Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Luke 1:59
And it came to pass, that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child; and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father.
59. on the eighth day ] According to the ordinance of Gen 17:12; Lev 12:3; Php 3:5. The name was then given, because at the institution of circumcision the names of Abram and Sarai had been changed, Gen 17:15. The rite was invested with extreme solemnity, and in later times a chair was always put for the prophet Elijah.
they called ] Rather, they wished to call. Literally, ‘they were calling,’ but the imperfect by an idiomatic use often expresses an unfulfilled attempt. So in Mat 3:14, ‘he tried to prevent Him’ ( diekluen).
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
On the eighth day – This was the day on which it was required to circumcise children, Gen 21:4.
And they called him Zacharias – The name of the child was commonly given at the time of the circumcision, Gen 21:3-4. The name commonly given to the eldest son was that of the father.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 59. On the eighth day they came to circumcise] See an account of this institution in Clarke’s notes on Ge 17:10-14. Had circumcision been essential to an infant’s salvation, God would not have ordered it to be delayed to the eighth day, because, in all countries, multitudes die before they arrive at that age. Baptism, which is generally allowed to have been substituted for circumcision, is no more necessary to the salvation of an infant than circumcision was. Both are signs of the covenant – circumcision, of the putting away the impurity of the flesh; and baptism, of the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, producing the answer of a good conscience towards God. Confer 1Pe 3:21, with Tit 3:5. This should never be neglected: it is a sign and token of the spiritual grace.
They called him Zacharias] Among the Jews, the child was named when it was circumcised, and ordinarily the name of the father was given to the first-born son.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
The law for circumcision, Gen 17:12; Lev 12:3, was strictly for it to be performed the eighth day. We find nothing commanded in Scripture, either as to the person who was to perform the office of the circumciser, or as to the place. God met Moses in the inn, and sought to kill him, because he had not circumcised his child, and Zipporah his wife did it, Exo 4:24,25. It is said they afterwards did it in the synagogues, but there is no Divine law in the case. That the name was given to the child upon its circumcision appeareth not from Scripture. It is said, Gen 21:3, that Abraham called his son Isaac, and then, Luk 1:4, he circumcised his son Isaac being eight days old. We read of no name given by Zipporah to her child when she circumcised him. But the name was at circumcision declared. It is most certain that John was circumcised in his fathers house, for we find his mother was present, who at that time was not in a condition to stir abroad. They called his name
Zacharias, whence we may observe the ancient usage of giving to children the names of their fathers and kindred. This in all probability is the reason of so many odd and unjustifiable names given to persons, such as are names of heathenish gods and goddesses, not fit to be named amongst Christians, &c. We derive from pagans, and though some heathens changed their names when they turned Christians, yet many (probably) did not, and by a long traduction (the names of parents being given to children) the names of pagan idols, such as Fortune, Diana, and the like, are by a most sordid practice made the names of Christians, a thing which certainly ought to be reformed, for it is a doing honour to those idols, if the giving a persons name to a child be (as we ordinarily account it) an honour done to the person whose name is so given. The Jews from their beginning seem to have had a religion as to this, giving names to their children either significative of Gods mercy to them, or their children, or their own duty to God; and the names of the parents, or some of the kindred, were in honour to them given to their children; therefore when Elisabeth (who knew the counsel of God as to this child, either by some writing from Zacharias, or some revelation to herself) heard them call him Zacharias, and contradicted them in this thing, and named him John, they object that none of her kindred was called by that name.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
59. eighth dayThe law (Ge17:12) was observed, even though the eighth day after birthshould be a sabbath (Joh 7:23;and see Php 3:5).
called himliterally,”were calling”that is, (as we should say) “were forcalling.” The naming of children at baptism has itsorigin in the Jewish custom at circumcision (Gen 21:3;Gen 21:4); and the names of Abramand Sarai were changed at its first performance (Gen 17:5;Gen 17:15).
