4th Sunday in Advent
Luke 1:26-38
Exegetical Notes by Brian Stoffregen
What a scandal, a young, unmarried girl is told that she's is going to
conceive and give birth! Thus Christianity begins.
4 Advent B
Luke 1:26-38
4 Advent B: Exegetical notes on Luke 1:26-38
Because Mark writes nothing about Jesus’ birth, Year B looks to other
gospels to fill out the Advent Season—John last week and Luke this week.
THE LARGER CONTEXT—JESUS & JOHN; MARY & ZECHARIAH
Brown (The Birth of the Messiah) presents an “Annunciation Diptych” of
the Annunciation about John the Baptist (Luke 1:5-25) and about Jesus
(Luke 1:26-45, 56). The parallels of the core events are summarized
below:
John
Jesus
Angel of the Lord
Gabriel
appeared to Zechariah came to Mary
Zechariah was startled Mary
was startled
The message:
The message:
Zechariah Hail
...
Mary
Favored one
Do not be afraid
Do not be afraid
You will conceive
Elizabeth will bear you a son and give birth to a son
You will call him John
You will call
him Jesus
He will be great, etc.
He will be great, etc.
How am I to know this?
How can this be?
The angel’s response
The
angel’s response
The sign: silence
The sign: Elizabeth is pregnant [p. 297]
For Brown, the form explains Mary’s puzzling question in v. 34, “How
can this be?” Ordinarily, if an engaged woman is told that she will
conceive and give birth to a son, she would assume that a natural
conception would occur after she was married and “knew” her husband.
“How” would not normally be a question concerning a promised birth.
They knew how conceptions normally happened.
Brown, after discounting the view that Mary was already committed to a
lifetime of virginity, or that she misunderstood the tense of the
angel’s announcement as “you are conceiving” or “you have conceived,”
suggests that the literary reason for her question is to be in parallel
with Zechariah’s question in v. 18 and “to tell the reader how the
child was conceived and hence to explain his identity.” Both questions
indicate the impossibility of conception. However, we might
characterize the birth of John as a “semi-pelagian” miracle—the couple
took the first “step” and then God provided the miracle. The birth of
Jesus was like the miracle of creation—out of nothing, God created
life. [pp. 303-309]
Throughout the annunciations and births, Jesus is always presented as
the greater one. John’s conception was miraculous, but Jesus’ was even
more miraculous.
In addition, Zechariah and Elizabeth had been praying for a child. The
miraculous conception was an answer to prayer for them. I doubt that
Mary had been praying to become an unwed mother. Her conception is a
“surprise of creation” (Brown’s phrase). It is “God’s initiative going
beyond anything man or woman has dreamed of” [Brown, p. 314].
Schweizer (The Good News According to Luke) suggests the same emphasis:
“At the end Mary is indeed highly favored just as the angel promised at
the beginning. If the virgin birth originally expressed the uniqueness
of the Son of God, for the first narrator of our story it served far
more to express the grace and favor of the word of God, which calls
forth life out of nothing.” [p. 30]
FINDING GRACE (OR FAVOR)?
The word εὑρίσκω (heurisko) is used in 1:30 which is frequently
translated “to find.” I’m not sure that “to find” is the best way to
translate it. Theologically, I’m not sure we can talk about “finding”
grace (or favor).
The first two (and most common definitions) given by Lowe and Nida for
this word are: (1) “to learn the location of something, either by
intentional searching or by unexpected discovery;” and (2) “to learn
something previously not known, frequently involving an element of
surprise”
It is the aspect of “unexpected discovery” or “surprise” that isn’t
translated well by our word “to find,” which, I think, conveys more of
the sense of “intentional searching.”
EUREKA!
According to the legend, the ruler Hiero II asked Archimedes to find a
method for determining whether a crown was pure gold or mixed with
silver. One day when Archimedes stepped into his bath and noticed that
the water rose as he sat down, he ran out of the house naked shouting,
“Eureka! Eureka!” (= “I have found [it]”—forms of the same verb).
