Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Luke 1:34
Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
34. How shall this be?] Mary does not doubt the fact as Zacharias had done; she only enquires as to the mode of accomplishment. The village maiden amid her humble daily duties shews a more ready faith in a far more startling message than the aged priest in the Holy Place amid the Incense.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
Luk 1:34-35
The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee
Of Christs Incarnation
These words are the angels answer to Mary, who, understanding the angel as speaking of a thing presently to be done before Joseph and she should come together, desires to know how she, being a virgin, should conceive.
Here–
1. The angel tells her how she should conceive and bring forth a Son, namely, by the power of the Holy Ghost, which is the power of the Highest, the Spirit of God being the true God, and so the Highest. The way of the Spirits powerful working to this miraculous conception, is denoted by two words. One is, that the Holy Ghost should come upon her, not in an ordinary way, as in the conception of all men (Job 10:8, Thine handshave made me, and fashioned me together round about); but in an extraordinary way, as on the prophets, and those that were raised to some extraordinary work. The other is, that the power of the Highest, which is infinite power, should overshadow her, to wit, make her, though a virgin, to conceive by virtue of the efficacy of infinite power, by which the world was created, when the same Spirit moved on the waters, cherished them, and framed the world.
2. He shows what should follow on this miraculous conception, namely, that the fruit of her womb, the child she should bear, should be called the Son of God. Where the angel teaches two things.
(1) The immaculate, sinless conception of the child Jesus, that holy thing, a holy thing though proceeding from a sinful creature, not tainted with sin, as all other children are. The powerful operation of the Divine Spirit sanctified that part of the virgins body of which the human nature of Christ was formed, so that by that influence it was separated from all impurity and defilement. So that, though it proceeded from a creature infected with original sin, there was no sin or taint of impurity in it. This was a glorious instance of the power of the Highest.
(2) He tells the virgin, that therefore, seeing that child to be thus conceived, he should be called, that is, owned to be, the Son of God. He says not, Therefore that holy thing shall be the Son of God, for he was the Son of God before, by virtue of His eternal generation; but, therefore he shall be called, i.e., owned to be really so, and more than a man.
I. I AM TO SHOW WHO SHE WAS THAT WAS THE MOTHER OF CHRIST AS MAN. Christ as God had no mother, and as man no father. But His mother as man was Mary. She was the seed of Abraham; and so Christ was that seed of Abraham, in whom all nations were to be blessed (Gal 3:16). She was of the tribe of Judah (Luk 3:33), and of that tribe Christ by her did spring (Heb 7:14). She was also of the family of David, as appears by her genealogy (Luk 3:1-38.), and therefore Christ is called the Son of David, as the Messiah behoved to be. She was, however, but a mean woman, the family of David being then reduced to a low outward condition in the world, having long before lost its flourishing state; so that our Lord sprung up as a root out of a dry ground (Isa 11:1; Isa 53:2).
II. I COME TO SHOW WHAT WE ARE TO UNDERSTAND BY CHRISTS BECOMING MAN. It implies–
1. That He had a real being and existence before His incarnation. He truly was before He was conceived in the womb of the virgin, and distinct from that being which was conceived in her. What and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up where He was before? (Joh 6:62). Yea, He was with His Father from all eternity, before any of the creatures came out of the womb of nothing.
2. That He actually took upon Him our nature. He assumed the entire nature of man into the unity of His Divine person, with all its integral parts and essential properties; and so was made or became a real and true man by that assumption. Hence it is said (Joh 1:14), The Word was made flesh. But though Jesus Christ had two natures, yet not two persons, which was the error of Nestorius, who lived in the fourth century. Again, though the Word was made flesh, yet it was without any confusion of the natures, or change of the one into the other: which was the heresy of the Eutychians of old, who so confounded the two natures in the person of Christ, that they denied all distinction between them. Eutyches thought that the-union was so made in the natures of Christ, that the humanity was absorbed and wholly turned into the Divine nature; so that, by that transubstantiation, the human nature had no longer being. But by this union the human nature is so united with the Divinity, that each retains its own essential properties distinct. The properties of either nature are preserved entire. It is impossible that the Majesty of the Divinity can receive any alteration; and it is as impossible that the meanness of the humanity can receive the impression of the Deity, so as to be changed into it, and a creature be metamorphosed into the Creator, and temporary flesh become eternal, and finite mount up into infinite. As the soul and the body are united, and make one person, yet the soul is not changed into the perfections of the body, nor the body into the perfections of the soul. There is a change indeed made in the humanity, by its being advanced to a more excellent union, but not in the Deity; as a change is made in the air when it is enlightened by the sun, not in the sun which communicates that brightness to the air. Athanasius makes the burning bush to be a type of Christs incarnation; the fire signifying the Divine nature, and the bush the human. The bush is a branch springing from the earth, and the fire descends from heaven. As the hush was united to the fire, yet was not hurt by the flame, nor converted into the fire, there remained a difference between the bush and the fire, yet the properties of fire shined in the bush, so that the whole bush seemed to be on fire. So in the incarnation of Christ, the human nature is not swallowed up by the Divine, nor changed into it, nor confounded with it: but they are so united, that the properties of both remain firm: two are so become one, that they remain two still; one person in two natures, containing the glorious perfections of the Divinity, and the weakness of the humanity. The fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily in Christ.
3. Christs becoming man implies the voluntariness of this act of His in assuming the human nature.
III. I proceed to show that CHRIST WAS TRUE MAN. Being the eternal Son of God, He became man, by taking to Himself a true body and a reasonable soul. He had the same human nature which is common to all men, sin only excepted. He is called in Scripture man, and the Son of man, the seed of the woman, the seed of Abraham, the Son of David, &c.; which designations could not have been given unto Him, if He had not been true man. The actions and passions of His life show that He had true flesh. He was hungry, thirsty, weary, faint, &c. For certainly if the Son of God would stoop so low as to take upon Him our frail flesh, He would not omit the nobler part, the soul, without which He could not be man. We are told that Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, the one in respect of His body, the other in respect of His soul. The sufferings of His body were indeed very great; it was filled with exquisite torture and pain; but His soul sufferings were much greater, as I observed in a former discourse.
IV. I come now to show WHAT WE ARE TO UNDERSTAND BY CHRISTS BEING CONCEIVED BY THE POWER OF THE HOLY GHOST IN THE WOMB OF THE VIRGIN MARY. To open this a little three things are to be considered here.
I. The framing of Christs human nature in the womb of the Virgin. The matter of His body was of the very flesh and blood of the virgin, otherwise He could not haw been the Son of David, of Abraham, and Adam, according to the flesh. Indeed God might have created His body out of nothing, or have formed it of the dust of the ground, as He did the body of Adam, our original progenitor: but had He been thus extraordinarily formed, and not propagated from Adam, though He had been a man like one of us, yet He would not have ban of kin to us; because it would not have been a nature derived from Adam, the common parent of us all. It was therefore requisite to an affinity with us, not only that He should have the same human nature, but that it should flow from the same principle, and be propagated to Him. And thus He is of the same nature that sinned, and so what He did and suffered may be imputed to us. Whereas, if He had been created as Adam was, it could not have been claimed in a legal and judicial way. The Holy Ghost did not minister any matter unto Christ from His own substance. Hence Basil says, Christ was conceived, not of the substance, but by the power, not by any generation, but by appointment and benediction of the Holy Ghost.
2. Let us consider the sanctifying of Christs human nature. I have already said that that part of the flesh of the Virgin, whereof the human nature of Christ was made, was purified and refined from all corruption by the overshadowing of the Holy Ghost, as a skilful workman separates the dross from the gold. Our Saviour was therefore called that holy thing Luk 1:35). Now this sanctification of the human nature of Christ was necessary.
(1) To fit it for personal union with the Word, who, out of His infinite love, humbled Himself to become flesh, and at the same time out of His infinite purity, could not defile Himself by becoming sinful flesh.
(2) With respect to the end of His incarnation, even the redemption and salvation of lost sinners; that as the first Adam was the fountain of our impurity, so the second Adam should also be the pure fountain of our righteousness. He that needed redemption himself could never have purchased redemption for us.
3. We are to consider the personal union of the manhood with the Godhead. To clear this a little, you would know–
(1) That when Christ assumed our nature, it was not united consubstantially, so as the three persons in the Godhead are united among themselves; they all have but one and the same nature and will: but in Christ there are two distinct natures and wills, though but one person.
(2) They are not united physically, as the soul and body are united in a man: for death actually dissolves that union; but this is indissoluble. So that when His soul was expired, and His body interred, both soul and body were still united to the second person as much as ever.
(3) Nor yet is this such a mystical union as is between Christ and believers. Indeed this is a glorious union. But though believers are said to be in Christ, and Christ in them, yet they arc not one person with Him. But more positively, this assumption of which I speak is that whereby the second
person in the glorious Godhead did take the human nature into a persons! union with Himself, by virtue whereof the manhood subsists in the second person, yet without confusion, as I showed already, both making but one person Immanuel, God with us. So that though there be a twofold nature in Christ, yet not a double person. Again, as it was produced miraculously, so it was assumed integrally; that is to say, Christ took a complete and perfect soul and body, with all and every faculty and member pertaining to it. And this was necessary, that thereby He might heal the whole nature of the disease and leprosy of sin, which had ceased upon and wofully infected every member and faculty of man. Christ assumed all, to sanctify all. Again, He assumed our nature with all its sinless infirmities: therefore it is said of Heb 2:17), In all things it behoved Him to be made like unto His brethren. But here we are to distinguish between personal and natural infirmities. Personal infirmities are such as befall particular persons, from particular causes, as dumbness, deafness, blindness, lameness, leprosies, &c. Now, it was no way necessary that Christ should assume these; but the natural ones, such as hunger, thirst, weariness, sweating, bleeding, mortality, &e. (Rom 8:3). Again, the human nature is so united with the Divine, that each nature still retains its own essential properties distinct. The glory of His Divinity was not extinguished or diminished, though it was eclipsed and obscured under the veil of our humanity; but there was no more change in the hiding of it, than there is in the body of the sun, when he is shadowed by the interposition of a cloud, And this union of the two natures in Christ is an inseparable union; so that from the first moment thereof, there never was, nor to all eternity shall there ever be, any separation of them.
V. I now proceed to show way CHRIST WAS BORN OF A VIRGIN. That Christ was to be born of a virgin, was prophesied and foretold many ages before His incarnation, as Isa 7:14. The Redeemer of the worldbehoved to be so born, as not to derive the stain of mans nature by His generation. It was most conformable to the infinite dignity of His person, that a supernatural and a Divine person be concerned as an active principle in it. By His being born of a virgin the holiness of His nature is effectually secured. Christ was an extraordinary person, and another Adam; and therefore it was necessary He should be produced a new way. Thus we may be thoroughly satisfied–
1. That Christ had a true human body; and that though He was made in the likeness of sinful flesh, He had not merely the likeness of flesh, but true Luk 24:39; Heb 2:14).
2. That He had reasonable soul, which was a created spirit, and that the Divine nature was not instead of a soul to Him.
3. That Christs body was not made of any substance sent down from heaven, but of the substance of the Virgin (Gal 4:4). He was the seed of the woman (Gen 3:15), and the fruit of Marys womb Luk 1:42), otherwise He had not been our brother.
4. That the Holy Ghost cannot be called the Father of Christ, since His human nature was formed, not of His substance, but of that of the Virgin, by His power.
5. That though as to the nativity of Christ there was nothing as to the way of it extraordinary, but He was at the ordinary time brought forth as others Luk 2:22-23), and that as a general truth. A woman, when she is in travail, hath sorrow, because her hour is come (Joh 16:21), yet He was born without sin, being that holy thing. He could not have been our Redeemer, had He not been so (Heb 7:26).
6. That the reason why Christ was born without sin, and the sin of Adam did not reach Him, was because He came not of Adam by ordinary generation, not by the blessing of marriage, but by a special promise after the fall.
I shall conclude all with some INFERENCES.
1. Jesus Christ is the true Messiah promised to Adam as the seed of the woman, to Abraham as his seed, the Shiloh mentioned by Jacob on his deathbed, the Prophet spoken of by Moses to be raised from among the children of Israel, the Son of David, and the Son to be born of a virgin.
2. Behold the wonderful love of God the Father, who was content to degrade and abase His dear Son, in order to bring about the salvation of sinners.
3. See here the wonderful love and astonishing condescendency of the Son, to be born of a woman, in order that He might die in the room of sinners. What great love to sinners, and what unparalleled condescension was here!
4. See here the cure of our being conceived in sin, and brought forth in iniquity.
5. Christ is sensibly touched with all the infirmities that attend our frail nature, and has pity and compassion upon His people under all their pressures and burdens (Heb 2:17-18). (T. Boston.)
