Bishop's Epistle: The Annunciation (Mary of Nazareth II)

CHRIST'S BIRTH ANNOUNCED TO MARY (LUKE 1:26-38)

26 Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, 27 to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 And having come in, the angel said to her, “Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!”

29 But when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and considered what manner of greeting this was. 30 Then the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. 31 And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call His name Jesus. 32 He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David. 33 And He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of His kingdom there will be no end.”

34 Then Mary said to the angel, “How can this be, since I do not know a man?”

35 And the angel answered and said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. 36 Now indeed, Elizabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren. 37 For with God nothing will be impossible.”

38 Then Mary said, “Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word.” And the angel departed from her.

There is some paralleling between Gabriel’s visit with Mary and his former visit with Zacharias, recorded earlier in the chapter. In both visits the angel Gabriel appears to the parent who is troubled by the vision (and then told by the angel not to fear (13, 30). After the announcement is made (14-17, 31-33) the parent objects (18, 34) and the sign is given to confirm the announcement (20, 36). The particular focus of the announcement of the birth of Jesus is on his identity is the son of David (32-33) and the Son of God ( 32, 35). Thus the dynamics of the Dual nature of Jesus is introduced in the announcement of the Angel. Mary’s contribution to the child to be born of her was to be real; this would be no implantation, but a true conception.

The Mary Factor

Luke, a Syrian physician, was the only non-Jewish writer of the New Testament. He had not personally seen Jesus, but writes of those persons before him that had “taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us” (Luke 1:1); whose writings he utilized in writing his Gospel. (It is most certain that the Gospel of Luke was written while Paul was still alive —Paul was beheaded in AD 67.) In this way he was referencing both Gospels of Matthew and Mark and possibly the writing known as “Q.” When Luke writes of the “eyewitnesses” (v2) he writes with the accuracy of a physician by employing the medical term “autoptai” (αὐτόπται); the word means “seeing with one’s own eye,” and comes into English as the medical term “autopsy.” It is widely accepted by many scholars that Luke personally interviewed Jesus’ mother, Mary, during the two years Paul was imprisoned in Caesarea (Acts 23:23-26 — 26:32). This would not only account for Luke being the only Gospel writer to record Gabriel’s visit to both Zacharias and Mary, or Mary’s three month stay in the home of Elizebeth and Zacharias, but also, the ipsissima verba of Gabriel, Mary, Zacharias and Elizebeth given in his Gospel. Moreover, the Hebraistic Greek of verses 5-52 of the first chapter of his gospel shows that Luke is working either from notes written in Hebrew or from notes taken from eye witness that were speaking Hebrew (Aramaic). When Luke says that he “had perfect understanding of all things from the very first” (v3) the Greek is “παρηκολουθηκότι πᾶσιν” and is better understood as: “having traced the course of all things accurately” (Robertson). Akribō (accurately) means going into minute details, from akron, the topmost point. And he did it “from the very first” (anōthen) — that is: from before he started writing the Gospel.

So, then, because Mary would have been the only eyewitness available to Luke of the events (autopsy) surrounding the birth of John the Baptist, or of Mary's visitation by Gabriel, or of her visit with Elizebeth, or of the birth of Christ, I would feel, comfortable in stating: When we read chapters 1 & 2 of the Gospel of Luke we are, in effect, reading the eyewitness account given to Luke by Mary, herself.

“sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, …” ~ The town of Nazareth is of no historical significance; it is unmentioned in the Old Testament. So, we may assume that Gabriel was sent to Nazareth because Mary was there, and not because of any importance placed on the city itself.

“to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin’s name was Mary.” ~ Mary was a virgin, that was true, and must have been the paragon feminine grace. But there were many other virgins in Israel. Mary was chosen for another reason that mostly goes unnoticed: She was descendant from both King David and the priestly line of Levi. Her womb, then was the holy grail from which would be poured out into the universe an eternal King Priest.

