Commentary on the Gospels

Mary's Visit to Elisabeth
Luke 1:39-56

Exposition

Verses 39-40. In his last words to Mary, Gabriel informed her that her cousin Elisabeth was now in the sixth month of pregnancy with a little boy (v. 36). Mary had not heard yet about Elisabeth’s condition because she lived a long distance away from Elisabeth and Zechariah. Mary lived in Galilee about fifteen miles west of the lake's southern tip.¹ Elisabeth lived at the other end of the country, in the hills of Judea. As the crow flies, the distance from Nazareth to Jerusalem was about sixty miles, but along the routes normally taken, it was perhaps ten or twenty miles greater.² Yet despite the distance separating their homes, Mary probably saw Elisabeth at least several times during the year, for the law required all Jewish males to gather at the Temple for three great festivals: Passover, Pentecost, and Tabernacles (Deut. 16:16). Women were exempt, doubtless because mothering and child care could sometimes make long-distance travel very difficult. Yet as a young childless woman with an especially devout heart, Mary probably went to Jerusalem at every opportunity.

Why then had she not yet heard about her cousin's pregnancy? This circumstance strongly suggests that the festival when Zechariah saw Gabriel in the Temple was the Feast of Tabernacles. If Elisabeth conceived her child very soon afterward, her first six months of pregnancy carried time forward to the subsequent Feast of Passover. Passover was in the middle of the first month, Tabernacles in the middle of the seventh month. At any other time of the year besides Passover, the time since Mary saw her cousin was normally less than six months.

In my paper on the birth date of Christ, which for many years ranked at the top or near the top of a Google search on that subject, I build a strong case that the oldest recorded date of Christmas, January 6th, is correct.³ I present in its favor my original discovery that in 5 BC, January 6th (on the finalized Julian calendar) coincided with the first day of the Festival of Lights, which we know as Hanukkah. The Jewish date was the 25th of Kislev. I suggest that in the fourth century AD, when the Roman church formalized the date of Christmas, they chose December 25th because December is the Latin month which is roughly equivalent to the Jewish month of Kislev. January 6th is a little less than nine months after Passover. It follows that the miracle of the Incarnation must have taken place during the approach of the Passover season.

In my writings I argue that every Jewish festival set the date of a key event in future redemptive history. As we said, the Festival of Lights pointed to the coming birth of Christ, who was the Light of the World. Passover, the day when every Jewish family sacrificed a lamb at the Temple, foresaw the death of the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ. The Feast of Firstfruits anticipated His resurrection. The Feast of Pentecost was fulfilled when the Holy Spirit descended upon Jesus' followers after His death. Festivals in the autumn were a picture of events yet to come, at the end of history. I also find prophetic significance in another event on the Jewish calendar. The law of Moses specified that Passover lambs should be chosen and set aside on the tenth of the month Nisan, a few days before Passover on Nisan the fourteenth (Exod. 12:3–6). I believe that the setting aside of a Passover lamb pictured the coming incarnation of Christ, and that its location on the calendar marked the very date when God the Son would be conceived as a mortal man in the womb of a mortal woman, thus fixing His destiny as a future sacrifice for the sins of mankind. In 6 BC, the tenth of Nisan was April 29th (also on the finalized Julian calendar), exactly 252 days before Jesus' birth on January 6th in the following year.⁴ The time from conception to birth is generally reckoned as 266 days, although the actual time varies greatly and depends on such factors as ethnicity. A delivery two weeks earlier than normal full term is by no means unusual. Such a delivery, considered moderately preterm, could have been the result of all the physical and emotional stress that Mary suffered during her hard journey to Bethlehem. In 6 BC, April 29th fell on a Thursday.⁵ The following Monday would have been the fourteenth of Nisan, the day of Passover. So, here we have support for our hypothesis that John’s conception six months earlier happened at about the time of Tabernacles.

