And blessed is the fruit of your womb!

And blessed is the fruit of your womb!

“Blessed” means more than “Happy.” “Happy” often indicates how a person feels; “Blessed” what he is. A person is blessed when God’s favor rests upon him, when the Lord delights in him. See also N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 264.

“Blessed are you among women” is the Aramaic and Hebrew manner of expressing the superlative. The meaning, therefore, is, “Mary, among all women on earth you are the most blessed one!” See Gram. N.T., p. 660.

“And blessed is the fruit of your womb” shows that Mary is pregnant, and that not only Mary but also her son is the object of the Father’s delight. The fact that throughout Christ’s earthly ministry the Father took special delight in his Son is evident from such passages as Matt. 3:17 (cf. Mark 1:11; Luke 3:22); Matt. 17:5 (cf. Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35); Matt. 12:18; John 12:28; 17:24.

43. But how does this happen to me

That the mother of my Lord should come to me?

The fact that Mary went to visit her relative Elizabeth shows that these two had probably become acquainted at an earlier date. They may have been in each other’s company for a while in connection with one or more of the great religious festivals. Cf. Luke 2:44. But the present passage shows that at this particular point of the story Elizabeth sees in Mary more than a relative or acquaintance. Zechariah’s wife calls Mary “the mother of my Lord!”

How had Elizabeth discovered this fact? Had Mary already told her the big news? We have seen that in all probability the “greeting” as such does not necessarily imply this. Did the intra-uterine movement mentioned in verses 41 and 44 reveal this marvelous secret to Elizabeth? Yes, but not apart from the activity of the Holy Spirit, as Luke clearly indicates when he says, “The baby leaped within her womb. Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit and … cried out,” etc.

Note the significant expression the mother of my Lord, and compare Ps. 110:1 where David—again “in the Spirit” (Matt. 22:43, 44; Mark 12:36)—prophetically uses the title (“my Lord”) to describe the coming Messiah. Cf. I Cor. 12:3.

Elizabeth continues:

44. For as soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears

The baby within my womb leaped for joy.

Does this “leaping for joy” mean that the child in Elizabeth’s womb had suddenly become cognizant of the nearby presence of the Messiah? There are those who defend this theory. The distinguished Dutch commentator S. Greijdanus, commenting on verse 44, wrote as follows: “The statement concerns an operation of the Holy Spirit which caused Elizabeth’s child to feel, experience, and know that the mother of the Lord, and within her the Lord himself, was present here and now, and which caused that child to leap forward toward the Lord with a dance of joyful jubilation.”⁷³ And again, “By means of this action Elizabeth’s child also acknowledged his inferiority in relation to Mary’s Child.”⁷⁴

But does Luke’s account really say or imply all this? Rather it would seem that verse 44 (in connection with verses 40–43) states and implies only the following: (1) Mary greets Elizabeth. (2) Elizabeth hears the greeting. (3) The fetus within Elizabeth’s womb leaps for joy. (4) Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, responds to the greeting. In her enthusiastic exclamation she calls Mary “the most blessed woman” and expresses surprised joy that the one whom she designates “the mother of my Lord” is honoring her with a visit. (5) She interprets the movement of the babe within her womb as being a sign of its joy, this very joy being the evidence to her of “the Lord’s” presence in Mary’s womb. See further on 1:67.

In our interpretation it is probably not safe to penetrate any deeper than this, or to accept the possibility of propositional religious knowledge on the part of a fetus of approximately six months. That at this stage of its development it already has all the nerves it will ever have and is normally able to react to stimuli is well known. In view of verse 15 it should be added that in some mysterious manner, incapable of further analysis, the Holy Spirit was already actively present in the soul of Elizabeth’s child. Further than this we cannot go.⁷⁵ See also N.T.C. on John 1:31a.

Elizabeth adds,

45. And blessed is she who believed,

Because there will be a fulfilment of the words

Spoken to her by the Lord.

Although the rendering “And blessed is she who believed that there will be,” etc., is also possible, the first translation has the following in its favor:

a. The positive assurance that God is going to fulfil his promises to Mary is a more solid ground, a more valid reason, for calling her “blessed” than her own subjective faith in the fulfilment of these promises.

b. “Blessed is she who believed” is a richer expression than “Blessed is she who believed that,” etc. The first rendering more definitely than the second describes Mary as a woman of faith.

c. “Blessed is she who believed” is in line with “Blessed are those who, though not seeing, are yet believing” (John 20:29). See also Gen. 15:6 (cf. Rom. 4:3; Gal. 3:6, 9; James 2:23).

d. As to conciseness of phraseology, the beatitude “Blessed is she who believed” is also more in line with the familiar beatitudes of Luke 6:20 f., cf. Matt. 5:1 f.

e. Finally, the construction, “Blessed is she who believed,” describes more adequately than does its alternative what had been Mary’s reaction to Gabriel’s message.

That reaction, it will be recalled, had been: first, alarm and astonishment (verse 29); then, an earnest request for an explanation (verse 34); and finally, the complete surrender that characterizes the person who lives by the rule, “Trust and obey” (verse 38). For the rest, see the note on verse 45 on p. 99.

As to … “there will be a fulfilment,” etc., note the following: the words of the Lord (via Gabriel) recorded in 1:31a, 35a (unique conception) had already been fulfilled, and the promises contained in 31b, 32, 33, 35b (still largely unfulfilled) were going to be realized, as the rest of the Gospels, etc., abundantly prove.

What deserves special attention is this outstanding fact, namely, that in Elizabeth’s entire exuberant exclamation (verses 41b–45) envy never raises its head. Elizabeth was, after all, much older than Mary (cf. 1:7, 18, 36 with 2:5). Yet this aged woman is deeply conscious of her own unworthiness and genuinely rejoices in the joy of her much younger relative!

How can this complete absence of the begrudging attitude be explained? The answer is found in I Cor. 13:4: “Love does not envy.” Is not this a good reason for calling this poem “Elizabeth’s Song of Love”?⁷⁶

Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 1:39–45

Verses 39, 40

“Mary … hurried away to Elizabeth.” God’s grace spans the generation gap.

Verse 41

“Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.” In this story note the following “fruits” of the Spirit’s indwelling: knowledge, humility, gratitude, love.

Verse 42

“Blessed are you among women.” In our legitimate opposition to Mary-worship we should guard against falling into the opposite extreme!

Verse 43

“My Lord.” If Elizabeth so described Jesus when (according to his human nature) he was still a babe in Mary’s womb, how much more should we not glorify the Christ who died for us and who lives evermore to intercede for us! See Heb. 7:25.

Verse 44

“The baby within my womb leaped for joy.” The fact that, in a manner mysterious beyond all explanation, the Holy Spirit can be actively present in the heart and life of a babe in the womb cannot be questioned. Cf. Luke 1:15.

Verse 45

“Blessed is she who believed!” Not only “he” (for example Abraham, Gen. 15:6) but also “she.” Not just “happy” but “blessed.” When did Mary believe? Not only when God’s promise attained initial fulfilment, but even earlier. What did she believe? That what had never happened before—conception apart from any human father—would happen now; that the Hope of all the ages would be realized, in its initial stage, within the womb of a lowly Jewish virgin, namely, herself. How did she manifest her trust in God? By means of voluntary and complete surrender to his will. See 1:38. What a theme for a sermon!

“There will be a fulfilment.” God is love (I John 4:8). Therefore, if his threats attain fulfilment, will not his promises?

Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 1:39–45

Verse 39

ἀναστᾶσα, nom. s. 2nd aor. fem. participle of ἀνίστημι. This verb is very frequent in Luke; often, as probably also here, with weakened meaning, merely indicating the beginning of an action. In the present case it can even be omitted in the translation. Whether, in any particular instance, this participle can be considered redundant depends on the context. On this verb see also N.T.C. on Mark, p. 296, footnote 333; pp. 353, 354; and p. 406, footnote 495.

ὀρεινός -ή, -όν*, hilly; hence, ἡ ορεινή (χώρα) = the hill country; cf. verse 65.

Verse 41

ἐσκίρτησεν, third per. s. aor. indicat. of σκιρτάω*, to leap for joy. See also verse 44 and 6:23. In Gen. 25:22 (LXX) the correct translation is probably struggled.

βρέφος, here and in verse 44, unborn babe; in I Peter 2:2 used in a figurative sense; in II Tim. 3:15 infancy, childhood; elsewhere baby, infant. Cf. embryo.

Verse 42

εὐλογημένη (f.) and εὐλογημένος (m.) are perfect passive participles, indicating what had become and continued to be a fact.

Verse 44

To depart from the more usual meaning of γάρ = “for” is probably unnecessary in the present connection. The sense may well be: “I (Elizabeth) suddenly perceived that you, Mary, are the mother of my Lord, for the motion of the babe within my womb made me aware of this.” Translators who reject “for” substitute “Why,” “I tell you,” “Just think,” etc. It must be admitted that γάρ can have these meanings. See also N.T.C. on Mark, p. 639, footnote 804.

For the noun ἀγαλλίασις and the verb ἀγαλλιάω (also in verse 47) see on verse 14. See also on verse 41.

Verse 45

Lenski’s declaration (op. cit., p. 53) that ὅτι, as used here, must mean because, and that A. T. Robertson is “quite alone” in judging that the meaning that is also possible is too strong. Either “because” or “that” makes good sense. The versions are rather evenly divided: “because” or “for” being favored, among others, by A.V., A.R.V., Williams, Norlie, and the Dutch (both Statenvertaling and Nieuwe Vertaling: “want”); and “that” by Moffatt, Berkeley, N.A.S., Jerusalem Bible, R.S.V., N.E.B., N.I.V., etc.

Those who favor “believed that,” etc., can point to the fact that πιστεύειν followed by ὅτι in the sense of “that” (a) yields an intelligible meaning; and (b) is of rather frequent occurrence in the New Testament; especially in the writings of John (8:24; 11:27, 42; 13:19; 14:10; 16:27, 30; 17:8, 21; 20:31; I John 5:1, 5). Elsewhere it occurs occasionally (Matt. 9:28; Mark 11:23, 24; Rom. 6:8; I Thess. 4:14; Heb. 11:6); in all of Luke (Third Gospel and Acts) only in Acts 9:26 (and possibly here in Luke 1:45).

Nevertheless, while granting that “she who believed that” may be correct, I side with Lenski and others in my preference for “because.” For my reasons see the explanation.

1:46–56 Mary’s Magnificat

46 And Mary said,

“My soul magnifies the Lord,

47 And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior;

48 Because he has looked with favor upon his servant in her humble state.

For, indeed, from now on all generations will call me blessed.

49 Because the Mighty One has done great things for me:

Holy is his name.

50 And his mercy extends from generation to generation

To those who fear him.

51 He has performed mighty deeds with his arm;

He has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts.

