The Gospel according to Luke

By James R. Edwards

In keeping with the Pillar New Testament Commentary’s distinctive character, this volume by James R. Edwards on Luke gives special attention to the Third Gospel’s vocabulary and historical setting, its narrative purpose and unique themes, and its theological significance for the church and believers today.

Though Luke is often thought to have a primarily Gentile focus, Edwards counterbalances that perspective by citing numerous evidences of Luke’s overarching interest in depicting Jesus as the fulfillment of God’s providential work in the history of Israel, and he even considers the possibility that Luke himself was a Jew. In several excursuses Edwards discusses particular topics, including Luke’s infancy narratives, the mission of Jesus as the way of salvation, and Luke’s depiction of the universal scope of the gospel.

While fully conversant with all the latest scholarship, Edwards writes in a lively, fluent style that will commend this commentary to ministers, students, scholars, and many other serious Bible readers.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Eerdmans
• Release date: May 1, 2015
• ISBN: 9781467442961

James R. Edwards

James R. Edwards's teaching career included teaching Bible and theology at two Presbyterian-related colleges for forty years, during which time he authored five books for Eerdmans, one of which, Is Jesus the Only Savior?, was awarded the 2006 Christianity Today Book of the Year in Apologetics. He is currently completing a major commentary on Genesis, also scheduled for publication by Eerdmans.

Book preview

CHAPTER ONE

Heavenly Announcements of John and Jesus

Luke 1:1–80

THE PROLOGUE (1:1–4)

Luke prefaces his Gospel with a formal introduction composed in the best Greek in the NT, which differs perceptibly from the language and style of the remainder of his Gospel.¹ Luke’s introductory dedication bears similarities to introductions of other academic Hellenistic works, especially in history and science,² but he is the only Evangelist in the NT who offers such for his Gospel. The prologue of the Third Gospel is the most important testimony in the first century to the prehistory of the Gospels,³ and it offers unique insight into Luke’s craft as author and Evangelist. Unlike the other Evangelists, Luke begins not with the gospel but with a description of the hermeneutical task before him. His gospel is rooted in eyewitness testimony and prior written sources, and he identifies the recipient of the work by name, the most excellent Theophilus (v. 3). Every meaningful proclamation of the gospel requires an interpreter, and Luke stands as a hermeneutical bridge between his sources and his audience.

1 Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us. Luke’s Gospel is not a pioneer or novel effort, but dependent on many who have gone before him. Like all mediators of the gospel in the postapostolic era, Luke is dependent on authoritative tradition for his narrative. Luke does not identify the many before him, but as noted in the Introduction, and as we shall see repeatedly in the commentary, two of Luke’s sources were doubtless the Gospel of Mark and the Hebrew Gospel. Several early church fathers interpreted v. 1 as a disparagement of the prior traditions, a point of view occasionally followed by modern commentators. The prologue does not suggest that the previous narratives were defective, however. They too were indebted to eyewitnesses and servants of the word (v. 2), and they may possibly have been Luke’s inspiration. The Greek for draw up an account (v. 1) means to organize a complete and orderly record, to make a coherent narrative. The aorist middle of the Greek infinitive anataxasthai may intensify the sense, implying the personal investment and assiduousness of the many who contributed to the conversion of oral testimony into written tradition.⁴ The Greek noun diēgēsis, account, occurs only here in the NT. The singular is important: Luke does not say there were many accounts, but one gospel narrative, of which there are various versions. The noun and its verbal form diēgeisthai, also a distinctive Lukan word (8:39; 9:10; Acts 8:33; 9:27; 12:17; only three times elsewhere in the NT), mean to recount a narrative.⁵ Diēgēsis is a historical-literary term which appears both in Jewish-Hellenistic literature and among Greek authors,⁶ thus a written narrative. The various versions of the account known to Luke and Theophilus were thus written.

The subject of the account is the things that have been fulfilled among us. Luke’s Gospel is not a testimony of his ideas, or even of his faith. It narrates events that have been brought to completion among us, i.e., the concrete and saving acts of God that have been fulfilled in Jesus Christ. The gospel is not a noble moral proclamation, nor can it be reduced to a set of abstract teachings and truths. It is not something that Luke or any witness can take credit for. The passive voice of the Greek verb translated the things that have been fulfilled means a history of what God has done, to which the proper human responses are belief and proclamation. Since Luke admits he was not an eyewitness and servant of the word (v. 2), the references to us in vv. 1, 2 probably mean "the things that have been fulfilled among us Christians."⁷

2 The narratives prior to Luke were written from a closer perspective than his, for they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. The Greek word behind handed down (paradidonai) is the standard term for authoritative oral tradition in early Christianity.⁸ Eyewitnesses must signify the twelve apostles, although perhaps not exclusively.⁹ V. 2 thus alludes to Scripture and tradition—eyewitness testimony and authentic tradition stemming from it, the two primary sources of authority recognized in all three major branches of Christianity.¹⁰ The eyewitnesses on whom Luke relies recount events from the first. A similar phrase appears in Acts 1:22 with reference to the necessary credentials of an apostle, which began with John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. From the first carries a similar sense here, signifying participation of eyewitnesses in Jesus’ complete earthly ministry.¹¹ If eyewitness testimony includes the Gospel of Mark, then it must refer to the authority of the apostle Peter, to whom the Second Evangelist, who was not an apostle, was indebted for his Gospel. Eyewitness testimony would also include the Hebrew Gospel, which throughout the early church was attributed to the testimony of the apostle Matthew. Eyewitnesses and servants of the word should be understood as a single concept and company of followers. Eyewitness of the Christ-event alone would not qualify one for this particular company, for Antipas, Pilate, members of the Sanhedrin, and countless individuals saw Jesus of Nazareth but did not respond in faith and become servants of the word. The eyewitnesses here referred to are endowed with foundational importance for the Christian faith, for they not only saw the word, which here must refer to both the word and deed of Jesus (so 24:19; also John 15:27; Acts 1:21–22), but embraced its claim by becoming servants of the word. In Acts 6:4 Luke likewise describes the ministry of the Twelve in service of the word. The word of the gospel does not belong to believers, but rather believers belong to the gospel and serve it (Rom 6:17). A witness does not seek mastery over the word but submits in service to the word.