The life of separation
The question that is uttered by Mary is not for a moment an utterance of incredulity. It is really the utterance of a believer who accepts the message that God has sent her, but who is conscious of difficulties in the way of its fulfilment. How can I ever be a mother, how can I ever be a mother of the Messiah Christ? The conditions–the fixed, the unalterable conditions–of my life make that to be for me an impossibility. How can this be, seeing I know not man? The words, of course, teach us this truth, that Mary was conscious that there was to the Divine promise and its fulfilment in her what seemed like a mighty barrier. We cannot say for certain whether the old legend is true; but it has always seemed to me that these words of our Lady bear out its truth in a most remarkable way. I refer to the old story that when St. Mary was quite a child she was taken up by her parents to the Temple, and that she there dedicated herself to serve God by a life of separation, and in the state of lifelong virginity, under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit of Love. And certainly that there was the existence of some such special barrier as this seems to be recognized and confessed in the question we are now considering. For just consider what her position was. She had been already espoused unto an old man called Joseph; and if their union was to have been the marriage union under its ordinary conditions, the message of Gabriel to Mary would simply have been under, stood by her in this way, that she should be, in the course of nature, the mother of Davids Greater Son. We know quite well that one of the great longings of every Jewish maiden down through the ages had been to become the mother of the Messiah; and it was this longing that made the thought of virginity utterly abhorrent to the whole spirit of Judaism. If, then, Gabriel had come to Mary when she was about to enter the married life under ordinary conditions she would never have been staggered by the Divine promise, and would never have seen any difficulty in the way of its fulfilment. In her humility she might have felt unworthy of it, but she would have bowed her head in pure and simple submission, and would have said–not the first–but her second word: Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to Thy word. But what she says is this: How can this be, seeing I know not man. What does this lead me to recognize? This fact, that already the love of God had done this for Mary–it had led her to a life of separation, it had led her to deliberately turn away from the state of life which was the common longing of the daughters of Israel; that she had already separated herself from man as a necessary preliminary condition of consecrating herself to God; and that the motive of this had been the love of God. Mary is emphatically revealed to us in the Bible not simply as a woman of devotion, but a woman whose devotion takes especially the contemplative form. She kept all His sayings and treasured them in her heart; she was one who was continually looking up at God with the fixed eye of wrapt contemplation; she was the pure in heart, and she saw God. And as she gazed on the vision of Gods beauty and lived in the recognition of Gods love, the love of God took possession of her heart in wondrous fulness and power; and as she gave herself up to be moulded by that love her first response to its working was the response of separation. Now Christian life is always a life of separation. That is its first aspect. We are taught this by the lessons of olden times. If you go back to the history of Israel, the Chosen People could only consecrate themselves to God in the Church in the wilderness and in the land of Canaan when they had come out of Egypt and had been separated from it by the separating waters of the Red Sea. Why, the very term whereby the Christian society is known shows this,–I mean the Greek equivalent to our word Church. Now what is the Ecclesia. The Eccleisa is a people called out. Out from what? Out from the world. As long as the present condition of things continues, the Church and the world can never be coextensive terms. The Church will always be found to be an Ecclesia, an election; in other words a people of separation, separate by privilege of course, but separate by responsibility also. And separation is the first essential feature of every true Christian life. In this separation there are two things to be remembered. In the first place, the separation is the act of God. It is God who separates, as He teaches us, when speaking to His people of old He says to them, Be ye holy, for I am holy, who have separated you to be My people. God separated His people to Himself, first, by the passage of the Red Sea, and then by the sprinkling of the blood when Moses came down from Mount Sinai. And so it is with us. We are separated by Gods act. The great act of separation with us is the act of Holy Baptism. We have been separated by Gods act, and we are to respond to it now by coming out and by being separate. Separate from what? Now here we must be very careful as we work our way, for we have to avoid two distinct difficulties. We have to avoid practically making the Church and the world the same, and saying that the Church has, so to say, to put a gloss over the world; and, on the other hand, we have to avoid an unpractical, uncommon sense trancendentalism, which is contrary to the example of Christ and the spirit of His gospel. That marvellous Eucharistic prayer of our Lord seems to teach the plain truth about this matter: I pray not that Thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that Thou shouldest keep them from the evil. What He prays for is this–not that He may have a people living in absolute isolation from society, but that He may have a people going out into the society of their day, living lives of loyalty to Christ where Christs name is denied, living lives of bold obedience to principle while passion sways the conduct of the many. Well, then, what we understand by the world is society as far as it is swayed by passion and desire, and not by principle and loyalty to Christ. In other words, the world is godless and corrupt society; and from that we must come out and be separate. Woe be to us if we fail in loyalty to Christ here. We shall bear, to our own shame before men, angels, and God, the brand of moral cowardice, and a more degrading brand than that cannot be stamped on any man or womans brow. Again, what are we to understand by separation? Well, we know in the Jewish days there were different degrees of separation. There was, for instance, the separation of the tribe of Levi for the diaconate, the separation of the family of Aaron for the priesthood, the separation of the Nazarites for a life of special strictness. Then, above all, there was the life of separation which marked off every Jew from the Gentiles as he obeyed the requirements of the Jewish law. So, again, in the Church there are different forms of separation.
I. To mention the highest of all, THERE IS THE SEPARATION TO WHAT WE CALL RELIGION. There are those to whom the voice comes which has found its expression in the 45th Psalm, verses 10 and 11. There is a state of life created by Christ in His Church, to which men and women are attracted to follow Him in poverty, in chastity, and in obedience; and of all forms of separation, that of the religious life is the most intense in its expression.
II. Then, again, THERE IS THE SEPARATION OF PROVIDENTIAL CIRCUMSTANCES. I want to mention three especially.
1. First of all, come family ties. Always think highly of the family. There is no sphere in life in which woman can minister better, in which she can do greater work for God, for the Church, and for those for whom Christ lived and died, than within the limits of the home.
2. Then there are those who are called aside by sickness, those whom God in His wonderful way leads by constrainings that must be submitted to, to a separation not only from the world outside, but sometimes even from the family within. As the world would say, they are apparently useless for life. But Do; they are led by God within the veil. Like the priest of Israel who twice daily entered into the Holy Place, and stood by the alter of incense alone and offered its sweet savour to God; so these are led by God by a wonderful separation to do a higher work than that of ministering, and that is the work of intercession.
3. Then, again, I cannot help thinking that there is a third way in which God separates some in His providential leadings, and that is by a retiring disposition. I do not for a moment say that you ought to give way to that self-consciousness which to many makes intercourse with the world one long agony. But there are many of you who go through life sorely weighted by that shyness, that self-consciousness, which makes you always think that nobody cares for you. It may be that even this temperament is a revelation of the will of God for you, and that by it he has separated you from much social joy and from many opportunities of exercising visibly holy influence, in order that you may be numbered with that hidden band whose ministry is the secret ministry of intercession rather than the ministry of open work. And, believe me, all these family ties, all these providential visitations of sickness and of temperament, are separations created by God, to which it is our wisdom, as it is our duty, to be submissive and obedient.
III. Then, again, THERE IS THE SEPARATION OF OBEDIENCE TO THE INNER LEADINGS OF THE SPIRIT, We are not under the law, but under grace. Many, we know, would like to have a definite law telling them what they may do and what they may not. You may go to a concert, but not to a theatre, you may ,go to a dinner party, but not to a ball–everything put down as clear as it can be. And we know that in former days Puritanism did attempt something of the kind; but it ended in failure, as it was bound to do. For we have not simply to deal with abstract laws, but we have to deal with individual characters. Cannot you see how it may be harmful for one to go where to another it would not only be not harmful, but positively helpful. So, outside the great Moral Law, God does not lay down any hard and fast rule, He does not legislate for our amusements. He put us under the guidance of the Spirit. Some people go with a clear conscience where others cannot go but with a guilty conscience. The great law of Christian life here is this–always be true to conscience; never allow yourself to do what you believe to be contrary to Gods Will for you, but do not limit another Christians liberty by your own rule of conduct or your own conviction as to what is lawful or expedient. Ah! be sure of it, separation will always mark off those whose lives are ruled by principle where lives are generally ruled by passion. What is the great principle that rules conduct in the world? Is it not undisciplined desire? That is the one great thing men live for–to gratify desire. But when Christ really comes into the heart the pain of pains is to grieve Him, and the joy of joys is to please Him, because we love Him. In no mere metaphorical language, we really love Him, and to give Him joy is our joy. How can we henceforth go out into the world and deny Him, and not rather there own Him gladly, by proved obedience to His manifested will? Last of all, love separates in yet another way. Love melts. It first renews, and then inspires, and then it melts. It has often happened even in the love of this world, that intercourse has begun with revulsion, but then love came in after a time, and the one who has been misunderstood is seen as she really is; and then comes grief for all the past, and with that grief comes of necessity the desire for reparation, the ready confession of wrong-doling and full purpose of amendment of life. And so it is with us. We loved not God, we knew not what He was; and then came a revelation of Him in Christ, and then the free gift of His Spirit in our hearts brings upon us a deep grief. I grieve that I should have sinned against a love so great, so long enduring–this recognized love of God melts me down into contrition, it makes me hate all my past life, until continuance in it is an impossibility, it brings me to his feet in confession, it raises me to go forth and show my sorrow for a life conformed to the world in the dead past by separation from the world in the living present. Such is the first thought that we have to notice. The life of a Christian is a life of separation because it is a life lived in the power of the love of God. (Canon Body.)
The miraculous conception
I. THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DOCTRINE AS AN ARTICLE OF THE FAITH. It is evidently the foundation of the whole distinction between the character of Christ in the condition of a man and that of any other prophet. Had the conception of Jesus been in the natural way, His intercourse with the Deity could have been of no other kind than the nature of any other man might have equally admitted; than the prophets enjoyed, when their minds were enlightened by the extraordinary influence of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Scriptures speak a very different language: they tell us, that the same God who spake in times past to the fathers by the prophets, hath in these latter days spoken unto us by His Son; evidently establishing a distinction of Christianity from preceding revelations, upon a distinction between the two characters of a prophet of God, and of Gods Son. Moses bore to Jesus, as we are told, the humble relation of a servant to a son. And lest the superiority on the side of the Son should be deemed a mere superiority of the office to which He was appointed, we are told that the Son is higher than the angels; being the effulgence of Gods glory, the express image of His person; the God whose throne is for ever and ever, the sceptre of whose kingdom is a sceptre of righteousness. And this high dignity of the Son is alleged as a motive for religious obedience to His commands, and for reliance on His promises. It is this, indeed, which gives such authority to His precepts, and such certainty to His whole doctrine, as render faith in Him the first duty of religion. But we need not go so high as to the Divine nature of our Lord to evince the necessity of His miraculous conception. It was necessary to the scheme of redemption, by the Redeemers offering of Himself as an expiatory sacrifice, that the manner of His conception should be such that He should in no degree partake of the natural pollution of the fallen race whose guilt He came to atone, nor be included in the general condemnation of Adams progeny. On the other hand, it were not difficult to show that the miraculous conception, once admitted, naturally brings up after it the great doctrines of the atonement and the incarnation. The miraculous conception of our Lord evidently implies some higher purpose of His coming than the mere business of a teacher. The business of a teacher might have been performed by a mere man enlightened by the prophetic spirit.
II. Having seen the importance of the doctrine of the miraculous conception as an article of our faith, let us, in the next place, consider THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE BY WHICH THE FACT IS SUPPORTED. We have for it the express testimony of two out of the four evangelists,–of St. Matthew, whose Gospel was published in Judea within a few years after our Lords Ascension; and of St. Luke, whose narrative was composed (as may be collected from the authors short preface) to prevent the mischief that was to be apprehended from some pretended histories of our Saviours life, in which the truth was probably blended with many legendary tales. It is very remarkable, that the fact of the miraculous conception should be found in the first of the four Gospels,–written at a time when many of the near relations of the holy family must have been living, by whom the story, had it been false, had been easily confuted; that it should be found again in St. Lukes Gospel, written for the peculiar use of the converted Gentiles, and for the express purpose of furnishing a summary of authentic facts, and of suppressing spurious narrations. Was it not ordered by some peculiar providence of God, that the two great branches of the primitive Church, the Hebrew congregations for which St. Matthew wrote, and the Greek congregations for which St. Luke wrote, should find an express record of the miraculous conception each in its proper Gospel? Or if we consider the testimony of the writers simply as historians of the times in which they lived, without regard to their inspiration, which is not admitted by the adversary,–were not Matthew and Luke–Matthew, one of the twelve apostles of our Lord, and Luke, the companion of St. Paul–competent to examine the evidence of the facts which they have recorded? Is it likely that they have recorded facts upon the credit of a vague report, without examination? (Bishop Horsley.)
The difficulty of Marys situation
It is not, commonly, sufficiently seen what an advance these words are upon the angels previous announcement, and how simply appalling they must have sounded to the trembling listener. There had been nothing as yet which suggested a single step beyond the ordinary course of nature, and mothers are proverbially capable of believing in any the most exalted future for their children; but now words had been spoken which proposed to change the whole tenor of her life and being, and demanded little short of an agony of faith. Nay! may she acquiesce without sin? Her betrothal–what can it mean?–is to be ignored, and her child is to recognize no earthly father. What will the world say, that little world–all the more terrible because it is so little–of society in Nazareth? And how shall she break it to Joseph? And, then, she may remember some dreadful story she has overheard her elders tell in low, stern tones; how some betrothed maiden had been suspected of what she herself was now called upon to brave, and how there had been a trial, and she had been pronounced guilty; and then they had brought her out to the door of her fathers house, and the men of her city had stoned her to death: the only way, they said, of putting away evil from among them. And she was conscious that she must brave all this, practically, alone; there was no prophet, in her case, who would make himself responsible for her integrity, and explain it all to the people, and give them a sign, and convince them that it was all from God. The angel there before her might be very real to her, but when he has disappeared and left her–people do not very readily believe in angels visits to their neighbours; will she ever be quite sure herself? (E. T. Marshall, M. A.)
Rome–her new dogma, and our duties
First, then, WHAT IS THE DOCTRINE? It is, that the Blessed Virgin Mary was herself, by a miraculous interposition of Gods providence, conceived without the stain of original sin. That the nature, therefore, with which she was born into this world was, from the first moment in which she began to exist, not that nature which all inherit who naturally are engendered of the offspring of Adam, but another nature; free from that fault and corruption which, as an hereditary taint, infects every member of the fallen race who is naturally born into this world.
II. And now let us see, secondly, THE PENALTIES UNDER WHICH THIS DOCTRINE IS PROMULGATED. They are those of the Churchs anathema and the condemnation of God. Whosoever henceforth shall deny it is condemned as an heretic. Let no man, says the decree, interfere with this our declaration, pronunciation, and definition, or oppose or contradict it with presumptuous rashness. If any should presume to assail it, let him know that he will incur the indignation of the Omnipotent God, and of His blessed apostles Peter and Paul.