52 He has brought down rulers from (their) thrones,

But has lifted up the humble.

53 The hungry he has filled with good things,

But has sent the rich away empty.

54 He has helped Israel, his servant,

In remembrance of his mercy—

55 Even as he promised⁷⁷ our fathers—

(Mercy) to Abraham and to his seed forever.”

56 Mary remained with Elizabeth about three months, and then returned to her home.

A few matters of an introductory character require attention:

1. This is Mary’s famous “hymn of praise.” It proceeded from her heart and lips when she visited Elizabeth. Its popular title, The Magnificat, is derived from the first word of the hymn in the Latin version: Magnificat anima mea Dominum, meaning, “My soul magnifies the Lord.”

2. The theory according to which this song is ascribed to Elizabeth must be rejected, since the textual evidence for “Elizabeth” instead of “Mary” (in 1:46) is so meager that it can be dismissed.

3. It has been said that Mary’s song is “saturated” with Hannah’s Prayer (I Sam. 2:1–10). And it is true that there is a degree of resemblance between these two expressions of praise. This is not strange. Both authors were devout Jewish women. Hannah’s son was born in answer to prayer; Mary’s firstborn was conceived in realization of Gabriel’s (hence God’s) promise. Something wonderful was going to be written about the child Samuel (I Sam. 2:26). Almost the identical expression was going to be used with reference to the child Jesus (Luke 2:52).

One more fact must be borne in mind. The system of education in Israel was such that from early childhood children were taught “the sacred writings” (II Tim. 3:15). Parents and teachers were not, as a rule, afflicted with memorization-phobia. See N.T.C. on I and II Timothy and Titus, the special section on Principles and Methods of Education in Israel, pp. 296–300. It is very natural therefore that at a time of special joy Mary would express her exultation in biblical language and that, among other passages, phrases from Hannah’s Song would have occurred to her. Resemblances are noted in the following chart:

Mary’s Magnificat Compared with Hannah’s Song

Mary’s Magnificat Luke 1:	Hannah’s Song I Sam. 2:
46, 47	1
“My soul magnifies the Lord,” etc.
49	2
“Holy is his name.”
51	4, 9, 10
“Who has scattered the proud.”
52	8
“He has lifted up the humble.”
53	5, 7
“The hungry he has filled with good things, But has sent the rich away empty.”

Upon close examination it becomes apparent, however, that the resemblances are rather few; also, that the similarity is seldom close. There is no such thing as “saturation.” There is just enough resemblance to believe that Mary may well have been conscious of Hannah’s Song.

If one is looking for precursors of the phraseology used in the Magnificat, he will find several in the Psalms; a few elsewhere. A number of these parallels are close, as examination of the following incomplete chart will show.

Mary’s Magnificat Compared with Other Scripture Passages

*Mary’s Magnificat (Luke 1)*	*The Psalms, etc.*
46, 47 “My soul magnifies the Lord, And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.”	Ps. 103:1
48 “Because he has looked with favor upon his servant in her humble state.”	I Sam. 1:11 (this is not part of Hannah’s Song!); Ps. 25:18
49 “Holy is his name.”	With slight variations this phrase is found in many of the Psalms: 22:3; 71:22; 89:18; 99:3; 103:1; etc.
50 “And his mercy extends from generation to generation to those who fear him.”	Ps. 103:17
51 “He has performed mighty deeds with his arm.”	Ps. 44:3; 98:1; Isa. 53:1
“He has scattered those who are proud.”	Ps. 89:10; Job 12:19
52 “He has brought down rulers from their thrones.”	II Sam. 22:28
“But has lifted up the humble.”	II Sam. 22:18; Job 5:11
53 “The hungry he has filled with good things.”	Ps. 103:5; 107:9
54 “He has helped Israel, his servant.”	Ps. 98:3; 147:2, 19
“In remembrance of his mercy.”	Ps. 25:6; 98:3; 136 (second part of each verse)
55 “—Even as he promised our fathers—(Mercy) to Abraham and to his seed forever.”	Gen. 12:2, 3; 17:7; 22:15–18; Exod. 2:24; II Sam. 22:51; Ps. 105:6–10; Micah 7:20.

4. The Magnificat may be divided into four stanzas or strophes.⁷⁸ The arrangement is logical, and therefore easy to remember.

In the first strophe (verses 46–48) Mary extols God for what he had done for her, a maiden of lowly birth.

In the second (verses 49, 50) her thanksgiving and praise, having reached a climax (“Holy is his name”), begins, as it were, to take in more territory. Her spiritual horizon widens. From concentration on the manner in which God’s mercy has affected herself she ascends to the contemplation of that divine lovingkindness as revealed “from generation to generation to those who fear him.”

As the third strophe (verses 51–53) indicates, this mercy is all the more strikingly apparent when contrasted with God’s severity toward those who do not fear him.

The conclusion (fourth strophe, verses 54, 55) of the Magnificat is indeed magnificent. It expresses a thought often neglected today even in conservative circles, namely, that the manifestation of God’s mercy is the fulfilment of the covenant promise God made to the fathers, a promise of supreme value even today to believers and their seed (Gal. 3:9, 29).

We shall now discuss the Magnificat strophe by strophe:

The first strophe is as follows:

46–48. And Mary said,

My soul magnifies the Lord,

And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior;

Because he has looked with favor upon his servant in her humble state.

For indeed, from now on all generations will call me blessed.

Her heart filled to overflowing with thanksgiving for that which God had done for her, Mary says, “My soul magnifies the Lord,” that is, proclaims the greatness of Jehovah. Mary does this joyfully, enthusiastically, for she adds, “And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.”

It should be clear immediately that in these two parallel lines there can be no difference—and certainly no pronounced difference—between “soul” and “spirit.” For more on this see N.T.C. on Mark, p. 315, footnote 370.

In what sense does Mary call God “my Savior”? No one, certainly, will wish to deny the fact that, in the Old Testament, words like Savior, save, salvation are not always used in a strictly spiritual sense. A person or a people may be saved or delivered not only from sin but also from sickness, death, an enemy, etc. See, for example, I Sam. 11:13; II Chron. 20:17; Ps. 22:21; 106:21; 116:8. Sometimes there seems to be a blending of physical and spiritual evil from which God’s people are saved or delivered, so that God is their Savior in a double sense (Isa. 63:8, 9; etc.). There are also passages in which the terms in question refer either exclusively or at least predominantly to deliverance from sin and restoration to divine favor. See especially Ps. 51:12–14; and examine also Ps. 119:81 and Ezek. 37:23. And do not the following passages indicate that by divine operation a keen sense of sin and a deep desire to be delivered from it and to be restored to fellowship with God had been implanted in the hearts of God’s people? See Isa. 1:18; 12:2, 3; chapter 53; Dan. 9:8, 9, 19; Mic. 7:19; Zech. 8:7, 8; 13:1.

What, then, does Mary mean by calling God her Savior? What does the context plus Old Testament background imply as to the probable answer? Is it sufficient to say that she was thinking solely of the fact that God had rescued her from the oblivion which otherwise would probably have been her lot? That something on this order must have been included in her reason for exuberant thanksgiving can be granted. Note the context which shows that she was conscious of her “humble state” and of the fact that the Lord had delivered her from it so that from now on all generations would call her blessed. But was she thinking of nothing else?

We must bear in mind that we are dealing here with a deeply spiritual and meditative child of God (Luke 2:19, 51; John 2:5); that, as has been shown, the “salvation” passages of the Old Testament by no means exclude deliverance from sin and enjoyment of fellowship with God; and, last but not least, that in another nativity passage (Matt. 1:21) God’s angel declares, “You shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.” Do not these facts establish the answer that it was especially in the spiritual sense that Mary calls God “my Savior”?

Deeply conscious was Mary of the fact that she was a woman of “humble state,” the “wife” (Matt. 1:20) of a village carpenter. In the eyes of many she was probably regarded as unlikely to become the object of God’s special favor. Nevertheless, from now on not only Elizabeth (see verse 42) but all generations would call her blessed.

A “generation,” in the sense in which the term is used here, means a number of people constituting any one rung of the ladder of descent, a group of contemporaries. Moreover, Mary does not say that all generations are going to consider her a mediatrix, and as such a legitimate object of hyperdulia (veneration of the Virgin Mary as holiest of creatures). What she means is that all generations are going to praise God because of the marvelous manner in which he has honored her.

The second strophe proves this:

49, 50. Because the Mighty One has done great things for me:

Holy is his name.

And his mercy extends from generation to generation

To those who fear him.

In the spirit of Ps. 71:19 Mary reflects on the great things God, here understandably called “the Mighty One,” had done for her. Had he not lifted her from her humble state and bestowed on her the highest honor conceivable, namely, to be the mother of the Messiah, as far as his human nature was concerned? Had he not performed within her the miracle of parthenogenesis, conception without penetration of a passive female cell by an active male cell? How marvelous God’s power!

But not only does Mary’s Magnificat extol God’s power. His mercy—call it “steadfast love” or even “lovingkindness” if you prefer—also elicits her praise. Using the phraseology of Ps. 103:17 she exclaims, “And his mercy extends from generation to generation to those that fear him.”

As indicated earlier, here Mary’s song ascends from the individual to the general, from what she herself had experienced to what was ever in store for one set of contemporaries after another throughout the course of history, being constantly repeated as the centuries roll along. Cf. Ps. 89:2; 90:2; Isa. 34:17.

Note, however, the qualifications: “to those that fear him,” that is, to those who in heart and mind are filled with reverent regard for God; for the genuinely devout, the truly pious people.

Not as if the Lord had completely withdrawn his kindness from men in general. Study Gen. 17:20; 39:5; Ps. 36:6; 145:9, 15, 16; Matt. 5:42; Mark 8:2; Luke 6:35, 36; Acts 14:16, 17; Rom. 2:4; and I Tim. 4:10. Can anyone read the precious passage about God’s tenderness toward the Ninevites, toward their little ones and even toward their cattle (Jonah 4:10, 11), without being overcome with emotion?

The denial of the manifestation of God’s goodness to men in general—call it “common grace” if you wish, or invent a better name for it—is an extreme position. Yet, we must be careful not to endorse the opposite extreme. The present passage is only one among many that stress the favor of God bestowed not on everybody but on his people, on them, on them alone. Note: “his mercy … to those that fear him.” See also Deut. 7:9; Ps. 25:10; 103:18; Isa. 55:3, 6; 57:15; Matt. 5:1–12; John 10:11, 15, 28; 11:25, 26. In fact, so very numerous are these limiting passages that it would be useless to try to cite them all. Mary, then, is thinking of the marvelous and never failing kindness which God is constantly causing to be felt and experienced by all needy ones who stand in awe of him and love him.