3–4 Luke is neither the origin nor the authority of the material present in his Gospel, but rather a significant link in the hermeneutical chain. In Acts 1:1 he refers to the Third Gospel as a work that he made. The middle Greek form epoiēsamēn implies Luke’s solemn responsibility for the final product presented to Theophilus. For the first time in v. 3 Luke addresses his own role in his Gospel, literally in Greek edoxe kamoi, It seemed good also to me (NIV With this in mind). This seems a very modest way to speak of what we regard as divine inspiration. It seemed good also to me may strike us as tentative or equivocal. Edoxe was widespread in official Hellenistic Greek inscriptions (e.g., "it pleased [edoxe] the council and citizenry …") as an attestation of the authority of the body politic. Luke’s use of this term is thus not tentative, but the authoritative foundation of five pillars of assurance.¹² First, the material in the Third Gospel bears the imprimatur of Luke’s personal investigation. The Greek verb parakolouthein means to follow someone, especially an authority figure. Luke has not waited for a bolt of inspiration but has carefully followed the course of events by personal investment and investigation. Second, Luke has investigated everything, i.e., all available evidence relevant to the history. Third, he has done so from the beginning. The events upon which his testimony rests occupied a significant time span, which Luke has followed from the outset. Fourth, Luke claims for his Gospel the important criterion of akribōs, carefully, or perhaps better, accurately, a term that includes the ideas of completeness and exactness. Finally, Luke claims to present the whole as an orderly account.¹³ Exactly how literally this phrase should be taken is debatable.¹⁴ It seems significant that Luke chooses a term (kathexēs) that signifies a proper narrative sequence and order, a term Luke uses similarly in Acts 11:4. Luke claims for his work what Papias claimed of the Gospel of Mark, that its primary contribution was with reference to arrangement of material (Gk. syntassein).¹⁵ In terms of modern source analysis, Luke’s claim would include his integration of Markan material and the Hebrew Gospel. According to Luke’s testimony, his primary contribution to the apostolic tradition consists in matters of sequence and order more than in content and substance. The Third Gospel is not a mere concatenation of disparate information, but a presentation of the life of Jesus in such a way that readers can know the meaning of Jesus.

The foregoing is necessary for Theophilus, the recipient of the gospel, to know the certainty of the things you have been taught (v. 4). Authority in Christian faith is not based in the piety or the subjective state of the believer, but in the authenticity of a historical record that can be tested by objective canons of truth. Luke does not base the credibility of his Gospel in religious inspiration, but in the presentation of a history that can withstand historical scrutiny.¹⁶ Thus, Luke assures Theophilus of the veracity of the many prior accounts, which were the source of his initial knowledge of the gospel.

The identity of Theophilus is no longer known to us. The name itself, which means lover of God in Greek, was often taken by the Fathers as a metaphor of the reader. If you love God, it was written to you, said Ambrose.¹⁷ The intentionality with which Luke sets forth his apologia in vv. 1–3 seems rather superfluous if he is writing only for metaphoric readers, however. It does not appear to have been a custom in antiquity to dedicate books to imaginary persons.¹⁸ Theophilus is probably a historic person, although the name could be a pseudonym to protect the recipient from detection or persecution.¹⁹ Most excellent (Gk. kratiste) implies a man of status and honor, and probably of wealth. It was customary in the ancient world to dedicate works to patrons, whose role would include paying for publication and dissemination of the work. The honorary title could indicate that Theophilus was a Roman official (e.g., Acts 23:26; 24:3; 26:25), but this is less certain than often assumed. The title was not unique to political office but was used of any person of rank and status. Nor was Theophilus exclusively a Gentile name; Caiaphas’s successor once removed who ruled the Sanhedrin as high priest in the latter 30s bore the very name.²⁰ Whether Theophilus was a convert or simply an informed observer in not clear from vv. 3–4. In the NT, the Greek word for taught, katēchein, can mean to inform (Acts 21:21) or to instruct in the content of the faith (Gal 6:6). In church tradition catechetics is instruction of believers in the substance and meaning of the faith, but this meaning is premature for Luke’s day. Since Luke bases his prologue on historical inquiry and evidence rather than on faith, it seems possible to take Theophilus as a seeker, an individual who is open but not necessarily committed to the gospel.²¹

Luke’s elegant prologue is dedicated to historical investigation that can be corroborated by human testimony apart from appeals to divine inspiration, Christian terminology, or religious claims. In the sequel to his Gospel, Luke speaks of the resurrected Jesus presenting himself to the disciples in many convincing proofs (pollois tekmēriois, Acts 1:3).²² Without using the same word in the prologue, Luke imputes equal veracity to the eyewitness sources of his Gospel. The essential underpinning of Christian mission and proclamation is not a myth, philosophy, or religious or moral system, but human witness to the saving significance of Jesus Christ (24:48; Acts 1–8). Loveday Alexander argues that Luke has consciously rooted his prologue in the language of academic discourse typical of scientific treatises.²³ In the prologue, Luke testifies that his role as an Evangelist is to bear responsible testimony to what God has done in human history in the life of Jesus of Nazareth.²⁴

EXCURSUS: LUKE’S INFANCY NARRATIVES (1–2)

The prologue announces that Luke carefully investigated everything from the beginning (1:3). In correspondence with his claim, Luke charts the most far-reaching example of family planning in human history, stretching from Adam to Jesus (3:23–38). The specifics of the divine plan culminate with the infancy narratives of John and Jesus, and with them the introduction of the age of salvation. Luke was breaking new ground in this regard, for although infancy narratives existed of some of Israel’s past heroes—Enoch (1 En. 106), Moses (Exod 2:1–10; Ant. 2.215), Samuel (1 Sam 1–3), Samson (Judg 13; Ant. 2.276–85)—of no canonical OT prophet was an infancy narrative preserved.²⁵ The only other canonical Gospel to provide a lineage and birth narrative of Jesus is Matt, but unlike Matt’s narrative, which is told from Joseph’s perspective, Luke’s is told from Mary’s, and Luke’s is a fuller birth narrative of both John and Jesus, composing 10 percent of the length of the Gospel. Luke 1–2 is set forth with literary artistry, in terms of both language and composition. If Mary is one of the eyewitness sources mentioned in 1:2, her testimony has been so absorbed as to be indistinguishable from Luke’s hand. Luke narrates births of Jesus and John in parallel succession, and nowhere more so than in their respective annunciations (John, 1:5–25; Jesus, 1:26–38). Both are announced by the angel Gabriel; both births are miraculous; both sets of parents receive the angelic proclamation in the face of besetting human circumstances and are bewildered by it; the names and divine destinies of both sons are announced; both sets of parents query how such things can happen; both are assured of the divine determination of the events; both are given signs; and both play no active role in the fulfillment of the annunciations except to trust and retire to their respective habitations. The two annunciations occur in isolation from each other, but they intersect with Mary’s visit to Elizabeth when both acknowledge in their own bodies (1:44!) the same agency of the Holy Spirit of God within them. The respective announcements may be diagrammed thus:

The second major division of Luke’s infancy narrative, also set in parallel succession, comprises the birth and infancy narratives of John and Jesus and may be thus diagrammed:

Further details are shared in common in the birth stories: the result of both births is great joy; both births evoke remarkable responses from third parties; both are also the subjects of beatitudes; and both grow in the strength and purpose of God. The balance in the annunciation narrative is not maintained in the birth and childhood stories, however. Once John’s circumcision and naming are given, the narrative spotlight falls fully on Jesus, including the contrast between his humble birth and Caesar’s megalomania, the attendance of a company of shepherds and a canticle of angels, miraculous prophecies in the temple, and his own announcement in the temple twelve years later that he must be about his Father’s business. The parallelism in the infancy narrative is thus asymmetric. The asymmetry is not a mistake on Luke’s part, nor intended to avert a possible rivalry between John and Jesus, but necessitated by theological realities. John is the preparer (1:17), the forerunner of the Son of God and Savior; his side of the equation cannot claim equal or even similar weight to that of Jesus. [Jesus] must become greater, [John] must become less (John 3:30).²⁸

The effect of the infancy narratives is to demonstrate that the births of John and Jesus flow out of Israel’s saving history, and that the birth of Jesus marks the fulfillment of it. Luke’s literary style is saturated with Semitisms, and the infancy narratives reverberate with OT echoes.²⁹ A child is born to an old couple, as was the case with Abraham and Sarah (1:7 and Gen 18:11). The barrenness of Elizabeth repeats the barrenness of Sarah (1:36 and Gen 11:30; 16:1), Rebecca (Gen 25:21), Rachel (Gen 29:31; 30:1), the wife of Manoah (Judg 13:2), and Hannah (1 Sam 1:2). Elizabeth responds to her unexpected pregnancy as does Rachel to the birth of Joseph (1:25 and Gen 30:23). Angels announce the births of John and Jesus as they did OT portents (1:8–20, 26–38; 2:8–14 and Gen 18:1–15; Dan 9:21). Mary’s Magnificat echoes Hannah’s song (1:46–55 and 1 Sam 2:1–10).³⁰ Luke’s infancy narrative throbs with the literary and theological pulse of OT expectation. The OT, however, leaves the story of Israel unfinished, pending a resolution of its outstanding problems and paradoxes. Gabriel’s annunciations in Luke 1–2 revive suspended and failed expectations, gathering great joy and hope as they announce the culmination of God’s saving intervention not simply in Israel, but in all human history through the medium of Israel’s historic fulfillment. The allusions of the infancy narrative do not simply repeat former stories and outcomes, however, as do the decrees of Mount Olympus, for example, which Homer transposes onto the fall of Troy. They herald new possibilities. The infancy narrative awakens readers not to the inevitable, but to expectation and hope. The allusions are beacons of light guiding the feet of those living in darkness and in the shadow of death (1:79) as they proceed into the precarious territory of God’s radical intervention into the Roman world in the birth of a savior, who is Christ the Lord (2:11).

THE BIRTH OF JOHN (1:5–25)

5–7 In the time of Herod king of Judea … (v. 5). With these exact words, according to Epiphanius (ca. 315–403), the Hebrew Gospel began what may have been the first written Gospel of Jesus Christ.³¹ Evidence of Luke’s reliance on this primitive document ebbs and flows throughout the Third Gospel, but nowhere is its contribution more evident than in the first two chapters, which are studded with Hebraisms.³² Herod, an Idumaean by birth but a Jew by religion, ruled Palestine from 34 to 4 B.C. Romans did not normally allow puppet rulers to bear the title king, but they recognized Herod’s abilities and made an exception in his case.³³ Endowed with strength, stamina, and shrewdness, with a gift for taking strategic risks and landing on his feet, a passionate builder, artistically sensitive and sensuous, but barbarically cruel to his enemies, real or imagined, Herod managed to prosper in an era of political intrigue and dangerous liaisons by political sagacity and a veneer of cultural grandeur.³⁴ The ruins of Herod’s buildings are still today more impressive than anything, ancient or modern, that visitors to Israel are likely to see. Nevertheless, despite his influence on the history, politics, and architecture of the first century, Herod lacked greatness of character and spirit and as a consequence did not change history. Herod sought in vain to immortalize himself and his reign, but at his death in 4 B.C. an angel announces the dawn of a new kingdom that will have no end (1:33).³⁵

Luke begins his Gospel in the temple in Jerusalem that Herod began building in 20 B.C., but that would not be completed until A.D. 66. The temple in Jerusalem plays a singularly important role of commencing (v. 5) and concluding (24:49) the Third Gospel. The temple commemorated the presence of God more definitively than any other place in Israel or Judaism, and here Luke commences the story of the fulfillment of salvation history through the crucified and risen Messiah.³⁶ A priest named Zechariah (Heb. remembered by God), who belonged to the division of Abijah, was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood, to go to the temple of the Lord and burn incense (v. 9). The Israelite priesthood was divided into twenty-four classes or divisions, each of which needed to be available for the major festivals of Passover, Pentecost (Feast of Weeks), Day of Atonement, and Feast of Booths, and thereafter for service in the temple for one week, twice annually. The order of service of the various divisions was prescribed in 1 Chr 24:7–18 (further, 1 Esd 1:2, 15; Josephus, Ant. 7.366). According to Let. Aris. (92–95), priestly duties included officiating at worship, burning incense, celebrating liturgy, accepting sacrifices and offerings, hearing confessions, and above all butchery of animals for sacrifice. Each of the divisions was named after a family from which it had descended (Ezra 10:16–22; Neh 12:1–21), and each was presided over by a head or officer. Some divisions were more prestigious than others; Abijah was a lesser division that served in the eighth week of each semester. The divisions represented a remarkable feat of organization and orchestration. Tractate Taʿanit in the Jerusalem Talmud numbers 1,000 priests per division, 24,000 total. Whether actual numbers were that high is unknown, but priestly divisions required large numbers of able-bodied men to offer the various sacrifices, which during Passover, for example, required the slaughter of no fewer than 100,000 lambs in the temple within a period of a few hours.³⁷

Zechariah’s wife was also a descendent of Aaron (v. 5) and, like Aaron’s wife, was named Elizabeth (the Hellenized form of Heb. Elisheba; Exod 6:23). The ancestry of the prospective wife of a priest was carefully researched in order to verify that the woman was, ideally, the daughter of a priest or Levite, or at the least of undisputed Israelite background.³⁸ Luke begins his Gospel in the temple of Jerusalem with two protagonists from the priestly caste. The Third Gospel contains more references to the temple than do the other three. In commencing and concluding the Third Gospel in the temple, Luke signals to his audience, including Gentile readers, that the good news proclaimed to the nations has its source in Israel, and that the church, which comprises both Jews and Gentiles, is not a separate will and work of God but a divine germination that springs from the seed of Israel.

