23). The childhood and youth of Jesus, the period on which the Scriptures are comparatively silent, were spent in a locality concerning which historical records are largely silent. Here, in a small community, Jesus was free from the rabbinical influence of larger Jewish centers, and also from pagan Greek culture that pervaded “Galilee of the Gentiles” (Matt. 4:15). The common attitude of the Jews toward Nazareth is reflected in the retort of Nathanael to Philip: “Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?” (John 1:46), and of the Pharisees to Nicodemus, “Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet” (John 7:52). See illustration facing p. 512.

The fact that Luke locates both Mary and Joseph as living in Nazareth and specifically calls it “their own city” (ch. 2:39) is evidence of the historical accuracy of the gospel narrative. Had he, or others from whom he had received his information (vs. 1–3), invented the story, they would have sought to have Mary and Joseph in Bethlehem throughout the narrative of Christ’s conception and birth, rather than in a city of Galilee, particularly in view of the unfavorable reputation of Galilee in general and of Nazareth in particular. The fact that Matthew does not mention Nazareth in connection with events preceding the birth of Jesus (see Matt. 1:18–25) bears witness also to the independent nature of the evidence recorded in the two Gospels. Had there been collusion between the various gospel writers, with an intent to deceive, they would have taken greater care to give their accounts at least the semblance of superficial similarity—which is not the case. Luke’s explanatory statement that Nazareth was “a city of Galilee” may be evidence, as some think, that Luke was writing for nonresidents of Palestine, who would be unfamiliar with so obscure a town.

27. A virgin. See on Matt 1:23. The fact that in giving so detailed an account of the circumstances of the birth of Jesus Luke makes no mention of Mary’s parents, suggests that they may have been dead at this time, and that Mary may have been living with some of her relatives (see DA 144, 145). Almost without exception, Jewish writers identified those of whom they spoke, as the sons and daughters of certain named persons.

Espoused. See on Matt. 1:18. The sequence of events here is significant. The angel made the announcement of the birth of Jesus following Mary’s engagement. To be told at a time when no plans had been laid for marriage that she was to bear a child would no doubt have greatly distressed her. On the other hand, if the announcement had followed her marriage to Joseph, even Mary and Joseph would have considered Jesus their own child. Evidence of the virgin birth would have been difficult, if not impossible, to establish. The purposefulness in the sequence of events testifies to the divine plan and overruling providence of God. If Joseph was ready to “divorce” Mary upon hearing that she was “with child” (Matt. 1:18, 19), and was restrained from doing so only by a direct revelation from God (vs. 20, 24), it probably would have been far more difficult to reconcile him to the idea of contracting a marriage with her had she already been found pregnant (v. 19). Divine planning made the situation as easy as possible for both Mary and Joseph. Mary was indeed a “virgin,” but she was betrothed. God had already provided her with a helper and protector before announcing to her the coming birth of Jesus.

Joseph. See on Matt. 1:18. Little is known of Joseph aside from his Davidic descent (Matt. 1:6–16), his poverty (see on Luke 2:24), his trade (Matt. 13:55), the fact that he had four sons (Matt. 12:46; 13:55, 56; DA 87), and that he evidently died before Jesus began His ministry (see DA 145). The last definite event recorded of Joseph occurred when Jesus was 12 (Luke 2:51). The absence of any further reference to Joseph raises a reasonable presumption that he died before Jesus began His ministry (see on ch. 2:51). The fact that Jesus entrusted the care of His mother to John at the cross (John 19:26, 27) is practically positive proof that the death of Joseph had occurred prior to that time.

House of David. That is, the royal family (see on Matt. 1:1, 20). Opinion differs as to whether the expression “of the house of David” here refers to Mary or to Joseph. The repetition of the word “virgin” in the last clause of the verse implies that the phrase in question refers to Joseph rather than Mary. In any event, Joseph’s Davidic descent is clearly stated in Luke 2:4. But Mary was also “of the house of David” (see on Matt. 1:16; Luke 1:32; DA 44). It was through Mary that Jesus was literally “of the seed of David according to the flesh” (Rom. 1:3). That Mary was a descendant of David seems to be taken for granted in Luke 1:32, 69. These and other statements of Scripture would lose much of their force and meaning unless Mary could claim David as an ancestor. The reference in v. 36 to Elisabeth as Mary’s “cousin” cannot be construed as requiring Mary to be of the tribe of Levi, as some have thought (see on v. 36). Mary and Joseph were both of royal descent, as Zacharias and Elizabeth were of priestly lineage (v. 5).

Mary. See on Matt. 1:16. Luke gives the birth narrative of Jesus from the viewpoint of Mary, a fact some commentators take as implying that Luke had personally heard the story from her lips or from someone else who had talked with her (see on vs. 1–3). The great detail and the exquisite beauty of Luke’s narration certainly suggest intimate acquaintance with the facts, either by direct contact with persons who witnessed them (v. 2) or by inspiration. Luke’s mention of “eyewitnesses” implies that both factors were involved—an eyewitness account, safeguarded, of course, by inspiration.

28. Hail. Gr. chaire, an ancient common form of salutation (see Matt. 28:9) that expressed esteem and good will. The word thus translated is the imperative form of the verb chairoµ, “to rejoice,” or “to be glad.” This form of greeting may be compared with the salutation, “Peace be unto you” (Luke 24:36; etc.), a common form of greeting in the Orient today as well as in ancient times.

Highly favoured. Literally, “endowed with grace.” This expression designates Mary as the recipient of divine favor, or grace, not the dispenser of it. The Latin phrase, plena gratia, of the Vulgate, is rendered “full of grace” by Wyclif, Tyndale, and by various Catholic translations. But this phrase does violence to the statement of the angel if taken to imply that Mary was henceforth to be a dispenser of divine grace rather than a recipient of it. Gabriel did not endow her with personal merit to bestow upon others. That the angel bestowed upon Mary nothing more than is available to all Christian believers is clear from the use of the same Greek word in Eph. 1:6, where Paul states that “he [the Father] hath made us accepted” (literally, “he endowed us with grace”) in Christ—not in Mary, significantly. Mary was “highly favoured” only, as the angel explains, because the Lord was with her She had “found favour with God” (Luke 1:30) and was, literally, “endowed with grace.”

Mary is nowhere called “blessed” except by Elisabeth (v. 42) and by an unnamed woman (ch. 11:27), and to the statement of the latter Jesus personally took exception (v. 28). He ever treated His mother with courtesy and consideration (see on John 2:4), but never exalted her above others who heard and believed in Him (Matt. 12:48, 49). At the cross He did not refer to her as the “Mother of God,” or even as “mother”—He simply addressed her as “woman,” a title of respect (see on John 19:26). Neither Paul nor any other NT writer attributes to her any extraordinary merit, or influence with God.

The Catholic exaltation of Mary has no basis in Scripture, but is founded entirely upon the fantastic legends of the apocryphal gospels, which even Catholics themselves deny a place in the sacred canon. In the early Christian centuries these legends were combined with pagan myths concerning the Oriental “queen of heaven” (see Jer. 7:18; 44:17, 18; etc.), consort of the gods, and the Magna Mater, or Great Mother, of Asia Minor. The Catholic concept of Mary as the “Mother of God” is basically little more than this pagan female deity clad in Christian terminology, made dogma at the Council of Ephesus in a.d. 431. Ephesus, incidentally, was the home of Diana, Gr. Artemis; not, however, the Greek virgin goddess Artemis, but an Asiatic mother goddess sometimes identified with the “Great Mother.” According to tradition, Mary spent her last years at Ephesus, in the home of the apostle John.