What is perhaps somewhat surprising is the fact that between these two statements about God, the first stressing his power, the second his mercy, stands the declaration “Holy is his name.” At first glance these words may seem to be “out of context.” One asks, perhaps, “But why did Mary insert this reference to God’s holiness or sinlessness? What has that to do with the matter with reference to which she is lifting up her voice in sincere, eloquent, and enthusiastic praise?”

Some are of the opinion that in this connection Mary was thinking about her conception; and that, in view of the fact that so often among men sin is connected with bringing about conception, she is saying that in her case conception had been brought about by God’s holy power, “utterly separated from the sin and sinfulness of man.”⁷⁹

But is not this interpretation of God’s holiness too narrow? It should be borne in mind that Mary was a Jewess, instructed from childhood in the Jewish religion. Accordingly, her words and phrases must be understood in the light of the Old Testament. When this is done it soon becomes evident that her exclamation “Holy is his name”—that is, “Holy is God as he has revealed himself”—is definitely in place. To the Jew the adjective qādōsh basically meant separate, set apart, exalted. To ascribe “holiness” to God meant to describe him as being lifted infinitely high above all creatures, hence also above all creaturely weaknesses including sin.⁸⁰ “Holiness, when ascribed to God, was not considered to be an attribute to be co-ordinated with the other attributes” (H. Bavinck). Perhaps the best way in which to gain a true idea of the basic meaning of the word holy as ascribed to God in the Old Testament would be to read and reread Isa. 6:1–5. Another helpful approach would be to sing that touching refrain, based on Ps. 148:

Let them praises give Jehovah,

For his name alone is high,

And his glory is exalted,

Far above the earth and sky.

Trinity Hymnal, Philadelphia, 1961, No. 105.

Read also Isa. 57:15.

Applying all this to the Magnificat, we must conclude that Mary was so deeply impressed with the “great things” God had done for her, and to which she had just now referred (in the immediately preceding line of verse 49) that she cried out, “Holy [that is, infinitely exalted] is his name.” And was it not also very natural that, reflecting on her own experience, she would apply this “holiness” or “incomparable greatness” of God not only to his power (the great things he did for me) but now also to his mercy? Hence, “Holy is his name, and his mercy,” etc. When she reflected on the manner in which she had conceived, would not God’s power stand out? When she thought of the honor God had bestowed on her, would not his mercy or tender compassion immediately occur to her? And since both of these qualities were marvelous in the highest degree, was it not after all very logical for Mary to express this fact by thus combining the two?

And now the third strophe:

51–53. He has performed mighty deeds with his arm;

He has scattered those who are proud in their inmost thoughts.

He has brought down rulers from (their) thrones.

But has lifted up the humble.

The hungry he has filled with good things,

But has sent the rich away empty.

Mary had said, “The Mighty One has done great things for me” (verse 49). She now elaborates on that theme and begins to praise God for the general manifestation of his power and mercy.

She says that God has performed mighty deeds “with his arm.” This is an ascription to God of something that pertains to man, namely, an arm. In other words, she is speaking anthropomorphically about the Highest. Such a figure of speech is rooted in the fact that God created man as his own image (Gen. 1:26, 27).

As was stated earlier, Mary is a Jewess, at home in the Old Testament, familiar with its phraseology. It mentions God’s arm and hand (Deut. 4:34; Ps. 44:3; 89:13), his eyes and ears (Ps. 34:15), finger (Exod. 8:19; 31:18; Deut. 9:10); face (Ps. 27:8, 9; 143:7), and even nose (Exod. 15:8; Isa. 65:5).

These expressions must not be taken literally. The “arm” of God, mentioned here in verse 51, denotes his power. It can be used to deliver, to support, and to uphold. It can also be used to scatter, to bring down, and to drive out. In the present stanza God’s “arm” does both.⁸¹

Mary now draws a contrast. Cf. I Cor. 1:26–29. In order to bring out sharply how deeply God’s children are indebted to him she places the blessings they receive over against the punishments suffered by the wicked. On the one side she pictures the arrogant, mighty, and rich; on the other, the humble and hungry. In all probability she is thinking of only two categories of people: on the one hand, the rulers—proud, autocratic, and wealthy; on the other, God’s children—lowly and poor.

With reference to the first group she says that God has scattered, that is, dispersed, broken up and chased in all directions (cf. Matt. 26:31 = Mark 14:27), those who were proud “in the imagination of their hearts.”

According to Scripture the heart is the fulcrum of feeling and faith, the mainspring of drives, emotions, thoughts, words, and deeds. It is the very core of man’s being, his inner self. See I Sam. 16:7; Prov. 4:23; Matt. 12:34; 15:19; 22:37; John 14:1; Rom. 10:10; I Tim. 1:5. The translation “proud in their inmost thoughts” is therefore excellent. What Mary is saying is that in the course of history God’s mighty power has repeatedly punished these arrogant people. He has dispersed them, dethroned them, deprived them of their riches, and driven them away empty.

The possibility must be allowed that when Mary was saying this there occurred to her mind stories of rulers, both domestic and foreign, to whom exactly this had happened. Her “Bible” can have supplied her with abundant information along this line. She knew too that what had happened centuries ago was taking place today and was going to occur in the future. God’s ways do not change (Mal. 3:6).

She was also deeply conscious of the fact that God was the One who “lifted up the humble.” Had she not experienced this herself? See verses 47, 48. In the following list, to which many items could easily be added, names of devout children of God who had received this help from above are found in the left column; the passage recording their humility and/or eagerness to serve, in the central column; and the manner in which God had “lifted them up” in the right one.

Help from Above

Person	Reference to Humility and/or Eagerness to Serve	How God Lifted Up
Moses	Exod. 3:11	Exod. 3:12
Joshua	Josh. 5:14	Josh. 1:5; 4:14
Gideon	Judg. 6:15	Judg. 6:14, 16
Ruth	Ruth 2:10	Ruth 2:11, 12
Hannah	I Sam. 1:11	I Sam. 1:17, 20, 27, 28
David	I Sam. 18:18	II Sam. 7:14–17
Abigail	I Sam. 25:24–31	I Sam. 25:32–35
Isaiah	Isa. 6:5	Isa. 6:6, 7
Jeremiah	Jer. 1:6	Jer. 1:7–10
Ebed-melech	Jer. 38:7–9	Jer. 38:10–13; 39:15–18

As to the statement, “The hungry he has filled with good things” (cf. Ps. 103:5; 107:9), note the following:

a. God’s care for the physically hungry appears from such passages as I Sam. 21:1–6 (cf. Matt. 12:1–8); I Kings 17:1–16; 19:5–8; II Kings 4:42–44; Ps. 37:25.

b. Both the Old and the New Testament also recognize spiritual hunger (Isa. 55:1, 2; Amos 8:11; Matt. 5:6; John 6:35, 48). This too God satisfies for those who trust in him. This, as well as spiritual thirst (Ps. 42:1; Isa. 55:1; John 4:13, 14; 7:37; I Cor. 10:1–4; Rev. 22:17).

Whether Mary had any concrete examples of humility and hunger in mind when she sang her hymn of praise we do not know. What has been demonstrated, however, is that the Old Testament, her own experience, and what others had told her can have provided her with abundant material upon which to base the contents of verses 51–53.

The fourth or concluding strophe is:

54, 55. He has helped Israel, his servant,

In remembrance of his mercy—

Even as he promised our fathers—

(Mercy) to Abraham and to his seed forever.

Up to this point Mary has been praising God in song for his deeds. Now, in this closing stanza, she points out, still in song, what these deeds mean in relation to Israel and the promises made to the forefathers. “He has helped Israel.” This had happened again and again in the past. The Old Testament records numerous instances in which God had taken sides with Israel against its enemies. See the beautiful summary in Isa. 63:9. Here “Israel” is looked upon as God’s covenant people. Cf. Luke 1:16, 68; then also Exod. 4:22; Isa. 41:8–16; 44:1, 2, 21–23; 49:3. The modifier his servant strengthens this conclusion. The word servant here used is the more friendly of the two that could have been used to bring out the “servant” idea. In certain contexts this word is properly translated “child.” See the notes on this word on pages 112, 113.

What Mary probably meant therefore was something along this line: Just as in the past God has so often helped Israel when it was in distress, so also he does now, in connection with the coming of the Messiah. Note also “in remembrance of his mercy.” This is the “kindness toward those in misery” that extends “from generation to generation to those that fear him” (verse 50). It is not a mere kindly feeling or disposition but it is tender love in action, action that really helps … and saves!

This phrase “in remembrance of his mercy” is another instance of a human way of speaking about God (see above, on verse 51), since actually God never needs to be reminded of anything.

The parenthetical statement “Even as he said to [or promised] our fathers” takes us back in thought to Abraham. To him God had said, “In you all the families of the earth will be blessed.” Sometimes “in your seed” is substituted for “in you,” and “nations” for “families.” The basic meaning remains the same. See Gen. 12:3; 18:18; 22:18.

That this blessing to Abraham remained in force for Isaac is clear from Gen. 26:3, 4, where not only the same message is repeated but it is even distinctly stated, “I will establish the oath which I swore to Abraham your father.” In the time of Isaac’s son Jacob this same covenant promise is still in effect (Gen. 28:14). It is even called a covenant “with Abraham and with Isaac and with Jacob” (Exod. 2:24). “I will be your God” holds, in fact, for Israel, viewed as God’s covenant people (cf. Gen. 17:7 with Lev. 11:45; 26:12, 45). The Magnificat clearly shows that Mary views what was happening even now as a realization of the ancient promise to Abraham. The mercy she praised in song had reference “to Abraham and to his seed to eternity,” that is, “forever.” The promise was not annulled by the giving of the law (Gal. 3:17) or by the first coming of Christ (Gal. 3:9, 29).

That mercy still flows forth from the throne of grace. That covenant promise still holds. Cf. 1:72, 73. It is on the basis of this promise that believing parents have their children baptized (Acts 2:38, 39). The substance of the promise—“I will be your God”; hence, salvation full and free—is realized in the hearts of all those who by sovereign grace and through God-given faith embrace Christ as their Lord and Savior. See N.T.C. on Gal. 3:9, 16, 29.

Elizabeth had praised Mary’s faith (verse 45). And is it not exactly Mary’s faith that is expressed so touchingly in the Magnificat: faith in the Mighty and Merciful God, the Holy One, the Helper in the time of need, the God of the covenant, the One whom she calls “my Savior”? And is not this “profession of faith” which runs through these lines from beginning to end a good reason for calling her poem “Mary’s Song of Faith”?

The song has ended. The visit, described from verse 39 on, was not exactly short. We read: 56. Mary remained with Elizabeth about three months, and then returned to her home. So Mary must have stayed until—probably almost until—the day of John’s birth. See verses 26, 36. Mary then “returned to her home,” an expression almost the same as the one found in verse 23 with respect to Zechariah’s departure from the temple to his home. We already know that to Mary “home” meant the place of her residence in Nazareth (verse 26). As to what happened there before Jesus was born see Matt. 1:18–24.