III. Thirdly, let us consider OUR REASONS FOR OBJECTING TO THIS PROMULGATION. First, then, we object to it as the unlawful addition of a new article to the Creed. And here, first, we must establish that it is such an addition. There can be no mistake as to this matter. Before the promulgating of this decree, any one within the Roman communion might, as she teaches, deny, with St. Bernard and St. Augustine, the doctrine of the immaculate conception of the virgin and be saved; since that 8th of December, whosoever denies it must be lost. It is, therefore, on their showing, anew and necessary article of a Christian mans faith. Every lawful addition then to the Creed must be made in accordance with these conditions. And now, if we try this newly-propounded article by these conditions, we shall be able to prove its unlawfulness. For, first, it lacks the condition of the assent of the whole body of the faithful. It is assented to neither by the Eastern, nor by our own branch, of the universal Church. It is true that this argument will not weigh with Rome, because, after the exact pattern of the old Donatist schismatics, she claims to be exclusively THE catholic body, and makes, as they did, communion with herself the one condition of communion with her Lord. But to all beyond these comparatively narrow limits, this argument against her intrusive article is of itself unanswerable. But next it falls under the same condemnation, because it is not the old truth held from the beginning, but a new proposition, which was not received by the primitive Church. To prove this, we need but to compare a few of the plainest facts of history with the very words of the decree by which this dogma has been now promulgated. The Church, it declares, has never ceased to lay down this doctrine, and to cherish and to illustrate it continually by numerous proofs, and more and more daily by splendid facts. For the Church has most clearly pointed out this doctrine, when she did not hesitate to propose the conception of the Virgin for the public devotion and veneration of the faithful. By which illustrious act she pointed out the conception of the Virgin as singular, wonderful, and very far removed from the origins of the rest of mankind, and to be venerated as entirely holy; since the Church celebrates festival-days only of the saints. Here, then, we have
(1) an admission that, for the validity of the decree, it must be possible to assert that it is the ancient truth which it enacts; and next
(2) the rest pretended proof which can be given that the doctrine was thus held of old. From what remote antiquity then is this proof drawn? The answer is well worthy of notice. The earliest date which the Pope can give for any declaration of the dogma, is that of the illustrious act by which the Roman Church proposed the conception of the virgin for the public devotion of the faithful. And when that act was wrought we may learn from a decree of Alexander VIIth, the earliest of his predecessors whom the Pope dares to quote by name, as having protected and defended the conception as the true object of devotion. For this decree informs us, that this pious, devout., add laudable institution emanated from our predecessor Sixtus the IVth. Now Sixtus IVth succeeded to the papacy almost at the close of the fifteenth century; so that this is the earliest act which the Pope can allege to prove his proposition, that the Church has never ceased to lay down this doctrine. But even this is not all; since we cannot fully estimate the falsehood of this reference until we compare it with the decree itself. For this, so far from implying, even at that late period, the implicit holding of the doctrine which is here insinuated, actually provides a special prohibition to guard against any being led by the fact of the festival to condemn those who deny the immaculate conception, because the matter has not been decided by the Apostolic See. Of so late a growth is this doctrine in the Roman communion itself, and so signally does this its novelty condemn its promulgation as an article of faith. We are able to disprove by positive evidence the only other conceivable suggestion by which it could be justified, namely, that though not enunciated sooner, yet that within the bosom of the Church the doctrine was held implicitly from early times. For in answer to this, we assert not only that there is no evidence for it, but that the voice of catholic antiquity distinctly contradicts such a supposition. Of thee, for instance, says one, speaking of our Lords nativity, He took that which even for thee He paid. The mother of the Redeemer herself, otherwise than by redemption, is not loosed from the bond of that ancient sin. He, therefore, says the great Augustine, alone who was at once made Man and remained God, had never any sin, nor took a flesh of sin, although tie came from a maternal flesh of sin. For that of flesh which He took He either purified to take it, or in the taking purified it; and so say all their own greatest authorities. Hear the judgment on this point of one of their bishops, by no means the least learned of their canonists:–That the Blessed Virgin, says Melchior Canus, was entirely free from original sin, is nowhere held in Holy Scripture, taken in its literal sense; but on the other hand, in them is delivered the general law which includes all the sons of Adam without any exception. Nor can it be said that this teaching descended to the Church through the tradition of the apostles, since such traditions have come down to us only through those ancient and holy writers who succeeded the apostles. But it is evident that those ancient writers had not received it from those before them All the saints who have mentioned this matter have with one mouth asserted that the Virgin Mary was conceived in original sin. This St. Ambrose lays down, this St. Augustine repeatedly; this St. Chrysostom, this Eusebius Emissenus, this Remigius and Maximus, this Beds and Anselm affirm; this St. Bernard and Erhardus, bishop and martyr, with a multitude besides: this doctrine none of the saints have contravened. Neither implicitly, then, nor in open declaration, has this dogma been a doctrine of the Church of old.
IV. But once more, and above all; since the canon of Holy Scripture was complete, No DECLARATION OF DOCTRINE COULD EVER BE INSERTED IN THE CREEDS, WHICH COULD NOT BE SHOWN TO ACCORD WITH THAT WRITTEN WORD OF GOD. And when tested by this rule, the unlawfulness of this attempt will be most clearly proved. For not only is there no passage which can be alleged as even tending to prove it, but against it stand arrayed the clearest sentences of Holy Writ. For, says St. Paul, after examining the case alike of those without the law, as the heathen, or under the law, as the mother of Christ; For there is no difference, for all have sinned–and therefore Mary–and come short of the glory of God; being justified, not by immaculate conception, but freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. And again, There is none righteous, no, not one. But next
V. we object, not only to any introduction of a new dogma, but we object also in particular to this as, to say the least, HAVING DIRECT TENDENCIES TO HERESY. For it is no mere speculation; it is full of deadly consequences. For, first, if in the course of the Divine process for working out our salvation, our fallen nature was pure from spot of sin in any one before that in the person of Jesus Christ our Lord it was through the operation of the Holy Ghost, sanctified wholly by the union of His Godhead with it, then is that one, and not He, the first fountain of new life to our corrupted race.
This teaching, therefore, points us not to Christ, but to Mary, as the wellhead of our restored humanity; and thus does it directly shake the great doctrine of the incarnation. And then, further, if that nature which He thus took in the womb of His virgin mother was not that which she, like others, inherited from Adam, but one made by Gods creative power to exist under new conditions of original purity, how can we say that He indeed took from her our very nature? Then was that quarry whence was dug that flesh which He united to His Godhead, not of our fallen, but of a new and different, nature; and then is His perfect brotherhood with us destroyed. And yet once more: this last conclusion leads us to another reason why, in Gods name, we protest against this dogma. For it is not merely accidentally that it thus endangers our faith in the true incarnation of our Lord, and points our eyes from Him to His mother as the medium between God and us; but this dangerous delusion is a part, and the crowning part, of a whole system which really places on the Mediators throne the virgin mother instead of the incarnate Son. For this is the grand characteristic of the whole Roman system of Mariolatrous imposture. It does confer upon the Virgin Mary the Mediators office. The whole system of Rome does make the Virgin Mother the special mediator between God and man. It teaches sinners to look to her as more tender, more merciful, more full of pity, more able to sympathize with their infirmities, than is that true High-priest, who is such as became us, because He is fitted by the perfect holiness, and yet true brotherhood with us, of the nature He assumed, to have compassion upon the ignorant, and upon them that are out of the way. Amongst all its defacement of the truth of Christ, this is perhaps the plainest and one of the most hideous features of Roman superstition.
VI. Lastly, brethren, suffer me to lay before you SOME OF THE DUTIES WHICH, AS IT SEEMS TO ME, ARE ENFORCED UPON US BY THIS SAD SPECTACLE OF DEEP CORRUPTION WITHIN THE ROMAN CHURCH.
1. The first is that which, however inadequately, I have felt bound to attempt this day to discharge. It is to protest anew against this monstrous effort to corrupt, by mans additions, the revealed truth of God.
2. Next, surely it is our duty, with all sadness of soul, to make on behalf of those who have so deeply fallen, our humble intercessions with our long-suffering Lord.
3. Again, the sight of this evil surely enforces upon us another duty. For the sake of truth and for the love of souls, we, whose rule of faith is Gods
Word, and whose interpreter of Scripture is true catholic consent, are bound to hold faster than ever to these our real principles.
4. But we have yet another duty, as we contemplate this fearful spectacle; we have to separate ourselves from its evil. (Bishop Samuel Wilberforce.)
Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell
Verse 34. Seeing I know not a man] Or, husband. As she was only contracted to Joseph, and not as yet married, she knew that this conception could not have yet taken place; and she modestly inquires by what means the promise of the angel is to be fulfilled in order to regulate her conduct accordingly.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
There are some would excuse Mary in this reply, and tell us these words spake in her no doubt that the things spoken by the angel should not come to pass, only admiration, or a desire to be further acquainted which way God would effect such a wonder of providence. Others think her words hardly excusable from all guilt, though the more excusable because there had yet been no such precedent made in the world of the Divine power, as to cause a virgin to conceive, and bring forth a son. The next words,
seeing I know not a man, seem to import that she understood the angel of the present or past time, that she had already conceived, or should immediately conceive, against which she objects her not having any carnal knowledge of any man. For the notion of some papists, that would from hence impose upon us to believe that Mary hath vowed virginity, as if the sense of the words were, I am resolved never to know man, it is so ridiculous, that no man of ordinary sense can allow it; for, besides that there were no such vows that we ever read of amongst the Israelites, nor could any such be made but by the law of God might be rescinded, if made when the virgin was in her fathers house; and besides that it is very improbable that a Jewish woman should make such a vow, in whom barrenness was such a reproach, and who looked upon it as a curse; I say, besides these things, who can have such unworthy thoughts of the blessed virgin, as to think that she should, having made such a vow, admit of an espousal to Joseph to mock him? But she certainly understood the angel as speaking of a thing in being, or which presently should be; and though she believed what the angel said, yet is desirous of further satisfaction how such a thing could be out of the ordinary course of nature.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
34. How, &c.not theunbelief of Zacharias, “Whereby shall I know this?” but,taking the fact for granted, “How is it to be, socontrary to the unbroken law of human birth?” Instead ofreproof, therefore, her question is answered in mysterious detail.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
Then said Mary to the angel, how shall this be,…. This she said not as doubting the truth of what was said; for she required no sign, as Zacharias did; nor is she charged with, and blamed for unbelief, as he was; yea, it is expressly said, Lu 1:45 that she believed: nor was this a curious question, as whether she should have this son by a man in a married state, or in her present virgin state; for she clearly understood the angel to mean the latter; and therefore her words express her admiration at it, and also her desire to be informed of the manner how it should be: as to the matter of fact, she did not dispute it, but wanted to be resolved by what means it would be brought about: she knew, by prophecy, that the Messiah was to be born of a virgin, and she perceived, by the angel’s declaration, that she was that virgin, but could not imagine in what way this amazing thing should be effected; and therefore proposes this question for the following reason,
seeing I know not a man? “A husband”, as the Arabic version renders it; not Joseph, nor any other man; for though she was espoused to Joseph, yet he had not taken her to wife; nor were they, as yet; come together; and before they did, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost, Mt 1:18 she was a pure virgin, untouched by man. The words are an “euphemism”, or a modest way of expressing carnal copulation; see Ge 4:1.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
1) “Then said Mary unto the angel,” (eipen de mariam pros ton angelon) “Then Mary said (replied) to the angel,” in a direct inquiry, to the knowledgeable, informing, angel-servant Gabriel, who had disclosed the imminent event to her, Luk 1:31-33; as soon as she had recovered from her fear, yet full of wonder.
2) “How shall this be,” (pos estai touto) “How will this be,” or come to exist. The question was asked, not out of doubt or unbelief, such as Zacharias had done when told of the coming birth of John the Baptist, but for clarifying life purposes, for the mind of Mary. The “How question” was a biological one, and surely the giver and sustainer of life provided the answer to Gabriel.
3) “Seeing I know not a man?” (epei andra ou ginosko) “Since I know not a man;” Mary first affirmed her virginity to the angel Gabriel, who recognized the factual honesty of her testimony, though engaged or espoused to Joseph, she had remained a virgin, to fulfill prophecy, Isa 7:14.
The biological question receives a biological explanation, based on the movement of the Holy Spirit, the giver of life, upon and within her, as follows and certified, Joh 6:63; 2Co 3:6, which reads, “The spirit giveth life.”
She was a virgin before she conceived, after she conceived, and after she brought forth Jesus, till she and Joseph “came together,” Mat 1:25; This fulfilled the sign-promise of Isa 7:14; Mat 1:22-23. In normalcy of conception, virginity is broken in conception, and no young woman is a virgin after conception, or after giving birth to a child, but Mary was.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
34. How shall this be? The holy virgin appears to confine the power of God within as narrow limits as Zacharias had formerly done; for what is beyond the common order of nature, she concludes to be impossible. She reasons in this manner. I know not a man: how then can I believe that what you tell me will happen? We ought not to give ourselves very much trouble, (28) to acquit her of all blame. She ought immediately to have risen by faith to the boundless power of God, which is not at all lettered to natural means, but sways the whole world. Instead of this, she stops at the ordinary way of generation. Still, it must be admitted that she does not hesitate or inquire in such a manner as to lower the power of God to the level of her senses; but is only carried away by a sudden impulse of astonishment to put this question. That she readily embraced the promise may be concluded from this, that, though many things presented themselves on the opposite side, she has no doubt but on one point.
She might instantly have objected, where was that throne of David? for all the rank of kingly power had been long ago set aside, and all the luster of royal descent had been extinguished. Unquestionably, if she had formed her opinion of the matter according to the judgment of the flesh, she would have treated as a fable what the angel had told her. There can be no doubt that she was fully convinced of the restoration of the church, and easily gave way to what the flesh would have pronounced to be incredible. And then it is probable that the attention of the public was everywhere directed at that time to the prediction of Isaiah, in which God promises that he would raise up a rod out of the despised stem of Jesse, (Isa 11:1.) That persuasion of the kindness of God, which had been formed in the mind of the virgin, led her to admit, in the fullest manner, that she had received a message as to raising up anew the throne of David. If it be objected that there was also another prediction, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, (Isa 7:14,) I reply, that this mystery was then very imperfectly understood. True, the Fathers expected the birth of a King, under whose reign the people of God would be happy and prosperous; but the manner of its accomplishment lay concealed, as if it had been hidden by a veil. There is no wonder, therefore, if the holy virgin puts a question on a subject hitherto unknown to her.
The conjecture which some have drawn from these words, that she had formed a vow of perpetual virginity, is unfounded and altogether absurd. She would, in that case, have committed treachery by allowing herself to be united to a husband, and would have poured contempt on the holy covenant of marriage; which could not have been done without mockery of God. Although the Papists have exercised barbarous tyranny on this subject, yet they have never proceeded so far as to allow the wife to form a vow of continence at her own pleasure. Besides, it is an idle and unfounded supposition that a monastic life existed among the Jews.
We must reply, however, to another objection, that the virgin refers to the future, and so declares that she will have no intercourse with a man. The probable and simple explanation is, that the greatness or rather majesty of the subject made so powerful an impression on the virgin, that all her senses were bound and locked up in astonishment. When she is informed that the Son of God will be born, she imagines something unusual, and for that reason leaves conjugal intercourse out of view. Hence she breaks out in amazement, How shall this be? And so God graciously forgives her, and replies kindly and gently by the angel, because, in a devout and serious manner, and with admiration of a divine work, she had inquired how that would be, which, she was convinced, went beyond the common and ordinary course of nature. In a word, this question was not so contrary to faith, because it arose rather from admiration than from distrust.