The words of the angel’s salutation have been perverted by the Catholic Church into a prayer addressed to Mary as an intercessor. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, it is composed of the angel’s words (1), with the addition (before 1184) of the opening words of Elisabeth’s inspired greeting to Mary found in v. 42 (2), and the further addition (by 1493) of a plea for prayer (3), and a still later addition (4), made by 1495, and included in the Catechism of the Council of Trent, with the entire form officially recognized in the Roman Breviary of 1568. Thus artificially constructed, the Ave Maria reads as follows:

[1] “Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee;

[2] blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.

[3] Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners,

[4] now and at the hour of our death. Amen.”

Is with thee. The word “is” has been supplied by the translators, inasmuch as in the Greek it is often understood rather than expressed. Perhaps “be with thee” may be preferable to “is with thee.” This was a common form of greeting in OT times (see Judges 6:12; Ruth 2:4).

Blessed art thou among women. Important textual evidence may be cited (cf. p. 146) for the omission of this clause. It is attested, however, in v. 42 (see on v. 42).

29. Troubled. Gr. diatarassoµ, “to agitate greatly,” or “to trouble greatly.” Mary was perplexed at the sudden, unexpected appearance of the angel, but even more so at the high honor expressed in the angel’s extraordinary salutation to her. She was “troubled,” but self-composed.

Cast in her mind. Literally, “was reasoning,” or “was deliberating.” Though “troubled,” Mary endeavored to think things through and to discover the reason for this unusual experience. Under such circumstances many people would probably lose, for the moment, the capacity for deliberative thought. Mary seems to have been not only a virtuous and devout maiden but one of remarkable intelligence as well. Not only had she an unusual acquaintance with the Scriptures, but she also reflected upon the meaning of the various experiences that life brought her (see ch. 2:19, 51). Unlike Zacharias, who became afraid (ch. 1:12), Mary seems to have kept her presence of mind.

30. Fear not. See v. 29; see on v. 13. Addressing her as “Mary,” the angel revealed the fact that he knew her personally. This, and the statement following, were designed to inspire confidence.

Favour. Gr. charis, “grace,” generally considered to be from the same root as chairoµ, “rejoice” (see on v. 28), a favorite word of early Christians. God was delighted to find in Mary one who approached so closely to the divine ideal.

31. Conceive. The wording of v. 31 resembles somewhat that of Gen. 16:11, where a similar promise was made to Hagar. The angel announced the fulfillment of the promise made to Eve (see on Gen. 3:15).

How the King of the universe could and would thus condescend to be “made flesh” (John 1:14), to be “made of a woman” (Gal. 4:4), “in the likeness of men” (Phil. 2:7), is an unfathomable and incomprehensible mystery that Inspiration has not seen fit to reveal. With what awe and reverence heaven must have watched the Son of God “step down from the throne of the universe” (DA 23), depart from the courts of glory, and condescend to take upon Himself humanity, to be made “in all things … like unto his brethren” (Heb. 2:17), to humble Himself and be “found in fashion as a man” (see Additional Note on .John 1; see on Phil. 2:7, 8).

With awe and reverence we too ought to contemplate the matchless love of God in giving His only Son to take our nature (John 3:16). By His humiliation Christ bound “Himself to humanity by a tie that is never to be broken” (DA 25). In this marvelous gift the character of God stands forth in utter contrast with the character of the evil one, who, though a created being, sought to exalt himself and “be like the most High” (Isa. 14:14).

Call his name. See on Matt. 1:21.

32. He shall be great. There is a striking similarity between verses 32, 33 and Isa. 9:6, 7; one is a clear reflection of the other. Six months earlier Gabriel had told Zacharias that John would be “great” (Luke 1:15).

Called. Here used with the meaning “recognized,” “acknowledged,” or “known,” as in Matt. 21:13. The divine Sonship of Christ was announced by God to the angels of heaven (Heb. 1:5, 6), and confessed by His disciples (Matt. 16:16; John 16:30) and NT writers (Rom. 1:4; Heb. 4:14; 1 John 5:5; etc.).

Son of the Highest. Compare v. 35. At the baptism the Father declared Jesus to be His Son (ch. 3:22). The same statement was again made, a few months before the crucifixion (Matt. 17:5). All today who do “that which is wellpleasing in his sight” (Heb. 13:21) have the privilege of being called “children of the Highest” (Luke 6:35). See on John 1:1–3; see Additional Note on John 1.

The throne. According to the prophet Isaiah, “The Prince of Peace” was to sit upon the “throne of David” to administer “his kingdom” (Isa. 9:6, 7). That this “throne” represents the eternal kingdom of Christ, and not a restoration of a literal kingdom of David in this present world, is evident throughout the NT (see John 18:36; etc.; see on Luke 4:19).

His father David. See on Matt. 1:1, 16, 20; Luke 1:27. The literal descent of Jesus from David is clearly affirmed in both the OT and the NT (Ps. 132:11; Acts 2:30; Rom. 1:3). Even the sworn enemies of Christ did not deny that the Messiah would be “David’s son” (Luke 20:41–44). The glorious reign of David became for the holy prophets a unique symbol of the coming Messianic kingdom (Isa. 9:6, 7; cf. 2 Sam. 7:13; Ps. 2:6, 7; 132:11; see Vol. IV, p. 31).

The expression “his father David” is significant. Jesus could have been the Son of David as the Son of Joseph, or of Mary, or of both. Mary obviously understood the angel to mean that the conception of Jesus would be by the Holy Spirit only (vs. 34, 35). Hence the angel’s statement pointing to David as the “father” of Jesus could be understood to mean that Mary was herself a descendant of David (see on Matt. 1:16; cf. DA 44).

33. He shall reign. It is noteworthy that in the angelic messages and prophetic utterances given with reference to the birth of Christ, little intimation was given of Christ’s role as the suffering One. Here, for instance, Gabriel looks forward to the glorious climax of the plan of salvation, completely passing over any reference to the crucifixion. Perhaps the rejoicing in heaven at the birth of the Saviour, and of those few on earth who recognized and received Him, made it seem inappropriate to mention the cross that must precede the crown. Jesus Himself, “the author and finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame,” will sit “down at the right hand of the throne of God” (Heb. 12:2). How often the prophets of the OT lifted inspired eyes from the distress brought about by sin to the ultimate glory of the universe purified from all traces of sin!

House of Jacob. That is, Jacob’s descendants. In a spiritual sense these include all who believe in Christ, whether they be Jew or Gentile (Rom. 2:25–29; Gal. 3:26–29; 1 Peter 2:9, 10; etc.).

For ever. Literally, “into the ages” (see on Matt. 13:39). Holy men of old looked forward to the time when the transitory things of earth would give place to the enduring realities of eternity. The kingdoms of earth which, from a human point of view, often appear to rise majestically, one after another, fade away like houses of ice under a summer sun. Men strive for permanency and security; but these will never be achieved until Christ sets up His kingdom—one that will “never be destroyed” (Dan. 2:44), one that will “not pass away” (Dan. 7:14), one that will be “an everlasting kingdom” (see on Ps. 145:13) and endure “even for ever” (Micah 4:7). The promise of the Father that the kingdom of His Son should be “for ever and ever” (Heb. 1:8) was not unknown to the Jews of Christ’s day (Ps. 45:6, 7; cf. John 12:34).

34. How shall this be? The context implies that Mary believed the angel’s announcement unhesitatingly. In simple faith Mary asked how the coming miracle would take place.

Know. That is, carnal knowledge. Mary could speak as a pure maiden, affirming her virginity (see on Matt. 1:23). Her manner of expressing this fact is the common Hebrew idiom for premarital chastity (see Gen. 19:8; Judges 11:39; etc.). As He so often does with us today, God first let Mary become fully conscious of the fact that the anticipated event was beyond human power, that it was impossible from man’s point of view, before presenting to her the means by which it would be brought about. It is thus that God leads us to appreciate His goodness and His power and teaches us to have confidence in Him and in His promises.