The priestly side of the lineage of Christ is just as important as His Davidic ancestry. In Jeremiah 33:17-21 the eternal promise is made, “For thus saith the LORD; David shall never want a man to sit upon the throne of the house of Israel; Neither shall the priests the Levites want a man before me to offer burnt offerings, and to kindle meat offerings, and to do sacrifice continually. And the word of YAHWAH came unto Jeremiah, saying, Thus saith the LORD; If ye can break my covenant of the day, and my covenant of the night, and that there should not be day and night in their season; Then may also my covenant be broken with David my servant, that he should not have a son to reign upon his throne; and with the Levites the priests, my ministers.” Since the covenants with day and night have not been broken, then neither are the covenants with David and the Levites broken, and it is in Jesus Christ that both covenants are fulfilled – King and Priest.

It is known from the genealogies in Matthew 1:1-16 and Luke 3:23-38 that Jesus was of the lineage of David. Moreover, according to Matthew's genealogy there were three Davidic Kings who had Levite mothers. They are as follows: (1) Abijah whose mother was Michaiah the daughter of the Levite Uriel - 2 Chronicles 13:1-2, (2) Jatham whose mother was Jerushah the daughter of the Levite Zadok - 2 Chronicles 27:1, and (3) Hezekiah whose mother was Abijah the daughter of the Levite Zechariah - 2 Chronicles 29:1. It was as a Levitical priest that Jesus performed 2,000 years ago, and that was why He went to Jerusalem in the Kingdom of Judah to make the priestly sacrifice. All this was foretold over 1,000 years before in Psalm 114:2. “Judah was his sanctuary (Temple), and Israel his dominion (Kingdom).”

The Bible provides the proof that Jesus was a descendant of the priestly line of Aaron when Luke 1:5 gives the names of John the Baptist’s parents. “THERE was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.” This woman who was of the lineage of Aaron was also the cousin of Mary the mother of Jesus. Luke 1:35-36 “And the angel answered and said unto her (Mary), 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. 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.” For Mary to have been a cousin to Elizebeth (and since we are told by Luke that Mary’s father, Heli, was descendant from Judah through David [Luke 3:23-33]), Mary’s mother (traditional name: Anna) was most likely a sister to one of the parents of Elizebeth. This relationship to the priestly line of Arron (Levi) and the kingly line of David (Judah) meant that (since the Incarnate God-man born to Mary would be eternal) the integrity of Yahweh’s covenant with both David and the Levites (Jer 33:17-21) would be upheld. Jesus would be the King and Priest whose reign and administration, respectively, would be perpetual.

The female factor, (i.e. the Mary Factor) would be in harmony with the theme of genealogical redemption being provided through the "seed" of the woman (see Genesis 3:15) and would shed light on why, to this very day, the Jewish religion recognizes ONLY the offspring of a Jewish woman as being heir to Jewish prerogatives. This is to say: one must have a Jewish mother to be a Jew. Ergo, and offspring of a Jewish man and a Gentile woman would not be a Jew, but the offspring of a Gentile man and a Jewish woman would be a Jew. This is seen in Acts16:13 where Paul had Timothy circumcised. Timothy was the son of a Gentile father and a Jewish mother. Therefore, Timothy was a proper candidate for the Jewish prerogative of circumcision.

The female factor in genealogical redemption plays itself out by Mary being the antithesis of our first mother, Eve. The Apostle, writing about Eve’s salvation (and by extrapolation all daughters of Eve, because she was the federal head of all women) states that she would be saved by child bearing: “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety” (2 Tim 2:14-15). The context of our text is male leadership in church craft. Paul points out the propensity of women to be deceived and are therefore unsuited to be teachers. He emphasizes this point by remarking that Eve was deceived, but not Adam. Then the Apostle declares that she (notice the single pronoun) will be saved “by child bearing.” Then he moves to the plural pronoun “they,” implying, all women. This is a true saying, but not all can receive it: Because of the biblical truth of traducianism there is a sense in which all men are Adam and all women are Eve. So, then, Paul references Eve’s deception as being the deception of all women. Then he speaks of salvation coming through child birth. He begins by speaking of Eve’s child birth, but without lifting his quill from the page extends that to all women — but especially to Mary of Nazareth. I say “especially to Mary” because when Paul writes of Eve’s salvation through childbirth, he has the birth of Jesus in view.