If you want a sort of scientific explanation of what he “found,” you
can read the next paragraph. If you’re only interested in the
significance of this “bathroom” illustration, you can skip the next
paragraph.
The way to determine whether or not a crown was pure gold was to
compare its weight to its volume. If one had 1 pound of gold and 1
pound of silver (one would be very rich ☺) and submerged them in water.
The silver would make the water rise higher than the gold, because it
is less dense than gold. Or, if one had two crowns, of the same
volume—that is, each made the water rise the same amount. A pure gold
one would weigh more than one mixed with silver.
Archimedes did not “find” this truth by searching after it—although he
may have spent days thinking about a solution to the problem. His
“find” came as an unexpected surprise. It’s almost as if the truth
found him more than he finding the truth. It was something that was
there all the time. He may have noticed the rising bathtub water
hundreds of times before, but its significance didn’t “click” in his
brain until that “eureka” moment.
The object of Mary’s “finding” is χάρις (charis) -- usually translated
“grace,” but also “kindness”. Neither grace nor kindness can be “found”
unless it has been given. It is similar to talking about “finding
love.” One only “finds” it if another is willing to give it.
This χάρις (charis) charis is παρά (para) God. παρά (para) with the
dative can denote the agent or source of the grace or “in the viewpoint
of”.
I would interpret the phrase as saying that Mary was surprised by the
grace that had come from God. (However, I’m not sure that an unwed 12
or 13-year-old would “find” it graceful to be told she is going to have
a baby ☺)
This interpretation is supported by a verbal form of χάρις (charis),
which occurs in 1:28: χαρατόω (charatoō). This word only occurs twice
in the NT: Luke 1:28 & Ep 1:6. In v. 28 it is a perfect, passive,
participle = “having been graced.” Who graced her? It is likely that
this is a divine passive indicating that it is God who is acting = “You
have been graced by God” or “God has graced you.” (Better English would
probably use another verb than “to grace,” but it expresses the
connection between vv. 28 & 30 -- which NRSV does with “favor”.)
WEDDING CUSTOMS
Culpepper (Luke, the New Interpreter’s Bible) relates the wedding
customs on those days.
Although Mary was not yet married, she was betrothed. According to
ancient customs, the marriage would have been arranged by her father.
She would live at home for a year after the betrothal. Then the groom
would come to take her to his home, and the wedding celebration would
last for an entire week. Legally, the marriage was sealed after the
engagement. Thus, if Joseph had died before the wedding, Mary would
have been considered a widow. [p. 51]
Betrothals usually took place when the girl was twelve or thirteen
years old.
MARY’S RESPONSE—A MODEL BELIEVER
One theme prominent in this text is Mary’s response to the (unexpected)
encounter with God in her life. She puts herself at God’s disposal:
“Behold the Lord’s slave; let it be to me according to your word (ῥῆμα
- rhema)” (v. 38). This is in sharp contrast to Zechariah’s response as
reported by the angel in 1:20: “But now, because you did not believe my
words (λόγοι - logoi), which will be fulfilled in their time, you will
become mute, unable to speak, until the day these things occur.”
Luke has used ῥῆμα (rhema) in the verse just before Mary’s response.
Literally, “because not impossible with God will be every word.” Or, in
better English, “No word will be impossible with God.”
Twice we are told that Mary treasured up all these words in her heart
(2:19, 51).
Also in contrast to Mary, when the women report to the disciples about
the events at the empty tomb, we are told, “these words seemed to them
an idle tale, and they did not believe them” (24:11).
There can be a significant translation issue in 8:20-21. NRSV has: “And
he was told, “Your mother and your brothers are standing outside,
wanting to see you.” But he said to them, “My mother and my brothers
are those who hear the word (logos) of God and do it.”
The boldface “but” may or may not be implied by the Greek δέ (de).
“And” could just as easily be implied. If so, it could be that Jesus is
describing his biological mother and brothers as people who are hearing
and doing the word of God. That seems to be the character of Mary in
our verses.