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
And it came to pass that on the eighth day,…. The precise time fixed in the normal restitution of the ordinance of circumcision, Ge 17:12 though this was not always attended to, but circumcision was sometimes deferred to another time; yet keeping the exact time was judged most commendable and praiseworthy;
[See comments on Php 3:5]
they came to circumcise the child; that is, the neighbours and cousins of Elisabeth, who were at the time of her delivery; eight days after they came again to be at the circumcision of the child: who was the operator is not known; nor was there any particular person appointed for this service; but any one might do it, whether ecclesiastic or laic, men or women, father or mother, or any other friend; for the rule is n,
“all are fit to circumcise; even an uncircumcised person, and a woman, and a minor, may circumcise in a place where there is no man; but a Gentile may not circumcise at all.”
The circumcision of John seems to be performed in Zacharias’s house, and by one of those that came; for Zacharias, being dumb, could not say the blessing which the circumciser was obliged to say: nor indeed could he say that, which, as the father of the child, belonged to him; concerning which, take the following account o:
“the circumciser blesses before he circumcises, “saying”, blessed is he that hath sanctified us by his precepts, and hath commanded us concerning circumcision: if he circumcises the son of his friend, or if he circumcises his own son, he blesses him with “this blessing”; and hath commanded us to circumcise a son: and the father of the son blesses with another blessing; blessed art thou, O Lord our God, the King of the world, who hath sanctified us by his precepts, and hath commanded us to enter him into the covenant of Abraham our father.—-If his father is not there, they do not say this other blessing.—-And if there are any standing there, they say, as he hath brought him into the covenant, so bring him to the law, and to matrimony, and to good works; and after that the father of the child, or the circumciser, or one of those that stand by, bless, “saying”, blessed art thou, O Lord our God, the King of the world, who sanctified the beloved (Isaac) from the womb, c.”
How many of Elisabeth’s neighbours and relations were present at this ceremony, is not related but the Jews require ten persons as witnesses of it; for they say p, that
“testimonies worthy of belief, in Israel, are ten, the witnesses of the covenant of circumcision are ten, the witnesses of a dead person ten, c.”
and at this time also it was usual to give the child a name, which was not by divine appointment, but was a custom that prevailed among them which took its rise from Abraham, having his name changed at the time when circumcision was enjoined him, Ge 17:5 and from the naming and circumcision of Isaac, mentioned together,
Ge 21:3
and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father: as the neighbours of Naomi gave a name to the son of Boaz and Ruth, calling him Obed, Ru 4:17. This they took upon them to do, because that Zacharias was deaf and dumb; but why they should call him by his name, cannot well be accounted for, it not being usual to call the father, and the son, by the same name; unless they were desirous of continuing the same name in the family, which had been famous in Israel for a prophet, and a priest: to call children by Gentile names was not lawful. In the Targum on Am 6:1 it is said,
“woe to them that name their children after the names of the Gentiles.”
n Maimon. Hilch. Milah, c. 2. sect. 1, o Ib. c. 3. sect. 1, 2, 3. p Pirke Eliezer, c. 19.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Would have called (). Conative imperfect, tried to call.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
They called [] . The imperfect ense signifies, as Rev., they would have called : they were about to call : or, as Bishop Lightfoot has happily suggested, they were for calling.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1) “And it came to pass,” (kai egeneto) “And it occurred,” came to be after the Son (John) was born.
2) “That on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child;” (en te hemera te ogdoe elthon peritemein to paidion) “That on the eighth day they came (of their own choice) to circumcise the child,” in compliance with the Mosaic Law, Gen 17:12; Gen 21:4; Lev 12:3; Act 7:8; Php_3:5. The Law of circumcision was so meticulously observed by the Jews that they broke the sabbath to observe it, Joh 7:22-23.