(28) “ Nec vero magnopere laborandum est.” This is bold language, and must have sounded harsh and irreverent to a Popish ear: but in his French version Calvin uses still less ceremony. “We must not tease ourselves much to find out a way of vindicating her entirely“ — “ Or il ne nous faut pas beaucoup tormenter a trouver facon de la justifier entierement.” — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(34) How shall this be?The question of the Virgin is not altogether of the same nature as that of Zacharias in Luk. 1:18. He asks by what sign he shall know that the words were true which told him of a son in his old age. Mary is told of a far greater marvel, for her question shows that she understood the angel to speak of the birth as antecedent to her marriage, and she, accepting the words in faith, does not demand a sign, but reverently seeks to know the manner of their accomplishment.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
34. How shall this be? Zacharias requires proof of the angel’s statement before he will believe the thing will be done; Mary accepts that the thing will be done, and modestly asks how? One is a case of presumptuous unbelief; the other is a case of faith asking to be further instructed. “I accept in full faith the fact; but by what process (since the natural process is impossible) shall it be accomplished?” The angel now declares the process. Instead of an impure and sexual agency, a holy, unsexual, omnipotent power shall as purely produce the new being as the first germ of plant and tree was originally formed and developed “before it grew.” Gen 2:5.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘And Mary said to the angel, “How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?” ’
There is a sweet innocence about these words. As little teen-age Mary stood there with all these high powered theological ideas being presented to her the only thing that struck her as a problem was how all this could be when she had no husband. We may assume from her question that Gabriel has made it clear that this is to happen immediately (otherwise why such a question from a betrothed woman?).
These words are central to the chiasmus and are therefore intended to be emphasised. This whole passage is therefore built around them. All are intended to weigh them in their minds and consider their significance. The question was that as she had never had sexual relations with a man, how could this possibly be? And the reply was that it would be, not through some named man, but because the Holy Spirit would come on her, and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, with the result that the child Who would be born would be called ‘Holy’, ‘the Son of God. Now by all normal methods of interpretation that signified only one thing. A remarkable birth through the activity of God which would produce a unique human being Who would be like the God Who was called ‘Holy’ in Isa 57:15. He would be of the same nature as God, God’s Son. And while Mary would undoubtedly simply have been bewildered and unable to comprehend it at the time, there was only one place in Scripture to which this could be applied. And that is Isa 7:14 where because of the failure of the sons of the house of David, the place of their heirs was instead be taken by one not born of the sons of David, but miraculously born through a pure unmarried woman of marriageable age (LXX – ‘virgin’), a son who could be called ‘the Everlasting God’ and would one day rule over God’s everlasting kingdom (Isa 9:6-7).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
The explanation of the miracle:
v. 34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
v. 35. And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that Holy Thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
v. 36. And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
v. 37. For with God nothing shall be impossible.
v. 38. And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her. Mary had received wonderful, overwhelming news, such as she could hardly be expected to grasp and comprehend, that she, the unknown, poor maiden, should be the mother of the Messiah; for the words of the angel permitted no other interpretation. She was ready, in humble trust, to accept the message. But she feels constrained to ask for an explanation, not a sign. She knew only of the ordinary course of nature by which children are born into the world, and which presupposes two parents. She knew herself to be a pure virgin, no man having known her. The angel accepts the question, and, in answering, rises to an exulting chant. God would here make a wonderful exception, He would set aside the usual course of nature. The Holy Spirit, the Power of the Highest, the miraculous life-producing Power, would here exert an influence which would produce a child without fleshly defilement, out of the flesh and blood of the virgin only. No human father would be present, nor would there be any intercourse according to the blessing given to men at the creation. The creative power of God would come upon her, overshadow her, and so the child which would be born would be called holy, the Son of God. The faith of Mary under these trying circumstances is certainly remarkable. “That is a high, excellent faith ‘to become a mother and yet remain a simple virgin; this truly transcends sense, thoughts, also all human reason and experience. Mary here has no example in all creatures on earth to which she could hold and thus strengthen herself; yea, they all are against faith; for she is there all alone, who contrary to all reason, sense, and thoughts of men, without the agency of man, should bear and become a mother. Therefore she was obliged to abandon everything, even herself, and cling to the Word alone which the angel proclaimed to her from God. As it happened to Mary with her faith, so it happens to all of us, that we must believe what is opposed to our understanding, thoughts, experience, and example. For that is the property and nature of faith, that it will not permit anything to stand outside of itself, on which a person might rely and rest but only the mere Word of God and the divine promise.”
But the angel, as if filled with compassion for Mary’s difficult position, gives her some more information which would tend to set her mind at ease and reassure her. He tells Mary that her kinswoman, Elisabeth, who was of an age in which the normal course of nature no longer permitted the procreation of children, and who for that reason had been commonly considered barren, had been relieved of her reproach by God, this being the sixth month since the Lord had remembered her to give her a son. For and very impressively the angel brings out the fact with God there is impossible not one thing; every word of promise which He has made He will carry into execution at His time. Upon this word she might rely without doubt; this would be a powerful support to her faith. And in this way Mary accepted the message in its entirety. There were still doubtless many points concerning which she knew no explanation, which were beyond her power of comprehension. But she simply believed. She put herself entirely into the Lord’s service, as His servant. His work might be carried out in her. Hers was not only obedient submission, but also patient, longing expectation. She was ready to be the mother of the God-man, just as the angel had said. She herself had been conceived and born in sin, after the manner of all ordinary human beings, and the doctrine of Mary’s immaculate conception is a piece of Catholic fiction, but her Son, born of a woman, yet without carnal intercourse, by which He would have been conceived in sin, is the holy Son of God, the Redeemer of the world.
Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann
Luk 1:34-35. Then said Mary unto the angel, &c. When Mary heard Gabriel say that she was to conceive the Messiah, being conscious of her virginity, she found the matter above her comprehension, and therefore desired him to explain it. Being young and unexperienced, it was not to be expected that she could have a comprehension of mind and strength of faith equal to that which the old priest Zacharias ought to have possessed. Besides, this was a thing supernatural, and altogether without example. For though it is not distinctly mentioned by the evangelist, it is plain from Mary’s answer that the angel had informed her that the whole would be perfectly supernatural. These seem to have been the reasons why Gabriel, who had struck Zacharias dumb for presuming to ask a sign in proof of his wife’s future pregnancy, bore with the virgin when she desired to know how her’s could be brought about. In the mean time it should be observed, that Mary did not, like Zacharias, insinuate that she would not believe till a miracle was wrought to convince her, but only that she did not understand how her pregnancy could be effected in her virgin state, and desired him to explain it to her, not doubting but it was possible. Wherefore the weakness of her apprehension being consistent with faith, and her request being conceived with modesty and humility, the angel told her that the wonderful event should be accomplished by the interposition of the Holy Spirit, and special energy of the power of God, who would preserve her reputation entire, at least in the opinion of impartial judges, and protect her from any inquiry to which this mystery might expose her; for, by the Jewish law, a severe punishment was inflicted on women betrothed, who proved with child before they lived with their husbands. This protection, perhaps, may be implied in the phrase, overshadow thee. To be under the shadow of wings, is a phrase used in the Psalms to express the tender affection with which God preserves his servants. But if the passage be only exegetical of the preceding clause, there may be a reference perhaps to Gen 1:2 where the spirit of God is represented, as brooding or hovering over chaos; which Milton expresses thus:
Thou from the first Wast present, and with mighty wings outspread, Dove-like, sat’st brooding on the vast abyss, And mad’st it pregnant. Par. Lost, B. 1: Luk 1:19.
It is added, That holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be calledthat is, shall be, the Son of God; because thou shalt conceive him by the immediate operation of the Holy Ghost, causing him to exist in thy womb. The term, , in the neuter gender, denotes the human nature of Christ derived from his virgin mother:born of thee.
Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke
Luk 1:34 f. How is it possible that this shall be the case ? [22] namely, , Euthymius Zigabenus.
] comp. Mat 1:18 ; Gen 19:8 ; Jdg 11:39 ; Num 31:17 , since I have sexual intercourse with no man . In this sense the pure maiden knows no man. As, however, she is betrothed, Luk 1:27 , her reply shows that she has understood the promise of the angel rightly as soon to be fulfilled, and not to be referred to her impending marriage with Joseph, but as independent of the marriage that was soon to take place. The is thus simply the confession of the immaculate virgin conscience , and not (a misunderstanding, which Mary’s very betrothal ought to have precluded) the vow of perpetual virginity (Augustine, de virgin. 4, Gregory of Nyssa, Grotius, Jansen, Maldonatus, Bisping, and others), or the resolution to that effect (Schegg).
] In accordance with the nature of a proper name, without the article. Moreover, see on Mat 1:18
] will descend upon thee (Act 1:8 ). This, as well as , will overshadow thee (Act 5:15 ), is the former without figure, the latter figuratively a designation of the connection producing the pregnancy, which, however, is not conceived of in the form of copulation, for which the words are euphemistic expressions (Paulus, von Ammon, and older commentators), or yet under the notion of a bird which covers its eggs (Theophylact, comp. Grotius). [23] Certainly the expressions are correlates of , but as regards the effect , not as regards the form, since . expresses simply the descent of the Spirit, and . the manifestation of divine power associated therewith in the form of a cloud (after the manner of the Old Testament theophanies, Exo 40:34 ; Num 9:15 ; 1Ki 8:10 ; comp. also Luk 9:34 ). Augustine and other Fathers have quite mistakenly laid stress in . on the notion of coolness (in contrast to procreation in lust); comp. in Alciphr. iii. 2.
] without the article: power of the Highest will overshadow thee, will be that, which shall overshadow thee. This will set in in immediate consequence ( ) of the . Strict dogmatic expositors, such as Theophylact, Calovius, have rightly (comp. Luk 24:49 ) distinguished between the Holy Spirit and the power of the Highest, but in doing so have already imported more precise definitions from the dogmatic system by explaining the power of the Highest of the Son of God , who with His majesty filled the body that had been formed by the Holy Spirit, and thus have, by a more precise description of the formation of the body, broken in upon the delicate veil which the mouth of the angel had breathed over the mystery. [24]
] the holy thing that is being begotten shall (after His birth) be called Son of God. Most interpreters take as that which is to be born (comp. Luk 1:13 ), which view, moreover, has drawn after it the old addition from Mat 1:16 . But the context which immediately precedes points only to the begetting (Bengel, Bleek); and to this also points the neuter , which applies to the embryo (comp. on Mat 1:20 , and see Fritzsche, ad Aristoph. Thesm. 564), as well as the parallel Mat 1:20 . The subject, we may add, is , not . (Kuinoel: “proles veneranda” = . ), as also Bornemann assumes, when he (comp. de Wette) takes predicatively: “proles tua, cum divina sit .” Not as holy , but as begotten by God’s power ( ), is the fruit of Mary called the Son of God. Hofmann, Schriftbew. I. p. 117, explains: it shall be called holy, Son of God , so that those two appellations are to correspond to the two members of the preceding promise. So already Tertullian, as also Bengel and Bleek. But the asyndetic form, in which would be subjoined, tells against this view all the more, that we should of necessity, in direct accordance with what precedes ( . . . ), expect , especially after the verb, where no reader could anticipate a second predicate without . Comp. Justin, c. Tryph. 100: .
[22] This question is only appropriate to the virgin heart as a question of doubt on the ground of conscious impossibility, and not as an actual wish to learn the how ( , Theophylact); comp. already Augustine: “ inquirendo dixit, non desperando ,” whereas the meaning of the question of Zacharias, ver. 18, is the converse.
[23] Approved also by Delitzsch, bibl. Psychol. p. 116 f., and Bleek. But this conception is here very much out of place, and is not implied even in , Gen 1:2 , which, besides, has nothing to do with the passage before us.
[24] Calovius: “Supervenit Spiritus non quidem sed , guttulas sanguineas Mariae , e quibus concipienda caro Domini, sanctificando, easdem foecundas reddendo, et ex iisdem corpus humanum efformando .” Justin, Apol. I. 33, already rightly gives the simple thought of the chaste and delicate representation: . Schleiermacher, L. J. p. 62, erroneously affirms that the representation of Luke admits the possibility of Jesus being thought of as conceived with the participation of Joseph. It absolutely excludes any such notion.
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
Ver. 34. How shall this be? ] This is a speech not of unbelief, but of wonderment, as desiring also to be better informed.
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
34, 35. ] This question differs from that raised by Zacharias above. It is merely an enquiry after the manner in which so wonderful a thing should take place; not, how shall I know this? it takes for granted that it shall be , and only asks, How?
. ] the Holy Spirit the creative Spirit of God, of whom it is said, Gen 1:2 , that He . But as the world was not created by the Holy Ghost , but by the Son , so also the Lord was not begotten by the Holy Ghost , but by the Father: and that, before the worlds . “No more is here to be attributed to the Spirit, than what is necessary to cause the Virgin to perform the actions of a mother. As Christ was made of the substance of the Virgin, so He was not made of the substance of the Holy Ghost , Whose essence cannot at all be made . And because the Holy Ghost did not beget Him by any communication of His essence, therefore He is not the Father of Him, though He were conceived by Him.” (Pearson on the Creed, p. 165, 166.)
] The figure is perhaps from a bird (as Grotius: see ref. Ps.), or from a cloud: see the other reff.
] Some take this for the predicate of ., ‘shall be called holy, the Son of God.’ But it is more simple to take it as E. V., that holy thing, &c., making . . the subject, and . . the predicate. On the latter expression, see note on Mat 4:3 .
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
seeing, &c. = since, &c. Mary’s answer shows how she understood the angel’s promise. She does not question the fact, as Zacharias did (Luk 1:18), but only inquires as to the mode. To Mary the promise seems too early, to Zacharias too late.
know = come to know. Greek. ginosko. App-132.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
34, 35.] This question differs from that raised by Zacharias above. It is merely an enquiry after the manner in which so wonderful a thing should take place; not, how shall I know this?-it takes for granted that it shall be, and only asks, How?
.] the Holy Spirit-the creative Spirit of God, of whom it is said, Gen 1:2, that He . But as the world was not created by the Holy Ghost, but by the Son, so also the Lord was not begotten by the Holy Ghost, but by the Father: and that, before the worlds. No more is here to be attributed to the Spirit, than what is necessary to cause the Virgin to perform the actions of a mother. As Christ was made of the substance of the Virgin, so He was not made of the substance of the Holy Ghost, Whose essence cannot at all be made. And because the Holy Ghost did not beget Him by any communication of His essence, therefore He is not the Father of Him, though He were conceived by Him. (Pearson on the Creed, p. 165, 166.)
] The figure is perhaps from a bird (as Grotius: see ref. Ps.), or from a cloud: see the other reff.
] Some take this for the predicate of ., shall be called holy, the Son of God. But it is more simple to take it as E. V., that holy thing, &c., making . . the subject, and . . the predicate. On the latter expression, see note on Mat 4:3.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Luk 1:34. , how) This How is not inconsistent with faith, as Luk 1:45 proves.[8]- , I know not) The present is here used for [in accordance with and in reference to] the very moment of the conception, which was still future. She gathers from the words of the angel himself, that she is not about to know man. , seeing that, is categorical [absolute]. Mary understood that this promise is being now given to her as one immediately about to be fulfilled, without respect to the consummation of her espousals. A woman is also said to know a man, Num 31:17; Jdg 9:39.
