CHAPTER I

Outline of Chapter 1

Theme: The Work Thou Gavest Him to Do

1:1–4 Dedicatory Preface

1:5–25 The Birth of John the Baptist Foretold

1:26–38 The Birth of Jesus Foretold

1:39–45 Mary Visits Elizabeth

1:46–56 Mary’s “Magnificat”

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

1:67–80 Zechariah’s Prophecy

1:1–4 Dedicatory Preface

1 1 Since³⁴ many have undertaken to draw up a narrative concerning the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers³⁵ of the word handed them down to us, 3 it seemed fitting for me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the beginning, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent³⁶ Theophilus, 4 in order that you may know³⁷ the exact truth³⁸ with respect to the matters concerning which you received instruction.

Beginning with this section (1:1–4) the notes on Greek words, phrases, and grammatical constructions will be found or indicated at the close of the section.

In order to retain something of the flavor of Luke’s beautiful and balanced sentence, I have resisted the temptation of cutting it up into several short statements.³⁹

In ancient times prologues of this general character were rather common. Thus, Josephus begins his work Against Apion (I.1–3) as follows:

“In my history of our Antiquities, most excellent Epaphroditus, I have, I believe, made sufficiently clear to any who may peruse that work the antiquity of our Jewish race.… However, since I notice that a considerable number of persons, influenced by the malicious slanders of certain individuals, discredit the statements in my history … I deem it my duty to devote a brief treatise to all these points; in order at once to convict our detractors … to correct the ignorance of others, and to instruct all who desire to know the truth concerning the antiquity of our race.” Vol. II of the same work opens as follows: “In the first volume of this work [cf. Acts 1:1], most esteemed Epaphroditus, I demonstrated the antiquity of our race.… I also challenged the statements of Manetho, Chaeremon, and some others. I shall now proceed to refute the remaining authors who have attacked us.” See also that same historian’s introduction to his History of the Jewish War.

Compare the prologues with which the following writers begin their accounts: Greek medical men such as Hippocrates, Dioscorides, and Galen; the historians Herodotus, Thucydides, and Polybius; and the biographer and miscellaneous writer Plutarch.⁴⁰

But although it is true that Luke, as a highly cultured author, writing flawless and elegant Greek, adopts the type of introduction that was customary with writers of that day and age, his prologue is more beautifully balanced than any of the others and also kinder in tone than some of them. A quick comparison with the introductions by Josephus immediately causes this contrast to stand out sharply: Luke’s foreword, correctly interpreted, contains no recriminatory remarks. It is the product of divine inspiration!

Luke’s Preface deals with two matters: (a) Motivation, and (b) Purpose.

Motivation

So important are the events concerning Jesus that many people have already taken in hand to blend into a narrative the reports concerning these happenings (verse 1).

Eyewitnesses have handed down these reports to us (verse 2).

I [Luke] have thoroughly investigated all essential matters (verse 3).

Purpose

Thus equipped, I [Luke] write this Gospel in order that you, Theophilus—and others like you—may know the exact truth with respect to the matters concerning which you have already received some instruction (verse 4).

1. Since many have undertaken to draw up a narrative concerning the things that have been fulfilled among us …

a. “Since many have undertaken … it seemed fitting for me also to write.”

Does Luke mean, “Since others have done such a poor job, I will do better”? The church historian Eusebius (op. cit. III.xxiv.15) seems to have been of that opinion. He represents Luke as saying, in effect, “What others have somewhat rashly attempted I will remedy. I will correct what those others have written.”

However, unbiased reading of 1:1–4 immediately shows that Luke does not say, “I will do better than they,” but rather, “I will also put my hand to writing a narrative concerning these things.” Note verse 3: “it seemed fitting for me also,” etc.

The next question might well be, “But if Luke is not finding fault with what others have already done, and perhaps even approves of it, then why does he also wish to write?” The answer may well be that though others had written, no one as yet had composed as complete an account as Luke envisioned. Note verse 3: “having traced the course of all things accurately from the beginning.…” For more on this see Introduction, point V B, and see on 1:3. In this connection it must not be overlooked that when the evangelist wrote these four verses he undoubtedly already had in mind the writing of Acts as well as the Third Gospel. The story beginning with the annunciation of the birth of John the Baptist and extending all the way to the spreading of the gospel from Rome as a center, through the labors of the apostle-prisoner Paul, had never as yet been presented in one beautifully arranged account!

Luke writes, “Many have undertaken to draw up a narrative.” Who were those “many”? Was Matthew included? The possibility that Luke made use of Matthew’s Gospel must not be denied. On this see N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 53. Nevertheless, it is possible so to interpret Luke 1:2 that here in 1:1 Luke is excluding works by eyewitnesses, like Matthew. Besides, as has become abundantly clear—see Introduction, points III A 2, and B 2—a considerable portion of Luke’s Gospel reminds one of Mark. It has been shown—see N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 36–47—that in all probability it was Luke who used Mark’s Gospel, not vice versa. Therefore, here in 1:1 Luke may well have been thinking of Mark as one of the “many” who had undertaken to draw up a narrative. Moreover, since a Hebrew or Aramaic written account certainly underlies Luke’s nativity narrative (1:5–2:52) and probably also some of the later sections, the beloved physician most likely also included the author(s) of such materials in his reference to the “many” who had undertaken to write. And since Luke says “many have undertaken to draw up a narrative,” the possibility must be allowed that some of these “many” had failed to complete that which they had begun to do.

b. “to draw up a narrative concerning the things that have been fulfilled…” See footnote 48 on the meaning of the word fulfilled.

It is clear from Luke’s entire Gospel that he regards history not as the sum total of chance occurrences, or as the result of a series of fortuitous circumstances, but as the fulfilment of the divine plan; hence also of prophecy. This is clear especially from 22:22, but see also 1:45, 54, 55, 69, 70; 2:38; 3:3–6; 4:21, 43; 5:32; 7:20; 9:22, 44; 12:50; 18:31–33; 19:41–44; ch. 21; 24:25–28, 44–49. And for Acts see in that book 2:23; 3:18; 4:28.

c. “among us.” Although this pronoun is broad enough to embrace all those among whom John the Baptist and Jesus walked and even those who were in any way affected by the outpouring of the Holy Spirit—the eyewitnesses, those to whom their reports were transmitted, Luke himself, his contemporaries, believers, unbelievers—it surely refers especially to the believing recipients of God’s grace in Christ. It was to them alone that the birth of the Baptist and that of Jesus had been announced, that Messiah’s suffering and death had been predicted, that the risen Christ had appeared. Upon them, them alone, the Holy Spirit had been poured out, etc.

2. … just as they who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word handed them down to us … Note that Luke does not include himself among the eyewitnesses but among those to whom these eyewitnesses handed down their reports and testimonies. That the term eyewitnesses includes earwitnesses is clear from I John 1:1. Among these early witnesses one must certainly include the apostles Peter (Matt. 16:13–20; Luke 24:34; John 1:40–42; 21:15–23; I Cor. 15:5; I Peter 5:1; II Peter 1:16), and John (John 21:24; I John 1:1); in fact The Twelve (John 15:27); also the brothers of Jesus, his mother and other women (Acts 1:14); furthermore Joseph called Barsabbas, Matthias (Acts 1:21–23), etc. See also Introduction, point III B 6.

Luke does not specify whether the reports were handed down in oral or in written form. He leaves room for both types of transmission.

These same people, the eyewitnesses, not only received, they also gave: whatever they had seen and heard they proclaimed and “handed down” to others of their own generation and later ones. They became “ministers” or “servants” of the word, that is, of the gospel. It was with a feeling of profound reverence and awe that they handled the messages they had received from the lips of the Savior and the facts about him. They did not place themselves above the word, using it merely as a self-serving tool, but beneath it, becoming its servants.

