and behold, thou shalt conceive in the womb and bear a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus.
The angel tells Mary what is about to happen, and he names the child himself. Everything he says next about greatness, a throne, and a kingdom rests on the one who carries that name.
"Jesus" is not just a label. The name carries a meaning, and that meaning is far bigger than the home the child was born into.
As you can see from Hebrews 4:8, Jesus is the Greek form of Joshua, or Jehoshua. The name means "Jehovah is salvation," or "whose salvation is Jehovah." So there is good reason for the common observation that the name Jesus means Jehovah the Saviour. If so, what a subject this sets before our souls to think about — yes, and to adore! God Himself declares that a child born into the world, of lowly parentage in man's esteem, is Jehovah the Saviour!
The name would have raised no eyebrows in first-century Israel. Other men wore it, before and after Him.
"Jesus." The name (Jeshua), Nehemiah 8:17, was very common among the Jews of the time. Colossians 4:11 mentions a Jesus called Justus, one of the Jews. One of the Lord's own human ancestors bore the same name — see Luke 3:29. The Talmud wanted to get rid of the original meaning of "the name" (James 2:7). So while it uses "Jeshua" for everyone else who bore that name, it regularly calls the Lord by the clipped name Jesu.
after_note: DELETE
The lowliness of the name and the glory in it belong together:
It is His personal, human name: the name which tells us of His grace and tenderness, His lowly life, His sorrow, and His death. But this name also carries divine glory with it, for it means JEHOVAH THE SAVIOUR. Yes, the very name of His humiliation, the one written in mockery on His cross, declares to us the greatness of His person and the love of His heart.
The angel says the conception happens in her womb. That small phrase settles a question about where the Lord's humanity came from.
It is wrong and misleading to say that the human nature of Christ was created in the virgin's womb — that is, formed out of nothing. Such a claim plainly departs from Scripture. Mary undoubtedly had her part in the sacred mystery, as the angel said to her, "You will conceive in your womb and bear a son." Some claim that the Lord's "holy humanity was created by a creative act of the Holy Spirit." That claim in effect denies the angel's own words to Mary about her conception.
In Matthew, the angel gives the same instruction to Joseph. Each Gospel has a reason for its choice.
Here again Joseph was the one who acted in public, while in Luke (Luke 1:31) Mary gave the name. The difference comes from the point of view the Holy Spirit gives us of our Lord's person in the two Gospels. In Luke He was proving that Jesus, though divine, was truly man — a partaker of humanity apart from sin. In our case it is sinful human nature; in His case it was holy… One great aim of that Gospel was to prove His holy manhood. It shows how fully and how suitably He could be a Saviour of men. He could take up the sorrows and the misery, and on the cross suffer for the sinfulness of others — Himself the Holy One.
The angel does not stop at the name. He goes straight on to speak of a throne.
So he says, "you shall call his name Jesus" — a Divine Saviour. "He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David." This is another and quite different glory. It joins His title of Messiah to saving power… Even in the lowest sphere, how far His kingdom is from being a mere human dominion!
The first half of the angel's message has already come true. Commentators read that as the guarantee of the rest.
Surely every "shall" in this wonderful passage must come true, as really and as literally as the birth of Jesus did. God said He should be born: it came to pass. God says He shall reign over the house of Jacob: it will surely come to pass.
- Named — Jesus is the Greek form of Joshua. It means "Jehovah is salvation," so God calls a child of humble parents Jehovah the Saviour.
- Common — the name was ordinary among Jews of that day. The name of His humiliation is the very name that carries His divine glory.
- Conceived — the angel says Mary will conceive. She truly had her part, so His humanity was not formed out of nothing.
- Holy — Luke sets out to prove real manhood without sin. That is why Mary gives the name here, while Joseph gives it in Matthew.
- Reigning — the saving name comes with a throne and a kingdom. The "shall" of His birth came true, so the "shall" of His reign will too.
*He* shall be great, and shall be called Son of [the] Highest; and [the] Lord God shall give him the throne of David his father;
Gabriel tells Mary who her child will be, and what God will give Him. Two glories meet in one person — a divine title and a royal throne — and the angel speaks both over a child not yet born.
Gabriel had already promised Zacharias a great son, John. The two announcements do not describe greatness in the same way.
The contrast between these two messages is worth noticing. John would be "great in the sight of the Lord." Of Jesus the angel said, "He shall be great." All John the Baptist's greatness depended on the Person whose herald he was. Jesus was great in Himself and of Himself. From where I write, I can see the shadow of a chestnut tree in the light of the rising sun. The shadow grows to a giant size. Yet the shadow does not show how big the tree is. It witnesses to the sun's rising and splendour. Such was John.
Where the ESV reads "Son of the Most High," the older translation used in the quotes below says "Son of the Highest." The title was not new. It had a long history among the people who heard it.
"The Highest." The Old Testament Elyon. It was the usual name for God among the Greek-speaking Jews scattered abroad. It appears again in verses 35 and 76.
The striking thing is who carries that name: a child about to be born.
Here we are told that He — the One who should be born — "should be great," and, born into this world, "should be called the Son of the Highest." He had been the Son of the Father before the world was. But this child, born on earth, would be called the Son of the Highest — such as He was down here. He would fully prove His right to that title by His acts, and by everything that showed what He was. It is a precious thought to us, and full of glory, that a child born of a woman rightly bears this name, "Son of the Highest." It is supremely glorious for One who is in the position of a man, and really was such before God.
The order of the angel's two statements matters.
He (not Mary) would be great, called "the Son of the Highest," a dignity far higher than could be given to Him by Mary, indeed an eternal dignity. Therefore the Lord God would give to Him the throne of His father David. First mentioned is His being Son of the Highest, His eternal deity; then Son of David, which involves His manhood, being born of Mary.