It was wise for Mary, in her condition, not to remain any longer with Elizabeth. Had she stayed any longer, Elizabeth’s house would have been crowded with neighbors, etc., people who did not always use discretion in their talk (see verses 59, 61). Who knows what they might have said about Mary, or what at least they might have thought about her! Besides, a disagreeable confrontation between Mary and some of Elizabeth’s neighbors might not have been pleasant for Elizabeth either … or even for Zechariah. Also, Mary must return to Joseph, who was a sincere child of God, a good man, and deeply in love with Mary. See N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 130, 131.⁸²

Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 1:46–56

Verses 46, 47

“My soul magnifies … my spirit rejoices.” Though more than seventeen centuries passed by before The Shorter Catechism was adopted, note the striking resemblance between the answer to its first question (“to glorify God and to enjoy him forever”) and Mary’s Song.

Verse 48a

“He has looked with favor upon his servant.” It is the favor (or blessing) of God that makes rich. See Prov. 10:22.

Verse 48b

“Will call me blessed.” Not: “will invoke my blessing.”

Verse 49

“Because the Mighty One has done great things for me.” True religion is a very personal relationship between God and his child. It was this for David (Ps. 23, 27, 51, 63), for the author of Ps. 42, for Asaph (Ps. 73), Isaiah (Isa. 6:5–8), Daniel (Dan. 9:18, 19), the “prodigal” son (Luke 15:17–21), the penitent publican (Luke 18:13), the man born blind (John 9:25), and Paul (Gal. 1:15, 16; 2:20; 6:14).

Verses 50, 54, 55

“From generation to generation … to Abraham and to his seed forever.” Although salvation is a personal matter, it is also a family matter: as a rule God perpetuates his covenant in the line of the generations. This truth is definitely rooted in Scripture (Gen. 18:19; Ps. 105:6–10; Prov. 22:6; Acts 2:38, 39; II Tim. 1:5).

Verses 51, 52

“He has performed mighty deeds … has brought down rulers from (their) thrones.” History books, newspapers, T.V., radio emphasize secondary causes. The Magnificat points to the Primary Cause, the God whose plan is being realized on earth in the interest of his people and for his own glory. See Rom. 8:28; Eph. 1:11.

Verse 53

“He … has sent the rich away empty.” Even before the wicked rich are dispatched they are already “empty.” See Isa. 48:22; 57:21.

Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 1:46–56

Verses 46, 47

Literally the verb μεγαλύνω means: to make great, to enlarge (Matt. 23:5). Here in Luke 1:46 (cf. Acts 10:46) the sense is: to magnify, glorify, praise, extol; in Acts 5:13, to hold in high esteem, regard highly. And cf. Luke 1:58: “God had magnified his mercy,” that is, “had been very kind.”

In view of the fact that verse 47 closely parallels verse 46, Robertson is probably correct in calling ἠγαλλίασεν a timeless aorist, and in translating it as a present. See his book A Translation of Luke’s Gospel, pp. 17 and 145. For the meaning of ἀγαλλιάω see the note on 1:14, page 80.

In the present case it would be wrong to posit any clear distinction between ψυχή and πνεῦμα. See N.T.C. on Mark, pp. 315, 316, footnote 370.

Verse 48

ἐπιβλέπω = (basically) to look at, into, or upon; here: to look upon with sympathy and favor (cf. 9:38); in James 2:3: to have regard for, pay special attention to. For words that have to do with vision see N.T.C. on Mark, p. 116, footnote 105; p. 322, footnote 378; p. 323, footnote 379; also N.T.C. on John, Vol. I, p. 85, footnote 33.

ταπείνωσις—cf. tapis; Dutch tapijt = carpet—low or humble state; in James 1:10, being made low, humiliation. “The body of our humiliation” = “our lowly body” (Phil. 3:21).

Verse 51

βραχίων, arm; cf. bracelet.

ὑπερήφανος = ὑπέρ, above, and φαίνομαι, to show oneself, make an appearance, make oneself appear; hence, a person who regards himself to be above or superior to others, a proud or arrogant person.

Verses 51–53

With respect to the nature of the six aorists in verses 51–53 there are, in the main, three opinions. They are (a) historical or narrative (R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 58); (b) gnomic or timeless (A. T. Robertson, Gram. N.T., pp. 836, 837); (c) prophetic, describing what is going to happen in the Messianic Age as if it had already happened (A. Plummer, op. cit., pp. 32, 33).

I can find no reason to accept (c). In the Magnificat Mary describes what “the Lord,” “the Mighty One,” etc., has done for her and also what he has done for others. When she wishes to call attention to what is still going to happen she uses the future tense (verse 48b).

Basically I agree with Lenski (historical or narrative aorist). Mary is clearly thinking of the marvelous manner in which God has been merciful to her (verses 48a, 49). In verse 50 she expands on this and shows that this mercy is still operating: it extends from generation to generation, etc. From verse 51 on she then proves her point by showing what the Lord, the unchangeable God, has done in times past to various groups of people.

But though basically these aorists are therefore historical, it is also a fact that they indicate actions that recur again and again. The very nature of God proves this. It is for that reason that I would call these aorists historical-gnomic. Lenski is right and so is Robertson.

Verse 52

δυνάστης, ruler, potentate, monarch. Cf. dynasty.

Verse 54

ἀντελάβετο, third per. s. 2nd aor. indicat. of ἀντιλαμβάνομαι. See my thesis, The Meaning of the Preposition ἀντί in the New Testament, pp. 83–86. Some insist that in this compound ἀντί means facing. Think of two men carrying a log, one at each end. They face and thus help each other. Others, in connection with this compound, make no mention of the idea of oppositeness, but in this case regard the basic meaning of ἀντί to be that of substitution. The resultant sense of the entire compound would then be: to take hold of in turn. Interpreted either way, the verb’s meaning is to help, to render assistance; hence here in Luke 1:54, “He has helped Israel”; in Acts 20:35, “We must help the weak.” See also N.T.C. on I Tim. 6:2. Very interesting is the double compound συναντιλαμβάνεται used in Rom. 8:26, “The Holy Spirit joins in to help us,” thus correctly rendered in the Berkeley Version, and also in the Dutch Statenvertaling: “… komt onze zwakheden mede to hulp.”

παιδός, gen. s. of παῖς. In Greek literature this word has various meanings; such as: child, boy, youth, servant, servant boy, etc. As this word is used in Luke’s Gospel I suggest the following renderings, admitting that in some cases a different translation would do as well:

1:54 “He has helped Israel, his servant.”

1:69 “in the house of David, his servant.”

2:43 “the boy Jesus remained behind in Jerusalem.”

7:7 (cf. Matt. 8:8) “Speak the word and my boy will be cured.”

8:51 (cf. Mark 5:40) “the child’s father and mother.”

8:54 “my child, get up.”

9:42 “Even while the boy was coming to him, the demon dashed him,” etc.

12:45b (cf. Matt. 24:49) “and shall begin to beat up the men and women servants.”

15:26 “having called one of the servant boys to him.”

μνησθήναι, aor. (reflexive) infinitive of μιμνήσκω, to remind oneself of, to remember; here “in remembrance of his mercy.”

Verse 55

τῷ Ἀβραάμ should not (with A.V.) be construed with ἐλάλησε, as if God spoke to Abraham forever. Besides, note change in grammatical construction: the acc. after πρός is replaced by the simple dative.

1:57–66 The Birth, Circumcision, and Naming of John the Baptist

57 Now the time was fulfilled for Elizabeth to give birth, and she bore a son. 58 When her neighbors and relatives heard how kind the Lord had been to her,⁸³ they were rejoicing with her.

59 On the eighth day they came to circumcise the child, and they were going to call him⁸⁴ Zechariah, after the name of his father. 60 But the child’s mother objected and said, “Definitely not; he must be called John!” 61 They said to her, “None of your relatives has that name.” 62 So they began to make signs to his father (to discover) what he would wish the child to be called. 63 Having asked for a writing tablet, he wrote, “John is his name.” And everybody was greatly surprised. 64 At once his mouth was opened, his tongue loosed, and he began to speak, praising God.

65 All those living around them were awestruck, and throughout the hill country of Judea people kept talking about all these things.⁸⁵ 66 And all who heard them laid them up in their hearts. They said, “What then will this child turn out to be?” For the hand of the Lord was with him.

The story now returns to Zechariah and Elizabeth.

57. Now the time was fulfilled for Elizabeth to give birth, and she bore a son. The usual period after conception having ended, Elizabeth gave birth to a child. It was a boy, as had been predicted by the angel Gabriel (verses 13, 19). 58. When her neighbors and relatives heard how kind the Lord had been to her, they were rejoicing with her. In order to show their interest these neighbors and relatives came to visit Elizabeth.

Why are neighbors mentioned before relatives? Because the former were living closest, while the latter were spread in many directions, some living much farther away? Thus some interpret the order of the words in this sentence. But it is probably wrong to attach special significance to the sequence in which these two items—neighbors and relatives—are mentioned.

The visitors had heard “how kind [or merciful] the Lord had been” to Elizabeth. Literally, they had heard “that the Lord had magnified his mercy toward her.”

This kind of language clearly shows that Luke is making use of Semitic—that is, Hebrew and/or Aramaic—sources. In the nativity account that is the rule, not the exception.⁸⁶

Note also the emphasis, here as well as elsewhere (verses 50, 54, 55, 72, 78) on God’s mercy or lovingkindness in action.

The theory that the rejoicing of these visitors was not in connection with the birth of the child (see verse 14) but only in connection with Elizabeth, because she had been relieved of her barrenness, is hard to accept. The clear meaning would seem to be: (a) Elizabeth rejoiced because, in fulfilment of Gabriel’s prediction, this son had been born; and (b) the neighbors and relatives were rejoicing with her; that is, they joined in her joy. All were thankful and happy because of the birth of this child.

59. On the eighth day they came to circumcise the child … Probably a person specifically appointed for this purpose performed the rite, other visitors functioning as witnesses. In accordance with the law (Gen. 17:12; Lev. 12:3) circumcision took place on the eighth day.⁸⁷ Continued: and they were going to call him Zechariah, after the name of his father. In the old dispensation the naming of the child occurred in connection with its birth (Gen. 21:1–3; 25:24–26; etc.). The present passage (and cf. Luke 2:21) appears to be the earliest witness for the practice of connecting the naming of a child with circumcision.⁸⁸

None of our sources show that it was a custom in Bible times to name a boy after his father. After a relative, probably, as may well be implied in verse 61, but not necessarily after the father. And certainly not even always after a relative. See on verse 61.