To the two reasons already mentioned (see verses 1 and 2) Luke now adds a third, showing what it was that motivated and qualified him to write: 3. … it seemed fitting for me also, having traced the course of all things accurately from the beginning … This shows that Luke wants his treatise to be not only complete but also accurate. Was it perhaps for this very reason that when he draws on Semitic sources (e.g., the nativity narratives) he leaves the phraseology and style virtually untouched, and at times seems to simply translate, almost word for word, from Semitic into Greek?

Continued: to write an orderly account … According to the sense of the word orderly used in the original, an orderly account is one in which one says next what should be said next. It is an account which is not confused or haphazard. By no means is it true that the evangelist here promises to write a Gospel in which every event will be related in precisely chronological sequence. Even today history books do not always follow that pattern. One historian, to be sure, in describing the administration of George Washington, will report its important events, of whatever character—political, military, social, economic, etc.—year by year or even month by month, in exact chronological sequence. Another, having pictured the political events from beginning (1789) to end (1797) will then go back to describe what took place during this period in the economic sphere; for example, the invention of the cotton gin by Eli Whitney (1793).

By and large the sequence of events as reported by Luke is chronological. On the other hand, with respect to individual details this is by no means always the case. Study (a) Luke’s account of the three temptations (4:3–13), comparing it with that of Matthew (4:3–11); (b) the early place where Luke describes Jesus’ rejection at Nazareth (4:16–30), comparing it with the far later place in their respective Gospels where Matthew and Mark cover the same event (Matt. 13:54–58; Mark 6:1–6); (c) the problem posed by Luke 9:51; 13:22; 17:11 (three separate journeys to Jerusalem?); and (d) the question raised by Luke 22:19–23 (cf. John 13:30) as to whether Judas Iscariot partook of the Last Supper. However, these items will be discussed in connection with each of the Lucan passages. For Luke 9:51; 13:22; 17:11 see the special study in this commentary, entitled Summary of and Introduction to Luke’s Central Section (9:51–18:14), subheading B, pp. 541–545. It will become clear that Luke makes no mistakes. He has his good reasons for writing exactly as he does, as guided by the Spirit. To him a logical or topical connection is frequently more important than precise chronological sequence. Throughout he is writing a truly “orderly” account, as he promises here in 1:3.

Continued: for you, most excellent Theophilus.

Who was Theophilus? Even when we grant—as we should—that Theophilus was a real person, and not a symbol for anyone “loved by God,” which is the meaning of the name, we still discover that there is a wide difference of opinion regarding the addressee. Here are some of the different views:

a. Theophilus was, or had been, a slave owner. One of his slaves had been Luke, who, having won his master’s confidence and affection, was given his freedom and even an education.⁴¹ See also above (Introduction, point I B 2, p. 10).

Comment. This is an interesting theory, but unsupported by any evidence.

b. He was Luke’s “patron of letters.” Since Theophilus was an influential person and a man of means, and besides a friend of Luke, the latter expected him to defray the expenses involved in the composition and distribution of Third Gospel-Acts.⁴²

Comment. If the “patron” theory is adopted, because it is believed to be in harmony with what was at that time a rather general practice, and if securing such a sponsor is regarded as being in any sense Luke’s purpose, this purpose must be thought of as definitely subsidiary to his main objective, clearly stated in verse 4.

c. He was a “God-fearer”; that is, he belonged to that large group of Gentiles who had renounced polytheism, had embraced the ethical monotheism of Judaism, attended the synagogue, but had not promised to obey the entire Jewish law, including its circumcision requirement. The fact that Luke often mentions these “God-fearers” or semi-proselytes (Acts 13:43, 50; 16:14; 17:4, 17; 18:7) points to the conclusion that Theophilus too belonged to this group.⁴³

For comment see point (d).

d. As pictured in Luke 1:4 Theophilus is still a Gentile, for before the third century a.d. the epithet most excellent was never used in connection with believers in Christ. However, since in Acts 1:1 the adjective most excellent is dropped and only the name Theophilus remains, the conclusion is warranted that by means of the reading of the Third Gospel Theophilus had become a Christian.⁴⁴

Comment on theories (c) and (d). There is no solid evidence in support of either of these theories. As to (c), it is not clear that Theophilus had arrived at the knowledge of the Christian religion via Judaism. He may have, but we do not know. And as to (d), there may have been any number of possible reasons why Luke dropped the epithet in Acts 1:1. One reason may have been that he regarded Luke 1:1–4 as a preamble to both books, as he probably did, and therefore did not consider the repetition of “most excellent” to be necessary.

e. “It is impossible for us to ascertain whether Theophilus is here addressed as occupant of a high position in the government, as belonging to the equestrian order, or simply as a person worthy of high honor. Therefore we are unable to say whether the proper rendering [in Luke 1:3] is ‘your excellency’ (or something similar), or rather ‘highly honored,’ ‘preeminent,’ or ‘most noble.’ In headings or dedicatory introductions the epithet used by Luke occurs rather frequently, at times perhaps as an expression of courtesy.”⁴⁵

Comment. This view makes sense. It does not restrict the possibilities too narrowly. The opinion that Theophilus may have occupied an important position in the Roman government has in its favor that, if this be true, the epithet most excellent would have approximately the same meaning here which it has in Acts 23:26; 24:3; and also in 26:25, in which passages it is applied respectively to the procurators Felix and Festus. But, as Greijdanus also indicates, Theophilus may simply have been “a person worthy of high honor,” or, as F. F. Bruce states, “a representative member of the intelligent middle-class public at Rome.”⁴⁶

Though it cannot be proved that Theophilus was living in or near Rome when Luke—perhaps also now at Rome; see above, Introduction, point IV B, p. 33—addressed him, neither is this idea entirely speculative. In Acts 28:15 Luke makes mention of both The Three Taverns and The Market of Appius (Latin: Tres Tabernae, Appii Forum). He mentions these two places without any further elucidation as to where they were located (rather close to Rome, respectively 33 and 43 miles south of the city). On the other hand, Luke is frequently more specific when he mentions places located a long distance away from Rome (Luke 1:26; 4:31; 8:26). Therefore, it may not be too risky to infer that the reason for this degree of difference in supplying geographical detail could be that Theophilus was living in or near Rome and was therefore not in need of receiving a more circumstantial report about nearby places.⁴⁷

Having stated the reasons which motivated and entitled him to write this Gospel, Luke now proceeds to mention his purpose: 4. in order that you may know [or: may come to know] the exact truth with respect to the matters concerning which you received instruction.

It is clear that Theophilus had already received some—perhaps even considerable—information in Christian doctrine. To a certain extent the truth of the Christian religion had been dinned into his ears; that is, he had been “catechized.” However, he is in need of a more thorough grounding in the truth, the facts concerning Jesus and his church. That Luke regards this “truth” as significant is clear from what he has already said (see especially verse 3). For Theophilus to know (or: come to know) the exact truth was very important. For this there were two reasons: (a) to keep him from falling into error. Think of the many attacks upon the truth constantly being made by both Jew and Gentile (Matt. 19:3–8; 27:63; John 6:42, 52; 7:40–49; 9:24; Acts 26:24; 28:22; I Cor. 1:23); and (b) to obtain salvation in full measure to the glory of God.

In connection with (b), the words “that you may know [or: come to know] the exact truth” remind us of the statement of Jesus, “You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32). Other significant passages showing the great importance which Jesus and the New Testament writers attach to knowing the truth are John 16:13; 17:17, 19; Gal. 2:5; Eph. 1:13; 4:15; II Thess. 2:10, 12, 13; I Tim. 2:4; 3:15; II Tim. 2:15; II Peter 1:12. And for the Old Testament see especially Hos. 4:6, “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.”