V. 5 establishes the impeccable credentials of Zechariah and Elizabeth. Vv. 6–7, however, relate two things about them that allow us as readers to identify with them. Zechariah and Elizabeth are more than title bearers and functional figures; they are persons of moral integrity. Both were upright in the sight of God, observing all the Lord’s commandments and regulations. This language identifies them with another ancestry, not of the Aaronic priesthood, but of the great protagonists of Israel’s faith: of Noah, who was righteous before God (Gen 7:1), and of Abraham, who obeyed God’s voice and kept all his commandments (Gen 26:5). Jesus declared that love of God and neighbor fulfills the law and prophets (10:25–27; Mark 12:28–31), and Zechariah and Elizabeth fulfill that ideal. In calling them blameless (v. 6), Luke does not imply that Zechariah and Elizabeth have no need of the righteousness of Christ (e.g., Phil 3:7–11), but rather, as Paul confesses of himself in Phil 3:4–6, that they had fulfilled the summary commands of Torah (Num 36:13; Deut 4:40; Josh 22:5) and prophets (Ezek 36:27).³⁹

Because of advanced age and Elizabeth’s barrenness, the couple is childless (v. 7). The exemplary piety and integrity of the couple, in other words, have gone unrewarded. This second datum strikes a tender nerve in readers, moving them from moral respect to unanticipated empathy with this otherwise remote couple. Zechariah and Elizabeth replay the anxious story of Abraham and Sarah, who were also old (Gen 18:11) and childless (Gen 11:30). The severe fate of Abraham and Sarah is now shared by a similar though more righteous couple. In the third century, both Origen and Rabbi Levi noted that, whenever Scripture pronounces a woman barren, God later gave her the holy son for whom she longed.⁴⁰ The predicament of Zechariah and Elizabeth now becomes an existential challenge not only to the aged couple, but also to the faith and hope of Luke’s readers.

8–12 As Zechariah officiated, he was chosen by lot, according to the custom of the priesthood, to go into the temple of the Lord and burn incense (v. 9). The altar of incense was approximately twenty inches (0.5 m) square and forty inches (1.0 m) high, covered with gold, and placed in the Court of Israel, also known as the Holy Place, directly before the curtain separating the Holy of Holies from the Holy Place (Heb 9:2–7). The only furnishings in the Holy Place were the altar of incense, the golden lampstand, and the table of showbread (Exod 40:22–28), three most wonderful works of art, universally renowned, according to Josephus (J.W. 5.216). Twice daily, morning and afternoon, priests burned incense (consisting of gum, resin, onycha, galbanum, frankincense, and salt, according to Exod 30:34–38) on the altar of incense as a perpetual offering to the Lord (Exod 30:1–10). Only priests who had not previously done so were eligible for the inexpressible honor of officiating at the altar of incense. Bearing a lidded ladle with approximately a gallon of incense (3.6 liters), the priest, accompanied by a second priest bearing coals in a similar ladle, entered the Court of Israel, offered the incense, prostrated himself, and retired. Following the sacrifice, priests pronounced the Aaronic blessing (Num 6:24–26) on the steps of the sanctuary. The recitation of the blessing was the only time that a priest was permitted to vocalize the divine name YHWH instead of substituting Adonai.⁴¹ Zechariah’s service took place while all the assembled worshipers were praying outside (v. 10), during which, according to Jewish tradition, they chanted, God of mercy, come into your holy sanctuary and receive with pleasure the offering of your people.⁴² Luke’s frequent references to all the people⁴³ are a hallmark of his narrative, signifying the universal significance of the gospel. Whether Zechariah’s officiating was at the morning or at the afternoon sacrifice is not indicated, nor does the crowd of worshipers, which may have been equally great at either sacrifice, argue for one over the other.⁴⁴

As Zechariah performs his sacrifice, an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense (v. 11). A holy heavenly creature appears to a holy priest who is standing in a holy place and performing a holy sacrifice. Holiness might appear as a prerequisite for an encounter with the ineffable, perhaps even suggesting that the angelic vision is Zechariah’s reward. Despite his cultic proprieties, Zechariah lacks the most important quality of a disciple—belief (v. 20). The angel (Gk. angelos, heavenly messenger) is standing not to Zechariah’s right, but to the right of the altar of incense. The altar symbolizes God’s presence, and the right side is the all-important station of authority and exaltation. The position of the messenger, like the position of Jesus standing at the right hand of God Almighty (Acts 7:55–56), invests the message with divine legitimacy (Ps 110:1; Rev 5:7). The angel does not immediately identify himself. Only after the prophetic annunciation of vv. 13–17, and after due account of Zechariah’s fears and inadequacies, does Gabriel, whose name means God’s Mighty One, reveal his identity (v. 19). The word of God, not the credentials of its messenger, is its own source of authority.

The Greek word ōphthē (v. 11; NIV appeared) is a technical term in the Greek Bible for divine and angelic appearances (Gen 12:7; 17:1; 26:24; Mark 9:4).⁴⁵ The angelic appearance is strongly reminiscent of similar appearances to Gideon (Judg 6:12) and Daniel (Dan. 9:21, to whom Gabriel appeared at the time of evening sacrifice). The first thing mentioned after the appearance of the angel is Zechariah’s seizure by fear. The first Greek word used to describe Zechariah’s reaction, tarassein (NIV startled), means to throw into turmoil and confusion; the second, phobos (NIV gripped with fear), a stronger term, means fright and terror. Throughout Scripture, angelic appearances reduce humans, like Zechariah, to status horribilis et terribilis (e.g., Judg 13:6). Zechariah’s piety and righteousness are no shield from the terror of standing in the presence of a divine messenger; indeed, they may heighten it, for genuine piety and righteousness are always mindful of sinfulness and unworthiness before God.

13–20 Gabriel responds to Zechariah’s fear with divine assurance, Do not fear, Zechariah, your prayer has been heard (v. 13).⁴⁶ The childlessness of Zechariah and Elizabeth is not unknown to God, nor have their prayers with respect to it been unheard or forgotten by God (18:1). The promise that Elizabeth will bear a son and call him John (v. 13) repeats verbatim (except for name changes) the divine promise to Sarah in Gen 17:19. The birth of Isaac fulfilled the long-awaited promise of God to form a new people in the call of Abraham (Gen 12:1–3). The promise of a son to Zechariah in the same formula presages a new eschatological people of the Son of God who will receive the throne of his father David (v. 32). The child will be named John, which in Hebrew (Jochanan) means God is gracious. The name signifies that the childlessness and insufficiency of the aged couple have been relieved not by their piety or merit, but by divine grace. V. 14 could be translated either, There will be joy and delight to you (NRSV), or He will be a joy and delight to you (NIV). The latter reading is preferable because (1) the preceding (v. 13) and following (v. 15) verses both refer to John; and (2) vv. 14, 15 both begin with Greek estai (future, third-person singular), which in v. 15 refers to John. Hence, v. 14 probably refers to John. The child will bring joy to his parents and to many. Whether many should be understood as a Semitic reference to all (so Isa 52:14–15; 53:11–12; Rom 5:12–21; Heb 12:15),⁴⁷ or in a more restricted sense, is not clear. The angelic prophecy clearly imputes vicarious agency to John, however, for through him the lives of many will be affected. Prophecies of God’s imminent action often arouse the dread of judgment and punishment. Gabriel’s prophecy, however, results in agalliasis—joy, gladness, exaltation (v. 14). In the LXX, the Greek word agalliasis translates several different Hebrew words in the MT, all of which signify either joy in God or in God’s eschatological fulfillment. In the NT this rather infrequent term likewise carries a sense of joy in God, especially in God’s consummate saving act in Jesus Christ.⁴⁸ The first angelic prophecy in Luke is thus, literally, the gospel—good news.