3) “And they called him Zacharias,” (kai ekaloun auto Zacharion) “And they began calling him Zacharias,” the “they” were those who were involved in the function, or were already calling him Zacharias. The naming of children at circumcision had its origin from the changing of Sara! and Abram’s names, at the origin of circumcision, as recounted, Gen 17:5; Gen 17:15; Gen 21:3-4; Luk 2:21.
4) “After the name of his father.” (epi to onomati tou patros autou) “By reason of the name of his father,” to honor the continuity of his father’s name, but it was a wishful desire that was frustrated.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
59. And they called him Zacharias, by the name of his father We know that names were originally given to men, either from some occurrence, or even by prophetic inspiration, to point out some secret work of God. After a long period, when there was such a profusion of names, that it became inconvenient to form new ones every day, people satisfied themselves with the old and received names, and called their children by the names of their ancestors. Thus before the father of John, there were many called Zacharias, and perhaps they were the descendants of the “ son of Barachias, ” ( Mat 23:35 .) Use and wont, we are aware, is generally taken for law, and so these persons contended that the prevailing custom should be observed as to the name of the child. Though we must not imagine that there is any sacredness in names, yet no judicious person will deny that, in this matter, believers ought to make a godly and profitable selection. They ought to give their children such names as may serve to instruct and admonish them, and consequently to take the names of holy fathers — for the purpose of exciting their children to imitate them — rather than adopt those of ungodly persons.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(59) They came to circumcise the child.The day of circumcision, as the admission of the child into Gods covenant with his people, was, like the day of the baptism of infants among Christians, one on which relatives were invited to be present as witnesses, and was commonly followed by a feast. It was also, as baptism has come to be, the time on which the child received the name which was to bear its witness of the prayers of his parents for him, and of his personal relation to the God of his fathers.
They called him . . .The Greek tense is strictly imperfectthey were calling him. The choice of the name commonly rested with the father, but the kinsfolk seem to have assumed that, in the dumbness of the father, the duty devolved on them, and they, according to a custom not uncommon, showed their respect for the father by choosing his name.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
59. They came To the house probably of Zacharias. For no particular place was prescribed, and no particular person as performer of the rite.
To circumcise the child Circumcision was given by God to Abraham as the sign of the covenant between God and the circumcised. Perhaps it was, as in the case of sacrifices, merely the renewal of an ancient rite, for we find that not only the Jews and other Abrahamic tribes practised the rite, but the Ethiopians, Abyssinians, Egyptians, and others. Under the Mosaic law, infant circumcision was the rite of induction into the kingdom of God. It was the condition to be performed before the adult person could partake of the paschal feast. Exo 12:43-48. This was enjoined with great solemnity. So under the Christian dispensation except a man be externally born of water he cannot see the external kingdom of God. Joh 3:3. That is, as circumcision once, so baptism now is the admission rite of the Church of God. From this it would follow that no one who is not qualified if an adult, by justifying faith, if an infant, by the unconditional power of the atonement to enter the kingdom of God, is qualified for baptism. And as circumcision was required previous to the paschal feast, so baptism should be performed previous to the partaking of the communion.
They called him The name was generally given to the child by the Jews at circumcision. Like baptism, circumcision was the sacred recognition of the personality of the individual; and the persons solemnly present are proper witnesses to identify him in case of future dispute. So in our old English, to baptize is to christen, that is, both to Christianize and to name him; giving him his Christian or christen name.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And it came about on the eighth day, that they came to circumcise the child; and they would have called him Zacharias, after the name of the father, and his mother answered and said, “Not so, but he shall be called John.” ’
And on the important eighth day after the birth they all gathered together to celebrate the circumcision of the child. Every son of Israel was circumcised on the eighth day (otherwise he was seen as cut off from among the people). If necessary it could even be done by a woman or on the Sabbath. It may be that on this day he was officially named, although of course the baby would already have had a name applied to him. Previously naming was always done at birth. This is the first evidence for what would much later become the practise (compare also Luk 2:21).