The word “logos” appears in our text in v. 29. Mary was much perplexed
at the angel’s word [λόγος - logos]. Her reaction, “much perplexed”
(διαταράσσομαι - diatarassomai = “be deeply confused or troubled,”) is
the normal reaction at seeing an angel. When Zechariah sees the angel,
“he was terrified” (ταράσσω - tarassō) (1:12). When the risen Jesus
appears to the women, he asks, “Why are you frightened (ταράσσω -
tarassō), and why do doubts arise in your hearts?”
Mary’s fear may have been heightened if she knew the tale of Tobit (an
apocryphal book). This story tells of a jealous angel who appeared on a
bride’s wedding night each time she married and killed her bridegroom.
Could Mary have thought that an evil spirit had come to prevent her
marriage?
Schweizer (The Good News According to Luke) gives this contrasting
picture: “In Mary, humanity is represented as the recipient of this
life and love from God. With her quiet awaiting of God’s act she is the
figure of Advent, the opposite of the nervous activity of modern
society.” [p. 31]
Mary becomes the model of properly responding to in-breaking of God and
God’s Word into our world.
I think that pregnancy is an apt illustration of Advent. As much
discomfort as new mothers might be in, they also know that waiting
until the proper time is beneficial for the child to be born. As much
as people may not like waiting until December 25 to celebrate
Christmas, it’s better for the “child” if we let this pregnancy go full
term; to fully be prepared (which from the preaching of John means
repenting) before Christ’s arrival.
CONCERNING THE VIRGINAL CONCEPTION
Schweizer (The Good News According to Matthew) writes:
It was assumed of many great men at the time, from Plato to Alexander,
that they had been born without human father. The fact of such a birth
therefore did not single Jesus out as unique, it simply placed him in
the company of all the great men of the age.
More important than the idea of Mary’s virginity therefore are the
points that distinguish the birth stories in the Gospels from these
other accounts. In them god is pictured as mating with a woman or
virgin. ...
Whether a virgin birth is possible is a question only a modern world
ask; virgin birth was an accepted notion to men of the New Testament
period. By no means, therefore, should a man’s faith be judged by
whether nor not he thinks a miracle like this is possible, the less so
because the virgin birth plays such an infinitesimal role in the New
Testament. It is nowhere described; only the Annunciation is mentioned
in Matthew 1 and Luke 1. Neither Matthew nor Luke returns to the
subject, not even in the course of the Christmas story proper.
According to Mark 3:21, Jesus’ mother, who thinks him mad, appears to
have no inkling of the promises made by the angel. No other document,
above all none of the many summaries of the faith in a formula, hymn,
or sermon in the New Testament, mentions the virgin birth. ... [pp.
33-35]
In some circles, the virginity of Mary has become a benchmark for
orthodoxy—and as long as the Creeds are official statements, the
“virgin birth” is the confession and teaching of our Church. However, I
don’t believe that this was such a major issue in the first century. I
don’t believe that “proving” the virgin birth is primarily what our
passage is about. A much more important theme is the in breaking of God
into our world—and God doesn’t ask permission to do that! Another more
important theme is the response of Mary, which I talked about above. A
third more important theme centers on the political terms related to
this birth.
THE COMING KING
Before the angel says anything about the miraculous conception, he has
uttered an enthronement song about a new king to be born:
The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David. He will
reign over the house of Jacob for every. There will be no end to his
kingdom (v. 32).
The scandal of Jesus’ birth is not so much its biological aspects but
its political significance. Jesus preached about the coming kingdom,
which became a threat to those in authority and power.
Jesus was not crucified because his birth disrupted biological studies,
but because some people thought he was a threat to their political and
religious power.
The offensive element of Jesus’ birth is not the virgin conception, but
that the king of the Jews would be born to such a poor family in an
insignificant city at the outskirts of Israel. If a king were to be
born, wouldn’t it be better to have him born to high ranking, wealthy
parents who could provide him with all the finest things? Shouldn’t he
be born and grow up in Jerusalem—the city of God?
In Matthew 2, when the magi come to see the new-born king, they assume
that he must be in the palace in Jerusalem from the line of King Herod.
They were wrong.
This offensive aspect of the birth is even more significant when we are
told repeatedly that this child will be called “Son of the Most High”
(v. 32) and “Son of God” (v. 35).