[8] The difference between her and Zacharias, Luk 1:18; lay not in the words but in the spirit.-ED. and TRANSL.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Chapter 7
How Can These Things Be?
The angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and announced Gods grace and mercy to her. He told her that she had been chosen of God to be that virgin through whom the Messiah would come into the world, by whom the Seed of woman would come, through whom God the Father would send his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, to save his people from their sins.
God the Spirit has recorded all that is needful for our souls edification regarding the mystery of the incarnation of our blessed Saviour in the few verses before us. I call your attention to six things in these verses.
The Wonder Of Faith
Earlier in this chapter (Luk 1:18-20), we saw that when Zacharias asked, Whereby shall I know this?, his question was an expression of unbelief. Yet, when Mary asked virtually the same thing, her question was an expression of faith (Luk 1:45). Zacharias asked what he did because he looked upon the promise of God as a thing impossible. Mary asked what she did because she looked upon the promise of God as astonishing.
Marys words are an expression of admiration. She knew that the Son of God was coming into the world in human flesh, that Messiah must come into the world as a womans seed, untainted by Adams transgression, that God was going to send his Son into the world through the womb of a virgin; and now she knew that she was that virgin!
Marys words expressed her desire to know how the Lord would do this great, wondrous thing. She did not question the fact that God would do as he said. She simply desired to know how he would do it.
Mary could not imagine how such an amazing work could be accomplished, since she was indeed a virgin, as she put it, Seeing I know not a man. True faith often expresses itself in words of amazement and astonishment. David was astonished at Gods promise to him and his house; but he believed the promise (2 Samuel 7). Mephibosheth was astonished that David would look on such a dead dog as he thought himself to be before such a magnificent king; but he believed Davids word. So it is with Gods people. We often ask, Why would the Lord love me? Why would he choose me? Why would Christ die for me? How can God use me? Yet, we believe that which the Lord God has revealed in his Word.
The Mystery Of The Incarnation
In response to Marys question, Gabriel explained the mystery of the incarnation with absolute reverence, using the simplest words possible to declare the most profound mystery in the universe.
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God (Luk 1:35).
We ought always to follow this angelic example of total reverence regarding the things of God. Vain questions, carnal debate, idle speculations about holy things are utterly out of place. Divine things are divine. They are to be treated as divine. Here is the great mystery of godliness. God was manifest in the flesh! The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. Robert Hawker rightly observed
The Word of God teacheth, that all the persons of the Godhead were engaged in the formation of the human nature of Christ. Concerning God the Father, it was said by Christ, under the spirit of prophecy, ages before his incarnation: a body hast thou prepared me. Compare Psa 40:6 with Heb 10:5. And that God the Son had a hand in it is evident, for the Holy Ghost by Paul saith; that he took not on him the nature of angels, but the seed of Abraham. And again, he took of flesh and blood (Heb 2:14; Heb 2:16). And in this chapter we have the wonderful relation of the part which God the Holy Ghost had in the work, in his overshadowing power.
When God sent his Son into this world, he prepared a body for him called, that holy thing, in which our redemption could be accomplished (Heb 10:5). He took part of our flesh and blood (Heb 2:14). He became what we are. When he came into this world, he took hold of the seed of Abraham (Heb 2:15), took hold on his covenant people to save them.
This great Saviour was made of a woman (Gal 4:4-6). Yet, our great Saviour is himself God (Col 2:9). What more should be said? What more can be said? To go beyond these simple statements of divine Revelation would be to foolishly rush in where angels fear to tread and darken counsel by words without knowledge.
The Work Of The Triune God
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God (Luk 1:35).
As the incarnation was a work involving all three persons in the Triune God, the salvation of our souls is the work of the Triune God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We were chosen by God the Father in eternal election, purchased by God the Son in effectual redemption, and sanctified by God the Spirit in sovereign regeneration.
Yet, we must not fail to notice the unique work of God the Spirit, with regard to the Lord Jesus Christ. As God the Father always points to and glorifies Christ, so God the Spirit always points us to and glorifies the Lord Jesus Christ.
Did God the Son come into this world in human flesh? It was God the Spirit who prepared a body for him in the womb of a virgin. Did the Lord Jesus die to make atonement for our sins? It is written that he through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God (Heb 9:14). Did the crucified Christ rise from the dead for our justification? It is written, he was justified in the Spirit (1Ti 3:16). Our Redeemer was quickened by the Spirit (1Pe 3:18). Does the Prince of Peace give comfort to his people? It is by the Holy Spirit who is our Comforter. Does Christ our Prophet teach us? It is by the Spirit of Truth. In all things, especially in the affair of our salvation, the Triune God is one.
The Condescension Of Grace
Our God is so gracious, so good, so merciful that he condescends to help our weaknesses. Grace anticipates our weakness and inability. We see this beautifully set forth in Luk 1:36. Though Mary believed Gods promise, though she asked for no sign, the Lord condescended to encourage her faith, by telling her of another miraculous birth, by which God would fulfil his prophetic Word. And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
As soon as Mary found herself with child, she took off to see her cousin, Elizabeth. How they must have helped one another. Both were in embarrassing, difficult situations. While they were together, they ministered to one another and encouraged one another in the worship of God, celebrating his goodness and his grace.
The Omnipotence Of Our God
Here is the pillar of our confidence, the strength of our faith, and the solace of our souls in all things! With God nothing shall be impossible (Luk 1:37). Our peace in this world, our confidence regarding the purposes, promises and grace of our God stand and fall with our firm persuasion of our heavenly Fathers absolute omnipotence.
With our God, nothing is impossible! He who called the universe into being by the mere exercise of his will, he who created all things out of nothing by the bidding of his power, he who upholds all things by the word of his power can perform all his purposes, all his promises and all that we need, at all times!
That which is impossible with us is a piece of cake for our God. Nothing is too hard for the Lord! With God all things are possible (Mar 10:27). I cannot express the message of Luk 1:37 any better than J. C. Ryle did in his Expository Thoughts on the Gospel of Luke. Ryle wrote
There is no sin too black and bad to be pardoned. The blood of Christ cleanseth from all sin. There is no heart too hard and wicked to be changed. The heart of stone can be made a heart of flesh. There is no work too hard for a believer to do. We may do all things through Christ strengthening us. There is no trial too hard to be borne. The grace of God is sufficient for us. There is no promise too great to be fulfilled. Christs words shall never pass away, and what he has promised he is able to perform. There is no difficulty too great for a believer to overcome. When God is for us, who shall be against us? The mountains shall become as a plain. Faith never rests so calmly and peacefully as when it lays its head on the pillow of Gods omnipotence.
Our great and glorious God is the omnipotent God, the God of omnipotent ability to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think. Child of God, be assured, With God nothing shall be impossible! He is able to complete the work of his grace in you. He is able to keep you. He is able to save you to the uttermost (Php 1:6; 2Ti 1:12; Heb 7:25).
The Lord is King! Who then shall dare
Resist his will, distrust his care,
Or murmur at his wise decrees,
Or doubt his royal promises?
Til God all-wise can make mistakes,
His powr abate, his love forsake,
His children must not cease to sing
The Lord Omnipotent is King!
Josiah Conder
If indeed we believe God, if indeed our God is omnipotent, surrendering ourselves to him in all things should be in our minds the simplest, most reasonable thing in this world. Oh, may God give us grace to follow Marys example in this matter. In Luk 1:38, she shows us by humble example
The Surrender Of Faith
And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her. The great privilege granted to Mary, like all truly great privileges, involved (at least for the present) great and costly difficulty. Though it would ultimately be her everlasting honour, for the present, Mary knew her honourable name and reputation, her marriage to a good and honourable man, and her respect from family and friend alike would very possibly be in jeopardy. These things presented no small trial to her faith. But, believing God, for the honour of God, to do the will of God, Mary was willing to risk everything. She raised no objections. She asked no questions. She asked no favours. She simply bowed to the will of God, with ready and willing heart.
May God be pleased to give me such grace, that I may be willing to go anywhere, endure anything, and do anything, whatever the cost, in obedience to his will, for the glory of Christ. Faith is most noble when it yields blind obedience to the will of God.
Fuente: Discovering Christ In Selected Books of the Bible
Jdg 13:8-12, Act 9:6
Reciprocal: Gen 15:8 – General Gen 18:12 – laughed Num 11:22 – General Jdg 6:15 – wherewith 1Sa 16:2 – How can I go Jer 31:22 – A woman Luk 1:18 – Whereby Joh 3:9 – How Act 27:31 – Except
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
4
I know not a man. This cannot mean that Mary had no male acquaintance, for she was even engaged to one. The word know is from GINOSKO, and Thayer says at this place the word means, “the carnal [sexual] connection of male and female.” Robinson says virtually the same thing, except that he gives it as his definition of the word at this place. Mary meant that she was not being intimate with any man, which she thought would be necessary to conceive in her womb. We are taught an important lesson in morals here. The fact of being engaged was as binding in Biblical times as the actual marriage as far as obligations towards each other were concerned, but it did not authorize any intimacies until the time of marriage.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
LET us mark, in these verses, the reverent and discreet manner in which the angel Gabriel speaks of the great mystery of Christ’s incarnation. In reply to the question of Mary, “How shall this be?” he uses these remarkable words: “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee.”
We shall do well to follow the example of the angel in all our reflections on this deep subject. Let us ever regard it with holy reverence, and abstain from those unseemly and unprofitable speculations upon it, in which some have unhappily indulged. Enough for us to know that “the Word was made flesh,” and that when the Son of God came into the world, a real “body was prepared for Him,” so that He “took part of our flesh and blood,” and was “made of a woman.” (Joh 1:14; Heb 10:5; Heb 2:14; Gal 4:4.) Here we must stop. The manner in which all this was effected is wisely hidden from us. If we attempt to pry beyond this point, we shall but darken counsel by words without knowledge, and rush in where angels fear to tread. In a religion which really comes down from heaven there must needs be mysteries. Of such mysteries in Christianity, the incarnation is one.
Let us mark, in the second place, the prominent place assigned to the Holy Ghost in the great mystery of the incarnation. We find it written, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee.”
An intelligent reader of the Bible will probably not fail to remember, that the honor here given to the Spirit is in precise harmony with the teaching of Scripture in other places. In every step of the great work of man’s redemption, we shall find special mention of the work of the Holy Ghost. Did Jesus die to make atonement for our sins? It is written that “through the eternal Spirit He offered himself without spot to God.” (Heb 9:14.) Did He rise again for our justification? It is written that He “was quickened by the Spirit.” (1Pe 3:18.) Does He supply His disciples with comfort between the time of His first and second advent? It is written that the Comforter, whom He promised to send is “the Spirit of truth.” (Joh 14:17.)
Let us take heed that we give the Holy Ghost the same place in our personal religion, which we find Him occupying in God’s word. Let us remember, that all that believers have, and are, and enjoy under the Gospel, they owe to the inward teaching of the Holy Spirit. The work of each of the three Persons of the Trinity is equally and entirely needful to the salvation of every saved soul. The election of God the Father, the blood of God the Son, and the sanctification of God the Spirit, ought never to be separated in our Christianity.
Let us mark, in the third place, the mighty principle which the angel Gabriel lays down to silence all objections about the incarnation. “With God nothing shall be impossible.”
A hearty reception of this great principle is of immense importance to our own inward peace. Questions and doubts will often arise in men’s minds about many subjects in religion. They are the natural result of our fallen estate of soul. Our faith at the best is very feeble. Our knowledge at its highest is clouded with much infirmity. And among many antidotes to a doubting, anxious, questioning state of mind, few will be found more useful than that before us now,-a thorough conviction of the almighty power of God. With Him who called the world into being and formed it out of nothing, everything is possible. Nothing is too hard for the Lord.
There is no sin too black and bad to be pardoned. The blood of Christ cleanseth from all sin.-There is no heart too hard and wicked to be changed. The heart of stone can be made a heart of flesh.-There is no work too hard for a believer to do. We may do all things through Christ strengthening us.-There is no trial too hard to be borne. The grace of God is sufficient for us.-There is no promise too great to be fulfilled. Christ’s words never pass away, and what He has promised He is able to perform.-There is no difficulty too great for a believer to overcome. When God is for us who shall be against us? The mountain shall become a plain.-Let principles like these be continually before our minds. The angel’s receipt is an invaluable remedy. Faith never rests so calmly and peacefully as when it lays its head on the pillow of God’s omnipotence.
Let us mark, in the last place, the meek and ready acquiescence of Mary in God’s revealed will concerning her. She says to the angel, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.”
There is far more of admirable grace in this answer than at first sight appears. A moment’s reflection will show us, that it was no light matter to become the mother of our Lord in this unheard of and mysterious way. It brought with it, no doubt, at a distant period great honor; but it brought with it for the present no small danger to Mary’s reputation, and no small trial to Mary’s faith. All this danger and trial she was willing and ready to risk. She asks no further questions. She raises no further objections. She accepts the honor laid upon her with all its attendant perils and inconveniences. “Behold,” she says, “the handmaid of the Lord.”
Let us seek in our daily practical Christianity to exercise the same blessed spirit of faith which we see here in Mary. Let us be willing to go anywhere, and do anything, and be anything, whatever be the present and immediate inconvenience, so long as God’s will is clear and the path of duty is plain. The words of good Bishop Hall on this passage are worth remembering. “All disputations with God after His will is known, arise from infidelity. There is not a more noble proof of faith than to captivate all the powers of our understanding and will to our Creator, and without all questionings to go blindfold whither He will lead us.”
==================
Notes-
v36.-[Behold thy cousin Elisabeth.] We should mark how graciously the angel helps the faith of Mary, by telling her of a fact which may serve to assist her in receiving his message. This is the manner of God’s dealings. He knows our weakness. It is like our Lord calling for meat, and eating of a broiled fish and honey-comb, to satisfy his disciples of the material reality of his risen body.
Fuente: Ryle’s Expository Thoughts on the Gospels
Luk 1:34. How shall this be? Not as Zacharias (Luk 1:18): Whereby shall I know this? She simply expresses the natural objection of which she was conscious in her pure virgin heart.