This brings up the interesting question: Just how are the various elements of Christian experience—the intellectual, emotional, and volitional—related to each other? Which, if any, is basic and which follows in importance? How do they interact? For the answer, as this commentator sees it, consult N.T.C. on John, Vol. II, pp. 10, 11. The concluding lines of the discussion as found there are as follows:

“The only logical conclusion, in view of these various and (at first glance) seemingly (though never really) conflicting representations, is this: When we speak of knowledge, love, and obedience, we are not thinking of three altogether separate experiences, but of one single, comprehensive experience in which the three are united in such a manner that each contributes its share, and all cooperate unto man’s salvation and God’s glory. This experience is personal in character. Hence, we can no longer speak of the primacy of the intellect or of the primacy of the emotions or of the primacy of the will, but of the primacy of the sovereign grace of God influencing and transforming the entire personality for the glory of God.”

It was that result which Luke was striving, by God’s grace and power, to bring about in the heart and life of Theophilus, and all those whom he represented.⁴⁸

Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 1:1–4

Verse 1

“The things that have been fulfilled among us.” It is comforting to know that history—including that of our own lives—is the fulfilment of God’s plan. This does not cancel human responsibility. See Luke 22:22; Acts 2:23.

Verse 2

“Servants of the word.” He who rides a hobby is placing himself above God’s Word.

Verses 2, 3

“Eyewitnesses … having traced the course of all things accurately from the beginning.” The Christian religion is not a matter of “cunningly devised myths” (II Peter 1:16), but rests on solid, historical fact. We should thank God for having qualified such men as Luke and the other evangelists, with their varied talents, to write the four Gospels.

Verse 3

“Most excellent” or “most noble.” The Christian religion does not destroy courtesy or excuse rudeness.

Verses 3 and 4

“To write … in order that you may know.” The believer—in this case Luke—is deeply concerned about his fellow man and endeavors to bring him to the knowledge of the truth.

Verse 4

“The matters concerning which you received instruction.” The church that neglects catechetical instruction has itself to blame for its waning strength.

Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 1:1–4

Whenever a Greek word is followed by an asterisk, its New Testament occurrence is confined to the Third Gospel. In a book written by versatile Luke we expect many such words. When the word is followed by a double asterisk, its New Testament occurrence is confined to the Third Gospel and Acts.

Verse 1

ἐπειδήπερ* is a strengthened form of ἐπειδή. The meaning of ἐπειδήπερ is: inasmuch as, since; or, if the sense is both causal and temporal: since by now.

ἐπεχείρησαν, third per. pl. aor. indicat. of ἐπιχειρέω**, to put one’s hand (χείρ) to, to undertake, seek, attempt. Cf. Acts 9:29; 19:13.

ἀνατάξασθαι, aor. infinitive of ἀνατάσσομαι*, to arrange in proper order, draw up, compose.

διήγησις*; cf. διηγέομαι; German durchführen, Dutch doorvoeren; the meaning of the noun is: account, narrative, with emphasis on a degree of fulness.

πεπληροφορημένων, gen. pl. perf. passive participle of πληροφορέω; from πλήρης, full, and φορέω, cf. φέρω, to bring; hence, to bring to fulness, to fulfill, accomplish in full. The verbal form is a synonym of πληρόω, which occurs frequently in connection with fulfilment of prophecy (cf. 4:21; 24:44; Matt. 1:22; 2:15, 17). This is probably also the meaning here in Luke 1:1. When πληροφορέω is used in connection with persons, it has the meaning: to fully convince, persuade; in the passive: to be fully convinced (Rom. 14:5). There are those who ascribe this meaning also to the word as used here in Luke 1:1, resulting in the meaning: “on which there is full conviction among us,” or something similar. Some authors seem to waver between this and the meaning mentioned earlier. See A. T. Robertson’s rendering in A Translation of Luke’s Gospel, New York, 1923, p. 13; and cf. with his rendering in Word Pictures, Vol. II, p. 4. As I see it, because Luke in 1:1 is speaking about things and because of his emphasis on fulfilment of prophecy—see the references given in the text—the rendering “the things that have been fulfilled among us” deserves the preference.

Verse 2

παρέδοσαν, third per. pl. aor. act. of παραδίδωμι. The word has various meanings, to hand over, deliver, betray, commit, commend, allow. Here and in several other cases it is used with respect to tradition (whether written, oral, or both); hence, to hand down, pass on, transmit.

αὐτόπτης, eyewitness. Cf. autopsy. For synonym see II Peter 1:16.

ὑπηρέτης, from ὑπό, under, and ἐρέσσω, to row; hence basically under-rower; here servant, minister. Other New Testament meanings: officer, helper, assistant, attendant.

τοῦ λόγου, of the word; that is, of the gospel, the message of salvation centering in Jesus Christ and made possible by him. The phrase “of the word” modifies “ministers,” not “eyewitnesses.” At times the word λόγος has reference to that which proceeds directly from Jesus’ lips. For still another meaning see on verse 4. There is no justification for confusing the meaning of λόγος in the Third Gospel with the Logos idea in John’s Gospel, as if also in the Third Gospel λόγος would refer directly to the Son of God.

Verse 3

παρηκολουθηκότι, dat. s. m. perfect participle of παρακολουθέω, to follow, attend; here: to follow through mentally, to investigate, to trace the course of events (from beginning to end). The perfect tense shows that Luke had done this before he started to write. For a somewhat different meaning of the verb see N.T.C. on I Tim. 4:6; II Tim. 3:10.

ἄνωθεν, from the beginning; cf. Mark 15:38: “from top to bottom.” In John 3:3, 7: from above, again.

καθεξῆς** = κατά and ἑξῆς. κατά in such cases is distributive in meaning; ἑξῆς—from ἔχω, fut. ἕξω—means having, being after or next to; hence καθεξῆς here in 1:3 means: one after another; in regular order. To write an account in regular order means to write an orderly account. Related meanings: next, soon afterward (Luke 8:1), place to place (Acts 18:23), point by point (Acts 11:4).

κράτιστε, voc. s. m. of κράτιστος**, the superlative of κρατύς.

Verse 4

ἵνα, here with full final sense: in order that. Luke is stating his purpose in writing to Theophilus.

ἐπιγνῷς, sec. per. s. aor. subjunctive of ἐπιγινώσκω. For this verb see N.T.C. on Matthew, p. 502, footnote 482. Also here in Luke 1:4 the question is whether the prefix ἐπί in ἐπιγνῷς has an intensive meaning. Commentators differ widely. A possibility is: that you may come to know, etc. See also R. E. Picirelli, “The Meaning of ‘Epignosis,’ ” EQ XLVII, No. 2 (April–June, 1975), pp. 85–93; and R. Bultmann on γινώσκω and related words, in Th.D.N.T., Vol. I, pp. 689–719; especially pp. 703, 704. In the present case the idea exact or thorough knowledge is implied in the combination of the verb ἐπιγνῷς and its object ἀσφάλειαν.

κατηχήθης, sec. per. s. aor. indicat. passive of κατηχέω. Cf. echo, catechize. The truth of the gospel has been “sounded down upon” Theophilus. He had been “instructed” in it. Cf. Acts 18:25; Rom. 2:18; Gal. 6:6a.

ἀσφάλεια. The cognate verb σφάλλω means: to cause to totter or fall; hence, the noun means: that which cannot fall; here in 1:4 exact truth, certainty; in I Thess. 5:3 (cf. Acts 5:23) safety, security.

