Luke 1:30-33

2. The message of the angel: Luke 1:30-33. “ And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary; for thou hast found favour with God. 31. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call His name Jesus. 32. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David: 33. And He shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of His kingdom there shall be no end. ”

By long continuance, Mary's trouble would have degenerated into fear. The angel prevents this painful impression: “Fear not.” The term εὗρες χάριν, thou hast found favour, reproduces the idea of κεχαριτωμένη; this expression belongs to the Greek of the LXX. The angel proceeds to enumerate the striking proofs of this assertion, the marks of divine favour: 1 st, a Song of Song of Solomon 2 d, His name, a sign of blessing; 3 d, His personal superiority; 4 th, His divine title; lastly, His future and eternal sovereignty. ᾿Ιδού, behold, expresses the unexpected character of the fact announced. ᾿Ιησοῦς, Jesus, is the Greek form of יַשׁוּעָה, H3802, Jeschovah, which was gradually substituted for the older and fuller form יַהוֹשֻׁעַ, H3397, Jehoschovah, of which the meaning is, Jehovah saves. The same command is given by the angel to Joseph, Matthew 1:21, with this comment: “ For He shall save His people from their sins. ” Criticism sees here the proof of two different and contradictory traditions. But if the reality of these two divine messages is admitted, there is nothing surprising in their agreement on this point. As to the two traditions, we leave them until we come to the general considerations at the end of chap. 2

The personal quality of this son: He shall be great first of all, in holiness; this is true greatness in the judgment of Heaven; then, and as a consequence, in power and influence.

His title: Son of the Highest. This title corresponds with His real nature. For the expression, He shall be called, signifies here, universally recognised as such, and that because He is such in fact. This title has been regarded as a simple synonym for that of Messiah. But the passages cited in proof, Matthew 26:63 and John 1:50, prove precisely the contrary: the first, because had the title Son of God signified nothing more in the view of the Sanhedrim than that of Messiah, there would have been no blasphemy in assuming it, even falsely; the second, because it would be idle to put two titles together between which there was no difference. On the other hand, the Trinitarian sense should not be here applied to the term Son of God. The notion of the preexistence of Jesus Christ, as the eternal Son of God, is quite foreign to the context. Mary could not have comprehended it; and on the supposition that she had comprehended or even caught a glimpse of it, so far from being sustained by it in her work as a mother, she would have been rendered incapable of performing it. The notion here expressed by the title Son of God is solely that of a personal and mysterious relation between this child and the Divine Being. The angel explains more clearly the meaning of this term in Luke 1:35.

Lastly, the dignity and mission of this child: He is to fulfil the office of Messiah. The expressions are borrowed from the prophetic descriptions, 2 Samuel 7:12-13; Isaiah 9:5-7. The throne of David should not be taken here as the emblem of the throne of God, nor the house of Jacob as a figurative designation of the Church. These expressions in the mouth of the angel keep their natural and literal sense. It is, indeed, the theocratic royalty and the Israelitish people, neither more nor less, that are in question here; Mary could have understood these expressions in no other way. It is true that, for the promise to be realized in this sense, Israel must have consented to welcome Jesus as their Messiah. In that case, the transformed theocracy would have opened its bosom to the heathen; and the empire of Israel would have assumed, by the very fact of this incorporation, the character of a universal monarchy. The unbelief of Israel foiled this plan, and subverted the regular course of history; so that at the present day the fulfilment of these promises is still postponed to the future. But is it likely, after the failure of the ministry of Jesus amongst this people, that about the beginning of the second century, when the fall of Jerusalem had already taken place, any writer would have made an angel prophesy what is expressed here? This picture of the Messianic work could have been produced at no other epoch than that to which this narrative refers it at the transition period between the old and new covenants. Besides, would it have been possible, at any later period, to reproduce, with such artless simplicity and freshness, the hopes of these early days?