On the other hand it may simply be that due to the unusual circumstances of the father being dumb and the mother in retirement the name had been given to the baby at birth but had not become generally known, so that they just assumed that nothing had been done and decided that he must be called Zacharias on the assumption that that was what the parents would expect to call him, after his father. This was the custom in certain families. ‘Not so,’ Elisabeth said (obediently to God’s command – Luk 1:13), ‘he shall be called John’. Her husband had clearly communicated some of his experience to her in writing and she was determined to stick with the name already given to him.
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Luk 1:59. And they called him Zacharias, The law did not enjoin that the child should have his name given him at circumcision; it was an incidental circumstance, which custom had added; possibly because at the institution of the rite God changed the names of Abraham and Sarah, Gen 17:5; Gen 17:15.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Luk 1:59 f. “With the circumcision was associated the giving of the name , Gen 21:3 . See Ewald, Alterth. p. 110. Among the Greeks and Romans it took place on the dies lustricus . See Dougtaeus, Anal. II. p. 44 f.; Hermann, Privatalterth . 32. 17.
] The subject is evident of itself, namely, the persons pertaining to the circumcision: “amici ad eam rem vocati,” Grotius. Any Israelite might be the circumciser (in case of necessity even a woman, Exo 4:25 ). See Lund, Heiligth. , ed. Wolf, p. 949; Keil, Archol. I. p. 307 f.
] They actually uttered this name (this took place immediately after the circumcision was performed; see Lund, l.c. , Buxtorf, Synagog. 4): but the mother (for the father was still dumb) took exception to it, Luk 1:60 . “Vere enim incipit actus, sed ob impedimenta caret eventu,” Schaefer, ad Phoen. 81; Buttmann, neut. Gr. p. 178 [E. T. 205].
The naming of the child after the father ( Tob 1:9 ; Joseph. Antt. xiv. 1. 3) or after a relative (Luk 1:61 ; Lightfoot, p. 726) was very common, as it was also among the Greeks (Hermann, l.c. 18). On , comp. Neh 7:63 ; Plut. Demetr. 2. The idea is: in reference to .
, . .] The usual supposition (Paulus, Kuinoel, Ebrard, Bleek, following Calvin and others), that Zacharias after his return from the temple made known to Elizabeth by writing the words of the angel, Luk 1:13 , is the more arbitrary, the less it is in keeping with the miraculous impress of the whole history. Theophylact is right in saying: ; and Euthymius Zigabenus: (comp. Origen and Ambrose), and this, indeed, at the moment of that , Luk 1:59 , else it would not be easy to perceive why she should not at the very beginning have carried out the giving of the divinely-appointed name.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
59 And it came to pass, that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child; and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father.
Ver. 59. To circumcise the child ] Infants are no innocents, they are conceived in sin, and the first sheet or blanket wherewith they are covered is woven of sin, shame, blood, and filth, Eze 16:4 ; Eze 16:6 . They were circumcised, to signify that we had better be flayed, and have our skin quite stript off, than to have it as a skin bottle hanging in the smoke of filthy desires, and blown full of unclean motions with the breath of Satan.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
59. ] they were calling wished to call: see Mat 3:14 for this use of the imperfect. The names of children were given at circumcision, because, at the institution of that rite, the names of Abram and Sarai were changed to Abraham and Sarah, Gen 17:5 ; Gen 17:15 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Luk 1:59 . , on the eighth, the legal day, they came , to circumcise the child; i.e. , those who were concerned in the function the person who performed the operation, and the relatives of the family. may be the imperfect of repeated action = they took for granted by repeated expressions that the name was to be Zechariah, or the conative imperfect indicating a wish which was frustrated.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
NASB (UPDATED) TEXT: Luk 1:59-66
59And it happened that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child, and they were going to call him Zacharias, after his father. 60But his mother answered and said, “No indeed; but he shall be called John.” 61And they said to her, “There is no one among your relatives who is called by that name.” 62And they made signs to his father, as to what he wanted him called. 63And he asked for a tablet and wrote as follows, “His name is John.” And they were all astonished. 64And at once his mouth was opened and his tongue loosed, and he began to speak in praise of God. 65Fear came on all those living around them; and all these matters were being talked about in all the hill country of Judea. 66All who heard them kept them in mind, saying, “What then will this child turn out to be?” For the hand of the Lord was certainly with him.