Nevertheless it is not difficult to suggest possible reasons why these visitors tried to persuade the parents to call the child after his father. Not only did the name have a beautiful meaning (see on verse 5), applicable also to the present situation, but the mysterious events that had occurred (the vision in the temple, etc.) may have fostered the desire that the boy be named after his now famous father.

60. But the child’s mother objected and said, Definitely not; he must be called John! Not for a moment did Elizabeth hesitate. She knew that through his angel God himself had ordered this child to be named John (verse 13). How did she know this? After all, Gabriel had not spoken to her but to her husband. And during the entire long period, between the appearance of the angel and the naming of the child, Zechariah had been deprived of the power of speech. Solution: Elizabeth’s husband must have made good use of his writing tablet!

Not satisfied, the neighbors and relatives tried again: 61. They said to her, None of your relatives has that name. This attempt also failed. No wonder, for what may have been a custom was by no means a hard and fast rule. See N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 138, 139, footnote 146, showing how children’s names were selected. Besides, Elizabeth knew what God had stipulated. 62. So they began to make signs to his father (to discover) what he would wish the child to be called.

They began to make signs to him. But why? The man was not deaf … or was he? Before answering this question it should be pointed out that in Greek literature the word kōphos used at the end of Luke 1:22 and rendered “speechless” in A.V., “dumb” in R.S.V. and N.E.B., can have any one of three meanings, depending on the context in each specific case. The three are: deaf, dumb, deaf and dumb. The question is, What does this word mean in Luke 1:22? Opinions differ:

a. The very circumstance that in the present case these people were making signs—nodding, pointing with their hands, making motions with hands and eyes—proves that Zechariah was deaf as well as dumb. This made inquiry by means of signs necessary.⁸⁹

Comment. Nowhere else in the New Testament does this one word kōphos have the double meaning “deaf and dumb.” In Mark 9:25, where both meanings are combined, two words are used in the original to convey this thought. That passage reads, “You dumb and deaf spirit” (thus literally). Besides, in Luke 1:20, 22 the sentence pronounced on Zechariah is elucidated as follows: “You will remain silent and not able to speak until.… And when he did come out he was unable to speak to them,” etc. These passages refer only to the priest’s inability to speak. They do not make mention of any inability to hear. To this may be added verse 64, relating to Zechariah’s cure, where again the reference is only to restoration of the power of speech, not hearing. Explanation (a) must be rejected.

b. In the popular mind there was a close connection between dumbness and deafness. It was for this reason that these people made signs to the father of the child.⁹⁰

Comment. This explanation may well be the right one. It is at any rate better than answer (a).

The possibility must also be granted that due to the excitement of the moment some people simply forgot that the priest was unable to speak but not unable to hear. We cannot be sure.

If, as has been pointed out (see verse 60), Elizabeth’s answer was unequivocal, Zechariah’s was, if possible, even more definite: 63. Having asked for a writing tablet, he wrote, John is his name. The writing tablet was probably a little board covered with wax. With a stylus the words could be impressed upon it. By writing “John is his name,” Zechariah is saying, “The child already has a name! That name is John.” It was God who had named the child (verse 13).

The question may well be asked, however, “Why this name John in preference to some other name?” The basic reason for naming the child is, of course, “Because God so commanded.” Is it possible to go beyond this and to point out the appropriateness of this name for this particular child?

Here we must exercise caution. The meaning of the name is “Jehovah is [or: has been] gracious.” In connection with this meaning there are in the main two possibilities: (a) God ordered this name to be given to the child because he knew that the disposition or attitude of the parents was going to be: “The Lord has revealed his marvelous grace to us by giving us this child.”

Is it not true that names often described the giver rather than the recipient? See N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 136. On the other hand, it is also true that in such cases in which the name describes the faith or feeling of the parents (often of the mother) that name is usually given by the mother herself or by the parents themselves; there was no divine command with respect to it.

It is accordingly reasonable to assume that in the present case, God himself having supplied the name, there is a close relation between the name and its recipient or bearer. See N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 138, 139.

The objection may be raised, however, “But in that case how very inappropriate was this particular name. Is it not true that John the Baptist became a preacher of impending doom and judgment? Was not his preaching interspersed with the vocabulary of divine retribution; that is, with such words as ‘offspring of vipers,’ ‘approaching wrath,’ ‘the axe laid at the root of the trees,’ ‘unquenchable fire’?”

To answer, with some, that Luke was not thinking about the etymology of the name John when he wrote the section about the naming of the child, is an attempt to rid oneself of the difficulty in too easy a manner. The basic question is not, “What was Luke thinking about?” but “Why did God insist that this child be named John?”

Besides, in the case of Mary’s child too it was God who supplied the name, and that name was indeed descriptive of its bearer: “She will give birth to a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:21). Must we assume then that in the case of Jesus’ forerunner the name had no significance whatever? This would seem hardly possible.

In all probability the real and comforting solution lies in a different direction. (b) The name John—that is, Jehovah is gracious—was indeed suited to its purpose, for according to all of Scripture the warning of approaching judgment and doom unless true conversion takes place is a divinely selected means of urging men to turn away from the darkness of sin, to serve the Lord, and thus to enter into his kingdom of light. Among many passages that could be listed to prove this point are the following: Ps. 94:12; 119:67, 71; Prov. 13:24; Isa. 26:9b; Amos 4:9; Hag. 2:17; I Cor. 5:3–5; II Cor. 7:9, 10; Heb. 12:5 f.; Rev. 2:21; 3:19.

Thus viewed, the name John was apt indeed, for through him and his stern message many of the sons of Israel would be turned to the Lord their God (see on verse 16), and would experience that “Jehovah, indeed, is gracious.”

And everybody was greatly surprised. Not because of the hearty agreement between Elizabeth and Zechariah but because of the total lack of doubt or hesitancy on the part of both.

64. At once his mouth was opened, his tongue loosed, and he began to speak, praising God. In accordance with Gabriel’s promise (see 1:13, 20) Zechariah now immediately regains his power of speech. In typically Semitic style we are told that Zechariah’s mouth was opened, his tongue loosed—see the note on this verse on page 120—and that he started to speak, “blessing,” that is “praising” God.

Zechariah’s song of praise is recorded in the following section (verses 67–80), though whether verse 64 already refers to this song cannot be established. There may have been a few praise exclamations that preceded the song. The main point is: his voice recovered, the first thing Zechariah did with this rewon blessing was to praise God!

Easy to visualize is the rustic scene pictured in verse 65. All those living around them were awestruck, and throughout the hill country of Judea people kept talking about all these things. The Hebrew or Aramaic manner of writing continues. Literally we read, “And fear came on all them that dwelt round about them” (thus A.V.). The remarkable happenings filled the minds of the people with the conviction that God was present in their midst and was carrying out his plan on earth. They, as it were, trembled with holy awe because of his presence and deeds.

The events recorded in Luke 1:5–25, 39–64 remained for a long time one of the chief topics of conversation among the people living in the hill country of Judea. Many, indeed, were the strange and wonderful incidents that had taken place: Zechariah’s vision in the temple, his inability to address the people who were awaiting his return from the altar of incense, Mary’s visit, the birth of a child to parents well advanced in years, the fact that a boy had been predicted and a boy had been born, the unambiguous manner in which, contrary to the persistent urging of neighbors and relatives, both parents had insisted on naming the boy “John,” the sudden opening of the aged priest’s lips as an immediate reward of his obedience, and the sincere and enthusiastic manner in which he then praised God. All these matters continued for a long time to be tossed back and forth in country-style conversation.

That these things were taken very seriously appears from verse 66. And all who heard them laid them up in their hearts. The people were evidently deeply impressed with these events and took their meaning to heart. Cf. I Sam. 21:12; Dan. 7:28; Luke 2:19, 51. They pondered their significance, wondering particularly what these incidents might indicate with respect to the character and future role of this child: They said, What then will this child turn out to be? Their hopes ran high.

Reflecting on all this in later years Luke, the evangelist and historian, writing under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, adds, For the hand of the Lord was with him. This is a typically Lucan expression. Cf. Acts 11:21; 13:11. See also Isa. 41:20, and above on verses 51–53.

What Luke is saying amounts to this: in entertaining such high expectations with respect to this child the people did not err. As later events proved, they were right, as is clear from the fact that as John grew up he was the object of God’s tender care and guidance. See verse 80.⁹¹

Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 1:57–66

Verses 57, 58

“Elizabeth … bore a son … her neighbors and relatives … were rejoicing with her.” Rejoicing with the joyful is a Christian’s joy.

Verses 59–63

“They were going to call him Zechariah.… John is his name.” See also verse 13. God’s plan cannot be frustrated. Cf. Dan. 4:35; Eph. 1:11.

Verses 60–63

“The child’s mother objected.… His father …wrote, ‘John is his name.’ ” Happy the home in which father and mother agree … to do God’s will!

Verse 64

“At once his mouth was opened, his tongue loosed.” It seems as if God could hardly wait to remove punishment and to reward obedience. Cf. Lam. 3:33; Ezek. 18:23, 32; 33:11; Hos. 11:8.

“He began to speak, praising God.” The first use Zechariah made of his recovered speech was to praise God with it. By God’s grace this man seems to have understood the purpose for which he had been chastened. God’s message to all his children is:

Dutch Original	Free Translation
Drukt u mijn kruis,	Pressed by my cross,
Treft u mijn roe,	The rod I sent,
Vraag nooit Waarom	Don’t seek the cause
Maar wel Waartoe.	But the intent.

Verse 65

“Throughout the hill country of Judea people kept talking about these things.” Group discussion about God’s deeds is far better than flippant gossip about men’s defects.

Verse 66

“For the hand of the Lord was with him indeed.” Suggestion for a series of sermons on the theme The Hand of the Lord: in addition to Luke 1:66b the “texts” could be Ps. 104:28; 145:16; Isa. 49:2; 50:2; 62:3; John 10:28; Rev. 1:17. See also Ps. 73:23–25.

Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 1:57–66

Verse 58

ἐμεγάλυνεν. See on 1:46.

Verse 59

Note τὸ παιδίον … αὐτό, and αὐτό again in verse 62: the child … it … it. In such cases English translators generally prefer the rendering: the child … him … him.

ἐκάλουν, third per. pl. imperf. act. indicat. of καλέω. The imperfect can be considered conative: they tried to, were going to, etc.

Verse 60

ἀποκριθεῖσα, nom. s. fem. aor. passive participle of ἀποκρίνομαι. This verb is often used even though no question has been asked. In such cases it indicates a reaction to a suggestion or situation. See also N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 84, footnote 89; and on Mark, p. 421, footnote 515.

οὐχί, an intensified negative.

Although the adversative particle ἀλλά can be rendered “but,” “on the contrary,” “rather,” a literal translation by means of an English equivalent is not always necessary. The rendering, “Definitely not; he must be called John,” already implies strong negation.