Seeing I know not a man. This question implies the exclusion of any human father. The instincts of maidenly purity combined with strong faith to show her the negative side of the mystery of the miraculous conception, even if her question called for a revelation of the positive side. It is altogether improper to understand this clause as implying a vow of perpetual virginity, or the purpose of such a vow, as many Romanist interpreters hold. The words do not mean this, and her betrothal excludes it.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
Observe here, 1. The virgin’s question, How shall this be? This question did not import her denial of the possibility of the thing, but her wonder at the strangeness of the thing; it proceeded rather from a desire of information, than from a doubt of infidelity. Therefore she doth not say, This cannot be, nor, How can this be? but, How shall this be? She doth not distrust, but demand, how here virginity shall become fruitful, and how she, being a virgin, could bring forth a son?
Observe, 2. The angel’s reply to the virgin’s question, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee.
Where note, the angel declares the author who, but not the manner how: the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, but in what way, and after what manner, is not declared: no mother knows the manner of her natural conception, what presumption had it then been for the mother of the Messiah, to have inquired how the Son of God could take flesh and blood of his creature! It is for none but the Almighty to know those works which do immediately concern himself.
Observe, 3. The holy and immaculate conception of our blessed Redeemer: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee; wherefore that holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall be caled the Son of God; that is, the Holy Ghost shall prepare and sanctify so much of thy flesh blood, or seed, as shall constitute the body of Chirst. For though it was a work of the whole Trinity, yet it is ascribed particularly to the Holy Ghost, sanctification being his peculiar work. And the title and epithet of that holy thing, sheweth the purity and immaculateness of Christ’s human nature, and that none was ever born thus holy and immaculate but Christ only; because none had ever such a way and means of conception, but only he: Therefore that holy thing shall be called the Son of God; not constituted and made, but evidenced and declared. Christ was God before he assumed flesh, even from eternity; but his taking flesh in this manner, evidences him to be the Son of God.
Observe, 4. The argument used by the angel to confirm Mary in the belief of what he had told her, namely, the wonderful conception of her cousin Elizabeth, in her old age, who was now six months gone with child.
Where observe, 1. What an exact knowlege God has, and what a particular notice he takes of all the children of men; he knoweth not only ourselves, but our relations also, Behold thy cousin Elizabeth: the knowledge which God has of every person, and every action, is a clear and distinct knowledge.
Note, 2. How the angel strengthens her faith by a consideration drawn from the almighty power of God; With God nothing shall be impossible, be it ever so strange and difficult. There is no such way to overcome difficulties, as by strengthening our faith in the almighty power of God. Faith will enable us to assent to truths, though seemingly incredible, and to believe the possiblity of things, though appearing impossible.
Observe, lastly, how the virgin expresses her faith and obedience, her submission and entire resignation, to the divine pleasure, to be disposed of by God as he thought fit: Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it unto me according to thy word. We hear of no more objections or interrogations, but a humble and submissive silence.
Learn hence, that a gracious heart, when once it understands the pleasure of God, argues no farther, but quietly rests in a believing expectation of what God will do. All disputations with God, after his will is made known and understood, arise from infidelity and unbelief. The virgin having thus consented, instantly conceived by the overshadowing power of the Holy Ghost.
Fuente: Expository Notes with Practical Observations on the New Testament
Luk 1:34-38. Then said Mary, How shall this be How can I immediately conceive a child, (for so the angel meant, and so she understood him to mean,) seeing I know not a man? This was not the language of distrust, or of doubt, respecting what the angel said, but of a desire to be further instructed, for the direction of her conduct. She so inquired concerning the manner, as not to doubt of the fact. Some would render the clause, What? shall this be, if I have no intercourse with a man? as if she desired to be resolved, whether the birth were to be produced in a common, or a miraculous manner. But it is much more natural to suppose, that she understood the former words as an intimation that the effect was immediately to take place, to which her present circumstances seemed, humanly speaking, an invincible objection. She, however, asks no sign for the confirmation of her faith, as Zacharias had done, nor insinuates that she would not believe till a miracle was wrought to convince her; but only that she did not understand how her pregnancy could be effected in her virgin state, and desired him to explain it to her, not doubting but it was possible. Wherefore, the weakness of her apprehension being consistent with faith, and her request being conceived with modesty and humility, the angel told her that the wonderful event should be accomplished by the interposition of the Holy Spirit, and special energy of the power of God, who would preserve her reputation entire, at least in the opinion of impartial judges, and protect her from any injury which this mystery might expose her to; for, by the Jewish law, a severe punishment was inflicted on women betrothed, who proved with child before cohabiting with their husbands. Therefore also Because thou shalt conceive by the immediate operation of the Holy Ghost; that holy thing which shall be born of thee That holy offspring of thine; shall With regard to this miraculous conception, as well as another, and yet greater consideration, be called the Son of God. And behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, &c. For the confirmation of her faith the angel acquaints her with the pregnancy of her relation Elisabeth, who was then past the age of child-bearing; that being a thing similar, though inferior, to her own pregnancy, which he had been predicting. Mary and Elisabeth might be cousins, as the text affirms, although the former was a descendant of David, and the latter a daughter of Aaron; because the law, Num 36:6, forbidding women to marry out of their own tribes, related only to heiresses, and consequently did not include the tribe of Levi, which had not heritable possessions that could be alienated by such marriages. Accordingly, Lev 22:12, it is supposed a common case, that a priests daughter might be married to a stranger. And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord, &c. In this answer Mary expressed both great faith and great resignation. She believed what the angel had told her concerning her conception, and wished for it; not regarding the inconveniences she might be exposed to thereby, well knowing that the power of God could easily protect her. Thus Mary, though a young virgin, readily believes an event much more wonderful than that which Zacharias, though an aged priest, had found it so difficult to credit: and thus does God, as it were, out of the mouths of babes and sucklings perfect his praise. It is not improbable, that this time of the virgins humble faith, consent, and expectation, might be the very time of her conceiving.
Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
3. The manner in which the message was received: Luk 1:34-38.34. Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man? 35. And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. 36. And, behold, thy cousin Elizabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. 37. For with God nothing shall be impossible. 38. And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.
Mary’s question does not express doubt: it simply asks for an explanation, and this very request implies faith. Her question is the legitimate expression of the astonishment of a pure conscience.
We observe in the angel’s reply the parallelism which among the Hebrews is always the expression of exalted feeling and the mark of the poetic style. The angel touches upon the most sacred of mysteries, and his speech becomes a song. Are the terms come upon, overshadow, borrowed, as Bleek thinks, from the image of a bird covering her eggs or brooding over her young? Comp. Gen 1:3. It appears to us rather that these expressions allude to the cloud which covered the camp of the Israelites in the desert. In Luk 9:34, as here, the evangelist describes the approach of this mysterious cloud by the term .
The Holy Ghost denotes here the divine power, the life-giving breath which calls into developed existence the germ of a human personality slumbering in Mary’s womb. This germ is the link which unites Jesus to human nature, and makes Him a member of the race He comes to save. Thus in this birth the miracle of the first creation is repeated on a scale of greater power. Two elements concurred in the formation of man: a body taken from the ground, and the divine breath. With these two elements correspond here the germ derived from the womb of Mary, and the Holy Ghost who fertilizes it. The absolute purity of this birth results, on the one hand, from the perfect holiness of the divine principle which is its efficient cause; on the other, from the absence of every impure motion in her who becomes a mother under the power of such a principle.
By the word also (therefore also) the angel alludes to his preceding words: He shall be called the Son of the Highest. We might paraphrase it: And it is precisely for this reason that I said to thee, that… We have then here, from the mouth of the angel himself, an authentic explanation of the term Son of God in the former part of his message. After this explanation, Mary could only understand the title in this sense: a human being of whose existence God Himself is the immediate author. It does not convey the idea of pre-existence, but it implies more than the term Messiah, which only refers to His mission. The word , of the Highest, also refers to the term , Son of the Highest, Luk 1:32, and explains it. Bleek, following the Peschito, Tertullian, etc., makes the predicate of , and in apposition with : Wherefore that which shall be born of thee shall be called holy, Son of God. But with the predicate holy, the verb should have been, not shall be called, but shall be. For holy is not a title. Besides, the connection with Luk 1:32 will not allow any other predicate to be given to shall be called than Son of God. The subject of the phrase is therefore the complex term , the holy thing conceived in thee, and more especially , the holy; this adjective is taken as a substantive. As the adjective of , taken substantively, it would of necessity be preceded by the article. The words are a gloss.
What is the connection between this miraculous birth of Jesus and His perfect holiness? The latter does not necessarily result from the former. For holiness is a fact of volition, not of nature. How could we assign any serious meaning to the moral struggles in the history of Jesus,the temptation, for example,if His perfect holiness was the necessary consequence of His miraculous birth? But it is not so. The miraculous birth was only the negative condition of the spotless holiness of Jesus. Entering into human life in this way, He was placed in the normal condition of man before his fall, and put in a position to fulfil the career originally set before man, in which he was to advance from innocence to holiness. He was simply freed from the obstacle which, owing to the way in which we are born, hinders us from accomplishing this task. But in order to change this possibility into a reality, Jesus had to exert every instant His own free will, and to devote Himself continually to the service of good and the fulfilment of the task assigned Him, namely, the keeping of His Father’s commandment. His miraculous birth, therefore, in no way prevented this conflict from being real. It gave Him liberty not to sin, but did not take away from Him the liberty of sinning.
Mary did not ask for a sign; the angel gives her one of his own accord. This sign, it is clear, is in close connection with the promise just made to her. When she beholds in Elizabeth the realization of this promised sign, her faith will be thoroughly confirmed. , behold, expresses its unexpectedness. before , she also, brings out the analogy between the two facts thus brought together.
Mary’s being related to Elizabeth in no way proves, as Schleiermacher thought, that Mary did not belong to the tribe of Judah. There was no law to oblige an Israelitish maiden to marry into her own tribe; Mary’s father, even if he was of the tribe of Judah, might therefore have espoused a woman of the tribe of Levi. Could it be from this passage that Keim derives his assertion, that the priestly origin of Mary is indicated in Luke (Luk 1:33)? The dative in the T. R. is only found in some MSS. All the other documents have , from the form .
In Luk 1:37 the angel refers the two events thus announced to the common cause which explains them boththe boundless omnipotence of God. That is the rock of faith. signifies, properly, to be powerless. And Meyer maintains that this must be its meaning here, and that is to be taken in its proper sense of word. In that case we should have to give the preference to the Alex. reading : No word proceeding from God shall remain powerless. But this meaning is far-fetched. cannot depend naturally either on or . Mat 17:20 proves that the verb also signifies, in the Hellenistic dialect, to be impossible. The sense therefore is, Nothing shall be impossible. , with God, indicates the sphere in which alone this word is true. As though the angel said, The impossible is not divine. , as , H1821, a thing, in so far as announced. In reference to this concise vigorous expression of biblical supernaturalism, Oosterzee says: The laws of nature are not chains which the Divine Legislator has laid upon Himself; they are threads which He holds in His hand, and which He shortens or lengthens at will.
God’s message by the mouth of the angel was not a command. The part Mary had to fulfil made no demands on her. It only remained, therefore, for Mary to consent to the consequences of the divine offer. She gives this consent in a word at once simple and sublime, which involved the most extraordinary act of faith that a woman ever consented to accomplish. Mary accepts the sacrifice of that which is dearer to a young maiden than her very life, and thereby becomes pre-eminently the heroine of Israel, the ideal daughter of Zion, the perfect type of human receptivity in regard to the divine work. We see here what exquisite fruits the lengthened work of the Holy Spirit under the old covenant had produced in true Israelites. The word , behold, does not here express surprise, but rather the offer of her entire being. Just as Abraham, when he answers God with, Behold, here I am (Genesis 22, Behold, I), Mary places herself at God’s disposal. The evangelist shows his tact in the choice of the aorist . The present would have signified, Let it happen to me this very instant! The aorist leaves the choice of the time to God.
What exquisite delicacy this scene displays! What simplicity and majesty in the dialogue! Not one word too many, not one too few. A narrative so perfect could only have emanated from the holy sphere within which the mystery was accomplished. A later origin would inevitably have betrayed itself by some foreign element. Hear the Protevangelium of James, which dates from the first part of the second century: Fear not, said the angel to Mary; for thou hast found grace before the Master of all things, and thou shalt conceive by His word. Having heard that, she doubted and said within herself: Shall I conceive of the Lord, of the living God, and shall I give birth as every woman gives birth? And the angel of the Lord said to her: No, not thus, Mary, for the power of God…, etc.
Fuente: Godet Commentary (Luke, John, Romans and 1 Corinthians)
MARYS SUBMISSION
34-38. And Mary said, Behold the handmaiden of the Lord: may it he unto me according to thy word. Good Lord, give us the faith of Mary, that we may perfectly submit to Thy Word and will, regardless of consequences! Perfect submission is the indefeasible fulcrum on which rests the Archimedean lever by which we tilt the world all out of the heart. In this case, you see, Mary must take the risk of the deepest disgrace in worldly estimation and really the liability of martyrdom as the law specified the penalty of death for prostitution in Israel. Marys faith here leaps above every intimidation, and soars to the very pinnacle of victory.
39-45. It is about a hundred miles, through a rough, mountainous country, from Nazareth to Jutta, the home of Elizabeth, in the tribe of Judah. Upon the annunciation of Gabriel, and the information in reference to Elizabeth, her relative, Mary immediately set out on that long journey, walking, riding a donkey, or perhaps a camel, in order to visit her at her home. It here says that she came into the hill-country with haste, into a city of Judah. On arrival at the house of Elizabeth, wonderful manifestations of the Divine presence transpire. Elizabeth is filled with the Holy Ghost i.e., the spirit of prophecy comes on her, and she speaks fluently with a loud voice: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord may come unto me? For, behold, when the voice of thy salutation came into my ears, the infant in my womb leaped with joy. And blessed is she that believeth, because there shall be a perfection unto those things having been spoken unto her by the Lord. These inspired utterances of Elizabeth, enunciated in the fullness of the Spirit, should raise the faith of every Christian to the acme of full assurance; as we see, positively and unequivocally, that our faith is the measuring line of our experience. There is no reason why the Elizabethan blessing pronounced on Mary may not be appropriated by every disciple of our Lord. O how appropriate the prayer, Lord, increase our faith!