Luk 1:59 “on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child” This was practiced by all of Israel’s neighbors except the Philistines (Greek Aegean people). For most cultures it was usually a rite of passage into manhood, but not for Israel. It was instead an initiation rite into the covenant People. It was a sign of a special faith relationship with YHWH (Gen 17:9-14). Each Patriarch circumcised his own sons (i.e., acted as priest for his own family). Robert Girdlestone, Synonyms of the Old Testament, p. 214, says the rite of circumcision connected the rite of blood-shedding with the act of circumcision. Blood was connected to covenant forming (cf. Gen 15:17), covenant breaking (cf. Gen 2:17), and covenant redemption (cf. Isaiah 53).
The eighth day was the set time for male Jews to have the foreskin of their penises removed (cf. Lev 12:3; Gen 17:12). It was so important that even if the eighth day occurred on the Sabbath the ritual was still performed.
Luk 1:60 “he shall be called John” Naming was usually the choice of the father, but for both Jesus (cf. Mat 1:21) and John (cf. Luk 1:13) the messenger angel gave their names.
Luk 1:63 “they were all astonished” This is the Greek term thaumaz, which is used often by Luke (cf. Luk 1:21; Luk 1:63; Luk 2:18; Luk 2:33; Luk 4:22; Luk 7:9; Luk 8:25; Luk 9:43; Luk 11:13; Luk 11:38; Luk 20:26; Luk 24:12; Luk 24:41; Act 2:7; Act 3:12; Act 4:13; Act 7:31; Act 13:41). Luke’s vocabulary is influenced by the Septuagint. This word is also found in several OT contexts (cf. Gen 19:21; Lev 19:25; Lev 26:32; Deu 10:17; Deu 28:50; Job 41:4; Dan 8:27). The noun form is used of God’s miracles (cf. Exo 3:20; Deu 34:12; Jdg 6:13; and 1Ch 16:9).
“fear” These neighbors, family, and friends recognized God’s special presence and divine purpose (cf. Luk 1:66) in this conception and birth. This fear (a better word, “awe,” cf. NJB) is the common human response to the presence of the supernatural.
Luk 1:66 “For the hand of the Lord was certainly with him” Luke adds these personal comments several times (cf. Luk 2:50; Luk 3:15; Luk 7:39; Luk 16:14; Luk 20:20; Luk 23:12).
This was a Semitic idiom for God’s presence, power, and plan for individuals who become part of His design for the Kingdom (cf. 1Ch 28:19; Eze 1:3). By analogy it would apply to the mindset and worldview of all believers. God is with us, for us, and has a plan and purpose for our lives. See Special Topic at Luk 1:51.
Fuente: You Can Understand the Bible: Study Guide Commentary Series by Bob Utley
on = in. Greek. en. App-104. Not the same word as in Luk 1:65.
on the eighth day. Gen 17:12. Lev 12:3. Php 1:3, Php 1:5.
child. Greek. paidion. App-108.
they called. Imperf. Tense = were for calling,
after. Greek. epi. App-104. Not the same word as in Luk 1:24.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
59.] -they were calling-wished to call: see Mat 3:14 for this use of the imperfect. The names of children were given at circumcision, because, at the institution of that rite, the names of Abram and Sarai were changed to Abraham and Sarah,-Gen 17:5; Gen 17:15.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Luk 1:59. , after the name of his father) This was not the custom among the Jews: but in this case an extraordinary cause moved the members of the family, inasmuch as John was to sustain the whole posterity of [was the sole representative to posterity of] Zacharias.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Luk 2:21, Gen 17:12, Gen 21:3, Gen 21:4, Lev 12:3, Act 7:8, Phi 3:5
Reciprocal: Luk 3:2 – the word
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
9
The covenant with Abraham as well as the law of Moses required this rite (Gen 17:12; Lev 12:2-3). The law did not specify the age when the child should be named, but custom had established the time of circumcision for it. It happens frequently even today that people outside the family will presume to name the new baby. It was understandable why they would suggest the name of his father as that had long been another custom.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
And it came to pass, that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child; and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father.