Gabriel’s Salutation

“And having come in, the angel said to her, ‘Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you; blessed are you among women!’” (v28). ~ Here we will look at the Angel’s salutations to Mary. The meaning of this greeting has been much debated in Christianity since the time of the Reformation. Jerome (AD 347 - 420), when translating the Vulgate into Latin from the Greek, rendered kecharitōmenê (κεχαριτωμένη) (here, in the NKJV: “highly favored one”) as “gratiae plena”: “full of grace.” This “full of grace” rendering of the Greek “kecharitōmenê” has been abused by Roman Catholicism to imply that Mary, like Jesus (John 1:14), was intrinsically full of grace to be bestowed (2 Corinthians 5:21; 1 Corinthians 1:30 and Romans ch 4). Such teaching caused the reformers and Bible translators from the 1500’s forward, who worked outside of the Roman camp, to forsake that rendering of kecharitōmenê (κεχαριτωμένη)⏤even though it is a very legitimate translation. The legitimacy of “full of grace” is demonstrated from A. T. Robertson in his word Pictures of the Greek New Testament as he quotes two other Greek masters, Bengel and Plummer.

The Greek text of this verse is: καὶ εἰσελθὼν πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπεν, Χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη, ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ.

“Rejoice” Chaire (Χαῖρε). A salute: Hail! or Rejoice greatly! This word of salutation is equivalent to "Peace be with thee," or "Joy be with thee;" a form of speech implying that she was signally favored, and Gabriel is expressing joy at meeting her.

“Highly favored one," kecharitōmenê (κεχαριτωμένη). Perfect passive participle of charitoō (χαριτοω) and means endowed with grace (χαρι), or enriched with grace, as in Ephesians 1:6, (Grk. εἰς ἔπαινον δόξης τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ ἧς ἐχαρίτωσεν ἡμᾶς ἐν τῷ ἠγαπημένῳ, Latin: non ut mater gratiae, sed ut filia gratiae [Bengel]).

The Latin Vulgate for Luke 1:28 has: gratiae plena (“full of grace”). Plummer says this translation “is right, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast received'; wrong, if it means 'full of grace which thou hast to bestow.’” The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges has: highly favoured; the marginal reading is “graciously accepted” or “much graced.” So, a literally reading would be, “having been highly graced (by God).” The scholar Bengel comments on this text and writes that Mary is: “Not a mother of grace, but a daughter.” To this comment by Bengelius (Johann Albrecht Bengel [AD 1687 – 1752]), I say Amen.

“the Lord is with you” (ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ); Many think this is better understood as “the Lord be with thee,” as the more usual formula of salutation, as in Ruth 2:4, “And, behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem, and said unto the reapers, The LORD be with you. And they answered him, The Lord bless thee.” But I think not. I am bold to say this because of the context. Contextually, the Angel is acknowledging Mary’s blessed state, not praying for her blessings, or wishing her well. So, then, the literal reading is proper: “The Lord is with thee!” It is an acclamation! Even, an affirmation!

"Blessed art thou among women”: The oldest MSS. do not have "Blessed art thou among women" here. But the phrase does appear in the salutation from Elizebeth to Mary in verse 42. Though it may be doubtful that these are the ipsissima verba of Gabriel, it is just as true as though spoken by Gabriel, because Elizebeth was speaking by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit when she made the proclamation to Mary (Luke 1:41-42).

Apostolically Speaking,

☩☩ Jerry L Hayes

(Mar David Ignatius)

Read other essays from the pen of the Bishop on Mary of Nazareth at the links provided here:

Mary of Nazareth

http://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/06/mary-of-nazareth.html