46-56. And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit doth rejoice in God my Savior: because He hath looked upon the humility of His servant; for, behold, from now, all generations shall call me blessed. While, of course, we are all to diligently steer clear of the Mariolatry so prominent among the Romanists, yet we must admit that the mother of the Lord, in a most extraordinary sense, is blessed among women, honored far above all others. Well did she predict the encomium pronounced upon her by all generations. This had been the grand aspiration, inspiring millions of Jewish maidens; now she very appropriately realizes this pearl of all blessings within the reach of womanhood: The Mighty One hath wrought great things; His name is holy; His mercy is to generations of generations of them that fear Him. He hath humiliated the mighty from their thrones, and exalted the humble. He hath filled the poor with good things, and sent away the rich empty. He hath looked upon Israel, His son, to remember mercy, as He spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and his seed forever. This brilliant and beautiful prophetical thanksgiving of Mary, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, vividly contrasts the temporal aggrandizement of the worldly with the spiritual blessings and achievements of the saints, its culminating fulfillment realizable at the second coming of our Lord, when all temporal thrones will fall (Dan 7:9); every monarch doff his crown, forfeit his scepter, preparatory to the coronation of Jesus as King of kings and Lord of lords; and the promotion of His bridehood to the thrones, dominions, and principalities of all nations.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
1:34 Then said Mary unto the angel, {e} How shall this be, seeing {f} I know not a man?
(e) The greatness of the matter causes the virgin to ask this question, not that she distrusted by any means at all, for she asks only of the manner of the conceiving, so that it is plain she believed all the rest.
(f) So speak the Hebrews, signifying by this modest kind of speech the company of man and wife together, and this is the meaning of it: how will this be, for as I will be Christ’s mother I am very sure I will not know any man: for the godly virgin had learned by the prophets that the Messiah would be born of a virgin.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
Mary, unlike Zechariah, did not ask for a sign that what the angel had predicted would happen. The idea that the Messiah would appear soon did not surprise her either. Instead she asked how it would happen. This was not an expression of weak faith but of confusion. Consequently Gabriel did not rebuke her as he had Zechariah. She was unmarried and a virgin. She had not had sexual relations with any man. [Note: Brown, The Birth . . ., p. 289.] Evidently Mary assumed that Gabriel meant she would conceive before she and Joseph consummated their marriage. [Note: Ellis, p. 71; G. H. P. Thompson, St. Luke, pp. 53-54; et al. Marshall, The Gospel . . ., pp. 69-70, listed several other explanations all of which I regard as inferior.] The euphemism of "knowing" someone sexually comes from the Old Testament (Gen 4:1; Gen 19:8; et al.).
Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)
Chapter 4
THE VIRGIN MOTHER.
THE Beautiful Gate of the Jewish Temple opened into the “Court of the Women”-so named from the fact that they were not allowed any nearer approach towards the Holy Place. And as we open the gate of the third Gospel we enter the Court of the Women; for more than any other Evangelist, St. Luke records their loving and varied ministries. Perhaps this is owing to his profession, which naturally would bring him into more frequent contact with feminine life, Or perhaps it is a little Philippian color thrown into his Gospel; for we must not forget that St. Luke had been left by the Apostle Paul at Philippi, to superintend the Church that had been cradled in the prayers of the “river-side” women. It may be a tinge of Lydias purple; or to speak more broadly and more literally, it may be the subtle, unconscious influences of that Philippian circle that have given a certain femininity to our third Gospel. St. Luke alone gives us the psalms of the three women, Anna, Elisabeth, and Mary; he alone gives us the names of Susanna and Joanna, who ministered to Christ of their substance; he alone gives us that Galilean idyll, where the nameless “woman” bathes His feet with tears, and at the same time rains a hot rebuke on the cold civilities of the Pharisee, Simon; he alone tells of the widow of Zarephath, who welcomed and saved a prophet men were seeking to slay; he alone tells us of the widow, of Nain, of the woman bent with infirmity, and of the woman grieving over her lost piece of silver. And as St. Luke opens his Gospel with womans tribute of song, so in his last chapter he paints for us that group of women, constant amid mans inconstancies, coming ere the break of day, to wrap around the body of the dead Christ the precious and fragrant offering of devotion. So, in this Paradise Restored, do Eves daughters roll back the reproach of their mother. But ever first and foremost among the women of the Gospels we must place the: Virgin Mother, whose character and position in the Gospel story we are now to consider.
We need not stay to discuss the question-perhaps we ought not to stay even to give it a passing notice-whether there might have been an Incarnation even had there been no sin. It is not an impossible, it is not an improbable supposition, that the Christ would have come into the world even had man kept his first estate of innocence and bliss. But then it would have been the “Christ” simply, and not Jesus Christ. He would have come into the world, not as its Redeemer, but as the Son and Heir, laying tribute on all its harvests; He would have come as the flower and crown of a perfected humanity, to show the possibilities of that humanity, its absolute perfections. But leaving the “might-have-beens,” in whose tenuous spaces there is room for the nebulae of fancies and of guesses without number, let us narrow our vision within the horizon of the real, the actual.
Given the necessity for an Incarnation, there are two modes in which that Incarnation may be brought about-by creation, or by birth. The first Adam came into the world by the creative act of God. Without the intervention of second causes, or any waiting for the slow lapse of time,
God spake, and it was done. Will Scripture repeat itself here, in the new Genesis? And will the second Adam, coming into the world to repair the ruin wrought by the first, come as did the first? We can easily conceive such an advent to be possible; and if we regarded simply the analogies of the case, we might even suppose it to be probable. But how different a Christ it would have been! He might still have been bone of our bone, flesh of our flesh; He might have spoken the same truths, in the same speech and tone: but He must have lived apart from the world, it would not be our humanity that He wore; it would only be its shadow, its semblance, playing before our minds like an illusion. No, the Messiah must not be simply a second Adam; He must be the Son of Man, and He cannot be come Humanitys Son except by a human birth Any other advent, even though it had satisfied the claims of reason, would have failed to satisfy those deeper voices of the heart And so, on the first pages of Scripture, before Edens gates shut and locked by bolts of flame, Heaven signifies its intention and decision The coming One, who shall bruise the serpents head, shall be the womans “Seed”-the Son of woman, that so He may become more truly, the Son of Man; while later a strange expression finds its way into the sacred prophecy, how “a Virgin shall conceive, and bear a son.” It is true these words primarily might have a local meaning and fulfillment-though what that narrower meaning was no one can tell with any approach to certainty; but looking at the singularity of the expression, and coupling it with the story of the Advent, we can but see in it a deeper meaning and a wider purpose. Evidently it was that the virgin-conception might strike upon the worlds ear and become a familiar thought, and that it might throw backwards across the pages of the Old Testament the shadow of the Virgin Mother. We have already seen how the thought of a Messianic motherhood had dropped deep within the heart of the Hebrew people, awaking hopes, and prayers, and all sorts of beautiful dreams-dreams, alas! that vanished with the years, and hopes that blossomed but to fade. But now the hour is coming, that supreme hour for which the centuries have all been waiting. The forerunner is already announced, and in twelve short weeks he who loved to call himself a Voice will break the strange silence of that Judaean home. Whence will come his Lord, who shall be “greater than he?” Where shall we find the Mother-elect, for whom such honors have been reserved-honors such as no mortal has ever yet borne, and as none will ever bear again? St. Luke tells us, “Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgins name was Mary” (R.V). And so the Mother-designate takes her place in this firmament of Scripture, silently and serenely as a morning star, which indeed she is; for she shines in a borrowed splendor, taking her glories all from Him around whom she revolves, from Him who was both her Son and her Sun. It will be seen in the above verse how particular the Evangelist is in his topographical reference, putting a kind of emphasis upon the name which now appears for the first time upon the pages of Scripture. When we remember how Nazareth was honored by the angel visit; how it was, not the chance, but the chosen home of the Christ for thirty years; how it watched and guarded the Divine Infancy, throwing into that unconscious life its powerful though influences, even as the dead soil throws itself forward and upward into each separate flower and farthest leaf; when we remember how it linked its own name with the Name of Jesus, becoming almost a part of it; how it wrote its name upon the cross, then handing it down to the ages as the name and watchword of a sect that should conquer the world, we must admit that Nazareth is by no means “the least among the cities” of Israel. And yet we search in vain through the Old Testament for the name of Nazareth. History, poetry, and prophecy alike pass it by in silence. And so the Hebrew mind, while rightly linking the expected One with Bethlehem, never associated the Christ with Nazareth. Indeed, its moralities had become so questionable and proverbial that while the whole of Galilee was too dry a ground to grow a prophet, Nazareth was thought incapable of producing “any good thing.” Was, then, the Nazareth chapter of the Christ-life an afterthought of the Divine Mind, like the marginal reading of an authors proof, put in to fill up a blank or to be a substitute for some erasure Not so. It had been in the Divine Mind from the beginning: yea, it had been in the authorized text, though men had not read it plainly. It is St. Matthew who first calls our attention to it. Writing, as he does, mainly for Hebrew readers, he is constantly looping up his story with the Old Testament prophecies; and speaking of the return from Egypt, he says they “came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, that He should be called a Nazarene.” We said just now that the name of Nazareth was not found in the Old Testament. But if we do not find the proper name, we find the word which is identical with the name, It is now regarded by competent authorities as proved that the Hebrew name for Nazareth was Netser. Taking now this word in our mind, and turning to Isa 11:1, we read, “And there shall come forth a shoot out of the stock of Jesse, and a branch Netser out of his roots shall bear fruit: and the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon Him.” Here, then, evidently, is the prophetic voice to which St. Matthew refers; and one little word-the name of Nazareth-becomes the golden link binding in one the Prophecies and the Gospels.
Returning to our main subject, it is to this secluded, and somewhat despised city of Nazareth the angel Gabriel is now sent, to announce the approaching birth of Christ. St. Luke, in his nominative way of speaking, says he came “to a Virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the Virgins name was Mary.” It is difficult for us to form an unbiased estimate of the character before us, as our minds are feeling the inevitable recoil from Roman assumptions. We are confused with the childish prattle of their “Ave Marias”; we are amused at their dogmas of Immaculate Conceptions and Ever Virginities; we are surprised and shocked at their apotheosis of the Virgin, as they lift her to a throne practically higher than that of her Son, worshipped in devouter homage, supplicated with more earnest and more frequent prayers, and at the blasphemies of their Mariolatry, which make her supreme on earth and supreme in heaven. This undue exaltation of the Virgin Mother, which becomes an adoration pure and simple, sends our Protestant thought with a violent swing to the extreme of the other side, considerably over the line of the “golden mean.” And so we find it hard to dissociate in our minds the Virgin Mother from these Marian assumptions and divinations; for which, however, she herself is in no way responsible, and against which she would be the first to protest. Seen only through these Romish haloes, and atmospheres highly incensed, her very name has been distorted, and her features, spoiled of all grace and sweet serenity, have ceased to be attractive. But this is not just. If Rome weighs one scale with crowns, and scepters, and piles of imperial purple, we need not load down the other with our prejudices, satires, and negations. Two wrongs will not make a right. It is neither on the crest of the wave, nor yet in the deep trough of the billows, that we shall find the mean sea-level, from which we can measure all heights, running out our lines even among the stars. Can we not find that mean sea-level now, hushing alike the voices of adulation and of depreciation? Laying aside the traditions of antiquity and the legends of scrupulous monks, laying aside, too, the colored glasses of our prejudice, with which we have been wont to protect our eyes from the glare of Roman suns, may we not get a true portraiture of the Virgin Mother, in all the native naturalness of Scripture? We think we can.
She comes upon us silently and suddenly, emerging from an obscurity whose secrets we cannot read. No mention is made of her parents; tradition only has supplied us with their names-Joachim and Anna. But whether Joachim or not, it is certain that her father was of the tribe of Judah, and of the house of David. Having this fact to guide us, and also another fact, that Mary was closely related to Elisabeth-though not necessarily her cousin – who was of the tribe of Levi and a daughter of Aaron, then it becomes probable, at least, that the unnamed mother of the Virgin was of the tribe of Levi, and so the connecting link between the houses of Levi and Judah-a probability which receives an indirect but strong confirmation in the fact that Nazareth was intimately connected with Jerusalem and the Temple, one of the cities selected as a residence of the priests. May we not, then, suppose that this unnamed mother of the Virgin was a daughter of one of the priests then residing at Nazareth, and that Marys relatives on the mothers side-some of them-were also priests going up at stated times to Jerusalem, to perform their “course” of Temple services? It is certainly a most natural supposition, and one, too, that will help to remove some subsequent difficulties in the story; as, for instance, the journey of Mary to Judaea. Some honest minds have stumbled at that long journey of a hundred miles, while others have grown pathetic in their descriptions of that lonely pilgrimage of the Galilean Virgin. But it is neither necessary nor likely that Mary should take the journey alone. Her connection with the priesthood, if our supposition be correct, would find her an escort, even among her own relatives, at least as far as Jerusalem; and since the priestly courses were half-yearly in their service, it would be just the time the “course of Abijah,” in which Zacharias served, would be returning once again to their Judaean homes. It is only a supposition, it is true, but it is a supposition that is extremely natural and more than probable; and if we look through it, taking “Levi” and “Judah” as our binocular lenses, it carries a thread of light through otherwise dark places; while throwing our sight forward, it brings distant Nazareth in line with Jerusalem and the “hill-country of Judaea.”
Betrothed to Joseph, who was of the royal line, and as some think, the legal heir to Davids throne, Mary was probably not more than twenty years of age. Whether an orphan or not we cannot tell, though the silence of Scripture would almost lead us to suppose that she was. Papias, however, who was a disciple of St. John, states that she had two sisters-Mary the wife of Cleophas and Mary Salome the wife of Zebedee. If this be so-and there is no reason why we should discredit the statement-then Mary the Virgin Mother would probably be the eldest of the three sisters, the house-mother in the Nazareth home. Where it was that the angel appeared to her we cannot tell. Tradition, with one of its random guesses, has fixed the spot in the suburbs, beside the fountain. But there is something incongruous and absurd in the selection of such a place for an angelic appearance-the public resort and lounge, where the clatter of feminine gossip was about as constant as the flow and sparkle of its waters. Indeed, the very form of the participle disposes of that tradition, for we read, “He came in unto her,” implying that it was within her holy place of home the angel found her. Nor is there any need to suppose, as some do, that it was in her quiet chamber of devotion, where she was observing the stated hours of prayer. Celestials do not draw that broad line of distinction between so-called secular and sacred duties. To them “work” is but another form of “worship,” and all duties to them are sacred, even when they lie among lifes temporal, and so-called secular things. Indeed, Heaven reserves its highest visions, not for those quiet moments of still devotion, but for the hours of busy toil, when mind and body are given to the “trivial rounds” and the “common tasks” of every-day life. Moses is at his shepherding when the bush calls him aside, with its tongues of fire; Gideon is threshing out his wheat when Gods angel greets him and summons him to the higher task; and Zacharias is performing the routine service of his priestly office when Gabriel salutes him with the first voice of the New Dispensation. And so all the analogies would lead us to suppose that the Virgin was quietly engaged in her domestic duties, offering the sacrifice of her daily task, as Zacharias offered his incense of stacte and onycha, when Gabriel addressed her, “Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee” (R.V). The Romanists, eager to accord Divine honors to the Virgin Mother as the dispenser of blessing and of grace, interpret the phrase, “Thou that art full of grace.” It is, perhaps, not an inapt rendering of the word, and is certainly more euphonious than our marginal reading “much graced”; but when they make the “grace” an inherent, and not a derived grace, their doctrine slants off from all Scripture, and is opposed to all reason. That the word itself gives no countenance to such an enthronement of Mary, is evident, for St. Paul makes use of the same word when speaking of himself and the Ephesian Christians, {Eph 1:6} where we render it “His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved.” But criticism apart, never before had an angel so ad dressed a mortal, for even Daniels “greatly be loved” falls below this Nazareth greeting. When Gabriel came to Zacharias there was not even a “Hail”; it was simply a “Fear not,” and then the message; but now he gives to Mary a “Hail” and two beatitudes besides: “Thou art highly favored; the Lord is with thee.” And do these words mean nothing? Are they but a few heavenly courtesies whose only meaning is in their sound? Heaven does not speak thus with random, unmeaning words. Its voices are true, and deep as they are true, never meaning less, but often more than they say. That the angel should so address her is certain proof that the Virgin possessed a peculiar fitness for the Divine honors she was now to receive-honors which had been so long held back, as if in reserve for herself alone. It is only they who look heavenward who see heavenly things. There must be a heart aflame before the bush burns; and when the bush is alight it is only “he who sees takes off his shoes.”