[And they called it, etc.] I. “The circumciser said, ‘Blessed be the Lord our God, who hath sanctified us by his precepts, and hath given us the law of circumcision.’ ” The father of the infant said, “Who hath sanctified us by his precepts, and hath commanded us to enter the child into the covenant of Abraham our father.” But where was Zacharias’ tongue for this service?
II. God at the same time instituted circumcision, and changed the names of Abram and Sarah: hence the custom of giving names to their children at the time of their circumcision.
III. Amongst the several accounts why this or that name was given to the sons, this was one that chiefly obtained, viz. For the honour of some person whom they esteemed they gave the child his name: which seems to have guided them in this case here, when Zacharias himself, being dumb, could not make his mind known to them. Mahli the son of Mushi hath the name of Mahli given him, who was his uncle, the brother of Mushi his father, 1Ch 23:21; 1Ch 23:23.
“R. Nathan said, ‘I once went to the islands of the sea, and there came to me a woman, whose first-born had died by circumcision; so also her second son. She brought the third to me. I bade her wait a little, till the blood might assuage. She waited a little, and then circumcised him, and he lived: they called him, therefore, by my name, Nathan of Babylon.’ ” See also Jerusalem Jevamoth.
“There was a certain family at Jerusalem that were wont to die about the eighteenth year of their age: they made the matter known to R. Jochanan, Ben Zacchai, who said, ‘Perhaps you are of Eli’s lineage, concerning whom it is said, The increase of thine house shall die in the flower of their age. Go ye and be diligent in the study of the law, and ye shall live.’ They went and gave diligent heed to the law, and lived. They called themselves, therefore, the family of Jochanan; after his name.”
It is disputed in the same tract, whether the son begot by a brother’s raising up seed to his brother should not be called after the name of him that is deceased: for instance, if one dies without a son, and his name be Joseph, or Jochanan, whether the son that is born to this man’s brother, taking his brother’s widow to wife, should not have the name after him that afirst had her, and be called ‘Joseph,’ or ‘Jochanan.’ Otherwise, indeed, it was very seldom that the son bore the name of the father, as is evident both in the Holy Scriptures and the Rabbinical writers. It cannot be denied but that sometimes this was done; but so very rarely, that we may easily believe the reason why the friends of Zacharias would have given the child his own name was merely, either because they could by no means learn what he himself designed to call him, or else in honour to him, however he lay under that divine stroke at present, as to be both deaf and dumb.
Fuente: Lightfoot Commentary Gospels
Luk 1:59. On the eighth day. The proper time for administering the rite of circumcision (see Gen 21:4; Luk 2:21; comp. Php 3:5).
They were about to call. The custom of naming a child at circumcision seems to have had its origin in the change of names (Abram, Abraham; Sarai, Sarah) at the institution of the rite; Gen 17:5; Gen 17:15. Comp, also Gen 21:3-4, as a proof that this was the custom from the first. It is said to be the usage in the East, even where circumcision is unknown, to name a child on the seventh or eighth day. Among the Greeks and Romans the name was given on the day of purification.
After the name of his father. Naming a child after the father or a relative (comp. Luk 1:61), was very common among the Greeks, and also among the Jews; but in earlier times a Jewish son rarely bore the name of his father.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Observe here, 1. The circumcision of the child at eight days old, according to the commandment, Gen 17:12.