λόγος, here thing, matter; so also in Acts 8:21; 15:6. Cf. the double meaning of Hebrew dābhār.

1:5–25 The Birth of John the Baptist Foretold

5 In the days of Herod, king of Judea,⁴⁹ there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah. His wife was also a descendant of Aaron,⁵⁰ and her name was Elizabeth. 6 Both were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the commandments and requirements of the Lord, blameless. 7 However, they were childless, because Elizabeth was barren, and both were advanced in years.

8 Once while Zechariah was serving as priest before God, in the appointed order of his division, 9 according to the custom of the priesthood he was chosen by lot to burn incense after having gone into the sanctuary of the Lord. 10 At the hour of the burning of incense the entire assembled congregation was outside, engaged in prayer.

11 Then there appeared to him an angel of the Lord, standing at the right of the altar of incense. 12 Now when Zechariah saw him, he became troubled and overwhelmed with fear.⁵¹ 13 But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid,⁵² Zechariah, for your petition has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall give him the name John. 14 You will have joy and exultation,⁵³ and many will rejoice over his birth; 15 for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. Wine or strong drink he must never touch, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb. 16 Many of the sons of Israel will he turn to the Lord their God. 17 And he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the frame of mind of the righteous, in order to make ready for the Lord a people well-prepared.”

18 Then Zechariah asked the angel, “How can I be sure of this? For I am an old man, and my wife is advanced in years.”

19 “I am Gabriel,” the angel answered. “I stand in the presence of God, and I was sent to speak to you, and to bring you this good news. 20 And now, mark well, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their proper time, you will remain silent and not able to speak until the day when these things take place.”

21 Meanwhile the people were waiting for Zechariah and wondering why he stayed away so long in the sanctuary. 22 And when he did come out, he was unable to speak to them. Then they realized that he had seen a vision in the sanctuary, for he kept making signs to them but remained unable to speak.

23 And when the days of his service were completed he went back to his home. 24 After these days his wife Elizabeth became pregnant. For five months she kept herself in seclusion, saying, 25 “This is the way the Lord has dealt with me in the days in which he looked (with favor) upon me, to remove my disgrace among the people.”

Luke has promised an orderly account. In his first two chapters he already begins to fulfil this promise. Note the exquisite symmetry, the pleasing parallelism:

Two births are promised: that of the herald and that of the One whom that herald is going to introduce to the people. In each case it is the angel Gabriel who foretells the birth. He predicts it respectively to the herald’s prospective father Zechariah, and to the Great One’s mother-to-be Mary (1:5–38). When and how did Joseph, to whom Mary had been promised in marriage, become aware of her pregnancy? See Matt. 1:18–25. The two narratives—Matthew’s and Luke’s—supplement each other. At no point is there conflict.

Next in Luke’s Gospel the two prospective mothers, Elizabeth and Mary, are seen together, for Mary is visiting her relative Elizabeth, who lives in a town in the hill country of Judah. As Mary enters, Elizabeth exclaims, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb,” etc. Mary, in turn, utters her Magnificat (1:39–56).

Recorded also are the two births: that of John, born to Elizabeth (1:57), and that of Jesus, born to Mary in Bethlehem of Judea, to which the couple—Joseph and Mary—traveled from their home in Nazareth (2:1–7).

In each case Luke relates the circumstances attending the birth, the circumcision and the naming of the child (1:58–66; 2:21). But now notice the contrast: in the case of John the eighth day incidents are followed by the song of his father Zechariah (1:67–79). In the case of Jesus, however, the song cannot even wait. The universe-shaking birth itself is immediately followed by an announcement to shepherds, the song of an angelic choir, and the resulting visit by the shepherds. These events, including the “Glory to God in the highest,” etc. (2:8–20), precede the happenings on the eighth day. What a remarkable and meaningful arrangement!

The forerunner’s life up to the time when he makes his public appearance is summarized in one verse (1:80). Very appropriately in the case of the chief figure, namely, Jesus himself, the evangelist goes into greater detail. We read about the presentation in the temple, Simeon’s “Nunc Dimittis,” Anna’s thanksgiving and testimony, the return to Nazareth, and “the boy in the midst of the teachers” (2:22–52). And see also Matt. 2.

It is fitting that Mark, in describing the coming of our Eternal King, begins his Gospel by introducing the King’s herald; and that Matthew, in fixing the attention upon our Great Prophet, already in the first chapter (verses 22, 23) and repeatedly afterward makes mention of the fulfilment of prophecy in him, and pictures him as being himself God’s Messenger. Think of the Lord’s six discourses recorded by Matthew, and of the many dominical sayings.⁵⁴ And so also it is appropriate that Luke, who in his Gospel—see Introduction, point V D—underscores the very qualities which Scripture also elsewhere associates with our Sympathetic Highpriest (Luke 4:16–27; cf. Heb. 4:14–16; 7:25), at the very outset pictures a priest who enters the sanctuary in order to burn incense. Temple passages peculiar to the Third Gospel are: 1:5–23; 2:22–35, 36–38, 41–51; 18:9–14; 21:37, 38; 24:53.

5. In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zechariah, who belonged to the priestly division of Abijah.

The days of Herod! This is Herod I, often designated “Herod the Great.” The date of his birth seems to have been 74 b.c. The period during which he ruled over the Jews is generally dated 37–4 b.c.

He did not all at once become the actual ruler of all of Palestine. Rather, he had been nominated king of Judea by the Roman senate in the year 40 b.c. An army was given him. With this army—hence, “with his own sword”—he was to carve out a kingdom for himself. In this he gradually succeeded.

He is mentioned here (Luke 1:5) and also in Matt. 2:1–22, but nowhere else in the New Testament. He should not be confused with his son “Herod the tetrarch,” as Luke sometimes calls that son (see also Matt. 14:1).

Herod the Great, the ruler to whom reference is made here in Luke 1:5, was capable, crafty, and cruel. He was the man who, in order that no one would be able to take away from him, from him alone, the designation the king of the Jews, and to appease his wrath, was going to order all the boy babies of Bethlehem and its surroundings to be murdered. For a further description of this terrible tyrant, see N.T.C. on Matthew, pp. 155–168; 176–193; and note his Family Tree on p. 189 of that volume.

In the appellation king of Judea the term Judea may well indicate “the land of the Jews in its entirety.” See also on 4:44 and see Acts 26:20.

In the days, then, of this diabolical monster there lived a man who, together with his wife, exhibited the very opposite traits of character. Terrible tyrant—pious priest, what a contrast! The name of this priest was Zechariah (Greek and A.V. “Zecharias”). He must not be confused with any of the thirty other persons of (basically) that same name mentioned in Scripture. That a name meaning “Jehovah has remembered” should be popular is easily understood.

The Zechariah of Luke’s story was a member of the priestly “course” or “division” of Abijah. During the reign of David the priests had been organized and divided into twenty-four divisions (I Chron. 24:1–6). These divisions were reaffirmed by David’s son Solomon (II Chron. 8:14). The eighth division, the one to which Zechariah belonged, was that of Abijah (I Chron. 24:10). Only four divisions returned from Babylon (Ezra 2:36–39). But these four were redivided into twenty-four, and given the old names. Twice a year each division was on duty in the temple, and each time the period of service was one week. His wife was also a descendant of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. Her name, too, has a beautiful meaning, namely, “God [or: my God] is an oath,” that is, is “the Absolutely Reliable One.”

It was indeed a great blessing for a priest to marry a wife of priestly stock.⁵⁵ This was not required by the law, which stipulated only that the wife should be a virgin of his own people (Lev. 21:14). Between Zechariah and Elizabeth there was no danger of incompatibility. The fact that, without benefit of computer (!), this man had married a woman with whom he could live in peace and happiness is clear from Luke 1:60, 63; note the thorough agreement between husband and wife. It appears also in verse 6. Both were righteous in the sight of God, observing all the commandments and requirements of the Lord—blameless.