The remainder of Gabriel’s prophecy in vv. 15–17 amplifies v. 14 by giving reasons for the elation attending John’s birth. Like Jesus (v. 32), John will be great; but also like Jesus, his greatness will be in the sight of the Lord (v. 15) rather than greatness according to a human scale of measurement. The reference to his avoidance of wine and alcohol (v. 15) is a quotation from Num 6:3, where abstinence from alcohol is a condition for fulfillment of a Nazirite vow. It is unlikely that v. 15 implies that John will be a Nazirite, however, for John is not said to fulfill three Nazirite distinctives: not cutting his hair, undergoing a prescribed thirty-day initiation vow, avoiding contact with the dead.⁴⁹ John’s abstinence from wine and fermented drink (v. 15) is better understood in light of the priestly regulations required in Lev 10:9, which, like the similar prohibition of the boy Samuel (1 Sam 1:11), signified personal commitment to make ready a people for the Lord (v. 17). Ascetic qualities will not be John’s only, or chief, credentials, however. His abstention from alcohol may indicate his acknowledgment of being filled with the Holy Spirit, which does not depend on his choice or virtue, but on God’s prevenient election in the womb of his mother (v. 15). Others also had been set apart from their mothers’ wombs by God’s Spirit—Samson (Judg 13), the Servant of the Lord (Isa 49:1), Jeremiah (Jer 1:5), Paul (Gal 1:15)—but whereas they were intermediary links in God’s plan, John is the final link preparing the way for one whose kingdom will never end (v. 33). Form critics frequently drove a wedge between John and Jesus, portraying John as the last prophet of the old era rather than a herald of the new.⁵⁰ In the gospel tradition, however, the advent of Jesus is linked inseparably with John. Even the Fourth Gospel, which introduces the incarnation in relation to the preexistent, eternal Word, commences Jesus’ earthly ministry in relation to John (John 1). The annunciation of Gabriel, likewise, identifies John as the one who will go before the Lord in the spirit and power of Elijah (v. 17) and introduce the joyful evangelical era (v. 14). John’s peerless role is enabled and orchestrated by the Holy Spirit, who is mentioned a dozen times in Luke (compared to 5× in Matt, and 4× each in Mark and John). More than any other, the Third Evangelist identifies the Spirit as the executive director of the saving work of God in the Incarnation.

The Holy Spirit will call and animate John in the spirit and power of Elijah (v. 17; see Mal 3:1) for the purpose of completing the work of Elijah (Mal 4:6; Sir 48:10)—to return the people of Israel to the Lord their God (v. 16), the hearts of the fathers to their children, the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord (v. 17). The work ascribed to John will exceed that of a religious and moral reformer. The latter may change behaviors, but John’s mission will be animated by spirit and power (v. 17) and result in conversion. Where divisions reach their deepest and most destructive levels, John’s mission will turn the hearts of parents to children, reconcile families, and transform strong-willed rebellion to righteousness. John’s mission will not stop with individual change but will effect the formation of a new society, turning Israel back to God. The mantle of the great prophet who prepares Israel to meet its God has fallen to John. Elijah is often assumed to have been the forerunner of the Messiah. In pre-Christian Jewish texts preserved in the OT and intertestamental literature, however, Elijah is actually portrayed as the forerunner of God.⁵¹ In prophesying that [John] will go before him (v. 17; NIV before the Lord), Gabriel indicates that John will not simply herald the Messiah, but God himself, who will appear in Jesus.⁵²

Gabriel’s prophecy in vv. 13–17 again recalls Abraham and Sarah. To Zechariah and Elizabeth, as to aged Abraham and Sarah, a divine promise comes that a yet-unborn son will begin a new world order. No wonder Zechariah remonstrates. Abraham remonstrated his childlessness to God in practically the same words (Gen 15:8). Zechariah and Elizabeth are too old for children, and his wife is barren. The good news announced by Gabriel seems impossible of fulfillment, unbelievable. Zechariah’s protest, How can I be sure of this? (v. 18), seems to presuppose a sign of confirmation. The angel does not offer a sign, but rather his name as a verification of his message, I am Gabriel. Gabriel’s self-disclosure, prefaced by an emphatic I am (Gk. ego eimi), is a pledge to Zechariah in this fragile moment. Angels are infrequent in canonical Jewish literature, but Gabriel, along with Michael and Raphael, always belongs to a select group of heavenly messengers who attend God’s throne and are intimately knowledgeable of his will (Isa 63:9; Ezek 6:1; Jub. 1:27; 1Q28b 4:25; 1 En. 20; Rev 8:2). Zechariah’s remonstration that he and his wife are old betrays an element of doubt, however. Gabriel therefore reinforces his authority by announcing that he belongs to God’s inner circle, and that he was sent by God with the announcement of good news. The passive voice of the verb was sent (v. 19) is important: Gabriel is not self-appointed but stands before Zechariah at the command and commission of God Almighty. Luke does not use the noun for good news (to euangelion) in his Gospel (and only twice in Acts). He prefers the verbal form in v. 19 and in its other ten occurrences in the Third Gospel (and fifteen occurrences in Acts). The verbal form connotes vitality and transformative energy, the enactment of good news, with the corresponding description of the early Christian movement as the way in Acts.⁵³

Gabriel’s final word is not related to the prophecy about John but is directed to Zechariah’s request for a sign (vv. 18–20). In the NT the request for a sign is frequently regarded as a lack of faith (11:16; Mark 8:11–13; Acts 13:11; 1 Cor 1:22). A sign capable of removing all doubt may remove faith itself. In the OT signs often appear in more neutral or even positive lights. Others before Zechariah, and not unlike him, had asked God for signs, but without being punished (Abraham, Gen 15:2; Moses, Exod 4:1; Gideon, Judg 6:36–40; Samuel, 1 Sam 10:2; Hezekiah, 2 Kgs 20:8). God even insisted that a timorous Israelite king request a sign (Isa 7:11). Zechariah’s request in v. 18 is similar to Mary’s in v. 34 and in itself does not appear objectionable. Gabriel’s spiritual discernment, however, understands it as an expression of disbelief (v. 20), and as a consequence Zechariah is rendered mute until the birth of the child. Gabriel’s sentence results in an impairment that disqualifies Zechariah from further priestly duty.⁵⁴ Disbelief is not the result of Zechariah’s feelings, doubts, temperament, or circumstances, but of personal choice. The divine word is given as an invitation to choose faith, and the choice of faith awakens further faith. Not unlike Jacob (Gen 32:22–32), Zechariah reminds us that one does not contend with God and leave unchanged. The purpose of Gabriel’s judgment is not to annul the choice of Zechariah, nor does it result in his fall from grace or halt the fulfillment of God’s promise. It is a remedial work of the Spirit—a severe mercy—that will enable faith. The spiritual experience of believers is not the determining factor in the life of discipleship, but rather the concrete promises of God, which will come true at their appointed time (v. 20).