Where note, first, the act, circumcising.
Secondly, the time, at eight days old.
God commanded every male child to be circumcised; because the males by the foreskin, propagate sin, and convey original impurity.
By this ordinance, God gave his people to understand the exceeding filthiness of sin, and that man brings something into the world with him, which ought presently to be cut off.
Note also, the time of circumcising the child, at eight days old; not before, lest the child should be too weak to bear the pain; and it must not be deferred longer, lest God interpret the delay to be a contempt of the ordinance.
Hence by the way we may learn, that God did not tie salvation to the outward sacrament; for if the child had perished that died uncircumcised, it had been a hard thing to defer circumcision eight hours. ‘Tis not the want, but the contempt and neglect, of the sacrament that damns. “It came to pass on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child.” We find in scripture, the ordinance appointed, and the time limited, but neither the persons nor the place declared: Moses’s wife “circumcised the child, and that in an inn,” Exo 4:25.
A duty is sometimes positively enjoined in the scriptures, when the circumstances belonging to the duty are undetermined. Thus the sacrament of the Lord’s supper is appointed by Christ; but the time, the place, the gesture, are not positively commanded, but to be prudentially determined.
Observe, 2. The name is given, or at least declared, at the time of the child’s circumcising, and that by his parents; “His mother said, he shall be called John.”
But how did his mother know that, when her husband was dumb?
Ans. ‘Tis likely her husband Zachary had, by a writing, informed his wife concerning the whole vision, and what name was imposed upon him by the angel; therefore she says, “He shall be called John,” and Zachary ratifies it, ” His name is John.” The nomination was originally from the angel, the imposition of the name is now at circumcision from the parents.
Observe, 3. How ancient a custom it has been to give names to children, according to the names of their fathers or kindred: “There is none of thy kindred of this name,” say they: the Jews made it a part of religion, to give suitable names to their children, and significant names.
Accordingly they either gave them names to put them in remembrance of God’s mercy to them, or of their duty to him. Thus Zachary signifies the remembrance of God; which name points at God’s mercy in remembering him, and his duty in remembering God.
Well then, it is usual and useful for parents to give significant names to their children: then let the children have an holy ambition to make good the signification of their names. Thus John signifies the grace of God; but how will that gracious name be raised up in judgment against that child that is graceless!
Observe, 4. How Zacharias’s speech is immediately restored to him upon the naming of his child. The angel, Luk 1:20, told him, “he should be dumb till the things he had told him should be performed;” and now that they were performed, his tongue is loosed, and he praised God in a most thankful manner.
Observe, 5. The effect which all this had upon the neighbourhood; “Fear came upon all them that dwelt round about them;” that is, an awful and religious fear of God, occasioned by these miraculous operations; and they laid up these sayings in their hearts; that is, considered of them,. and pondered upon them. It argues a very vain spirit and temper of mind, when we pass over the observation of God’s wonderful acts with a slight regard. The true reason why we do so little admire the wonderful works of God, is, because we consider so little of them.
Observe, 6. The special favour vouchsafed by God to this child John: “The hand of the Lord was with him;” that is, God was in a special manner present with him, to direct and assist him, to protect and prosper him. The hand of God, in scripture, signifies the help of God, the strength and assistance of God. The hand of man is a weak and impotent hand, a short and ineffectual hand: but the hand of God is a strong hand, an almighty hand, able to assist and help, able to protect and preserve: “The hand of the Lord was with him;” that is, the heart of God and the help of God, the love and favour of God to support him, the power and providence of God to protect and preserve him. Lord, let our hearts be with thee, and then thy heart and thy helping hand will be with us.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
2. Circumcision of John: Luk 1:59-66. As an Israelitish child by its birth became a member of the human family, so by circumcision, on the corresponding day of the following week, he was incorporated into the covenant (Genesis 17); and it was the custom on this occasion to give him his name. The subject of , came, is that of the preceding verse. It has been maintained that the text suggests something miraculous in the agreement of Elizabeth and Zacharias; as if, during the nine months which had just passed away, the father had not made to the mother a hundred times over the communication which he presently makes to all present (Luk 1:63)! How many times already, especially during Mary’s stay in their house, must the names of John and Jesus have been mentioned!