The glimpses we get of the Virgin are few and brief; she is soon eclipsed-if we may be allowed that shadowy word-by the greater glories of her Son; but why should she be selected as the mother of the human Christ? why should her life nourish His? Why should the thirty years be spent in her daily presence, her face being the first vision of awakening consciousness, as it was in the last earthward look from the cross? Why all this, except that there was a wealth of beauty and of grace about her nature, a certain tinge of heavenliness that made it fitting the Messiah should be born of her rather than of any woman else? As we have seen, the royal and the priestly lines meet in her, and Mary unites in herself all the dignity of the one with the sanctity of the other. With what delicacy and grace she receives the angels message! “Greatly troubled” at first-not, however, like Zacharias, at the sight of the messenger, but at his message – she soon recovers herself, and “casts in her mind what manner of salutation this might be.” This sentence just describes one prominent feature of her character, her reflective, reasoning mind. Sparing of words, except when under the inspiration of some “Magnificat,” she lived much within herself. She loved the companionship of her own thoughts, finding a certain music in their still monologue. When the shepherds made known the saying of the angel about this child, repeating the angelic song, perhaps with sundry variations of their own, Mary is neither elated nor astonished. Whatever her feelings-and they must have been profoundly moved-she carefully conceals them. Instead of telling out his own deep secrets, letting herself drift out on the ecstasies of the moment, Mary is silent, serenely quiet, unwilling that even a shadow of herself should dim the brightness of His rising. “She kept,” so we read, “all these sayings, pondering them in her heart”; or putting them together, as the Greek word means, and so forming, as in a mental mosaic, her picture of the Christ who was to be. And so, in later years, we read {Luk 2:51} how “His mother kept all these sayings in her heart,” gathering up the fragmentary sentences of the Divine childhood and Youth, and hiding them, as a treasure peculiarly her own, in the deep, still chambers of her soul. And what those still chambers of her soul were, how heavenly the atmosphere that enswathed them, how hallowed by the Divine Presence, her “Magnificat” will show; for that inspired psalm is but an opened window, letting the music pass without, as it throws the light within, showing us the temple of a quiet, devout, and thoughtful soul.
With what complacency and with what little surprise she received the angels message! The Incarnation does not come upon her as a new thought, a thought for which her mind cannot possibly find room, and human speech can weave no fitting dress. It disturbs neither her reason nor her faith. Versed in Scripture as she is, it comes rather as a familiar thought-a heavenly dove, it is true, but gliding down within her mind in a perfect, because a heavenly naturalness. And when the angel announces that the “Son of the Most High,” whose name shall be called Jesus, and who shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever, shall be born of herself, there is no exclamation of astonishment, no word of incredulity as to whether this can be, but simply a question as to the manner of its accomplishment: “How shall this be, seeing that I know not a man?” The Christ had evidently been conceived in her mind, and cradled in her heart, even before He became a conception of her womb.
And what an absolute self-surrender to the Divine purpose! No sooner has the angel told her that the Holy Ghost shall come upon her, and the power of the Most High overshadow her, than she bows to the Supreme Will in a lowly, reverential acquiescence: “Behold, the handmaid (bondmaid) of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.” So do the human and the Divine wills meet and mingle. Heaven touches earth, comes down into it, that earth may evermore touch heaven, and indeed form part of it.
The angel departs, leaving her alone with her great secret; and little by little it dawns upon her, as it could not have done at first, what this secret means for her. A great honor it is, a great joy it will be; but Mary finds, as we all find, the path to heavens glories lies through suffering; the way into the wealthy place is “through the fire.” How can she carry this great secret herself? And yet how can she tell it? “Who will believe her report?” Will not these Nazarenes laugh at her story of the vision, except that the matter would be too grave for a smile? It is her own secret yet, but it cannot be a secret long; and then-who can defend her, and ward off the inevitable shame? Where can she find shelter from the venomed shafts that will be hurled from every side-where, save in her consciousness of unsullied purity, and in the “shadow of the Highest?” Was it thoughts like these that now agitated her mind, deciding her to make the hasty visit to Elisabeth? Or was it that she might find sympathy and counsel in communion with a kindred soul, one that age had made wise, and grace made beautiful? Probably it was both; but in this journey we will not follow her now, except to see how her faith in God never once wavered. We have already listened to her sweet song; but what a sublime faith it shows, that she can sing in face of this gathering storm, a storm of suspicion and of shame, when Joseph himself will seek to put her away, lest his character should suffer too! But Mary believed, even though she felt and smarted. She endured “as seeing Him who is invisible.” Could she not safely leave her character to Him? Would not the Lord avenge His own elect? Would not Divine Wisdom justify her child? Faith and hope said “Yes”; and Marys soul, like a nightingale, trilled out her “Magnificat” when earths light was disappearing, and the shadows were falling thick and fast on every side.
It is on her return to Nazareth, after her three months absence, that the episode occurs narrated by St. Matthew. It is thrown into the story almost by way of parenthesis, but it casts a vivid light on the painful experience through which she was now called to pass. Her prolonged absence, most unusual for one betrothed, was in itself puzzling; but she returns to find only a scant welcome. She finds herself suspected of shame and sin, “the white flower of her blameless life” dashed and stained with black aspersions. Even Josephs confidence in her is shaken, so shaken that he must put her away and have the betrothal cancelled. And so the clouds darken about the Virgin; she is left almost alone in the sharp travail of her soul, charged with sin, even when she is preparing for the world a Savior, and likely, unless Heaven speedily interpose, to become an outcast, if not a martyr, thrown outside the circle of human courtesies and sympathies as a social leper. Like another heir of all the promises, she too is led as a lamb to the slaughter, a victim bound, and all but sacrificed, upon the altar of the public conscience. But Heaven did intervene, even as it stayed the knife of Abraham. An angel appears to Joseph, throwing around the suspected one the mantle of unsullied innocence, and assuring him that her explanation, though passing strange, was truth itself. And so the Lord did avenge His own elect, stilling the babble of unfriendly tongues, restoring to her all the lost confidences, together with a wealth of added hopes and prospective honors.
Not, however, out of Galilee must the Shiloh come, but out of Judah; and not Nazareth, but Bethlehem Ephratah is the designated place of His coming forth who shall be the Governor and Shepherd of “My people Israel.” What means then, this apparent divergence of the Providence from the Prophecy, the whole drift of the one being northward while the other points steadily to the south? It is only a seeming divergence, the backward flash of the wheel that all the time is moving steadily, swiftly forward. The Prophecy and the Providence are but the two staves of the ark, moving in different but parallel lines, and bearing between them the Divine purpose. Already the line is laid that links Nazareth with Bethlehem, the line of descent we call lineage; and now we see Providence setting in motion another force, the Imperial Will, which, moving along this line, makes the purpose a realization. Nor was it the Imperial Will only; it was the Imperial Will acting through Jewish prejudices. These two forces, antagonistic, if not opposite, were the centrifugal and centripetal forces that kept the Divine Purpose moving in its appointed round and keeping Divine hours. Had the registration decreed by Caesar been conducted after the Roman manner, Joseph and Mary would not have been required to go up to Bethlehem; but when, out of deference to Jewish prejudice, the registration was made in the Hebrew mode, this compelled them, both being descendants of David, to go up to their ancestral city. It has been thought by some that Mary possessed some inherited property in Bethlehem; and the narrative would suggest that there were other links that bound them to the city; for evidently they intended to make Bethlehem henceforth their place of residence, and they would have done so had not a Divine monition broken in upon their purpose. {Mat 2:23}
And so they move southward, obeying the mandate of Caesar, who now is simply the executor of the higher Will, the Will that moves silently but surely, back of all thrones, principalities, and powers. We will not attempt to gild the gold, by enlarging upon the story of the Nativity, and so robbing it of its sweet simplicity. The toilsome journey; its inhospitable ending; the stable and the manger; the angelic symphonies in the distance; the adoration of the shepherds-all form one sweet idyll, no word of which we can spare; and as the Church chants her “Te Deum” all down the ages this will not be one of its lowest strains:-
“When thou tookest upon thee to deliver man Thou didst not abhor the Virgins womb.”
And so the Virgin becomes the Virgin Mother, graduating into motherhood amid the acclamations of the sky, and borne on to her exalted honors in the sweep of Imperial decrees.
After the Nativity she sinks back into a second-a far-off second-place, for “the greater glory doth dim the less”; and twice only does her voice break the silence of the thirty years. We hear it first in the Temple, as, in tones tremulous with anxiety and sorrow, she asks, “Son, why hast Thou thus dealt with us? Behold, Thy father and I sought Thee sorrowing.” The whole incident is perplexing, and if we read it superficially, not staying to read between the lines, it certainly places the mother in anything but a favorable light. Let us observe, however, that there was no necessity that the mother should have made this pilgrimage, and evidently she had made it so that she might be near her precious charge. But now she strangely loses sight of Him, and goes even a days journey without discovering her loss. How is this? Has she suddenly grown careless? Or does she lose both herself and her charge in the excitements of the return journey? Thoughtfulness, as we have seen, was a characteristic feature of her life. Hers was “the harvest of the quiet eye,” and her thoughts centered not on herself, but on her Divine Son; He was her Alpha and Omega, her first, her last, her only thought. It is altogether outside the range of possibilities that she now could be so negligent of her maternal duties, and so we are compelled to seek for our explanation elsewhere. May we not find it in this? The parents had left Jerusalem earlier in the day, arranging for the child Jesus to follow with another part of the same company, which, leaving later, would overtake them at their first camp. But Jesus not appearing when the second company starts, they imagine that He has gone on with the first company, and so proceed without Him. This seems the only probable solution of the difficulty: at any rate it makes plain and perfectly natural what else is most obscure and perplexing. Marys mistake, however-and it was not her fault-opens to us a page in the sealed volume of the Divine Boyhood, letting us hear its solitary voice-“Wist ye not that I must be in My Fathers house?”
We see the mother again at Cana, where she is an invited and honored guest at the marriage, moving about among the servants with a certain quiet authority, and telling her Divine Son of the breakdown in the hospitalities: “They have no wine.” We cannot now go into details, but evidently there was no distancing reserve between the mother and her Son. She goes to Him naturally; she speaks to Him freely and frankly, as any widow would speak to the son on whom she leaned. Nay, she seems to know, as by a sort of intuition, of the superhuman powers that are lying dormant in that quiet Son of hers, and she so correctly reads the horoscope of Heaven as to expect this will be the hour and the place of their manifestation. Perhaps her mind did not grasp the true Divinity of her Son – indeed, it could not have done so before the Resurrection-but that He is the Messiah she has no doubt, and so, strong in her confidence, she says to the servants, “Whatsoever He saith unto you, do it.” And her faith must-have been great indeed, when it required a “whatsoever” to measure it. Some have thought they could detect a tinge of impatience and a tone of rebuke in the reply of Jesus; and doubtless there is a little sharpness in our English rendering of it. It does sound to our ears somewhat unfilial and harsh. But to the Greeks the address “Woman” was both courteous and respectful, and Jesus Himself uses it in that last tender salute from the cross. Certainly she did not take it as a rebuke, for one harsh word, like the touch on the sensitive plant, would have thrown her back into silence; whereas she goes off directly to the servants with her “whatsoever.”
We get one more brief glimpse of her at Capernaum, as she and her other sons come out to Jesus to urge Him to desist from His long speaking. It is but a simple narrative, but it serves to throw a side-light on that home-life now removed to Capernaum. It shows us the thoughtful, loving mother, as, forgetful of herself and full of solicitude for Him, who, she fears, will tax Himself beyond His strength, she comes out to persuade Him home. But what is the meaning of that strange answer, and the significant gesture? “Mother,” “brethren?” It is as if Jesus did not understand the words. They are something He has now outgrown, something He must now lay aside, as He gives Himself to the world at large. As there comes a time in the life of each when the mother is forsaken-left, that he may follow a higher call, and be himself a man-so Jesus now steps out into a world where Marys heart, indeed, may still follow, but a world her mind may not enter. The earthly relation is henceforth to be overshadowed by the heavenly. The Son of Mary grows into the Son of man, belonging now to no special one, but to humanity at large, finding in all, even in us, who do the will of the Father in heaven, a brother, a sister, a mother. Not that Jesus forgets her. Oh, no! Even amid the agonies of the cross He thinks of her; He singles her out among the crowd, bespeaking for her a place-the place He Himself has filled-in the heart of His nearest earthly friend; and amid the prayer for his murderers, and the “ELOI, ELOI” of a terrible forsaking, He says to the Apostle of love, “Behold thy mother,” and to her, “Behold thy son.”
And so the Virgin Mother takes her place in the focal point of all the histories. Through no choice, no conceit or forwardness of her own, but by the grace of God and by an inherent fitness, she becomes the connecting-link between earth and heaven. And throwing, as she does, her unconscious shadow back within the Paradise Lost, and forward through the Gospels to the Paradise Regained, shall we not “magnify the Lord” with her? shall we not “magnify the Lord” for her, as, with all the generations, we “call her blessed?”