The attempt to read a vow of perpetual virginity into these words of mary is altogether unwarranted (see on Matt. 1:25). To remain thus a virgin in perpetuity was generally considered a reproach by the Jews, not a virtue. Inability to bear children was ever the occasion of chagrin and remorse on the part of a wife (see Gen. 30:1; 1 Sam. 1:4–7; etc.). The idea that she remained ever a virgin arose in later centuries, probably from a perverted sense of what constitutes virtue. It implies that the home, a divinely ordained institution, does not represent the highest ideal of social life. See on Matt. 19:3–12.

35. The Holy Ghost. See on Matt. 1:18, 20. Celsus was one of the first to charge Mary with being a victim of seduction.

Come upon thee. An expression often used to describe the reception of the power of the Holy Spirit (Judges 6:34; 1 Sam. 10:6; 16:13).

Power. Gr. dunamis, “power,” “strength,” or “ability,” as contrasted with exousia, “power,” in the sense of “authority.” Dunamis is commonly used in the Gospels to refer to the miracles of Christ (Matt. 11:20–23; Mark 9:39; etc.). Here, the “power of the Highest” is parallel to “the Holy Ghost,” not meaning, however, that the Holy Ghost is merely the expression of divine power, but that He is the agency through which divine power is exercised. The words of the angel were spoken in Hebrew poetic style, in which there is a rhythm of thought rather than of rhyme and meter (see Luke 1:32, 33, 35 in RSV; Vol. III, p. 23).

Son of God. Here the angel Gabriel affirms the true deity of Jesus Christ, yet links that deity inseparably to His true humanity. The Son of Mary would be the Son of God because conception was to take place by means of the overshadowing “power of the Highest.”

From this and other Scriptures some have concluded that the title Son of God was first applied to Christ at the incarnation. Others have reached the conclusion that the title is descriptive of the preincarnate relationship of Christ to the Father. Still others consider the term Son of God as properly used of the preincarnate Christ in a proleptic sense, or in connection with His role in the plan of salvation. The writers and editors of this commentary, however, do not find that the Scriptures set forth any of these views in clear and unmistakable language. Consequently, to speak dogmatically on the matter would be to affirm more than Inspiration has revealed. Here silence is golden.

The numerous names and titles given Christ in Scripture are designed to aid our minds in understanding His relation to us in the varied aspects of His work for our salvation. There are some who unhesitatingly apply names and titles descriptive of Christ’s work as the Saviour of this world, to His absolute and eternal relationships to the sinless beings of the universe. To do so may lead us into the fallacy of accepting human language as a wholly adequate expression of a divine mystery.

The Scriptures point to the resurrection as an event confirming to Jesus the title “Son of God.” The psalmist wrote, “Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee” (Ps. 2:7). Paul quotes this “promise which was made unto the fathers” and adds immediately that “God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again” (Acts 13:32, 33; cf. Matt. 28:18; Rom. 1:4; Phil. 2:8–10; Heb. 1:5–8).

Jesus seldom referred to Himself by the title “Son of God” (John 9:35–37; 10:36), though He often implied the Father and Son relationship (Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:21; John 5:18–23; 10:30; 14:28; etc.). Before stepping “down from the throne of the universe” (see DA 23; PP 64) Christ was “equal with God” (Phil. 2:6), “one with the Father” (DA 19; see also John 10:30). At the incarnation He voluntarily humbled Himself and accepted a position subordinate to the Father (Phil. 2:7; Heb. 2:9). Various statements by Christ while here on earth testify to His voluntary and temporary surrender of the prerogatives, though not the nature, of Deity (Phil. 2:6–8), as when He said, “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28), or, “The Son can do nothing of himself” (John 5:19). See on Luke 2:49.

The Father attested Christ’s Sonship at His birth (Luke 1:35; Heb. 1:5, 6), at His baptism (Luke 3:22), at His transfiguration (Luke 9:35), and again at His resurrection (Ps. 2:7; Acts 13:32, 33; Rom. 1:4). John the Baptist also bore witness to Him as the “Son of God” (John 1:34), and the Twelve came to recognize Him as such (Matt. 14:33; 16:16). Even the evil spirits admitted that He was the Son of God (Mark 3:11; 5:7). After healing the man born blind, Christ testified before the leaders that He was the “Son of God” (John 10:35–37). It was His admission to being indeed the “Son of God” that finally brought about His condemnation and death (Luke 22:70, 71).

Christ referred to God as “my Father” (Matt. 16:17). He desires that we learn to know God as “our Father” (Matt. 6:9), and understand how God thinks of us (see on Matt. 6:9). “Christ teaches us to address Him [God] by a new name. … He gives us the privilege of calling the infinite God our Father,” as “a sign of our love and trust toward Him, and a pledge of His regard and relationship to us” (COL 141, 142; see also 388).

Of Christ God says, “I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son” (Heb. 1:5). And of one who by faith is adopted into the heavenly family as a son of “our Father,” God says again, “I will be his God, and he shall be my son” (Rev. 21:7). He who is truly “begotten of God” (1 John 5:18) “overcometh the world” (v. 4) as Christ did, and “sinneth not” (v. 18). The grand objective of the plan of salvation is to bring “many sons unto glory” (Heb. 2:10; cf. 1 John 3:1, 2). See Additional Note on John 1; see on Matt. 16:16–20; Mark 2:10; Luke 2:49.

36. Cousin. Gr. suggenis, “kinswoman” or “relative.” Suggenis does not necessarily mean “cousin,” for it implies no more than that Mary and Elisabeth were relatives, with no indication as to degree of relationship. The law made provision for the intermarriage of the tribes (see on Num. 36:6), and members of the tribes of Levi and Judah often intermarried. Elisabeth was of the tribe of Levi (see on Luke 1:5); Mary was of the tribe of Judah (see on vs. 27, 32). If Mary was of Judah, it seems that Mary’s father would also be of Judah, and therefore it is probable that Mary’s connection with Elisabeth was either through her mother or through Elisabeth’s mother. The word “cousin” was first used here in Wyclif’s translation, at a time when the word did not have the specific meaning it does now. There is no exact term in Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic to denote what we describe as a “cousin.” A misunderstanding of the problem has led some commentators to the false conjecture that Jesus was a descendant of both Levi and Judah. There is, however, no evidence whatsoever to indicate that Mary was other than a direct descendant of David (see on v. 27).

In her old age. See on v. 7.

37. Nothing shall be impossible. The thought of this verse is expressed repeatedly throughout the Scriptures. To Abraham came the question, “Is any thing too hard for the Lord?” (see on Gen. 18:14). Through Isaiah God proclaimed, “My word … shall not return unto me void” (Isa. 55:11).

38. Behold the handmaid. Not an imperative but an exclamation, representing resignation to the will of God. The matter was settled with Mary as soon as it became clear to her what God’s will was, and as soon as sufficient information had been imparted to her to enable her to carry out her part intelligently.

Be it unto me. Mary gives further expression to a meek and submissive spirit. The unaffected dignity, purity, simplicity, and delicacy with which Luke relates the story bears the mark of historical fact, not of imaginative writing. Efforts of some to shame Mary, and of others to deify her, are equally unjustified by the facts of Scripture.

39. Mary arose. [Mary’s Visit to Elisabeth, Luke 1:39–56. See The Nativity.] Mary’s visit to the home of Elisabeth no doubt occurred almost immediately after the announcement of the birth of Jesus, because the announcement came in the sixth month of Elisabeth’s pregnancy, and Mary remained with her about three months (see vs. 1:26, 56). Furthermore, Mary made the journey “with haste.”

In those days. That is, soon after the announcement of the birth of Jesus.

The hill country. See on v. 23. The mountainous uplands of Judah extended from Jerusalem in the north to Hebron in the south (see Joshua 21:11).