When Gabriel came to see Mary, she apparently had not yet become pregnant, for he said, "Thou shalt conceive in thy womb" (Luke 1:31; see also 2:21). It seems likely that the baby he foretold was conceived as soon as she responded to the announcement with glorious words of faith and obedience, "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word" (v. 38). Therefore, the Thursday when the Incarnation took place may also have been the very day when the angel visited Mary. We argued earlier that she immediately, probably before nightfall of the same day, informed Joseph about the angel's promise and that Joseph's dream came during the following night.

We are told that before the dream, Joseph had learned that "she was found with child of the Holy Ghost" (Matt. 1:18). One interpretation is that Joseph did not learn about Mary's pregnancy until her condition became evident to the people around her. In other words, she tried at first to keep it hidden. But this attempt at telling a fuller story does not deserve consideration. As a very wise young girl, Mary knew that there was no prospect of giving the child a good home without Joseph as a willing partner, and she knew also that the best way to recruit his support was to approach him right after the angel's visit and tell him the whole story. What then is the meaning of the words, "she was found with child of the Holy Ghost"? These are merely pointing to Mary as the one who found out that she was bearing a child conceived not by man but by God.

Yet even when understood in a proper sense, the same words can be twisted to justify a false scenario, claiming that Mary did not inform Joseph about the child until she herself had seen bodily changes due to pregnancy; in other words, that he did not hear about her condition until a month or more had transpired since the angel's visit. This version of events is untenable for two reasons.

1. Luke informs us that soon after the angel visited Mary, she went to see Elisabeth (v. 39). Their words of greeting indicate that both women knew that Mary was already carrying the Christ child. Elisabeth referred to Mary as "the mother of my Lord" (v. 43), and Mary replied, "For he that is mighty hath done to me great things" (v. 49). We infer that Mary needed no proof of her pregnancy beyond the assurance given to her heart by the Holy Spirit.
2. Luke also informs us that Mary's trip to Elisabeth's home after the angel's visit was done "with haste" (v. 39) and that she remained there for about three months (v. 56). It is clearly implied that she left Nazareth without any delay, before her body could have manifested signs of pregnancy. Therefore, if she had said nothing to Joseph about her condition before her departure, the soonest he would have heard about it was three months later. But Mary was a girl with good sense, a very intelligent young woman. She knew that if she waited three months before returning to Nazareth and informing Joseph about her condition, she could not possibly escape from being viewed as an adulterous woman, for even if Joseph married her right away, it would be obvious that her pregnancy predated marriage.

So what really happened? As we stated earlier, it must have been before Mary left Nazareth that she told Joseph about the miraculously conceived baby, and doubtless it was during his sleep on the following night that he had the dream confirming her story. What came next? Our outlook on events is that Joseph responded by immediately taking her as his wife. After all, they knew that a quick marriage would protect Mary from suspicion that she had an illicit affair. No doubt they arranged and performed it without delay, perhaps on the Friday after Gabriel's visit to Mary.

When Joseph went to see Mary after his dream, it is likely that their discussion was not limited to making arrangements for their wedding. Rather, they also considered their options after marriage. The day before, when Joseph heard about Gabriel's visit to Mary, he had discovered that besides Mary, her cousin Elisabeth was also pregnant. Therefore, when the engaged couple looked down the road into the future, Joseph probably decided with Mary's encouragement that she should leave Nazareth immediately after the wedding and spend the next several months with Elisabeth.

Probably for three reasons they chose this option. The first was to carry out another strategy for self-protection. If she left Nazareth right away and did not return for several months, the townspeople would be unable to observe the first signs of her pregnancy, which might lead them to wonder whether the child was actually conceived before marriage. The second is that Joseph was morally obligated to keep his distance from Mary until after the baby was born. It was easier for the newlyweds to meet this requirement if they lived miles apart for at least the first several months of their marriage. The third was that Mary wanted to assist Elisabeth during the final months of a difficult pregnancy.