It has been inferred from the words, they made signs to him (Luk 1:62), that Zacharias became deaf as well as dumb. But the case of Zacharias cannot be assimilated to that of deaf mutes from their birth, in whom dumbness ordinarily results from deafness. The whole scene, on the contrary, implies that Zacharias had heard everything. The use of the language of signs proceeds simply from this, that we instinctively adopt this means of communication towards those who can speak in no other way:
Ver. 63. The word added to is a Hebraism ( , 2Ki 10:6), the meaning of which is, deciding the question.
The expression, his name is, points to a higher authority which has so determined it; and it is this circumstance, rather than the agreement between the father and mothera fact so easily explainedwhich astonishes the persons present. Every one recalls on this occasion the strange events which had preceded the birth of the child.
Ver. 64. Zacharias, thus obedient, recovers his speech, of which his want of faith had deprived him. The verb , was opened, does not agree with the second subject, the tongue, for which the verb was loosed, taken from the preceding verb, must be supplied.
In the words, he spake and praised God, naturally it is on the word spake that the emphasis rests, in opposition to his previous dumbness. The last words are only an appendix, serving to introduce the song which follows. We must therefore refrain from translating, with Ostervald, He spake by praising God.
Ver. 65. At the sight of this miracle, surprise changes into fear. And this impression spreads abroad, with the report of these facts, throughout all the country. That is more especially the sense of the reading of , which, however, from a critical point of view, it is impossible to adopt.
Ver. 66. They not merely told, they laid to heart; these were the first emotions of the Messianic era.
The Alex. reading, , for also the hand of the Lord was with him, although adopted by Tischendorf, appears to us untenable. Whether, in fact, this for be put in the mouth of the narrator, or be assigned to the persons who ask the preceding question, in either case these words, the hand of the Lord was with him, must refer to all the circumstances which have just been narrated, while, according to the natural sense of the imperfect , was, they apply to the entire childhood of John the Baptist. This for has been wrongly added, with a view of making this reflection the motive of the preceding question. The T. R. is supported by not only the majority of the Mjj., but more especially by the agreement of the Alexandrinus and of the Peschito, which is always a criterion worthy of attention.
The development of this child was effected with the marked concurrence of divine power. The hand, here as usually, is the emblem of force.
These last words form the first of those resting-points which we shall often meet with in the course of our Gospel, and which occur in the book of the Acts. It is a picture, drawn with a single stroke of the pen, of the entire childhood of John the Baptist. Comp. Luk 1:80, which describes, by a corresponding formula, his youth.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
Verse 59
Circumcise. This was a religious ceremony, performed, according to the law of Moses, as a rite essential to the admission of any one to the Jewish communion. It was performed upon infant children of Jewish parents, when they were eight days old; and upon those who had not been thus circumcised in infancy, at the time of their conversion to Judaism, at whatever period of their lives this might be. It corresponded, therefore, in many respects, to the baptismal ceremony of the Christian dispensation, as practised by most denominations.–Called him; that is, proposed to call him.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
As godly Israelites, Zechariah and Elizabeth were careful to circumcise John eight days after his birth (Gen 17:9-14; cf. Luk 2:21). Normally the head of the household performed this operation. [Note: Marshall, The Gospel . . ., p. 88.] Both parents also faithfully followed Gabriel’s instructions and named their son as God had directed despite opposition from well-meaning friends who attended the special occasion (cf. Rth 4:17). The Jews usually named their children at birth, but the Hellenists did so a few days later. [Note: Ibid.] Perhaps this custom influenced Zechariah and Elizabeth to name John at his circumcision.