With haste. Here the expression seems to refer not so much to the rate of speed with which Mary made the journey as to the eagerness of her desire to be with Elisabeth. Mary had just become the recipient of one of the greatest secrets of time and eternity (see Rom. 16:25), and must have felt an intense desire to talk over the matter with someone who could understand. And who was in a better position to understand than Elisabeth, for she, according to the angel, was experiencing a miracle herself. Furthermore, Elisabeth’s years of devotion to the revealed will of God would enable her not only to listen with a sympathetic ear but to give valuable counsel and guidance to Mary, a young woman confronted now with a major problem and responsibility (see Luke 1:6). The angel had pointed to Elisabeth’s experience as a sign of the fulfillment of his words to Mary (see on v. 7). Mary did not go in order to discover whether what the angel had said was true, but rather because she believed his words.

Fellowship with someone who can understand our inmost feelings is one of the precious treasures life has to offer. The value of Christian fellowship and communion is beyond estimation. The fathers and mothers in Israel, in particular, have a solemn obligation to share their experience in the will and ways of God with those who are younger. Those young people who, like Mary, seek the counsel of their elders are more likely to choose a course of action that will bring gladness to their hearts and success to their endeavors. No Christian should ever be too busy to fellowship with those who may be in need of the help he is in a position to give.

A city of Juda. According to tradition this was the city of Hebron, chief of the nine cities in the tribes of Simeon and Judah assigned the priests (see Joshua 21:13–16; 1 Chron. 6:57–59). Here was the first land Abraham owned in Canaan (see Gen. 23:17–19), and it was here that David first was anointed king (see 2 Sam. 2:1, 4). Some have suggested that “Juda” is a variant spelling in the Hebrew for “Juttah” (Joshua 15:55; 21:16), another priestly city, about 5 mi. south of Hebron. However, this identification is not supported by any evidence, scriptural, historical, or archeological. Furthermore, Luke refers to Nazareth as “a city of Galilee” (ch. 1:26), and it would seem most likely that the parallel expression, “a city of Juda,” would make of “Juda” a province and not a city.

40. Saluted Elisabeth. Mary and Elisabeth immediately found themselves bound together by a common bond of sympathy. It was apparent to Mary that the sign given by the angel (v. 36) was indeed true, and this confirmed her faith. Also, Zacharias was still speechless, and his dumbness, now of six months’ duration, attested the appearance of the angel to him and served as a continuing rebuke to his earlier lack of faith.

41. Leaped. Gr. skirtaoµ, the same word found in the LXX in reference to Jacob and Esau before their birth (Gen. 25:22). Motion by an unborn child is common enough; but on this occasion Elisabeth, by inspiration, rightly interpreted the movement (Luke 1:41–43) as having more than ordinary meaning. The suggestion some have made, to the effect that the unborn child was inspired and recognized the presence of the Messiah, may be dismissed as highly imaginative.

Elisabeth was filled. Upon this occasion it was Elisabeth who was “filled with the Holy Ghost.” The angel had told Mary about Elisabeth (v. 36), but until this moment Elisabeth apparently knew nothing about the experience that had come to Mary.

42. Blessed. Gr. eulogeoµ, “to bless,” derived from eu, “well,” and logos, “a word.” “Blessed art thou” is an expression based on OT usage (see Judges 5:24; Ruth 3:10).

43. My Lord. In the heart of Elisabeth there was no envy of Mary, but only humility and joy. A similar confession of faith was later made by Peter (Matt. 16:16), a confession that came to him as a revelation. Paul declared that only “by the Holy Ghost” can any man “say that Jesus is the Lord” (1 Cor. 12:3).

44. For joy. A figure of speech, attributing to the unborn child this emotion.

45. Blessed is she. That is, Mary, who is here congratulated for her faith and for the high honor that has come to her. Perhaps Elisabeth was thinking of her husband’s unbelief, and of the evidence of divine disfavor that resulted. God is honored and pleased when His earthborn children accept His promises in humble and unquestioning faith. “Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed” (John 20:29).

For. Gr. hoti, which has the two basic meanings “that,” or “because.” Either meaning makes good sense here.

46. Mary said. The gift of inspiration now seems to fall upon Mary, who speaks forth in calm and majestic strains. Every idea, even her very words, reflect what inspired men had written in times past. The song of Mary (vs. 46–55) is considered one of the most sublime hymns in all sacred literature, a lyric of exquisite beauty worthy of Mary’s ancestor David. It is pervaded by a spirit of humble adoration and thankfulness, and glorifies the power, holiness, and mercy of God. It expresses her personal emotion and experience as she meditated upon the message of the angel Gabriel.

The song of Mary is frequently designated the Magnificat, “Magnifies,” from its first word in the Latin Vulgate. The first half of the song is concerned with Mary’s personal thankfulness (vs. 46–50); the second half turns on the note of national thanksgiving (vs. 51–55). This song reveals the character of God and emphasizes God’s grace (v. 48), omnipotence (vs. 49, 51), holiness (v. 49), mercy (v. 50), justice (vs. 52, 53), and faithfulness (vs. 54, 55). The poetic quality of the song becomes more impressive when it is printed in poetic form. It is divided into four strophes, or stanzas, as follows:

1. (vs. 46–48) Here Mary thinks primarily of herself, of her deep feelings of adoration and holy joy. She has been chosen and honored above women, and marvels that God has taken notice of her and passed others by. She is aware of nothing that would commend her to God.

2. (vs. 49, 50) In this strophe Mary glorifies the power, holiness, and mercy of God.

3. (vs. 51–53) Here stand forth in sharp contrast the character values esteemed by God and man. God’s conception of what constitutes true greatness is the antithesis of man’s estimation of greatness.

4. (vs. 54, 55) The song of Mary closes on a note of gratitude for the eternal faithfulness of God to His chosen people.

The song of Mary has often been compared with that of Hannah (see 1 Sam. 2:1–10), which was a prayer of thanksgiving for Samuel. Both breathe forth faith and joy adoration, but that of Mary reflects, perhaps, a more exalted concept of God. The words are gleaned from the best the prophets of the intervening millennium had written. Mary’s song is also reminiscent of the song of Moses (see Ex. 15) and that of Deborah and Barak (see Judges 5), and is similar in spirit to Ps. 113 and 126, among others. Slight textual evidence (cf. p. 146) attributes this song to Elisabeth rather than to Mary. Unquestionably, however, it was Mary’s.

The song of Mary reflects the thought of the following OT passages: Luke 1:46 (1 Sam. 2:1; Ps. 103:1), v. 47 (1 Sam. 2:1), v. 48 (Gen. 30:13; 1 Sam. 1:11), v. 49 (Deut. 10:21; Ps. 111:9), v. 50 (Ps. 103:17), v. 51 (Ps. 89:10), v. 52 (1 Sam. 2:7–10; Job 5:11; 12:19), v. 53 (1 Sam. 2:5; Ps. 107:9), v. 54 (Ps. 98:3; Isa. 41:8), v. 55 (2 Sam. 22:51; Micah 7:20).

My soul. In view of the fact that the joyous song of Mary is poetic in form, and because Hebrew poetry consists essentially in the repetition of the same thought in different words, there seems little validity to the claim that some have made that there is a difference between “soul” in v. 46 and “spirit” in v. 47. In both statements Mary is simply referring to her mental, emotional, and spiritual appreciation of the honor bestowed upon her as mother of the Messiah.

Magnify. Gr. megalunoµ, “to make [or declare] great,” “to exalt,” or “to extol.” Man can do nothing to enhance the greatness and majesty of God, but when a clearer understanding of the character, will, and ways of God comes to him he should be conscious, as was Mary, of the more glorious revelation. To “magnify” the Lord means to declare His greatness.

47. God my Saviour. Like every other human being, Mary was in need of salvation. It never occurred to her that she had been born without sin, as some have unscripturally contended.