Verse 62

ἐνένευον, third per. pl. imperf. (here inchoative) of ἐννεύω*, to make signs. For the compound form see the note on 1:22, page 81. Note that τί ἂν θέλοι is preceded by τό; hence treated as if it were a noun. The optative (third per. s. pres.) preceded by ἄν is proper in what may be considered the apodosis of a future less vivid conditional sentence. In the indirect question, as here, the optative with ἄν of the direct question is retained. The New Testament contains no example of a complete future less vivid conditional sentence. See Gram. N.T., p. 1020. Cf. Gram. N.T. (Bl.-Debr.), par. 386 on p. 195.

Verse 63

It is probably best to leave λέγων untranslated here, in order to avoid the interpretation—erroneous but nevertheless adopted by some—that the two actions, writing and speaking, occurred simultaneously. Verse 64 implies that Zechariah’s mouth was opened immediately after he had written the words. In such cases λέγων is about the equivalent of our quotation marks, comma, colon, or “namely.”

Verse 64

ἀνεῴχθη, third per. s. aor. indicat. pass. of ἀνοίγω, to open. Literally the first clause of this verse reads: “And opened was his mouth on the spot [or immediately, at once] and his tongue.” But Luke has as much right as we have to make use of the figure of speech called zeugma, in which two nouns are construed with one verb, though only one of these nouns, generally the first, suits that verb. Another illustration would be “Milk I caused you to drink, not solid food” (I Cor. 3:2). Rightly considered is not zeugma really a branch of abbreviated expression? For this see N.T.C. on John, Vol. I, p. 206. In the present case we have a perfect right to adopt the rendering, “At once his mouth was opened, his tongue loosed.” With respect to both the mouth and the tongue (really acting as one) the obstruction or impediment, of whatever nature, was removed. See L. Berkhof, Principles of Biblical Interpretation, Grand Rapids, 1950, p. 90.

εὐλογῶν, nom. s. masc. pres. active participle of εὐλογέω, to bless, etc. This verb is frequent in Luke’s Gospel, though found also in Matthew, Mark, and once in John; further, in Acts, Hebrews, and once each in James and I Peter; in the Pauline epistles only in Romans, I Corinthians, and once each in Galatians and Ephesians. Verbal adjective (εὐλογητός), participial form of the verb (εὐλογήσας) and noun in dative (εὐλογίᾳ) occur together in Eph. 1:3. See N.T.C. on that passage.

The principal meanings of εὐλογέω are four:

a. to speak well of (note etymology: εὖ and λέγω; cf. λόγος); hence, to praise, extol, as here in Luke 1:64. Cf. eulogy, eulogize.

b. to impart benefits to (Acts 3:26).

c. to give thanks (as, for food). See N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 595, 596.

d. to invoke God’s blessing upon (Luke 24:50).

Verse 65

διελαλεῖτο, from διαλαλέω*, note διά and imperfect tense: they kept talking with one another, kept discussing back and forth. Cf. 6:11.

ῥήματα, pl. of ῥῆμα. The word ῥῆμα (cf. rhetoric) can mean thing as well as word. Cf. Hebrew dākbhār.

Verse 66

ἔθεντο, third per. pl. sec. aor. middle indicat. of τίθημι, to set, put, lay.

1:67–80 Zechariah’s Prophecy

67 Zechariah, his father, was filled with the Holy Spirit and prophesied, saying:

68 “Blessed (be) the Lord, the God of Israel,

Because he has looked after his people and brought about redemption for them,

69 And has raised up a horn of salvation for us

In the house of David, his servant,

70 As he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets of old,

71 Salvation from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us;

72 To deal mercifully with our fathers,

And to remember his holy covenant,

73 The oath he swore to Abraham, our father:

74 To grant us that we, having been delivered out of the hand of our enemies,

75 Should serve him without fear in holiness and righteousness

In his presence all our days.

76 “And you, (my) child, will be called a prophet of the Most High,

For you will go before the face of the Lord to make ready his ways,

77 To impart to his people knowledge of salvation

Through the forgiveness of their sins

78 Because of the merciful heart of our God,

With which the Rising Sun will visit us from on high,

79 To shine on those who sit in darkness and death’s shadow,

To guide our feet into the path of peace.”

80 And the child continued to grow and to become strong in spirit; and he was in the desert regions until the day of his public appearance to Israel.

Zechariah’s Song is a prophecy which was spoken under the illuminating guidance of the Holy Spirit. Note the words of introduction: 67. Zechariah, his father, was filled with the Holy Spirit, and prophesied, saying. We must, accordingly, accept these two facts:

1. Zechariah was filled with the Holy Spirit. So, it will be recalled, was Elizabeth (verse 41). When Mary arrived, Elizabeth was so definitely guided, influenced, and illumined by the Holy Spirit that, in connection with the leaping of the babe within her womb, she suddenly knew (a) who Mary really was, namely, not just her relative but the most blessed of all women, the mother of her Lord, and (b) who the babe within Mary’s womb was, namely, Elizabeth’s Lord (1:41–43).

So now also this same illumination made it possible for Zechariah to see and to say things which otherwise he would not have been able to see and to say.

2. Zechariah’s Song deserves the title Zechariah’s Prophecy; note: “and prophesied.” In which sense is this song a prophecy? Clearly in a double sense: (a) It is a proclamation of the truth, a message from God to the people. Taken in this sense, to prophesy means to tell forth, to forthtell. So interpreted its contents may touch upon the past, the present, and/or the future. Whenever a servant of God faithfully proclaims God’s message, whether that be a word of condemnation, reproof, command, admonition, consolation, prediction, or any combination of these, he prophesies. See also on verse 76. (b) It is also a prediction. Thus interpreted, to prophesy means to foretell. Though the element of prediction is already implied in the first part of this song (verses 68–75, note especially verses 74, 75), in the second part (verses 76–79) it predominates: “And you, (my) child, will be called … For you will go before,” and probably even “the Rising Sun will visit us.”

Another name given to Zechariah’s Prophecy is The Benedictus, in accordance with the first word of this hymn in the Latin version: Benedictus esto Dominus Deus Israelis, meaning, “Blessed be the Lord, the God of Israel.”

The most simple way to divide Zechariah’s Prophecy is into two parts, each consisting of one sentence (verses 68–75 and 76–79). In the first part Zechariah praises God for having provided salvation for his people, in fulfilment of prophecy and of “his holy covenant,” “the oath he swore to Abraham.” In the second part he, in harmony with Isa. 40:3; Mal. 3:1, summarizes his child’s mission as way-preparer for the Messiah, whom he describes as “the Rising Sun,” and with reference to whom he states that he will “shine on those who sit in darkness,” etc.

The language of The Benedictus is again that of the Old Testament. Parallels or at least resemblances are noted on the following chart:

The Benedictus Compared with Old Testament Passages

*Zechariah’s Benedictus (Luke 1)*	*The Old Testament*
68a “Blessed (be) the Lord, the God of Israel.”	Ps. 41:13; 72:18; 106:48 = the conclusion of Books I, II, and IV of the Hebrew Psalter.
68b “Because he has … brought about redemption for his people.”	Exod. 4:31; Ps. 111:9
69 “And has raised up a horn,” etc.	Ps. 18:2; 132:17
70 “As he spoke by the mouth of,” etc.	Ezra 1:1; Jer. 1:9; Zech. 8:9
71 “Salvation from our enemies,” etc.	Ps. 106:10
72a “To deal mercifully with our fathers”	Ps. 25:6; 98:3; 136 (second part of each verse)
72b, 73 “And to remember his holy covenant, The oath he swore to Abraham,” etc.	Gen. 12:2, 3; 17:7; 22:15–18; Exod. 2:24; II Sam. 22:51; Ps. 105:6–10; Mic. 7:20
74, 75 “To grant us that we … Should serve him,” etc.	Exod. 19:6; Jer. 30:9, 10
76 “and you … will go before,” etc. See also Luke 1:17.	Isa. 40:3; Mal. 3:1
77 “In order to impart to his people the knowledge of salvation Through the forgiveness of their sins.”	Ps. 103:11, 12; Isa. 1:18; 43:25; 53:5, 8, 10, 12; Jer. 31:34b; Mic. 7:19
78, 79 “Because of the tender compassion of our God, Whereby the Rising Sun will visit us … To shine on those who sit in darkness,” etc.	Ps. 107:10; Isa. 9:1; 42:7; 60:1–3; Mal. 4:2

First Part

Verses 68–75

68. Blessed (be) the Lord, the God of Israel,

Because he has looked after his people and brought about redemption for them …

Zechariah begins with a doxology. He praises Jehovah, Israel’s covenant God, for his concern about, and saving intervention in, the affairs of his people. He says that God has “looked after” them. Here he uses the same verb that occurs in Matt. 25:36, “I was sick, and you looked after me.” See also the note on this verse on page 131.

He adds, “and brought about redemption for his people.” Is this redemption political? Is it, for example, deliverance from bondage to a foreign oppressor? The decision will have to be made in the light of the context. Verse 71, taken by itself, affords little help, for the question remains, “Are these enemies and haters political or spiritual?” Verse 77, however, states, “to give his people the knowledge of salvation through the forgiveness of their sins.” See also verses 74, 75: “that we … should serve him without fear in holiness and righteousness,” and verse 79, “to guide our feet into the path of peace.” In such a context the “redemption” to which verse 68 refers would seem to be of a spiritual nature; at least to be basically and predominantly spiritual; probably redemption from Satan, sin, and all the consequences.

Another approach to the answer would be to ask, “What does the same word redemption (Greek lutrōsis) mean in the only other New Testament passages in which it occurs?” In Luke 2:38 we read, “Now coming up at that very hour, Anna was … speaking to all those who were waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem.” Must we believe that the emphasis of this aged and devout child of God and of those whom she addressed was on deliverance from the Roman yoke? Or from Herod’s cruelties perhaps? Was it not rather on restoration to favor with God? And when the inspired author of the book of Hebrews states that Jesus “entered once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption” (9:12), did he not add “through his own blood”?

We can reach no other conclusion but that Zechariah had in mind salvation through Christ. If to some this explanation ascribes to Zechariah too high a Christology, the answer is that this priest was “filled with the Holy Spirit” as he spoke these words.

In line with this explanation is verse

69. And has raised up a horn of salvation for us

In the house of David, his servant …

As verses 71 and 74 indicate, this “horn” symbolizes power; in fact, destructive power. It does not refer to “the horn of plenty.” The underlying figure is the horn of a ram, a wild ox, or a bull. See such passages as I Kings 22:11; Ps. 22:21; 75:5; Dan. 8:5–7. Nevertheless, by means of knocking out and scattering the enemy, the horn becomes “a horn of salvation” for the true Israel.