21–25 Zechariah was not alone at the altar of incense. Other priests officiated in the Court of Israel with him, but Luke focuses on Zechariah alone. As the crowd awaits his exit and pronouncement of the benediction (Num 6:24–26; Sir 50:19–21), suspense grows, even a sense of danger (Dan 10:7). After all, no one can look on the face of God and live (Exod 33:20), and the incense altar is near the Holy of Holies, where God is numinously present. If a messenger of God smites a mortal with fear (v. 12), how much more so the unmediated presence of God? When Zechariah emerged he could not speak [the benediction] to them (v. 22). The worshipers are aware that in fulfilling his priestly duties Zechariah has seen a supernatural vision, for that is the meaning of the Greek optasia (v. 22). Luke accentuates his muteness with alliteration: dianeuein … diamenein (v. 22; NIV he kept making signs to them, but he remained unable to speak). Zechariah’s term of service expired on the Sabbath, but his muteness would effectively terminate his temple duties in any case. At the end of the week, Zechariah and Elizabeth returned home. Outside Jerusalem itself, the main residence of priests and Levites in Jesus’ day was Jericho, where half of each priestly division resided while the other half served in Jerusalem.⁵⁵ Jericho cannot have been the home of Zechariah, however, for Jericho lay in the Jordan valley, and Zechariah and Elizabeth lived in an unspecified Judean hill town (1:39). There, after becoming pregnant, Elizabeth hid herself for five months (v. 24, lit. in Greek). No known Palestinian custom calls for such seclusion. In Greek, v. 25 begins with a limited explanation, "For thus the Lord has done to me in these days in which he has looked down to remove my disgrace among people" (my translation). In Elizabeth’s day childlessness, which was often attributed to a woman’s fault, was regarded a social humiliation, if not an adverse judgment of God. Elizabeth, however, is aware that God has shown grace to her, and not simply to her husband or for his sake. Her circumstance repeats that of Rachel at the birth of Joseph, and with Rachel she confesses, God has taken away my disgrace (Gen 30:23). She hides herself for five months until her pregnancy is obvious and her disgrace removed. [God] hears the prayer of an individual and, through him—because he is a priest—the prayer of a nation. He takes away the disgrace of an individual and, through her, the disgrace of Israel.⁵⁶ Something is at hand in these days (v. 25) that has not happened before: a people is being prepared for the Lord (v. 17). Something unknown to historical knowledge is about to be proclaimed: a universal way of salvation.⁵⁷

THE BIRTH OF JESUS (1:26–38)

Luke sets the annunciation of Jesus’ birth in close parallelism with the annunciation of John’s birth. Both annunciations contain five elements common with most angelic birth announcements in the OT:

1. Entrance of heavenly messenger (1:11//1:28)

2. Perplexity of recipient (1:12//1:29)

3. Deliverance of heavenly message (1:13–17//1:30–33)

4. Objection of recipient (1:18//1:34)

5. Reassurance and sign (1:19//1:35–37).⁵⁸

The two annunciations are narrated independently of one another, yet both are governed by the one divine purpose of inaugurating God’s eschatological kingdom. The two annunciations are thus narrative elements of a single story, which Luke signifies by their sequential placement and parallel details. The overarching metanarrative does not absorb and dissolve the particulars of the two annunciations, however, but accentuates the unique elements of each in the purpose of God.

The history of religions school, which so influenced nineteenth- and twentieth-century biblical interpretation, often compared and even attributed Mary’s conception to the many stories of gods consorting with earthly woman in the myths, sagas, and stories of the ancient Near East. A judicious comparison of the virginal conception of Jesus with the various stories of gods consorting with earthly women reveals significant differences. The amorous exploits of Zeus and other Olympian gods all involve acts of sexual intercourse (which the annunciation of Mary does not), whereas female virginity plays no role in classical mythology (as it does in the annunciation of Mary). Stories of celestial amours with earthly women were much less common in Judaism, but they were not unknown, as is evidenced by a rabbinic legend of an angel who impersonated an impotent rabbi in order to impregnate his pious wife.⁵⁹ Another category of conceptions involves preternatural circumstances surrounding births of mythic heroes of the past or founders of religious cults, including births of religious figures such as Osiris,⁶⁰ legendary figures of the mythic past such as Romulus and Numa Pompilius,⁶¹ or historic heroes such as Alexander⁶² and Caesar Augustus.⁶³ The mothers of Alexander and Augustus were both reported to have been mythically impregnated by serpents.⁶⁴ The purpose of such birth wonders is directed less to the actual births, which are often shrouded in obscurity, than to account for the extraordinary achievements of their respective heroes in later life. Another class of conceptions, reflected in Philo, for example, focuses on the seed of generation involved in human conceptions as the agency of divine mystery.⁶⁵ The focus here is on the divine mystery of all human generation rather than on the uniqueness of a particular birth, as is the case with the annunciations of John and Jesus. A final category of miraculous conceptions in Prot. Jas.⁶⁶ and Sib. Or.,⁶⁷ for instance, demonstrates unmistakable parallels to the annunciation of Mary. The similarities in these two accounts, the first deriving from the second century and the relevant sections in the Sib. Or. later than that, are due to reliance on Luke. To sum up, the annunciation of Mary bears a thematic similarity to the genre of wondrous conceptions in pagan antiquity, but its character and detail are not close enough to any such accounts to posit a derivation from them. C. S. Lewis’s understanding of the incarnation as the true myth that sums up and transcends earlier mythological intimations offers an intriguing insight for contemplating the thematic similarities between Mary’s conception and wondrous births of antiquity.⁶⁸