Writers of the OT speak of the “Rock” of salvation (Deut. 32:15; Ps. 95:1), the “God” of salvation (Ps. 24:5), and often refer to God as “Saviour” (Isa. 63:8; etc.).

48. He hath regarded. To the humble heart it is amazing that God, who guides the celestial orbs through infinite space, condescends to “dwell” with those who are “contrite and humble” in spirit (see Isa. 57:15). He has not only taken notice of us in our “low estate” of sin, but has devoted the limitless resources of heaven to our salvation.

Low estate. Gr. tapeinoµsis, “lowness,” “low estate,” or “humiliation.” The word refers to Mary’s lowly station in life, not to her spirit of humility. But even in the “low estate” Mary had “found favour with God,” and this was to her of more value than all the treasures and all the honor and respect earth had to offer.

Call me blessed. That is, think me happy and honored. Leah gave utterance to a similar thought upon the birth of Asher (see Gen. 30:13).

49. Holy is his name. Expressing a thought independent of those that precede and that follow. Mary’s statement reflects the awe and reverence felt by the Jews for the sacred name of God, Yahweh (see on Ex. 3:14, 15; cf. Vol. I, pp. 171-173). Later, the Christians esteemed the name of Jesus with similar reverence, though without fear of using it, albeit respectfully (see Acts 3:6; 4:10; etc.).

50. His mercy. That is, His abounding love and favor, bestowed even when it is least deserved. It has been remarked that grace takes away the fault, and mercy removes the misery, of sin.

Fear him. A typically Hebrew expression for piety, common throughout the OT. Fear is also used in the NT in the sense of godly reverence (Acts 10:2, 22, 35; Col. 3:22; Rev. 14:7; 15:4), though the same word is used also of fright and panic (Matt. 21:46; Mark 11:32; Luke 12:4).

51. Shewed strength. Another typically Hebrew expression. By the figure of metonymy the “arm” is the symbol of power (see Ex. 6:6; Ps. 10:15; 136:12). The expression, “shewed strength,” or “made strong,” is used by Greek classical authors, as here, to denote victory over one’s enemies.

The proud. Or, “the haughty.” God confutes them, as if they had been scattered and their plans disrupted by a whirlwind. Pride is the essence of sin. It was pride in the heart of Lucifer that occasioned rebellion in heaven (see Isa. 14:12–14). A false sense of pride leaves its possessor, for the time being, beyond the reach of help that God might bring to him. Nothing is more offensive to God than pride, which consists essentially in self-exaltation and a corresponding depreciation of others. Little wonder that the Scriptures affirm, “Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall” (Prov. 16:18). Jesus said, “Whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted” (Luke 14:11). Humility is the very opposite of pride, and is a trait most precious in the sight of God (see on v. 48).

Imagination. Gr. dianoia, “mind,” or “understanding”; that is, intellectual insight or moral understanding. Dianoiarefers to the faculty of thought, especially to moral understanding.

52. Mighty. Gr. dunastai, “princes,” or “potentates,” the source of our word “dynasty.” Dunastai is from dunamai, “to be able,” “to be powerful,” whence our word “dynamite.” The reference here is particularly to oppressors. Perhaps Mary had in mind the cruel tyrant Herod, who murdered not only thousands of the Jews but even his closest relatives (see pp. 39-42). Contemporary Jewish literature also reveals the fact that the common people often suffered intensely from economic oppression.

Their seats. Literally, “their thrones.”

Them of low degree. Gr. tapeinoi, “lowly [ones],” or “humble [ones]”; the Greek adjective form of the noun translated “low estate” (see on v. 48). In due time God metes out justice to those who have been oppressed.

53. Good things. Probably, both literal and spiritual food. Compare Christ’s promise to those who “hunger and thirst after righteousness” (see on Matt. 5:6).

The rich. As a rule those who had amassed great wealth had done so by oppressing their neighbors, and were consequently classed by the poor as evil men. While in one sense wealth had come to be looked upon as a sign of divine favor—no doubt particularly by those who possessed it—it was identified with wickedness by those who had been oppressed. In contrast, the poor man, who was usually not in a position to oppress anyone, thought himself righteous. This concept of riches and poverty is reflected in Christ’s parable of the rich man and Lazarus (ch. 16:19–31).

54. Servant. Gr. pais, “child,” or “servant.” As God’s chosen people, Israel was often referred to in OT times as His “servant” (see on Isa. 41:8; see Vol. IV, pp. 26-30).

55. As he spake. A reference to the oft-repeated promises of God (see Gen. 22:17, 18; Deut. 7:12–14; Micah 7:20; etc.). Here, particular reference is made to the help and mercy of God exercised in behalf of His chosen people from generation to generation (Luke 1:54).

His seed. That is, the descendants of Abraham.

56. Mary abode. It is possible that Mary remained with Elisabeth till after the birth of John, though Luke’s narrative seems to imply that she left prior to that time. It would seem out of character for Mary to leave at the very time Elisabeth would be most in need of her sympathetic and tender ministry. It is probable that Luke here mentions Mary’s departure at this point in order to complete that portion of the narrative dealing with the visit of Mary to Elisabeth. Another instance of this literary device, common throughout both OT and NT, occurs in ch. 3:20, 21, where the imprisonment of John is introduced into the record before the baptism of Jesus, though it actually occurred afterward. The fact that Mary is not mentioned by name in ch. 1:57, 58 in no way implies that she did not participate in the incident here related.

Returned. It is probable that the events of Matt. 1:18–25—the appearance of the angel to Joseph and Joseph’s marriage—occurred soon after Mary’s return from the home of Elisabeth to Nazareth.

57. Full time. [Birth of John the Baptist, Luke 1:57–80. See The Nativity; a Suggestive Chronology of Christ’s Birth .] We know nothing of the time of year when John was born. The ancient Alexandrian church is said to have celebrated this event on the 23d of April. In view of the fact that this date is based on a very early tradition, there may be reason to think that it represents at least the approximate time of year when the event occurred. The church in Alexandria later changed the celebration to June 24—a date arbitrarily set so as to be six months from December 25—in order to be in harmony with the practice of the Greek and Latin churches.

With April 23 as the possible date for the birth of John the Baptist, the birth of Jesus would have been about October 19 (see pp. 240-242; see on Matt. 2:1). It should be noted, however, that this computation is based only on an ancient tradition whose value is unknown.

58. Her cousins. That is, her kinsfolk (see on v. 36).

Rejoiced with her. Elisabeth’s neighbors were happy with her. Some translations read “congratulated her,” which her friends and kinsfolk no doubt did; but Luke’s statement here is not so much concerned with congratulations as with a genuine feeling of understanding on the part of the friends of Elisabeth (cf. Luke 15:6, 9; 1 Cor. 12:26).

A genuine sympathetic interest in the joys and sorrows of others is a fundamental Christian virtue. It is, in fact, the basis on which all right relationships with our fellow men rest. Such concern for the well-being of others is the practical result of the operation of the law of God in the heart—of that kind of love that fulfills the law (Matt. 22:39, 40; Rom. 13:10). A man cannot be a follower of the Master unless he is ready and willing to “rejoice with them that do rejoice, and weep with them that weep” (Rom. 12:15). See on Matt. 5:43–48.

59. The eighth day. Among the Hebrews it was the custom to administer the rite of circumcision on the eighth day; that is, when the child was seven days old, as we reckon time (Gen. 17:10–14; 21:4; see on ch. 17:10, 11). Circumcision represented the admission of the child to the covenant relationship. Its importance is attested by the positive requirement that it be done (Lev. 12:3). It even took place on the Sabbath (John 7:22, 23; cf. Phil. 3:5). Circumcision marked male Jews as members of the chosen people under the theocracy. God took Abraham and his descendants as a race, and descent from Abraham was considered as automatically making of that person a subject of the theocracy. He had no choice in the matter; he was an Israelite and the Israelites were God’s chosen nation. Abrahamic descent, however, did not ensure salvation, as is evident by repeated declarations of Holy Writ (see Luke 3:8; John 8:33–39; Rom. 2:25–29; 9:4–8; Gal. 3:7, 9, 16, 29); yet no Jew could enter the covenant relationship without compliance with this rite, which God had ordained for Israel.