John Dominic Crossan (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography) quotes Celsus,
a pagan philosopher who wrote “True Doctrine” sometime between 177 and
180 C.E as an attack on Christianity. The great offense of this faith
was not the claim that a human could be born of a virgin or that a
human could be divine; but the fact that it could happen to a member of
the lower classes! “Class snobbery is, in fact, very close to the root
of Celsus’s objection to Christianity,” to quote Crossan [p. 27].
ALSO SON OF MARY
Sometimes we forget that Jesus, the Son of God, was also the son of
Mary. Because of that, he did things that the eternal God can’t do! He
was born. He grew up. He died. Because Jesus, the son of Mary, was
human, he rejoiced at a wedding. He wept at the death of a friend. He
was misunderstood. He suffered mental and emotional anguish. He
experienced physical pain. He felt abandoned by God. We can know that
the “Most High God” not only knows, but has experienced everything that
we experience. We also live with the hope and expectation that as the
son of Mary—a human like us—has died and was raised from death, we,
too, can expect to follow where he has led the way.
Sometimes we need to be reminded that Jesus was a son of Mary, growing
up poor and misunderstood, and that didn’t make him any less of the Son
of God. Even as children of God, we will not have perfect lives. It’s
OK to be simply human beings with all of our faults. We don’t have to
try and be something else, e.g., super-humans, demi-gods, etc. in order
to be Christians.
REFLECTIONS
The following are “reflections” from Cullpepper (Luke, New Interpreters
Bible”):
Mary had been chosen, “favored” by God. But what a strange blessing. It
brought with it none of the ideals or goals that so consume our daily
striving. Today many assume that those whom God favors will enjoy the
things we equate with a good life: social standing, wealth, and good
health. Yet Mary, God’s favored one, was blessed with having a child
out of wedlock who would later be executed as a criminal.
Acceptability, prosperity, and comfort have never been the essence of
God’s blessing. The story is so familiar that we let its familiarity
mask its scandal.
If Mary embodies the scandal, she also exemplifies the obedience that
should flow from blessing. Mary was favored and would bear a king, but
only if she gave herself obediently in response to God’s call. The
greatest blessings are bound up in the fellowship God shares with us.
They are not rewards separate from that fellowship. Perhaps it would
inject more realism into our Advent celebrations if we recognized that
the glory of Christmas came about by the willingness of ordinary people
to obey God’s claim on their lives.
The ultimate scandal is that God would enter human life with all its
depravity, violence, and corruption. Therefore, the annunciation
ultimately is an announcement of hope for humankind. God has not
abandoned us to the consequences of our own sinfulness. Rather, God has
sent Jesus as our deliverer. There is another way, a commonwealth under
Jesus’ Lordship that is without end. [pp. 52-53]
DID MARY HAVE A CHOICE?
At another time when I posted notes on this text, someone wrote and
asked me: “Did Mary have a choice in being the ‘Mother of God’?” The
following is my response to that question.
Mary speaks twice in our text: (1) How will this be since I am not
knowing a man/husband? (v. 34) and (2) Behold the Lord’s slave/servant,
let it be to me according to your word. (v. 38)
Mary’s first response, as I indicated above, seems to serve more a
literary function than a historical one. Historically, when told that
she “will conceive” (future tense, v. 31), I would think that a more
likely question would be “when?”. We all know “how” conception takes
place—and, up to this point, there has been no indication that it would
be a unique, abnormal conception. Luke, phrasing Mary’s question as he
does: “How will this be? Since I am not knowing a man” -- (“knowing” is
present tense = continued, repeated actions—I’ll let you make your own
interpretation of that ☺) -- indicates that Mary has no active role in
this conception—in fact, there are no humans involved in it.
To further dissect Mary’s second response.