God gives this throne. The gift rests on birth-right and on God's own purpose.
But other things still were connected with the One who should be born. God would give Him the throne of His father David. Here again we plainly see that He is considered as born, as man, in this world. The throne of His father David belongs to Him. God will give it to Him. By right of birth He is heir to the promises — the earthly promises which, as to the kingdom, belonged to the family of David. But it would be according to the counsels and the power of God.
Joseph was not the child's real father, so how does David's line reach Him? Commentators differ over whose family record Luke traces, but not over the descent itself.
Whose line does Luke give us, Joseph's or Mary's? Some have long held it is Joseph's, as Matthew's is; others say it is Mary's. No one has yet settled the question. The Lord's Davidic descent is unquestionable, whichever view is adopted. Peter affirmed it (Acts 2:30), and Paul also (Acts 13:23; Rom. 1:3; 2 Tim. 2:8), and the Lord Himself declared it (Matt. 22:45; Mark 12:37; Luke 20:41; Rev. 22:16). The angel Gabriel's words to Mary (Luke 1:32) speak of it, and so does Zacharias in his song (1:69). Yet both knew — certainly Gabriel, and doubtless Zacharias — that Joseph was not the real father of the child about to be born. Mary's child was really David's seed.
Gabriel announces the throne. Announcing it is not the same as receiving it.
He was about to come as the Son of David according to the flesh, but He is also David's Lord. He is the One who spoke these words to the prophet Nathan. Of Him God announced: "the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David. And He shall reign forever and of His kingdom there shall be no end." That throne and that kingdom He has not yet received. He fills the Father's throne in the highest heaven.
- Great. John was great in the sight of the Lord. Jesus is great in Himself, and every other greatness only points to Him.
- Named. "The Most High" is the Old Testament name Elyon. The child born on earth is called His Son, and He proved that name by everything He did.
- Ordered. The angel names the eternal dignity first and the throne second: Son of the Most High, therefore Son of David.
- Given. God hands over the throne. It is His by right of birth, held by God's counsel and power.
- Awaited. David's true heir came through Mary's line. He has not taken that throne yet. He fills the Father's throne in heaven while the promise still stands.
and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for the ages, and of his kingdom there shall not be an end.
The angel's message to Mary ends with a throne, a people, and a length of time. It raises three questions: which kingdom is meant, who its subjects are, and how an endless reign fits a Saviour who suffered.
Christ does not take this reign for Himself. God gives it to Him, and He receives it as a man born into David's line.
Here again we see Him clearly: born into this world as a man. The throne of His father David belongs to Him. God will give it to Him. By right of birth He is heir to the promises. These are the earthly promises about the kingdom that belonged to David's family. But it would all come about by the counsels and the power of God. He would reign over the house of Jacob, not only over Judah. His would not be a weak, passing power with a short life. It would last throughout the ages.
The angel names the people He will rule: the house of Jacob, wider than Judah alone. Some writers take that name at face value.
Why should we not expect this word of the Lord, spoken by His angel, to be fulfilled? I cannot see any reason why I should doubt this, or any other part of God's word. The subjects, then, of His Kingdom will be the house of Jacob, not the Church of God.
Behind the angel's words stands God's older promise to David. That promise has not yet come true in Israel's history.
Again, "Your house and your kingdom shall be made sure forever before me. Your throne shall be established forever" (2 Sam. 7:16). God has never yet fulfilled this promise to Israel. The question is whether it will come true literally in their history, or spiritually in the Church. Nothing in the prophecy seems to point to the Church, and nothing in the Church seems to point to the prophecy.
The obvious objection is that Jesus never reigned. Writers answer it by dividing His two comings.
We all know full well that instead of reigning, He suffered when He was here before. But when He comes again, He comes to reign. He will reign over the house of Jacob, as we have seen in so many Scriptures. But more than that, as we have seen in many others, He will "have dominion from sea to sea, and from the River to the ends of the earth."
Jeroboam once seized ten parts of Israel's kingdom. Christ's reign carries no such weakness.
The foundations of His throne rest in the deep places of eternity. His sceptre carries the stamp of immortality, and His crown the stamp of incorruptibility. No Jeroboam will rise then to seize ten parts of the kingdom. It will be one undivided whole forever, under the peaceful rule of Him who is "gentle and lowly in heart."
Commentators differ over what "no end" covers. Davison reads it as a guarantee against any successor, not a claim about the eternal state.
after
It does not mean that the kingdom will go on forever in the eternal state. It means that it will not have a successor. Kingdoms exist to keep hostile powers in subjection as well as to protect their subjects. Indeed one is the outcome of the other. But there are no hostile powers in the eternal state, so the kingdom will not be necessary. This is clear from 1 Cor. 15:24-26.
Darby traces the same point back to Daniel's prophecy.
As Daniel had predicted, no one else would ever take it. It would never pass to another people. God would establish it by His counsels, which never change, and by His power, which never fails. Christ will exercise a royal rule that nothing can dispute. He will hand it over to God when all things are fulfilled, but nothing will ever tarnish its royal glory in His hands.
One question remains. Is this just an earthly throne like any other?
Even at its lowest level, how far His Kingdom is from being a mere human dominion!
- Given — The throne is not taken by force. God gives it to the One born as heir of David's line.
- Given to a people — He will rule the house of Jacob, which writers keep distinct from the Church.
- Given, but delayed — At His first coming He suffered instead of reigning; the reign belongs to His return.
- Given without rival — No Jeroboam divides it, and no successor replaces it.
- Given without limit — Even in its most earthly form, this rule is far more than human dominion.