As circumcision was for literal Israel the sign of their covenant relationship to God, so baptism is for Christians (see Col. 2:10–12; see on Gen. 17:10), the spiritual descendants of Abraham (Gal. 3:7, 9, 27–29). God’s chosen people do not become heirs of the promise on the basis of physical descent, but on the basis of personal faith in the power of Christ to save from the power and penalty of sin (see Acts 2:38; 3:19; 8:36, 37).

They called. The Greek may be interpreted as meaning they were going to name him, or they began to name him, after his father. The friends and relatives gathered to rejoice with Zacharias and Elisabeth and to share with them the joy of the occasion. They apparently took the initiative in the events of the day. Some of them, doubtless, were members of the priesthood, and one of these probably administered the rite of circumcision. We can imagine their discussing the matter of a name among themselves and agreeing upon Zacharias. There is OT precedent for friends and relatives participating in the naming of a child (see Ruth 4:17). In proposing to name the child after its father, those gathered in the home of Zacharias and Elisabeth were following a customary procedure, and no doubt felt that no objection would be raised to their thus honoring Zacharias and showing respect for him. The probability that Zacharias was at the time deaf as well as dumb (see on Luke 1:62) seems to have eliminated him from the discussion and decision.

60. His mother answered. Apparently Zacharias had informed Elisabeth of the angel’s instructions about the naming of their child (see v. 13). There is no evidence that Elisabeth spoke here by inspiration.

61. Kindred. Gr. suggeneia (see on v. 36). There was no family precedent for the name John. It was usually the first-born son who perpetuated the name of the father, or, more often, that of the grandfather. This custom not only showed respect for previous generations but also served to identify the person bearing the name with the particular family to which he belonged.

62. Made signs. The tense of the verb in Greek indicates repeated efforts at conversing with Zacharias.

63. A writing table. Gr. pinakidion, “a small tablet”; hence “a writing tablet.” The word “table” as here used is an Old English word for “tablet.” If such a writing tablet was not a common piece of equipment in Judean homes, it is probable that Zacharias’ condition had made its use necessary in his home during the period of his affliction (see on v. 62).

Wrote, saying. A typically Hebraistic idiom commonly used to introduce a direct quotation (see 2 Kings 10:6).

John. See on vs. 13, 60. Zacharias wrote, literally, “John, is his name.” The matter was not open to further discussion.

They marvelled. Probably not so much because of the choice of a name as that Zacharias concurred with Elisabeth in bestowing this particular name on their son (see on vs. 22, 62). Some commentators, supported by at least one ancient manuscript (Bezae), connect this statement with what follows, namely, the loosing of Zacharias’ tongue (v. 64), rather than with what precedes the statement. However this may be, it is certain that Zacharias began to speak “immediately” after having written the name “John” (v. 64). That very instant his speech was restored, and no doubt his hearing also (see on v. 62). Codex Bezae and the Old Latin manuscripts have the clauses of vs. 63, 64 in a different order: “Immediately his tongue was loosed, and all marvelled, and his mouth was opened.”

64. Loosed. Zacharias’ physical handicap was now removed. This miracle, occurring at the naming of the child, served to confirm the birth of John as a fulfillment of the vision in the Temple nearly a year earlier.

Praised God. It was appropriate that the first words of Zacharias should be words of praise to God. Whereas his last spoken words had expressed doubt (v. 18), his first words, now, were an expression of faith. This would indicate that his months of silence had resulted in great spiritual benefit. With every other voice hushed, and waiting in quietness and humility before God, Zacharias found that “the silence of the soul” had made “more distinct the voice of God” (see DA 363).

65. Fear. Not terror, but profound religious awe and reverence (see on v. 30).

Noised abroad. This implies continuing conversation on the subject among the people.

Hill country. That is, the region round about the home of Zacharias and Elisabeth (see on vs. 23, 39).

66. What manner of child. Or, “What then will this child be?” (RSV).

Hand of the Lord. Here used figuratively of divine providence. In the NT this expression is peculiar to Luke (see Acts 11:21; 13:11), though it occurs commonly in the OT (Judges 2:15; 1 Kings 18:46, etc.). However, other NT writers use the expression “hand of God” (cf. 1 Peter 5:6; Rom. 10:21).

67. Filled with the Holy Ghost. The inspired “song of Zacharias” (vs. 68–79), as it is often called, is sometimes called the Benedictus, “Blessed,” from its first word in the Latin Vulgate of v. 68. The reference in v. 64 to Zacharias’ speaking and praising God probably anticipates these words. The song of Zacharias is priestly in tenor and appropriate to a son of Aaron, as the song of Mary is regal and appropriate to a daughter of David. The phrases suggest that Zacharias had spent the time preceding John’s birth in diligent study of what the prophets had written of the Messiah and the work of His forerunner.

The entire hymn is definitely Hebrew and Messianic in flavor. It is a song of praise to God, in anticipation of the imminent fulfillment of promises relating to the Messiah and to His kingdom. It is divided into two major sections, the first consisting of three strophes, or stanzas (vs. 68, 69; 70–72; 73–75), primarily concerned with the mission of the Messiah, and the second, of two strophes (vs. 76, 77; 78, 79) concerned with the work of the Messiah’s forerunner. The content and phraseology of the hymn denote an intimate acquaintance with the OT Scriptures, particularly the prophets: v. 68 (Ps. 41:13; 72:18; 106:48), v. 69 (1 Sam. 2:10; Ps. 132:17), v. 71 (Ps. 23:5), v. 72 (Ps. 105:8; 106:45), v. 73 (Ex. 2:24; Ps. 105:9; Jer. 11:5; Micah 7:20), v. 76 (Mal. 3:1; cf. Isa. 40:3), v. 79 (Isa. 42:7; Ps. 107:10; cf. Isa. 9:1, 2). In addition to these more or less direct references there are many allusions to the OT.

68. Lord God of Israel. The covenant title of God, the use of which implies a recognition of, and earnest desire for, the fulfillment of all the promises included in the covenant.

Hath visited. Gr. episkeptomai, “to inspect,” “to examine,” in the sense of looking into a matter with a view to giving assistance. In Matt. 25:36 the same word is used of visiting a person in prison, not so much in the sense of making a social call on him as of endeavoring to succor him. Here, Zacharias envisions the fulfillment of the Messianic promises made to “his people” from generation to generation. This was particularly significant in view of the fact that now, for about four centuries, the voices of the canonical prophets had ceased. The majority of the people were doubtless saying in their hearts: “The days are prolonged, and every vision faileth” (Eze. 12:22). God now “visits” His people, not in judgment, but in mercy, to deliver them and to redeem them.

Redeemed his people. These words constitute an implied announcement that the Redeemer Himself would soon appear, “to give his life a ransom for many” (Matt. 20:28). As is so often the case throughout the prophets of the OT, Zacharias here speaks of a future event as if it were already accomplished (see Vol. I, pp. 27, 28). God’s promises are so sure that even then Zacharias could rightfully speak of the plan of redemption as an accomplished fact.