The Jewish thought-world clearly provided concepts and vocabulary that influenced 1:26–38. Salient elements of Isa 9:6–7 are evident in Gabriel’s prophecy, including the birth of a son, his greatness, messianic rule on the throne of David, and eternal governance as Mighty God in peace and justice. The same expectation of a heavenly kingdom ruled by a Son of the Most High is present in the Dead Sea Scrolls. The following three phrases from 4Q246 are particularly reminiscent of 1:32–33: [He] will be great, he will be called Son of God and Son of the Most High, and his kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom. Like Gabriel’s annunciation, this Qumran text heralds a coming Son of God who will rule God’s kingdom in truth and justice. Although 4Q246 is earlier than Luke, it is not likely that it has influenced Luke directly. Rather, the Qumran text provides an(other) instance of the influence of Isa 9 on the various traditions and branches of Judaism. Indeed, the influence of Isa 9 is greater on 4Q246 than on 1:30–35.⁶⁹ The influence of Isa 9 may have overflowed the banks of Judaism and reached the Roman world as well. Virgil’s Fourth Eclogue, written perhaps a century before the Third Gospel, predicts the birth of a boy who will introduce a golden age in the Roman world and reign over a world in peace and justice. Sections of Sib. Or. (e.g., 3.367–80), which date from the second-century B.C., resemble Isa 9 fairly closely. Sib. Or. was popular in Rome in Virgil’s day and could have inspired both the hopes and the language of the Fourth Eclogue and Aen. 6.792–94, in both of which Virgil foretells a Son of God who will establish a glorious age. Patristic and medieval theologians commonly regarded the Fourth Eclogue as an example of divine prophecy in the pagan world. If Virgil was influenced by Isa 9 via Sib. Or., as he may have been, then there is more than a grain of truth in the suspicions of older theologians.⁷⁰

26–27 The temporal reference in v. 26 refers to the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy and connects the annunciations of John and Jesus. The reappearance of Gabriel, again sent from God (see v. 19), further connects the annunciations. The passive voice indicates that Gabriel is not on an elective mission, but obeying God’s commission. Calling, mission, and obedience characterize both celestial and earthly service of the divine. The fact that Nazareth must be identified as a town in Galilee indicates its obscurity (see, e.g., John 1:46). Nazareth is not mentioned in the OT, Josephus, rabbinic literature, Mishnah, or Talmud. Nazareth is mentioned in the NT a dozen times, but it does not appear in a writer outside the NT until Julius Africanus, who writes two centuries after Jesus’ birth. No church was built in Nazareth until the era of Constantine (325). Archaeological excavations have uncovered a series of grottoes under the Churches of the Annunciation and St. Joseph that date to the time of Jesus. The evidence indicates a hamlet of earthen dwellings without independent political importance cut into sixty acres (25 ha) of rocky hillside, with a total population of perhaps five hundred people, at the most. Nazareth appears to have been a vibrant village, producing wheat, wine, oil, fruit, honey, and millet. Nor was it entirely isolated, for three and a half miles (6 km) south lay the showcase city of Sepphoris, where major traffic routes converged, affording Nazareth a window of access and influence to the Hellenistic world.⁷¹

In introducing Mary, Luke twice refers to her as a virgin (v. 27). Despite the similarities of the annunciations of Zechariah and Mary to OT precedents, this is a new feature, for neither Sarah, Hagar, Rachel, nor the wife of Manoah was a virgin. The Greek word for virgin, parthenos, means a young woman of marriageable age (Matt 25:1, 7, 11), with the accent on virginity (e.g., 1 Cor. 7, where it refers to the virgin state of unmarried men and women). Parthenos usually translates Heb. bethulah, which in its fifty occurrences in the OT consistently means a woman who has not experienced sexual intercourse.⁷² Pledged to be married (again in 2:5) means that Mary had exchanged marital consent with Joseph, but had not been taken to his house. Isolated church fathers understood descendent of David to refer to Mary rather than Joseph, but this is unlikely. Descendent of David (Gk. lit. house of David) immediately follows the reference to Joseph and ostensibly modifies it, as it does again in 2:4 and Matt 1:20. The natural sense of the phrase is that Mary was engaged to be married to a man named Joseph, of the house of David. Although Mary is the protagonist in this story, Luke mentions Joseph’s name first, perhaps to accentuate the Davidic ancestry of Jesus through Joseph (so too 3:23).

28–33 It was normally taboo for a man to greet an unknown woman in Judaism.⁷³ To approach and greet an engaged woman might even be understood to challenge the fiancé’s authority. Gabriel’s mission of informing an unmarried and ineligible young woman in an insignificant village that she will bear a child is fraught with social obstacles. How ironic, therefore, the address of Gabriel: Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you (v. 28).⁷⁴ What in Mary’s circumstances is favorable? Origen marveled at Gabriel’s address, finding nothing like it in all Scripture.⁷⁵ Aquinas marveled that the angelic blessing is the first instance in Scripture of an angel showing reverence to a human being.⁷⁶ The word for greetings (Gk. chaire) is the customary Greek greeting, but the word for highly favored (kecharitōmenē) occurs only here and in Eph 1:6. This second word is derived from the Greek word for grace and is more important, for in the NT grace is reserved solely for divine acts. Kecharitōmenē (perfect passive participle) carries the sense, you who have been favored with grace, with the accent on anticipatory or prevenient grace. Mary is not earning God’s favor, but like Gideon (Judg 6:12), in this unusual address and unusual visitation, she is receiving God’s predetermined blessing. The assurance that the Lord is with you, which also can be found in Judg 6:12 and Ruth 2:4, is almost certainly a declaration rather than the expression of a wish (i.e., May the Lord be with you).⁷⁷ It assures Mary of a factual condition: God is with her. It does not direct her attention to a what (a set of outcomes), but to a whom—to the personal agency of the Lord who is with you, recalling perhaps God’s revelation to Moses in Exod 3 as the God who hears and sees and knows, the with-you-God who breaks into the human arena. Like Moses, Mary is the recipient of God’s unexpected, undeserved, and overwhelming grace. Bengel captured the surprise of the annunciation in saying that Mary is not the mother of grace, but the daughter of grace.⁷⁸

Like Zechariah (1:12) and virtually all recipients of angelic visitations in Scripture, Mary is greatly troubled (v. 29). The Greek word describing her fear (diatarassein), occurring only here in the NT, is stronger than the word describing the fear (tarassein) that both Zechariah (1:12) and Herod the Great (Matt 2:3) experienced. Ironically, Mary, the quintessential model of faith, is more greatly perplexed by the presence of God than are persons of lesser faith, or of no faith. Some ancient manuscripts (A, C, Θ) attribute her fear to what she saw. This is probably a later attempt to explain her fear, as is her vain search for the source of the voice in Prot. Jas. 11.1. The Western text (D) adds that Mary "wondered in herself what kind of greeting this might be (v. 29). The reflexive in herself" could be original, for this is a frequent expression in Luke that appears to have originated from his Hebrew source.⁷⁹ Luke explicitly states that Mary’s perplexity is due to Gabriel’s words (v. 29). The unexpectedness of God choosing one so unlikely and unimportant is confounding and perplexing. It is not something Mary finds assuring. Only in wrestling with the word may Mary become a servant of the word (1:2).