Note: “in the house of David, his servant.” Not “in the house of Levi,” though Zechariah himself belonged to that tribe. Zechariah was, accordingly, thinking of Jesus, the son of Mary according to his human nature. Was it not exactly Jesus who by means of his substitutionary suffering would destroy the power of Satan and would save his people? Not to be passed by in silence is the fact that here again the descent of Jesus via Mary from David receives confirmation. See above, on verse 32.

70. As he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets of old … That the ancient prophets actually predicted the coming of the Offspring of David, the One who would destroy all his enemies and bring salvation to his people, is an undeniable fact. See Luke 24:27, 32, 44–47; Acts 10:43. Not that any prophet—with the possible exception of Isaiah (chapter 53)—told the entire story, but they told it collectively, one predicting this and the other that with respect to the coming Deliverer.

The Old Testament describes a fourfold preparation for the coming of the Messiah. That preparation was historical, typological, prophetical, and psychological. For elaboration with respect to these four lines see my Survey of the Bible, pp. 93, 94.

Limiting ourselves here to the prophetical preparation, it is clear that the persons listed in the chart below were among those who predicted the coming Lord and Savior.

Old Testament Prophets Who Predicted the Coming of the Lord

*The Ancient Prophet*	*His Description of the Messiah As:*
Moses	The prophet whom God would raise up (Deut. 18:15, 18; cf. Acts 3:22, 23; 7:37).
David	The One who would sit on God’s right hand (Ps. 110:1; cf. Matt. 26:64; Heb. 1:3; 8:1; 10:12; 12:2; etc.). See also Ps. 16:10; cf. Acts 2:25–27.
Isaiah	Immanuel (7:14; 8:8), Wonderful, Counselor, etc. (9:6), the One wounded for our transgressions and bruised for our iniquities, etc. (ch. 53).
Jeremiah and Zechariah	The Branch (Jer. 33:15; Zech. 3:8; 6:12, 13; cf. Isa. 11:1).
Jeremiah	The Lord, our Righteousness (23:6).
Ezekiel and Zechariah	The Shepherd (Ezek. 34:23; Zech. 13:7; cf. Isa. 40:11; see also Matt. 26:31; Mark 14:27; Luke 19:10; John 10:11, 14–16, 26–28).
Daniel	A Son of man whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, etc. (7:13, 14; cf. Matt. 26:64; Mark 14:62).
Micah	Ruler in Israel, etc. (5:2; cf. Matt. 2:6).
Malachi	The Angel of the Covenant (3:1b).
In addition to all these see also Gen. 3:15; 49:10; Num. 21:8; Job 19:25; parts of Psalms 2, 8, 22, 31, 69, 72, 89, 118, etc.; Isa. 42:1–4; 61:1 f.; 63:9; Zech. 9:9; 13:1; etc.

Note, “He spoke by the mouth of his prophets.…” The Speaker was God himself. The prophets were his mouthpieces.

71. Salvation from our enemies and from the hand of all who hate us. We now have a further definition of what was meant by “redemption” (verse 68).

Again and again Jesus Christ is pictured as the One who conquers Satan and his allies, sin, death, the grave, hell, all the hosts of evil (Gen. 3:15; John 12:31, 32; 16:11, 33; I John 3:8; Rev. 5:5; 12:5, 9, 10; 17:14; 19:11–16).

Hymnology has caught this truth: A Mighty Fortress (“and he must win the battle”), See the Conqueror (“Lord of battles, God of armies, He has gained the victory,” etc.), Battle Hymn of the Republic (“Let the Hero born of woman crush the serpent,” etc.).

What verse 71 implies is that when Christ conquers, his followers conquer with him (Rev. 17:14).

Note also: “salvation from the hand of all who hate us.” Among those who hate us are also people. But the passage does not say that we should hate them. As to that, see Matt. 5:44; Luke 23:34.

72, 73. To deal mercifully with our fathers,

And to remember his holy covenant,

The oath he swore to Abraham our father.

When, through David’s Offspring, God rescues his people from all their enemies and bestows salvation upon them, he is thereby showing kindness to the ancient fathers, with whom he established his covenant. He is keeping faith with them. For the rest, since verses 72, 73 are substantially identical in meaning with verses 54b, 55 of the Magnificat, see on those earlier verses.

Note, however, that now “his holy covenant” is distinctly mentioned; also even “the oath” he swore to Abraham our father. See Gen. 22:15–18. Note also in Heb. 6:13–18 the unforgettably comforting explanation and application of this covenant-promise and oath. Who, in reading these words, does not immediately think of the hymn My Hope Is Built (by E. Mote); specifically, of the words:

His oath, his covenant, his blood

Support me in the whelming flood?

So eager is God, as it were, to instil in the hearts of his children faith in his gracious promise that in order to confirm it he even takes an oath by himself!

74, 75. To grant us that we, having been delivered out of the hand of our enemies,

Should serve him without fear in holiness and righteousness

In his presence all our days.

The very wording shows that this purpose clause belongs to what was introduced in verses 68–71, so that the thought connection may be summarized as follows: The God of Israel brought about redemption for us, his people, with this purpose, namely, that we, having now been rescued from the hand of our enemies, should serve him, etc.

In the final analysis the goal of our salvation is the glory of God. The Lord redeems his people in order that out of gratitude they might worship him. According to our passage this worship or service should be:

a. without fear. That follows logically from the fact that we have been delivered out of the hand of our enemies. For corroborating evidence to show that those who were delivered should serve God without fear see Ps. 27:1 f.; 56:11; Rom. 8:31–39.

b. in holiness and righteousness. As some see it, the term holiness as here used indicates what should be the relation of the saved with respect to God; the term righteousness what should be their relation to men. Others, however, maintain that holiness means not doing what God forbids; righteousness, doing what he demands. Interpreted either way, however, it is clear that nothing less than perfection in the sight of God is what should be the aim of God’s people.

c. in his presence. In the light of verses 15, 17, and 19, this phrase indicates that God’s people should be deeply aware of the fact that they constitute “the priesthood of believers,” and should therefore present their lives to God as a voluntary offering.

d. enduring. Note the expression all our days. Not just for a while. See Matt. 13:5, 6, 20, 21 and parallels.

The question now arises, “What, if any, is the relation between this child, namely, the future John the Baptist, and the divinely bestowed redemption for which the child’s father has been praising God?” The answer is as follows:

Second Part

Verses 76–79

76. And you, (my) child, will be called a prophet of the Most High … What is so strikingly beautiful about this “prophecy” is the fact that Zechariah is not chiefly concerned about himself or even about his child but rather about the mighty work of grace which God is going to accomplish by means of “the horn of salvation” from the house of David. Of this great God, here again called “The Most High” (see on verse 32), Zechariah’s child will be, and will be acknowledged as, “a prophet,” that is, one who proclaims to the people whatever it is that his Sender wishes him to proclaim. We see the fulfilment of this prediction in such passages as Matt. 11:9 f. (Luke 7:26 f.); 14:5; 21:26 (Mark 11:32; Luke 20:6). Continued: For you will go before the face of the Lord to make ready his ways. See on verse 17. Cf. Isa. 40:3; Mal. 3:1; Matt. 3:3. The ways or paths of the Lord are those along which he proceeds in order to bestow his salvation. In the present connection we think especially of the divine call to conversion and to faith in Jesus as the Messiah.

A further elucidation of John’s task follows in verse 77. To impart to his people knowledge of salvation through the forgiveness of their sins. The sense is: “to make ready his ways, namely, to impart to his people,” etc. That was all important, absolutely necessary, for it is through the knowledge of sin that salvation is attained; that is, consciousness of guilt and pollution precedes faith in Christ as complete and perfect Savior. See Rom. 7:24, 25.

It is God, God alone, who saves. John was God’s chosen instrument to impart to the people the knowledge of salvation through forgiveness. He would be able to do this because of strength and wisdom given to him by God. Note: salvation through forgiveness, not through piling up merits. Cf. Ps. 32:1; 130:4; Dan. 9:9; Eph. 1:7; 4:32. The way of salvation is the same in Old and New Testament. It is the way of grace through faith (Gen. 15:6; Isa. 55:1; Eph. 2:6, 8).

It should be noted also that this salvation is a distinctly spiritual matter, though, to be sure, it affects all domains and aspects of life. It is not a matter of deliverance from bondage to Rome. It is not a matter of gaining wealth, prestige, earthly glory, etc. It is a matter of reconciliation to God through the saving work of the promised Redeemer, whose forerunner John was appointed to be.

And if anyone should think that somehow, some way, the root or cause of salvation is after all to be found in man, the final passage of Zechariah’s beautiful hymn should cure him completely: salvation through forgiveness of sins is on account of, or:

78, 79. Because of the merciful heart of our God,

With which the Rising Sun will visit us from on high,

To shine on those who sit in darkness and death’s shadow,

To guide our feet into the path of peace.

Note the following:

a. “The merciful heart of our God” is literally “our God’s entrails [or: bowels] of mercy.” A discussion of this figure of speech can be found in N.T.C. on Philippians, p. 58, footnote 39.

b. “With which” = “equipped with this (merciful heart).”

c. “The Rising Sun” (some prefer “the Dawn” or simply “Dawn”), like “the horn of salvation” in verse 69, indicates and describes the Messiah. The point is that in and through him the Most High himself will in his tender mercy visit the people in order to help and save them.

Basically the Greek term used here (anatolē) means rising (cf. Matt. 2:2). It is but a small step from rising or rise to sunrise, and from there to the Rising Sun. Since we know that Zechariah, the author of this hymn, was deeply aware of the prophecies of Malachi (note resemblance between 1:17, 76 and Mal. 3:1), it is not difficult to believe that he is here echoing Mal. 4:2, the passage about the coming of “the sun of righteousness with healing in his wings.”

d. There is considerable textual support for the reading “has visited us” instead of “will visit us.” But the reading “will visit us” is at least equally strong. Besides, accepting the future tense here is favored by the fact that the passage occurs in a context of futures (“will be called,” “will go before,” verse 76). Also, Jesus was not yet born, so that “has visited” can be justified only if it be interpreted as a prophetic past. All in all it would seem that the future tense deserves the preference in this case.

e. The “visit” of this “Sun” has as its purpose: “to shine on those who sit in darkness and death’s shadow” (verse 79). This phraseology is derived from Isa. 9:1, 2, which is also quoted in Matt. 4:16.

Sitting in darkness and death’s shadow indicates a condition of danger, fear, and hopelessness, a pining away, with no human help in sight. In Scripture the designation darkness, when used figuratively, refers to one or more of the following features: delusion (blindness of mind and heart; cf. II Cor. 4:4, 6; Eph. 4:18); depravity (Acts 26:18); and despondency (Isa. 9:2; see its context, verse 3). Though all three qualities are probably in the picture here, yet the emphasis may well be on the last of the three (despondency, hopelessness).