Israel was not only a company of individuals in need of salvation from sin (Luke 1:68, 77), but also a nation, a “chosen people” in need of deliverance from their enemies (v. 71). In past generations God had often delivered the Israelites from their national enemies, such as Egypt, Midian, Philistia, Assyria, and Babylon. Indeed, the establishment of the Messianic kingdom as set forth by the prophet Daniel (Dan. 2:44; 7:14, 18; 12:1) envisioned deliverance, complete and permanent, from all enemies. But in the plan of God deliverance from sin must precede deliverance from the nations round about. However, national pride led the Jews to of think of salvation almost exclusively in terms of deliverance from external enemies and to forget the necessity of deliverance from unseen enemies within. The popular concept of the Messiah as a political savior was not altogether a matter of error; it was in part a case of misplaced emphasis (see DA 30, 235), for the OT is filled with predictions of Messianic glories. The Jews forgot that without deliverance from personal sin there could never be deliverance from national enemies. They focused on the rewards of rightdoing to the extent that they neglected to do right. See Vol. IV, pp. 26-33.

69. An horn. A common OT metaphor for strength and power (see 1 Sam. 2:10; see on 2 Sam. 22:3), based on the fact that the fighting strength of horned animals, such as bulls and rams, is in their horns. Also this expression may possibly be a reference to the helmets of warriors, which were often adorned with horns. Thus a “horn” came to represent such things as personal success (Ps. 92:9, 10), the power of nations (see on Dan. 8:21), and even divine strength—“the horn of my salvation” (Ps. 18:2). Here (Luke 1:69), the “horn” refers to the Messiah Himself.

The house. That is, the dynastic family. As promised, the Messiah was to be a descendant of David (see on Matt. 1:1).

Servant. Gr. pais, “child,” or “servant” (see on v. 54).

70. His holy prophets. The prophets of old all bore witness to Christ (see Luke 24:25, 27, 44; John 5:39; Acts 3:21), and “enquired and searched diligently” to understand what “the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify” (1 Peter 1:10, 11).

Since the world began. That is, “from of old,” or, “anciently.” This expression is characteristic of Luke (see Acts 3:21; 15:18). The first prophecy of a Redeemer was made in the Garden of Eden at the time man sinned (see Gen. 3:15). Enoch pointed men of his generation forward to the Messiah (Jude 14, 15), and to each succeeding generation God sent inspired witnesses to testify of the certainty of salvation. One and all, they bore witness to Christ (see Acts 3:21; 1 Peter 1:10–12).

71. Saved from our enemies. As a result of transgression Israel had served one foreign people after another—Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, and now Rome. The galling yoke of bondage to Rome weighed heavily upon them. To be sure, deliverance from enemy nations was necessary before the establishment of the eternal Messianic kingdom (see on v. 74). In fact, the work of the Messiah would culminate in the establishment of His kingdom (see Dan. 2:44; 12:1; Matt. 25:31–34; Vol. IV, pp. 29, 30). In the meantime the “kingdom of God” was to be established within their hearts (see Luke 17:20, 21). First, there must be deliverance from the power of sin (see Matt. 1:21), and this in turn would make possible their deliverance from the wages of sin, death (see John 3:16; Rom. 6:23). Only then would human beings be able to enjoy the eternal kingdom Christ came to establish. See on Matt. 4:17; 5:2; see Vol. IV, pp. 29, 30.

72. Mercy. God’s mercy, in a certain sense, “kept secret since the world began,” was now to be “made manifest” (Rom. 16:25, 26). For countless generations those who sat “in darkness and in the shadow of death,” had waited for the incarnate Mercy of God to guide their “feet into the way of peace” (Luke 1:79).

His holy covenant. The “everlasting covenant,” as revealed to Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, to Noah after the Flood, to Abraham and his seed, and to the faithful of all ages (see Gen. 9:16; 17:19; Lev. 24:8; Heb. 13:20). Here primary reference is made to the covenant as delivered to Abraham and his descendants (Gen. 15:18; 17:4–7).

73. The oath. The “oath” here referred to was that given by God in confirmation of His covenant with Abraham (see Gen. 22:16–18; Heb. 6:13–18). It is one of the two “immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie” (Heb. 6:18), the other being the promise which the “oath” confirms. In giving Abraham “an oath for confirmation” God employed a human custom in order to assure Abraham of the certainty of His promise. The everlasting covenant, the plan of salvation, gives us today “a strong consolation” and is “as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast” (Heb. 6:18, 19).

74. Serve him without fear. The context refers this “fear” primarily to fear of “our enemies,” that is, the tyranny of heathen conquerors whose cruel and arbitrary exercise of power was so often a hindrance to the worship and service of God. At the birth of John and of Jesus, Caesar and Herod were the chief “enemies” of the Jewish people (see on Luke 1:5; Matt. 2:1). It is probable also that Zacharias refers, as well, to the haunting “fear” that fills the hearts and pervades the lives of those who do not know “the peace of God, which passeth all understanding” (Phil. 4:7). This is fear of the mysterious, unknown forces that control the destinies of men’s lives, and fear of the great judgment day.

75. In holiness and righteousness. See Eph. 4:24. These two terms may be considered inclusive of “the whole duty of man” (see Eccl. 12:13), of all that God requires of him (see Micah 6:8).

All the days. Those who serve God “in holiness and righteousness” may be confident of the future. Irrespective of the uncertainties and vicissitudes of life, they may enjoy peace and security of mind and heart. In the midst of strife and turmoil they live, as it were, in the very presence of God and breathe the pure, invigorating atmosphere of heaven.

76. Prophet of the Highest. Here begins the major section of the hymn of Zacharias. From the graciousness of the Lord, in the first section, Zacharias’ thoughts turn particularly to his newborn son, John, who was to be the forerunner of the Messiah, the promised messenger of the Lord. Jesus is appropriately called the “Son of the Highest” (v. 32), and John, the “prophet of the Highest.” Christ testified that John was “more than a prophet” (Matt. 11:9); indeed, he was, in a sense, the greatest of all prophets (see on Luke 1:15, 17).

Before the face of the Lord. The specific predictions of Isaiah (ch. 40:3) and of Malachi (ch. 3:1) were later claimed by John as applying to himself (see John 1:23; cf. Matt. 11:10; Luke 3:4). “The Lord” is evidently the Messiah, and Christ is therefore identified, in this instance at least, with Jehovah (Lord; see Vol. I, p. 172) of the OT (Isa. 40:3).

Prepare his ways. This was the task of John the Baptist. He was to prepare the hearts and minds of the people for the Messiah, by fostering interest in the prophecies concerning Him, by affirming that the time had come for the fulfillment of these prophecies, and by calling for “repentance,” through which men might qualify for citizenship in the kingdom of the Messiah.

77. Knowledge of salvation. It is in the very nature of things that knowledge must precede belief, for “how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard?” (Rom. 10:14). Faith in Jesus requires an intelligent understanding of the fundamental facts and principles of the plan of salvation. In order to believe, a man must have something to believe, and the grand objective of John’s ministry was to lay a firm foundation for belief that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed the promised Messiah, “the Lamb of God,” “the Son of God” (John 1:36, 34). It is the Messiah who brings “remission” of “sins” (see Matt. 1:21; 26:28); it was His forerunner who brought a knowledge of sin. Luke here makes it evident that the “salvation” whereof he speaks is personal salvation of the individual rather than political salvation of the nation. It is for a lack of saving knowledge that men are “destroyed”—not for not having heard it, but for rejecting it (see Hosea 4:6).

78. Tender mercy. Literally, “bowels of mercy” (see Phil. 2:1; Col. 3:12). The Greeks considered the “bowels,” meaning the abdomen, to be the seat of the emotions—of anger, anxiety, pity, and love.

Dayspring. Gr. anatoleµ, “a rising [of the sun or stars],” or “east,” that is, the place of the sunrise. The term is commonly used in the NT in the latter sense (see Matt. 2:1; 8:11; 24:27; Rev. 7:2; 16:12; etc.). Among the ancient peoples of the East, as with Orientals today, the east is the cardinal point of the compass, the position of honor and respect.

