Luke 1:31–35

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!

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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."

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.

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.

Even at its lowest level, how far His Kingdom is from being a mere human dominion!

And Mary said to the angel, "How will this be, since I am a virgin?" She does not doubt; she asks with confidence. So there is no striking dumb and no sign of unbelief, as with Zacharias, who asked, "How shall I know this?" There may be a question in the spirit that needs an answer but shows no lack of faith. There might be another not so different in form which really sprang from unbelief. God does not judge by appearance, but by the heart.

Zacharias had constantly asked for a son. It was only a question of God's goodness and power to grant his request, and God's clear declaration brought him to a point where he had only to trust it. He did not trust God's promise. It was only the exercise of God's extraordinary power within the natural order of things. Mary asks, with holy confidence, since God has so favoured her, how the thing is to be accomplished, outside the natural order. Of its accomplishment she has no doubt.

When the angel Gabriel announced the honour about to be given to her in the great work of incarnation, she asked, not in a spirit of scepticism but of honest ignorance, "How will this be, since I am a virgin?" Clearly she thought that the birth of this glorious Person, who was about to appear, would follow the ordinary principles of generation. In God's great goodness, her thought becomes the occasion for developing much valuable light on the central truth of incarnation.

The coming Child was to have David as His ancestor and yet be the Son of the Highest! She did not ask for a sign, since she accepted the angel's words, but she did ask for an explanation.

Mary replied to the angel, "How will this be?" What was promised had to happen outside the order of nature. Even so, distrust did not prompt her question. We see this because God allowed Gabriel to give a full and complete answer to her question. That answer reveals two things: the miraculous conception of our blessed Lord, and that the Child so born should be called the Son of God.

The Old Testament was carefully translated into Greek in the version commonly called the Septuagint, and our Lord quoted from it again and again. That translation plainly understood the word "virgin" as Mary herself shows in Luke 1:34. It rendered the word parthenos, which does mean "virgin."

Schanz abandons his usually sensible interpretation by taking Mary's words as a vow of virginity, which verse 27 rules out.

Sinful men have sinful children… Does it matter, then, or does it not, how the Lord was born into this world? Had He come by natural generation, would He not have been like every other man? To deny the virgin birth is to deny His pre-existence in the Godhead. It also denies the holiness of His Manhood. Without these two great truths about His glorious Person, He could not have been the Saviour.

She does not doubt; she asks in trust. So she is not struck silent, and there is no sign of unbelief — unlike Zechariah, who asked, "How shall I know this?" A question may rise in the spirit and need an answer, yet show no lack of faith. Another question, close to it in wording, might spring from unbelief. God does not judge by appearance, but by the heart.

"The Holy Spirit will come upon you" means that the Holy Spirit produced the human nature of our Lord in the virgin by a creative act. And so He had a completely holy nature. "And the power of the Most High will overshadow you." This is not a repetition of the first statement. It means that the Son of God, who is the Most High, overshadowed the virgin. He united Himself with the human nature the Spirit had prepared. He is called "that holy thing" in His very being, because He fits into no class.

There is no taint at all in that "Son of Man." It does not say "that innocent thing," but "that holy thing." The first man before the fall was innocent and guiltless. But that condition was only negative, and it was unstable. He was of the earth, earthy — made of dust; with a spirit, but a creature, and nothing more. The second Man is out of heaven. He was "holy," and had a positive, inherent, lasting character, utterly incapable of sin. His positive holiness came from the direct, divine work of the Spirit in His incarnation, apart from fallen nature.

When the fullness of time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of woman (Gal. 4:4), yet conceived under the direct action of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35). That is why, although the Deliverer came by the woman, He was not an ordinary son of Adam at all. The virgin birth means that the Lord Jesus, while truly Man, was yet a Man of a new order.

"Therefore the child to be born will be called holy — the Son of God," and not just Son of Man. This is very important. "Son of God" is a title that belongs to our Lord in His divine glory before He became a man, and here too. When He became a man, He did not stop being the Son of God. As incarnate He was still the Son of God. And the same was true when He rose from the dead. So the title belongs to Him in all three conditions in which Scripture shows our Lord: Son of God as a divine Person; Son of God when He became a man; Son of God risen from the dead and gone to heaven.

It is not here the doctrine of the eternal relationship of Son with the Father. The Gospel of John, the letter to the Hebrews and the letter to the Colossians establish this precious truth and show how important it is. But here it is the One born by the miraculous conception who, on that ground, is called the Son of God.

The power of the Holy Spirit did what would otherwise have been impossible. "That holy thing" born of the virgin was the "Son of God," even as to His humanity. This does not by itself declare what John declares. It is not the same as the Word becoming flesh. Luke's is the Gospel of the Manhood, as John's is of the Deity of the Lord. Both sides are essential to His proper glory.