The antonym of darkness is light, which, accordingly, refers to genuine learning (the true knowledge of God, Ps. 36:9), life to the glory of God (Eph. 4:15, 24; 5:8, 9, 14), and laughter (gladness, Ps. 97:11). All three may well be included, but here too the emphasis is perhaps on the last of the three.

The real meaning of the words, accordingly, is this, that Jesus Christ, by his presence, teaching, deeds of mercy and power, would fill the hearts of all his followers with the joy of salvation. No longer would they be pining away in gloom and despair. Whenever Jesus enters human hearts, the words of a popular hymn go into effect,

The whole world was lost in the darkness of sin,

The light of the world is Jesus.

f. “To guide our feet into the path of peace.” Those who a moment ago were pictured as sitting down in despair are now standing on their feet; in fact, are walking. Their sadness has been turned into gladness. Note the connection: “to shine on those … to guide our feet.” By means of shining, the Rising Sun guides our feet. All we, sinners, had gone astray and had turned to our own way (Isa. 53:6), not knowing “the way of peace” (Isa. 59:8, 9). Then the Sun rises, shines, directs our feet into the path of peace.

This peace is both objective and subjective. Objectively it amounts to reconciliation with God through “David’s horn,” “the Rising Sun,” the Messiah (II Cor. 5:20). Subjectively it is the quiet and comforting assurance of forgiveness and adoption (Rom. 8:16 f.). It is the smile of God reflected in the reconciled sinner’s heart, the shelter from the storm, the hiding-place in the shadow of his wings, the stream that issues from the fountain of grace. To that peace the Rising Sun directs our feet.

As this touchingly beautiful song draws to its close it seems as if already we hear the angels sing:

Glory to God in the highest,

And on earth peace among men he has graciously chosen.

We have studied “Elizabeth’s Song of Love” and “Mary’s Song of Faith.” That we have every right to call the priest’s prophecy “Zechariah’s Song of Hope” can hardly be questioned. The very word prophecy, as here used, implies also the forward look, which, as has been shown, is the distinguishing trait of this song.

Luke’s closing sentence is:

80. And the child continued to grow and to become strong in spirit; and he was in the desert regions until the day of his public appearance to Israel.

Like any normal child John grew up. Cf. Judg. 13:24, 25. Since his parents were already well advanced in years when he was conceived, the boy probably became an orphan early in life. But both physically and spiritually his development was very favorable. In fact, he became strong in spirit, filled with excellent mental, moral, and spiritual qualities.

He lived in desert regions. For more about this see on 3:2b. This lonely life lasted until the beginning of his public “appearance” or “presentation” to Israel. With this entire verse cf. what is said about the child Jesus in Luke 2:40.⁹²

Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 1:67–80

Verse 68

“Blessed be …” Without doxology true religion is inconceivable.

Verse 69

“A horn of salvation for us in the house of David.” There is nothing petty about Zechariah. Note how his thoughts and thanksgivings turn from his own child to that other Child, the One from the house of David.

Verse 70

“His holy prophets.” The lower our view of inspiration, the smaller the blessing we receive and the capability of permitting the Word to be a blessing to others.

Verses 71, 74, 75

“Salvation from our enemies … that we … should serve him.” When we are saved from something, we are at the same time saved for something, namely, to be of service to others, for God’s glory. The latter is often forgotten.

Verse 72

“His holy covenant.” Salvation never begins with us. It begins with God. It was he who established his holy covenant with Abraham, a covenant that is still in effect. Read Gal. 3:29; I John 4:19.

Verses 76, 77

“And you (my) child will … impart to God’s people knowledge of salvation.” The noblest aspiration parents can cherish for their children is that they become “channels of blessing.”

Verse 78

“The merciful heart of God.” What an encouraging phrase!

Verses 78, 79

“The Rising Sun … to shine on those who sit in darkness.” When he shines on them they too begin to shine … brighter and brighter until full day (Prov. 4:18).

“To guide our feet into the path of peace.” Being a channel of blessing brings peace.

Verse 80

“He was in the desert regions.” Those who plan to influence multitudes should prepare themselves by being alone with God.

Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 1:67–80

Verses 68 and 78

ἐπεσκέψατο (verse 68) is third per. s. aorist indicat. of ἐπισκέπτομαι; and ἐπισκέψεται (verse 78) is the third per. s. future indicat. of the same verb. See below, under verses 76–79. In Acts 6:3 this verb means to look for, select. The other New Testament passages in which a form of this verb is found are (in addition to Luke 1:68, 78) Matt. 25:36, 43; Luke 7:16; Acts 7:23; 15:14, 36; Heb. 2:6; and James 1:27. In all these ten remaining instances of its use the meaning is either: (a) to be concerned about, to look after; or (b) to visit. In several cases, however, translators and interpreters differ with respect to the question whether in a particular passage the verb falls under meaning (a) or meaning (b). The line of demarcation between the two connotations is at times almost invisible. In each case the context will have to decide.

Verse 73

ὅρκος, oath. Cf. exorcise, exorcist; see also Matt. 5:33; 14:7, 9 (= Mark 6:26); 26:72; Acts 2:30; Heb. 6:16, 17; James 5:12.

ὤμοσε, third per. s. aor. indicat. of ὀμνύω (another form of ὄμνυμι), especially frequent in Matthew and in Hebrews; to swear, to confirm by oath.

Verse 74

Though rather far removed from each other, the adverb ἀφόβως modifies the present infinitive λατρεύειν. Cf. Mariolatry.

Verses 76–79

κληθήσῃ and προπορεύσῃ are sec. per. s. fut. indicatives, respectively of καλέω and (cf. Acts 7:40) προπορεύομαι**. In verse 78 it is probably best, in line with these two verbs, to accept the reading ἐπισκέψεται (“will visit us”), another instance of the future tense, but now third per. s. The articular aor. infinitive τοῦ δοῦναι etc. (verse 77) is in apposition with ἑτοιμάσαι (verse 76). In verse 77 the phrase ἐν ἀφέσει, etc., goes best with σωτηρίας: the gateway to salvation full and free is forgiveness. And this forgiveness, in turn, is rooted in God’s merciful heart; hence, so is the entire work of salvation. In verses 78, 79 ἐπιφᾶναι (see also Acts 27:20; Titus 2:11) modifies ἐπισκέψεται. The visiting has as its purpose to shine on those who sit in darkness. And this shining, in turn, is necessary “to guide our feet,” etc.

Verse 80

In the opening of the sentence note the verbs in the imperfect tense. They do not merely state a fact; they picture it in the process of happening. Some interpret πνεύματι as referring to the Holy Spirit. In that case, however, would not Luke have used the fuller term, as in verses 15, 41, and 67? Besides, physical and spiritual growth form a pair.

The noun ἀνάδειξις* (here in the genitive ἀναδείξεως) occurs nowhere else in the New Testament. Basically it means holding something up for the purpose of exhibition; hence, public appearance, presentation.

Summary of Chapter 1

Dedicatory Preface (verses 1–4). Luke was moved to write because (a) the events centering in Jesus were so important that many people had already tried to draw up a narrative around them, (b) from reliable witnesses he had received information concerning these happenings, and (c) he himself had made a thorough investigation. His purpose was that his friend (sponsor?) Theophilus, a distinguished person, one who may have occupied a high position in the city of Rome, and who had already received some instruction in Christian doctrine, might get to know the truth concerning Jesus more fully. Undoubtedly the evangelist was trying to reach for Christ not only Theophilus but the entire Greek-speaking Roman world.

The Birth of John Foretold (verses 5–25). The angel Gabriel suddenly appeared to Zechariah, while this aged priest was performing his duties at the altar of incense in the Jerusalem sanctuary. Gabriel told the priest that his wife Elizabeth, also well along in years, would bear a son, to be named John, and that this son, when grown up, would “turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God.” Zechariah did not believe it. As a result he was told that he would not be able to speak until the day of the prediction’s fulfilment. When he came back to the waiting audience, the priest tried by means of signs to indicate what had occurred. After Zechariah returned to his home Elizabeth did indeed become pregnant.

The Birth of Jesus Foretold (verses 26–38). In a small Galilean village lived a virgin named Mary. By means of solemn ceremonies it had been arranged that she was to become the wife of Nazareth’s carpenter, Joseph. He was a very kind man, who truly loved her. See Matt. 1:18, 19. Both Mary and Joseph were descendants of King David, and accordingly belonged to the tribe of Judah.

One day Gabriel, the very angel who had appeared to Zechariah, presented himself also to Mary. He told her that she had found favor with God, and would conceive and give birth to a son, to be named Jesus. He added that this child would be great, would be called “the Son of the Most High,” and would reign forever. When Mary wondered how, in her virgin state, this prediction could be realized, Gabriel answered that the Holy Spirit would overshadow her, bringing about conception. Result: her child would in reality be the Son of God. The angel added that because of God’s almighty power even aged Elizabeth, her friend and relative, had conceived and was six months along in her pregnancy. Mary answered, “Behold, the handmaid of the Lord. May it be to me according to your word!” She was fully surrendered.

Mary Visits Elizabeth (verses 39–45). So Mary goes to the hill country of Judah to visit Elizabeth. The older woman, in addressing Mary, exclaims,

Blessed are you among women,

And blessed is the fruit of your womb!

The poem or hymn in which she showed how very happy she had been made by Mary’s condition may be called “Elizabeth’s Song of Love,” for love does not envy (I Cor. 13:4).

Mary’s Magnificat (verses 46–56). In this famous hymn, which may be called “Mary’s Song of Faith,” she gives evidence of her trust in the Mighty and Merciful God, the Holy One, the Helper in the time of need, the God of the covenant. The opening lines are:

My soul magnifies the Lord,

And my spirit rejoices in God my Savior.

The Birth and Naming of John the Baptist (verses 57–66). When Elizabeth’s time of pregnancy had run its normal course she gave birth to a son, as had been predicted. On the eighth day, when the child was circumcised, the neighbors and relatives wanted to name him after his father, Zechariah. Elizabeth, however, insisted that he be called John (“Jehovah is gracious”). Asked about his own wishes in this matter, Zechariah wrote on a tablet, “John is his name.” This act of obedience on his part was immediately rewarded by speech recovery. He began to speak, praising God. All of these wonderful events made a deep impression on the people living in the hill country of Judea.

Zechariah’s Prophecy (verses 67–80). Another name would be “Zechariah’s Song of Hope.” It consists of two parts; in fact, of two long sentences (verses 68–75 and 76–79). In the first sentence Zechariah praises God for having provided salvation for his people, in fulfilment of prophecy and of his holy covenant with Abraham. In the second he, with firmly anchored hope, summarizes the child’s mission as a way-preparer for the Messiah, whom he describes as “the Rising Sun” about to shine on “those who sit in darkness.”

Luke’s closing statement is: “And the child continued to grow and to become strong in spirit; and he was in the desert regions until the day of his public appearance to Israel.”

↑ Back to top