Some commentators have referred the word anatoleµ, “a rising,” to the “Branch” that was to “grow out of” the “roots” of David (see Isa. 11:1–4; Jer. 23:5). It is true that the word anatoleµ may be so used; in fact, it is used in this sense in the LXX (Jer. 23:5). However, the context of Luke 1:78, 79 makes clear that Zacharias here refers to the sunrise rather than to the growth of a plant. Compare the translation: “The day shall dawn upon us from on high to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death” (vs. 78, 79, RSV). Malachi speaks of Christ as “the Sun of righteousness” (Mal. 4:2; see DA 22, 463, 464).

Hath visited. Important textual evidence (cf. p. 146) may be cited for reading “shall visit” (see on v. 68).

79. Light. The language of this verse is clearly based on the Messianic prophecy of Isa. 9:2. Light has ever been a symbol of the divine presence (DA 464), of Him who dwells “in the light which no man can approach unto” (1 Tim. 6:16; see on Gen. 3:24; Luke 1:78). Jesus said, “I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life” (John 8:12; see ch. 12:36). Our Saviour is “the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world” (John 1:9). Matthew applies the words of Isa. 9:1, 2 to Christ (ch. 4:14–16). The joy of salvation belongs to those who “walk in the light” (1 John 1:7), for their path is then “as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day” (Prov. 4:18). See on John 1:4–9.

Sit in darkness. Those who figuratively sit in darkness evidently do so because they cannot see where to walk. They need the “light” to guide their feet “into the way of peace.” Men sat, as it were, unsolaced, with longing eyes looking for the coming of the Light of life, whose coming would dispel the darkness and make plain the mystery of the future (see DA 32). For 4,000 years earth’s skies had been dark with the ominous clouds of sin and death, and now for centuries no prophetic star had appeared through the gloom to guide the wayfarers of earth across the deserts of time in their search for the Prince of Peace (see DA 31). We too will find ourselves sitting unsolaced, with life empty and incomplete, unless the Day-star arises in our hearts and sheds abroad within our lives the light of eternal day (see 2 Peter 1:19).

Shadow of death. See on Ps. 23:4. The sentence of death is imposed upon all men as a result of sin (see Rom. 6:23). But “as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:22). “The redeemed of the Lord …, whom he hath redeemed from the hand of the enemy,” “wandered in the wilderness in a solitary way” and sat “in darkness and in the shadow of death” until the Saviour “brought them out of darkness and the shadow of death” and “led them forth by the right way” (Ps. 107:2, 4, 10, 14, 7).

Guide our feet. Zacharias included himself with those whose feet the Messiah would “guide … into the way of peace.”

Way of peace. That is, the way of salvation, the way by which those whom sin has made enemies of God may once more be at peace with Him (Rom. 5:1, 10; 2 Cor. 5:18; Eph. 2:16). Christ, the Prince of Peace, accomplished this by making “reconciliation for the sins of the people” (Heb. 2:17). “God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself” (2 Cor. 5:19). “Great peace have they which love thy law” (Ps. 119:165). Christ came that He might give peace to us such as the world knows not and cannot offer (John 14:27). This “peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep” our “hearts and minds through Christ Jesus” (Phil. 4:7). When Christ enters the heart it is always with the words, “Peace be unto you” (Luke 24:36). Thus, appropriately, ends the song of Zacharias. See on John 14:27.

80. The child grew. Primarily a reference to physical growth (cf. ch. 2:40, 52). A similar statement was made concerning the child Samuel (see 1 Sam. 2:26).

Waxed strong in spirit. That is, in intellect and moral perception (see 1 Sam. 2:26; Luke 2:40, 52). The symmetrical development of physical, mental, and moral strength is well illustrated in the life of John, for his parents brought him “up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). Similarly, it is our privilege today so to live in communion with God that “we too may expect the divine Spirit to mold our little ones, even from their earliest moments” (DA 512). See on Luke 1:15, 24; 2:52.

Deserts. The “deserts” in which John spent most of his time “till the day of his shewing” are commonly spoken of as the “wilderness of Judaea” (see Matt. 3:1; etc.). This semiarid, wild, rugged, and unsettled region lies between the Dead Sea and the crest of the mountainous highlands of southern Palestine, and constitutes the eastern slopes of the range. Probably this was the region where Christ later fasted 40 days and meditated on His life mission. The Wilderness of Judah was in close proximity to Hebron, the possible home of Zacharias and Elisabeth (see on Luke 1:23, 39). Although some of the Essenes, a strict, ascetic sect of Judaism, maintained secluded colonies in this wilderness area, there is no historical evidence for the view that John became an Essene (see on Matt. 3:4). The home of the prophet Amos had been in the vicinity of Tekoa, a small town situated near the borders of this wilderness area (see on Amos 1:1).

In later years John made his own the Nazirite vow taken by his parents on his behalf at his birth (DA 102). It seems likely that his parents, who were already advanced in age at the time of his birth (see on v. 7), died when John was still a youth. It would appear, also, that he took up his abode in the desert solitudes not long thereafter. Solitude was for John a better schoolmaster than the best rabbi Jerusalem could offer, and the desert a better-equipped schoolroom than the Palace of Herod or the Temple courts. The rabbinical schools would have unfitted John for his task (DA 101). As only the still waters can mirror the stars, so only a heart untroubled by the ripples and eddies of this world can reflect perfectly the light of the “Star” that came “out of Jacob” (Num. 24:17). John chose as his abode a place where every other voice but that of God was hushed, and where he might in quietness wait before the Lord. It was there, in the solitude of the desert, that the silence of his soul made more distinct the voice of God (see DA 363). There he led a comparatively secluded life until the time came for him to take up his public ministry.

As the wilderness was God’s great classroom for training such leaders as Moses, Amos, and John the Baptist, so the wilderness experiences of life can provide favored opportunities for attuning the soul to Heaven. The equanimity of soul that comes with insight into things invisible is the preparation needed by those whom God chooses today to prepare the way for the coming of Jesus. Modern life is not conducive to meditation on the will and ways of God, as revealed in His Word and in His providential dealings with us. Unless we find time to escape from the din of the world and shut ourselves in with God, quietly waiting before Him, we may never hear His “still small voice” speaking to our souls (DA 363; cf. 1 Kings 19:12). It should be our purpose to spend less and less time with the things of earth and to devote more and more time to walking with God as did Enoch of old. Like John, we need to set our affection on “things above, not on things on the earth” (see Col. 3:2).

Shewing. Gr. anadeixis, “a pointing out,” or “a public showing forth.” Anadeixis is often used by the classical writers in speaking of the inauguration of those appointed to public office, and also of the dedication of temples. Luke uses the related verb, anadeiknumi, in reference to the appointment of the Seventy (ch. 10:1). John was of priestly descent, and as stipulated by the law of Moses, a priest was to take up his ministry at about the age of 30 (see on Num. 4:3). It is probable that the “shewing” of John came when he was about 30, as with Jesus when He commenced His ministry (see on Luke 3:23).

Ellen G. White comments

5–23DA 97–99

6, 8, 9, 11 DA 97

13 DA 231

13–15Te 292

13–19DA 98

14, 15 CD 225; MH 379

15 DA 100, 149, 219; ML 329; Te 91, 269; 3T 62

15–17CT 445; FE 447

17 DA 101; EW 155, 259; 3T 61; 6T 233

20 DA 99; EW 24

22, 23 DA 99

32, 33 DA 81; GC 416; PP 755

35 DA 24

38 DA 98

46, 47 7T 87

53 DA 268; MH 75

57–80DA 99–103

64–66DA 99

65 DA 97

67 DA 100

72–74DA 103

76 DA 97

76–79DA 100

76–80CT 445; FE 448

78, 79 MH 423

79 9T 60, 64

80 DA 100, 101; 8T 221, 331