What is meant by “… were righteous”? Apart from the sovereign grace of God revealed basically in the atoning death (the “blood”) of Christ no one can ever be truly “righteous” (Exod. 12:13; Psalm 49:7; Isa. 53:4–6; Matt. 20:28; Mark 10:45; Luke 22:19, 20; Rom. 3:21–24; Eph. 1:7; Heb. 9:22; I Peter 2:24; Rev. 7:14). Another way of saying this is that basically there is no way in which a person can be truly “righteous before God,” or “blameless,” other than by imputation, so that the sinner’s guilt is laid upon the Savior, and the Savior’s righteousness upon the sinner. Nevertheless, Scripture itself justifies the terminology: righteousness by imputation and righteousness by impartation. To the latter the name sanctification is often given. Although these two should be distinguished, they should never be separated. Though it is true that good works have never saved anybody, it is also true that the person who is conscious of having been saved by grace through faith will put forth every effort to do good works. Eph. 2:8, 9 must never be separated from 2:10; nor Titus 2:11 from 2:14. The “forgiven trespass” and the “true heart” are twins:

How blest is he whose trespass

Has freely been forgiven,

Whose sin is wholly covered

Before the sight of heaven,

Blest he to whom Jehovah

Will not impute his sin,

Who hath a guileless spirit,

Whose heart is true within.

No. 55 (Psalm 32), first stanza, Psalter Hymnal of the Christian Reformed Church, Grand Rapids, 1958.

At times Scripture makes reference to these two kinds of righteousness almost in the same breath. Rom. 8:1 is a good example. Cf. “He breaks the power of canceled sin” (in O For a Thousand Tongues, by Charles Wesley). At times the emphasis is on righteousness by imputation (Rom. 3:24, 28; 5:1; Gal. 2:16; 3:11, 13); at times, as here in Luke 1:6, on righteousness by impartation. The best commentary on “righteous in the sight of God” is surely the text itself: “observing all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.” It was in that sense that in the sight of God these two people were “blameless.” Is it not true that with God honest intention is equal to action? See I Kings 8:18.

“Commandments and requirements.” Cf. “commandments and statutes” (Deut. 4:1, 40; 6:2). A person who observes both the commandment and the statute is interested not only in the underlying principle but also in its application to concrete life situations. Not only in a very general way does he try to keep the first commandment, “You shall have no other gods before me” (Exod. 20:3), but he is also fully aware of its corollaries, one of them being, “The firstfruits of your soil you shall bring into the house of the Lord your God” (Exod. 23:19). He does the same with the sixth commandment, “You shall not kill” (Exod. 20:13); for example, “You shall not oppress a stranger” (Exod. 23:9); with the eighth, “You shall not steal” (Exod. 20:15); for example, “You shall not take a bribe” (Exod. 23:8); with the ninth, “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor” (Exod. 20:16); implying, “You shall not take up a false report” (Exod. 23:1); and so with every commandment. In this connection see also Christ’s own treatment of the commandments in the Sermon on the Mount (note especially Matt. 5:21–48).

Zechariah and Elizabeth, then, were people like Job (Job 1:1) and Simeon (Luke 2:25).

So far everything with respect to Zechariah and Elizabeth was wonderful. But now note:

7. However, they were childless, because Elizabeth was barren, and both were advanced in years. Barrenness was about the worst thing that could happen to a married woman. Across the many intervening centuries we can still hear Rachel saying to Jacob, “Give me children, or else I die” (Gen. 30:1). It still hurts to read how Hannah suffered because her rival Peninnah, instead of sympathizing with her, maliciously kept reminding her of the fact that the Lord had shut up her womb (I Sam. 1:6). Result: Hannah shed bitter tears.

Besides, was not fertility among the blessings of obedience God had promised to Israel? See Deut. 7:14; Psalm 113:9.

The trouble was that many people drew the wrong deduction from this promise, as if in any individual case barrenness was an infallible sign of God’s disfavor. Unjustly, but all too often, the barren woman would be shunned, looked down upon, despised.

For many of these sorrowing wives, however, dreary days and sleepless nights were somewhat brightened by the hope that the situation might still change. But for Zechariah and Elizabeth even this flame of hope had begun to flicker. At last it was extinguished altogether, for by now both were “advanced in years” (lit. “in days”).

And then a most unexpected event occurred: 8–10. Once while Zechariah was serving as priest before God, in the appointed order of his division, according to the custom of the priesthood he was chosen by lot to burn incense after having gone into the sanctuary of the Lord. At the hour of the burning of incense the entire assembled congregation was outside, engaged in prayer.

Each day the various functions of the priesthood were apportioned by lot. The most solemn part of the entire liturgy was the burning of incense. It was then that the priest approached closest to the veil separating the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies. In the economy of the old dispensation did not the Holy of Holies “have the golden altar of incense”? To be sure, for understandable practical reasons that altar actually stood in the Holy Place (Exod. 30:6, 10). But it belonged to the Holy of Holies (Heb. 9:4). On the Day of Atonement, once a year, was not the incense brought from this altar into the Holy of Holies, and was not the blood that had been sprinkled on the mercy-seat applied also to the altar of incense? See Lev. 16:15–19. Do not the shedding of blood and the rising cloud of incense belong together? Do not redemption and thanksgiving form a pair like cause and effect?

It is understandable that to be chosen by lot to burn incense was considered a unique privilege. Only once in a lifetime was a priest allowed to receive this honor. Ever afterward he was considered “rich and holy.” Numerically speaking, to be chosen by lot to burn incense was a privilege shared by few.

Twice a day this incense was offered: in the morning and in mid-afternoon. Some⁵⁶ believe that what happened now occurred in the morning. Others,⁵⁷ basing their view on the fact that according to Luke 1:10 on this particular day a multitude of considerable magnitude had entered the temple courts, believe that the incident about to be related occurred in the afternoon. However this may have been, what took place may be introduced as follows:

Zechariah proceeds toward the golden altar. He is accompanied by two assistants. One of these men is carrying in a golden bowl burning coals from the altar of burnt-offering, and is spreading them out on the altar of incense. He then withdraws. The other assistant is carrying a golden censer filled with incense. He arranges the incense upon the altar.

And now profound silence ensues, for the most solemn action of the ritual is about to occur. A signal is given. The sacred moment has arrived for Zechariah to place the incense upon the coals, causing a cloud to arise, its fragrance rising and spreading. Together with the ascending aroma a fervent prayer, consisting of thanksgiving for blessings received and of supplication for peace upon Israel, now issues from the heart and lips of the priest. The people, gathered “outside” the sanctuary but “inside” its courts (Israel’s Court, Women’s Court, with priests and Levites in evidence especially in the Priests’ Court; see map, N.T.C. on Mark, p. 488) are also praying, in a prostrate position and with outstretched hands. Then they wait for Zechariah to return from the altar of incense and to proceed eastward to the steps in the front of the sanctuary (Holy Place and Holy of Holies). On these steps Zechariah, accompanied by other priests, is expected to pronounce the Aaronic blessing on the people. This benediction will be followed by songs of praise, public offerings, etc.⁵⁸

The people wait … and wait … and wait. But for minutes that must have seemed like hours nothing happens. Explanation: 11, 12. Then there appeared to him an angel of the Lord, standing at the right of the altar of incense. Now when Zechariah saw him, he became troubled and overwhelmed with fear. Suddenly the angel is standing there at the right side of the altar; that is, just to the south of it, for directions are indicated from the point of view of a man facing east. The angel, then, would have the golden altar to his left, and the candelabrum to his right and somewhat to the front. See map, as above.