Gabriel addresses Mary directly and personally: Do not be afraid, Mary, you have found favor with God (v. 30). Gabriel charged Zechariah likewise not to be afraid (1:13), and in the Midrash on Gen 18:11 the angel Michael charged the same of Sarah.⁸⁰ Gabriel’s word does not seek to calm Mary’s emotions, but to assure her of the work to which God calls her. The Greek word behind favor is charis, grace. The assurance that Mary has found favor with God repeats the essence of v. 28, that Mary, for reasons she cannot fathom, stands in God’s grace (see Gen 6:8; Exod 33:16; Prov 12:2).

Gabriel’s commission of Mary in v. 31 is virtually identical to his commission of Zechariah in 1:13, but it is intensified in two ways—first by addressing Mary directly and personally in second person, you, and second, by instructing that Mary rather than Joseph will name the child. The almighty male has been bypassed in both the procreative process and in the naming of the son. The closest OT parallel to Gabriel’s commission of Mary is not the charge of Manoah and his wife (Judg 13:3), not even the famous wording of Isa 7:14, but the angelic annunciation to Hagar: You are now with child and you will bear a son and you will call his name Ishmael, because the Lord has heard you in your humiliation (Gen 16:11). In the Magnificat, Mary will confess that God looked on her humiliation (1:48), as he had on Hagar’s. Luke cast Zechariah and Elizabeth according to the patri- and matriarchal models of Abraham and Sarah, but he casts Mary in the plight of Hagar. Even in their prayers for progeny, Zechariah and Elizabeth, like Abraham and Sarah, have a wealth of personal and material resources to rely on. Not so Mary. Like Hagar, she is more alone and vulnerable, with fewer resources in which to trust except for the promise of Gabriel itself. The foreseeable outcome of a pregnancy in her state will be expulsion from Joseph’s house, as Hagar was expelled from Abraham’s. Mary herself will need to live by the name of her son Jesus, which means [God] will save.

V. 31 does not explicitly declare a virginal conception. Not surprisingly, some scholars interpret v. 31 to imply a normal or even illegitimate pregnancy. One scholar argues that Mary’s reference to humiliation in the Magnificat (1:48) is an outcry of injustice that recalls the rape and seduction of a betrothed virgin in Deut 22:23–27.⁸¹ This cannot represent Luke’s intention. A virginal conception, though not clearly stated, is clearly implied. Mary is called a virgin twice in v. 27, and in v. 34 she questions how she can become pregnant apart from sexual intercourse. Luke’s later allusion to Jesus as the supposed son of Joseph (3:23) implies a nonnatural conception. Elizabeth’s pregnancy is due to divine intervention (1:13), and Mary’s can scarcely be considered less so. Above all, Mary’s response in v. 38 is not an outcry of injustice but a believing and humble submission to Gabriel’s pronouncement. Nothing in the account supports a theory of divine sexual violation. To be sure, there is no mention of Mary’s perpetual virginity in the annunciation, but the annunciation unmistakably informs her that as a virgin she will conceive a child, and that her conception is the result of the gracious, joyful, and saving intervention of God.⁸²

Vv. 32–33 record five declarations of Gabriel, all joined by the Greek copulative kai (and), that will characterize the saving intervention of God in Jesus.⁸³ First, Jesus will be great. John’s greatness was in the sight of God (1:15), but Jesus’ greatness is unqualified and absolute. Especially in the LXX, greatness without a qualifier is an attribute of God alone (Pss 48:2; 86:10; 135:5; 145:3). Gabriel attributes this quality to Jesus.⁸⁴ Second, Jesus will be called the Son of the Most High. Most High is an early appellation of Melchizedek for God, Heb. El Elyon (Gen 14:18; Heb 7:1). In the OT and later Judaism, El Elyon and Most High (Gk. hypsistos) became an exclusive name for the one true God, emphasizing his majesty and supremacy over all.⁸⁵ This divine epithet is also ascribed to Jesus. Third, the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David. The Son of the Most High is not an episodic work of God, but the revelation of the one who will fulfill the messianic ideal of David set forth in Isa 9:6, and especially in 2 Sam 7. Indeed, the four attributes of Nathan’s dynastic oracle in 2 Sam 7 are here applied to Jesus: great name (2 Sam 7:9//v. 32), messianic throne (2 Sam 7:13//v. 32), divine sonship (2 Sam 7:14//v. 32), eternal kingdom (2 Sam 7:16//v. 33).⁸⁶ Fourth, the Son’s reign will last forever. Eternal rule over Zion, which Mic 4:7 ascribes to God, is ascribed to Mary’s son in the annunciation. In contrast to King Herod’s futile attempts to establish a dynasty in perpetuity, the Messiah-Son will reign over the house of Jacob (= Israel) forever. Finally, the reign of the Messiah-Son will found a kingdom that will never end. Eternality is an attribute of God, and in the OT only God’s kingdom is eternal (Isa 9:7; Dan 7:14; Ps 145:13; Heb 7:24; etc.). All five divine declarations of Gabriel, four of which alone characterize God, are applied expressly to Jesus. The two great redemptive offices in Israel, the Messiah and Son of God, will in Mary’s womb converge in the incarnation of Jesus, who will finally and fully complete the redemption of Israel.

34–35 Gabriel’s glad tidings in vv. 30–33 do not relieve Mary’s perplexity, however. They heighten it. Like all mortals, Mary’s understanding is determined by human reality and possibility. She knows that children cannot be conceived apart from sexual intercourse, and that in Israel they ought not be conceived outside marriage. As an unmarried woman who has not had sexual intercourse, Mary takes exception to Gabriel’s announcement, How will this be, since I am a virgin? (v. 34). The original Greek literally reads, since I am not knowing a man [husband]. The word for know (Gk. ginōskein) is the normal Hebrew circumlocution implying sexual intercourse (Gen 19:8; Num 31:17; Judg 11:39). Mary’s response is nearly identical to Zechariah’s in v. 18, but whereas Zechariah’s implied disbelief, Mary’s does not. She understands the annunciation to mean that she will conceive a child as an unmarried woman who is not involved in a sexual relation. Her response contains a hint of what Kierkegaard wrestles with in the sacrifice of Isaac (Gen 22): God seems to command or promise something that violates his own rules.⁸⁷ Prot. Jas. 13.1–16.2, a later romance based on Luke 1–2, underscores this same dilemma by having Joseph and Mary undergo the test of adultery by drinking (and surviving) the bitter potion of Num 5:11–31.

Gabriel addresses Mary directly in her quandary: The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God (v. 35). Gabriel’s message contains three substantives—Holy Spirit, power of the Most High, and Son of God—but power of the Most High should probably be understood in apposition to Holy Spirit and thus synonymous with it. The combination of spirit and power is typical and important in Luke, and they are often used interchangeably (1:17; 4:14; Acts