ἰδού - idou (comes from εἶδον - eidon = “to know” or “to see”)
There are three ways of understanding this word:
(1) simply as a word to emphasize what follows; “lo, behold, listen
carefully”
(2) a word of validation, “indeed,” “truly”
(3) NRSV translates it “Here am I”—perhaps paraphrasing, “See (me)”
ἡ δούλη κυρίου (hē doulē kuriou)
δούλος/δούλη (doulos/doulē) (masculine/feminine forms) denote one who
is the property of another, or, in a figurative sense, one who is
controlled by another, e.g., “subservient to”. The genitive κυρίου
(kuriou) indicates that she sees herself as the property of (or
subservant to) the “Lord”
γένοιτό μοι - genoito moi
The verb is in the rare optative mood, which indicates an attainable
wish. This word (γίνομαι - ginomai) has a wide range of meanings.
Generally they are related to “coming into existence”—that is, “to
become, to happen, to be”. Although it is used as a synonym for “to
be”, it seems to carry more of the sense that what now exists is
different from what was before. Thus it could be translated, “Let it
happen to me” or “Let me become”
κατὰ τὸ ῥῆμά σου - kata to rhēma sou = “according to your word”
Certainly this refers back to v. 37, which literally reads either:
“because every word from God will not be impossible” or “because every
word will not be impossible with God” or, to paraphrase: “What God says
will happen.” It would seem from v. 37; Mary had no choice in the
matter. God said it. It will happen.
We might paraphrase Mary’s response to say, “Let me become what you
have called me to be.”
One approach we can take about Mary’s answer is that God knew that Mary
would agree to this “call” before the angel ever approached her. An
image that I have found helpful is to put human history on a time-line,
and from the beginning of creation to the end of time, God is watching
over all of it at once. God is beyond the boundaries of time. He can
see the beginning and end at the same time. Thus he could see Mary’s
response even before Gabriel came to her.
In the epilogue of The Foolishness of Preaching, the author, Robert
Farrar Capon, summarizes his purpose for writing the book:
What I have to say boils down to just one thing: I hope I’ve helped you
fall in love with your calling again. I’ve been lucky. By grace—and by
the gift of having worked for several people whose favorite indoor
sport was giving me a hard time—I was sometimes limited to two choices
in my ministry: I could either love my calling or bitch about it. Since
bitching was a bore, I tried loving. [p. 151]
I would suggest that these are the choices for Mary—to love and accept
her calling or to bitch about it.
Another major theme of Capon’s is our desire to control. Adam and Eve
want to control good and evil, rather than leaving it up to God. I
would say that Mary had no control over what God had chosen her to be
(or could we even say “What God did to her”?) Mary, perhaps, had some
control over her response to God’s actions—to be God’s servant or a
thorn in God’s side. To respond with “Let it be” (γένοιτο - genoito) or
“Hell no” (paraphrastic meaning of μὴ γένοιτο - mē genoito, which Paul
often uses, see Ro 3:4, 6 for just a couple instances.)
The questioner to my original note also commented:
Someone else wrote that Mary is by no means SUBMISSIVE in a subservient
way to the will of God; she in PARTNERSHIP with God. Did Mary have a
choice to reject the angel’s words and not become pregnant, or did she
have simply the choice as to whether to cooperate with what was going
to happen anyway?
From what I read of this verse, I would disagree. Mary uses subservient
terms (δούλη - doulē and possibly γένοιτο - genoito) to describe
herself. The idea of being partners with God smacks of Pelagianism.
I don’t think that Mary had a choice. She was going to become pregnant
whether she liked it or not. I wouldn’t use the word “cooperate” with
what was going to happen. The word that is used later in Luke 1 is
“believe”: “Blessed is she who has believed that what has been spoken
to her from the Lord will be fulfilled” (1:45). Luther presented Mary
as a model of faith. Faith is receiving what God gives.
It seems to me that the choices that she and we have are:
* to be under God’s control or to try and control God
* to believe God’s word or call God a liar
* to accept what God has done or to bitch about it
Would that each of us would respond to God with, “Let me become what
you have called me to be.” (Although I would hate to be told that I was
going to become pregnant.)
Brian Stoffregen
Faith Lutheran Church, 2215 S 8th Avenue, Yuma, AZ 85364
e-mail: brian.stoffregen@gmail.com
Copyright © 2011 Brian Stoffregen, All rights reserved.