It is natural that the sudden, unexpected appearance of a strong, holy, dazzlingly brilliant angel causes a weak, sinful human being to tremble. Fear “fell upon” Zechariah. See also Judg. 6:22; 13:22; Dan. 10:5–9; Luke 1:29; 2:9; Acts 10:4; and cf. Isa. 6:1–5.

13. But the angel said to him, Do not be afraid, Zechariah, for your petition has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you shall give him the name John. Note the following points:

a. “Do not be afraid.” In other words, “Stop being frightened; cheer up.” Is it not encouraging to note how very often in Scripture God or Jesus Christ tells his people not to be afraid but instead to take heart? A partial list of passages in which, in some form or other, this exhortation is found would be: Gen. 15:1; 26:24; 46:3; Exod. 14:13, 14; Josh. 1:9; 11:6; Judg. 6:23; II Kings 19:6, 7; I Chron. 28:20; II Chron. 20:15; 32:7; Neh. 4:14; Ps. 49:16; 91:5; Isa. 10:24; 37:6; 41:10, 13, 14; 43:1, 5; 44:2, 8; Dan. 10:19; Zech. 8:13; Matt. 14:27; 17:7; 28:10; Mark 5:36; Luke 1:30; 2:10; 5:10; 8:50; 12:4, 7, 32; John 14:1, 27; 16:33; Acts 18:9; 27:24; Heb. 13:6; I Peter 3:14; Rev. 1:17. And is not “Do not be afraid” another way of saying, “Have faith”? Truly salvation by grace through faith is not a Pauline invention. It is firmly rooted in Scripture throughout.

b. “Your petition has been heard.” Which petition? The one which Zechariah had barely finished when the angel suddenly appeared; hence, the supplication that peace in its richest sense—salvation—might be bestowed upon Israel? Or was the angel referring to the request for a child, a petition that belonged to bygone days? In spite of what certain commentators say to the contrary, it simply is not true that this question can be decided on the basis of grammar (tense of verb). Those who favor the former alternative base their conclusion on the fact that Zechariah had hardly ceased praying for the peace of Israel when the angel appeared. But with at least equal right those who favor the latter alternative point to the very close connection between “Your petition has been heard” and “Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son.” As it were “in one breath” these two statements were made by the angel. If a choice must be made between these two alternatives, this interpreter would choose the latter.

But is it absolutely necessary to make this choice? Is there not a very close relation between the two? Is it not true that the son to whom Elizabeth would give birth was destined to be the forerunner of the Messiah, through whom salvation would come for Israel; in fact, for all God’s children, whether Jew or Gentile?

c. “Your wife Elizabeth.” The very one whose barren condition was common knowledge would be delivered from her affliction. Through Elizabeth, and not through some other woman, Zechariah would become the father of a child.

d. “a son.” The very sex of the child is already predicted!

e. “… and you shall give him the name John.” See on verses 59, 63.

The angel continues: 14. You will have joy and exultation, and many will rejoice over his birth. The heart of Zechariah will be filled with exuberant gladness. Many others will also rejoice because of the birth of this child. Not only will his very birth bring about instant jubilation (1:58) but, as the immediate context (see verses 16, 17) indicates, in the future too when this child has become a man, many people are going to thank the Lord for the fact that John was born. Through his ministry multitudes will be turned from darkness to light; others will at least exclaim, “John is—or was—a prophet” (Luke 7:29; cf. Matt. 21:26, 32).

Continued: 15. for he will be great in the sight of the Lord. It was about him that Jesus was going to say, “Among those born of women there has not arisen anyone greater than John the Baptist” (Matt. 11:11). This would be true not only because John was going to be himself a prophet but also because he was going to be one whose arrival on the scene of history had been predicted. He was destined to become the herald of the Messiah. As such he was going to direct the attention of the people to the long expected One, concerning whom he was going to say, “Look, the Lamb of God who is taking away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). He was going to emphasize the necessity of true conversion as the only way for the sinner to enter Messiah’s kingdom (Luke 1:76, 77; 3:3). And since it is the duty of the herald to recede to the background when the King arrives, so John was going to resist the temptation of calling attention to himself. Instead, in humility of spirit he was going to say, “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30). Now in view of the fact that Jesus himself, in describing the nature of true greatness, always links it with humility (Luke 7:6, 9; cf. Matt. 8:8, 10; Luke 9:46–48; cf. Matt. 18:1–5; Mark 9:33–37; and see also Matt. 15:27, 28), is it not altogether probable that this characteristic which was to mark John is also implied here in Luke 1:15? Without humility would it even be possible for anyone to be “great,” especially “in the sight of the Lord”?

Continuing on this theme of greatness, the angel adds, Wine or strong drink he must never touch, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb. Not with wine but with the Holy Spirit will John be filled. This same implied contrast (filled with wine versus filled with the Holy Spirit) is found also in other passages (Acts 2:15–17; Eph. 5:18). John is not going to derive his strength or inspiration from earthly means but from the Holy Spirit.

“Filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb.” Does this expression imply that something mysterious took place in the heart of John while he was still in his mother’s womb? Or is it simply an expression indicating extent of time: from the very beginning to the end of his life John will be filled with the Holy Spirit? Since the chapter contains two more references to John as a babe in his mother’s womb (see verses 41 and 44), the discussion of this subject will be postponed until verse 44 is reached.

Was John a Nazirite? For “the law of the Nazirite” read Numbers 6. Note especially these two regulations: (a) During the period governed by their vow Nazirites were to abstain from wine and other fermented beverages, and (b) no razor was to be used on their head. In connection with Samson both of these restrictions are mentioned (Judg. 13:7; 16:17). As to Samuel, we know that his mother Hannah vowed that as a symbol of lifelong consecration to the Lord no razor would ever touch his head (I Sam. 1:11). Abstention from intoxicating drinks is not mentioned in his case. With reference to John the opposite holds: He was to avoid wine and (other) fermented drinks, but nothing is said about a razor. Consequently, some argue that John was not a Nazirite,⁵⁹ others that he was.⁶⁰ In order to reach a conclusion with respect to John it may help us to take note of the fact that according to our present passage (verse 15) during his entire life-span the promised offspring must never drink wine or (other) fermented beverages. In John’s case, therefore, this restriction was far more rigid than in the case of priests, who were forbidden the use of these drinks only during the period of their service (“when you go into the tent of meeting,” Lev. 10:9), and was at least more severe than in the case of the Nazirites, for in their case the prohibition was in force only during the days covered by their vow (Num. 6:4, 5). Therefore, if John was a Nazirite, he must be considered a Nazirite for life. Does not careful reading of Luke 1:15 leave the impression that the idea of total, lifelong consecration to special service for the Lord is here emphasized?

After what has already been said in connection with verse 14 (“Many will rejoice over his birth”) not much need be added with respect to verse 16. Many of the sons of Israel will he turn to the Lord their God. Instead of “sons” one can also read “children” or “people.” That this prophecy was fulfilled has been shown.

One important lesson must not be passed by, however. It concerns the very heart of God. Note that Israel is here pictured in its “unturned,” that is, “unconverted,” state. Nevertheless, the angel informs Zechariah that even now God considers himself their God. He is still deeply concerned about them. In this connection read also Psalm 78:1 (“My people give ear,” etc.); Isa. 1:3 (“My people do not understand”); Ezek. 16:21 (“my children”). Having made a covenant with his people, the Lord has a special claim on them, and a unique interest in them! That holds even today, for Gen. 17:7 finds its echo in Acts 2:38, 39. And in this connection do not forget Luke 13:6–10.

The angel concludes his message by giving Zechariah this further description of the relation of the promised child to the Messiah, the effect of his ministry upon family life, and the final purpose of all this: 17. And he will go before him in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the frame of mind of the righteous, in order to make ready for the Lord a people well-prepared. What we have here is Christ’s own commentary on the words of Mal. 4:5, 6. John’s public appearance to Israel would precede that of Jesus. But what the text (both in Malachi and here in Luke) offers is more than a chronological item, though that too is clearly implied. Not only will John precede Jesus in time; he will actually be his herald or forerunner. As such he will announce and introduce his Master to the people. Even more: by means of his ministry—calling people to conversion—he will be an instrument in God’s hand in preparing the people for the reception of their Messiah. See Luke 3:4 f.

Note “in the spirit and power of Elijah.” Does this mean that John was Elijah? The answer is both “No” and “Yes.” Not literally, as is clear from the fact that when John was asked, “Are you Elijah?” he truthfully answered, “I am not” (John 1:21). But figuratively, so that Jesus even calls him Elijah (Matt. 11:13, 14; cf. 17:12; Mark 9:12, 13). The solution is given here in Luke 1:17:

The “spirit and power of Elijah” was going to be clearly displayed in John the Baptist. Cf. Elijah’s boldness, “I have not troubled Israel but you [Ahab] have” (I Kings 18:18), with the Baptist’s (Matt. 14:4), “It isn’t right for you [Herod Antipas] to have her [your brother Philip’s wife Herodias].” And see also Matt. 3:7; Luke 3:7, 19.

Of the words “to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the frame of mind of the righteous” there are two contrasting interpretations:

a. The “fathers” are the patriarchs. The conversion of many people through John’s ministry would cause the patriarchs—Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc.—from their heavenly abodes to look down with favor upon their formerly disobedient but now transformed children.

Support for this theory, according to which the souls of the departed are spectators who are constantly looking down upon the arena in which their struggling descendants are still living, is found by its proponents in Heb. 12:1 (“the cloud of witnesses”).⁶¹

Comment. We can understand that this type of interpretation would appeal to those who indulge in fanciful speculations concerning the life hereafter. One author points out its weakness as follows:

“Some people think this refers to the contrast between a devout ancestry and an apostate posterity. As we see it, this view is incorrect, since on the basis of that interpretation it is impossible to understand how the heart of the fathers, who died long ago, can be turned back to the children.” He correctly concludes: “We must think of the relation between parents and their children.”⁶²

And as to the similarly speculative interpretation of Heb. 12:1, for the correct view read F. F. Bruce, The Epistle to the Hebrews (New International Commentary), Grand Rapids, 1964, pp. 345, 346.

b. True conversion results, among other things, in revival of harmonious and loving relationships in the home.

Comment. This interpretation fits the historical background in Malachi. As a result of mixed marriages (Mal. 2:11) and easy divorce (2:14) family relationships had become disrupted.

Conditions of this character continued into the new dispensation, as is clear from Christ’s teaching on divorce and remarriage (Matt. 5:32; 19:9). Nevertheless, family life is of the utmost importance, and this not only for the well-being, both spiritual and physical, of parents and children, but also for the true prosperity of the nation, the church, and society in general. From a spiritual point of view the generation gap is often ruinous.

To reverse this situation was one of the purposes of Malachi’s preaching during the old dispensation, and of John’s preaching at the beginning of the new dispensation. Given believing parents and similarly right-minded children, domestic harmony results; consequently also effective witness-bearing.

The end result of this ministry of the way-preparer will therefore be the bringing about of “a people well-prepared,” that is, “fit for the Master’s use” (II Tim. 2:21).

As some see it, the explanation given above is in conflict with the statement of Jesus recorded in such passages as Matt. 10:34–37 (cf. Luke 12:51–53; 14:26): “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I came to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother,” etc. However, any suggestion of real conflict is baseless. It is, in fact, very easy to conceive of a twofold result of the preaching of the gospel, whether by the Baptist or by Jesus: (a) In many families there would be a sharp division, some siding with the truth, others opposing it. (b) In other families, however, those who had been opposed were going to be converted, so that parents and children would become united in spirit, all serving the Lord.

Zechariah’s reaction to the cheering words of the angel was disappointing: 18. Then Zechariah asked the angel, How can I be sure of this? For I am an old man and my wife is advanced in years. For this reaction there was no excuse. It was definitely the response of unbelief.

In order to lessen the seriousness of the priest’s improper question it has been argued that Abraham, Gideon, and Hezekiah reacted similarly to astounding promises. Did not Abraham ask, “How am I to know” (Gen. 15:8)? Did not Gideon ask for a sign; in fact, for two signs (Judg. 6:36–40)? And did not even King Hezekiah ask for a sign to show that he would indeed be healed (II Kings 20:8–11)?

There are differences, however:

a. As is clear from Gen. 15:6, Abraham’s response was definitely that of faith, not of unbelief. In the light of that passage Gen. 15:8 can perhaps best be interpreted as a request for a sign to strengthen his faith.

b. The same holds, perhaps, in the case of Gideon. Note also his words of awe and reverence, “Let not thy anger burn against me,” etc.

c. Similarly the very phraseology employed by Hezekiah shows that he was not offering an objection but wanted very definitely to believe God’s promise.

Over against all this stands Zechariah’s response which almost amounted to, “I don’t believe you, for people as old as we are do not become parents.” Besides, what is often passed by in silence is the fact that Zechariah acted as he did in spite of the fact that he had before him all these examples: God’s faithfulness to his promise in the case of Abraham, Gideon, Hezekiah, and very many others.

For other illustrations of sinful skepticism read Gen. 3:6; II Kings 2:16–18; Luke 24:37, 38; John 20:24, 25; Acts 12:12–15; II Peter 3:4.

19. I am Gabriel, the angel answered. I stand in the presence of God, and I was sent to speak to you, and to bring you this good news.

It is true that the angel’s “I am Gabriel” follows Zechariah’s “I am an old man.” Nevertheless, the intended contrast is not thus indicated. The confrontation is rather that between the priest’s cold skepticism and the angel’s towering certainty, between the former’s presumptuous doubt and the latter’s profound conviction. Gabriel is conscious of having delivered God’s good news, bound to be fulfilled when the appropriate season arrives (verse 20). And because Zechariah has called in question a wonderful gospel promise that sprang from the heart and mind of God himself he deserved to be punished.

“I am Gabriel.” The name Gabriel has been interpreted variously as meaning: “man of God,” “mighty one of God,” “Mighty (is) God.” Elsewhere Gabriel is also mentioned in Dan. 8:16, where he explains the vision of the ram and the he-goat; in Dan. 9:21 f., where he interprets the prophecy of the seventy weeks; and in Luke 1:26–38, where he promises that in a very mysterious manner Mary will become the mother of the long-awaited Messiah. The only other angel mentioned by name in Scripture is Michael (Dan. 10:13, 21; Jude 9; Rev. 12:7).

Note also the significant words “I stand in the presence of God.” Partly because of this added qualification several more or less speculative theories have sprung up with respect to Gabriel:

a. that he is not a created being but the Holy Spirit;

b. that in distinction from the task assigned to Michael and the other angels, it is Gabriel’s special function not only to bring but also to interpret God’s messages to those human beings for whom they are intended; and

c. that Gabriel is one of “the seven angels” (Rev. 8:2)—not to be confused with “the seven Spirits” (Rev. 1:4)—who stand in the presence of God.⁶³

There is nothing in the text or context that even remotely suggests theory (a). As to (b), it is doubtful whether this conclusion is supported by sufficient evidence. As to (c), this theory may well be correct. At least the correspondence between Luke 1:19 and Rev. 8:2 is striking. Both Gabriel and the seven angels are described as “standing before God.” Absolute certainty is, however, unattainable. Because of Matt. 18:10 one might ask, “But do not all the angels stand in God’s presence, beholding the face of the Father?”⁶⁴

Has the priest asked for a sign? He will receive a sign, but not the one he had asked for. So Gabriel continues: 20. And now, mark well, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their proper time, you will remain silent and not able to speak until the day when these things take place.

For his manifestation of unbelief Zechariah is going to be punished. Because he has made wrong use of his tongue, that tongue will be silent. But note how justice is tempered with mercy: “You will not be able to speak … until the day when these things take place.” That they will occur exactly when their proper time has arrived is certain. When they—the birth and

God’s Justice Tempered with Mercy

*Sin, Punishment, or Threat of Punishment*	*revealed in the case of*	*Divine Mercy, Patience*
Gen. 3:16, 19	Adam and Eve	Gen. 3:15
Gen. 4:7, 11, 12	Cain	Gen. 4:15
Gen. 6:7	The Antediluvians	Gen. 6:3b
Gen. 18:20, 21	Sodom	Gen. 18:26–32
Exod. 32:10	The People of Israel	Exod. 32:32; 33:14
I Kings 21:19	King Ahab	I Kings 21:29
Matt. 26:74	Peter	Mark 16:7 (“… and Peter”); Luke 22:61a; 24:34; John 21:15–17
Luke 13:7	The Barren Fig Tree	Luke 13:8, 9
John 20:25	Thomas	John 20:27
Matt. 26:56	The Twelve	Matt. 28:16–20; John 17:8; 20:19
Rev. 2:22, 23	“Jezebel”	Rev. 2:21 (“time to repent”)

naming of the child—take place Zechariah will receive his voice back again, for in spite of the priest’s serious error God’s love is still resting on him.

Luke now turns our attention to the worshipers. In the courts of the temple they were waiting for Zechariah to return to them: 21. Meanwhile the people were waiting for Zechariah and wondering why he stayed away so long in the sanctuary. For background see above, on verses 8–10. The people were waiting for Zechariah, waiting and wondering why he tarried so long in “the sanctuary.” As has been mentioned elsewhere, it is necessary in this case to distinguish between: (a) temple in the sense of the entire building complex, including all the courts, and (b) sanctuary, consisting of the Holy Place and Holy of Holies. Zechariah had gone into the Holy Place. The people were in the courts.

According to The Talmud it was customary for the priest whose duty it was to offer incense to leave the altar as quickly as possible, lest unwittingly he commit some act of profanation. Cf. Lev. 10:1 f.; II Sam. 6:6, 7. But in the present case, completely contrary to custom, the priest “took such a long time” (thus literally) before returning from the sanctuary. 22. And when he did come out, he was unable to speak to them. Then they realized that he had seen a vision in the sanctuary, for he kept making signs to them but remained unable to speak. As predicted by Gabriel (verse 20), Zechariah was dumb, unable to speak. By means of signs he was trying to convey this information to the assembled multitude.

Though the text nowhere states that fear was staring from the priest’s eyes, blanched his cheeks, and caused his limbs to tremble, something akin to this may well have been taking place. In any event, as a result of his sign language—perhaps nodding and gesturing—the people realized that Zechariah had seen a vision (cf. Luke 24:23; Acts 26:19; II Cor. 12:1), an awe-inspiring object or being, one generally invisible to human eyes.

There are those who, on the basis of verse 62—which states that sometime later people began to make signs to Zechariah; if he was not deaf why did they not simply speak to him?—conclude that Zechariah must have been not only dumb but also deaf. For remarks on that theory see on verse 62.

Concluded: 23–25. And when the days of his service were completed he went back to his home. After these days his wife Elizabeth became pregnant. For five months she kept herself in seclusion, saying, This is the way the Lord has dealt with me in the days in which he looked (with favor) upon me, to remove my disgrace among the people.

There is a close connection between verses 23 and 24. So interpreted verse 23, stating that Zechariah went back to his home after completing his term of service, becomes more meaningful than it would be if viewed merely as the end of a little paragraph. Rather, Zechariah went home and Elizabeth became pregnant.

The conception of John reminds one of the conception of Isaac (Gen. 21:1, 2). It took a miracle to open Sarah’s womb (Heb. 11:11, 12). This was also true in the case of Elizabeth (Luke 1:7, 18, 36, 37). Similarly, it took a miracle to enable Abraham, Sarah’s husband, to deposit seed (Rom. 4:19). In view of Luke 1:7, 18, indicating that Zechariah was “an old man,” was not also the restoration of his productive capacity the result of a miracle?

In the case of Mary and her son Jesus the miracle was even more astounding. In physical terms, her son Jesus had no human father at all. God was his Father, Mary his mother. For further comment see on Luke 1:35.

Elizabeth conceived, for God’s promises never fail. Then she kept herself in seclusion five months. The reason for this is not given. Some say that this conduct on her part was “according to custom.” It may well be better to explain her seclusion in the light of the following context. In connection with verse 7 it was shown that by many people barrenness was considered a sign of God’s disfavor. The thought occurs therefore (especially in connection with verse 25) that she decided not again to appear in public until the moment would draw near that people in general could see that the Lord had looked upon her with favor and had removed from her the (unjustifiable) “disgrace” of barrenness. That she was, indeed, a very devout woman is evident from the fact that she not only realizes but also openly confesses that her pregnancy was a divine blessing graciously bestowed upon her.⁶⁵

Practical Lessons Derived from Luke 1:5–25

Verse 5

“His wife was also a descendant of Aaron.” Compatibility is essential to happiness in marriage.

Verse 6

“Righteous in the sight of God.” Although “reputation” with men should never become a matter of indifference, “righteousness” in the sight of God matters most.

“Observing all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.” God’s moral law must be applied to actual life situations.

Verse 7

“However, they were childless.” “Man’s extremity is God’s opportunity.”

Verses 8–10

“Chosen to burn incense.” Descending showers (of blessing) require ascending incense (of thanksgiving and prayer).

“The entire assembled congregation … engaged in prayer.” Prayer is for the many, by the many. It must not become a monopoly.

Verses 11, 12

“Then there appeared to him an angel of the Lord.” Though we generally do not see them, angels are there. They are interested in the establishment of God’s kingdom on earth.

Verse 13

“Zechariah, … your petition has been heard.” God’s delays are not denials.

“Ah nothing is too late

Till the tired heart shall cease to palpitate.”

(Longfellow)

Verse 14

“Many will rejoice over his birth.” To weep with those who weep is good. Could it be that to rejoice with those who rejoice is at least just as good?

Verse 15

“He will be great in the sight of the Lord.” The badge of true greatness is humility (cf. Luke 9:46–48).

“Filled with the Holy Spirit.” Enthusiasm derived from intoxication leaves a bitter taste. Energy derived from transformation brings lasting reward.

Verse 16

“Many of the sons of Israel will he turn to the Lord their God.” “He who winneth souls is wise.”

Verse 17

“To turn the hearts of the fathers to the children.”

Enter the love of God,

Exit the generation gap.

“To make ready for the Lord a people well-prepared.” Salvation begins with God. It also ends with him.

Verses 18–20

“How can I be sure of this?” Skepticism with respect to God’s promises is inexcusable.

“You will remain silent … until the day when these things take place.” God’s justice is tempered with mercy.

Verses 23–25

“This is the way the Lord has dealt with me.” Blessings should not only be counted. They should be traced to the Giver, so that acknowledgment and thanksgiving may result.

Notes on Greek Words, Phrases, and Constructions in 1:5–25

↑ Back to top