Why did Elisabeth need Mary's help? Elisabeth was an older woman. In her present condition she could not easily meet all of her daily responsibilities. So, recognizing this, Mary rushed to her side. We now see one reason that the angel could say that Mary was blessed among women. She was a young woman with a good heart, ready to step in and help others. She modeled a selfless spirit. She said of herself that she was the handmaiden of the Lord, and immediately she proved it by traveling maybe seventy miles on foot to make life easier for a much older relative. She exemplified the great principle stated by her Son, that he who would be greatest of all must be servant of all (Luke 22:36). As a girl outstanding for her servant’s heart, she was exalted by God to the unique honor of being the mother of Christ. Luke’s account of Mary going with haste to Elisabeth therefore introduces another theme of his Gospel: that true religion is a religion focused on meeting the needs of other people.

Proof that a desire to help her cousin was one of Mary’s chief motives for making the journey appears later in the story, where we read that she stayed with Elisabeth and Zechariah for exactly three months (v. 56). Why three months? Elisabeth was six months pregnant when Mary arrived at her home. Therefore, another three months was the time remaining until the child’s birth. In other words, Mary stayed as long as Elisabeth still carried a baby in her womb and, because of her advanced years, needed someone like Mary by her side.

If Mary and Joseph married on Friday, the next day was a Sabbath, when travel was forbidden, but probably on the next day, Sunday, Mary began her journey south. But she did not travel alone. She was undoubtedly accompanied by her husband. He escorted her to her destination. This resolves a serious problem in most retellings of the events surrounding the birth of Christ. It is generally assumed that she made the journey without him. But how could she possibly leave Nazareth unaccompanied and walk alone perhaps seventy miles to Judea? A girl or woman traveling by herself was exposed to many dangers, just as in our day. Portions of the road, such as between Jericho and Jerusalem, where the bandits waylaid the traveler that Jesus remembered in His Parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:30–36), were especially dangerous. When Galilean Jews went to Jerusalem for the great festivals, it was their custom to travel in large groups, recognizing that there is safety in numbers.⁶

The story poses no difficulty if Mary was accompanied by Joseph. Now we understand more fully why Scripture informs us that Mary traveled south "with haste" (v. 39). No doubt one reason was that Mary was in a hurry to see her cousin great with child. But perhaps another and more decisive reason is that Joseph, a godly young man eager to participate in an exciting festival designed to bring glory to God, wanted to reach Jerusalem while the Festival of Unleavened Bread was still in progress. Doubtless the roads at this time were full of other travelers.

We may not altogether rule out the possibility that Mary had parents or close family who were privy to Gabriel's visit and who, as a strong measure to protect her reputation, conducted her to the home of Elisabeth. Yet elsewhere we argue that Luke's source for his account of Jesus' birth was Mary herself.⁷ It seems very unlikely that Mary would decline to give her own relatives credit for the help they provided at a crucial moment in her life.

Side issue

Some readers wonder why Luke makes no mention of Joseph until, in the second chapter of his Gospel, he speaks of Joseph traveling with Mary to Bethlehem. In structuring his account, Luke was of course guided by the Holy Spirit, who perhaps forbade any earlier mention of Joseph because it would have hindered some readers from accepting the claim of Christian doctrine that Jesus was born before Joseph knew Mary as his wife. Omission of Joseph from chapter one is therefore a touch of divine mercy.

Exposition

Besides her noble desire to help Elisabeth, Mary had another desire that would be satisfied by spending time with her cousin. No doubt she wanted to share the good news that she had heard from Gabriel. Until now, she probably had not felt free to share it with anyone besides Joseph. Yet here was an exciting development that a young girl would naturally want to talk about. She would have the amazing privilege of giving birth to the Son of God! Among the people of Nazareth, she dared not say a word about the role that God had assigned her to play at a critical moment in human history, because no one would believe her. They would have laughed if she claimed that she had conceived a child supernaturally, without a human father. Scripture is totally silent about Mary’s immediate family, including her parents. When we consider the shortness of life in those days, it is possible that they had passed away. But whoever she was living with, whether close family or other relatives, she probably knew that they were not inclined to believe her story of Gabriel’s visit. So, going away to see Elisabeth gave Mary hope of finding a sympathetic ear.

Verses 41-45. Mary’s entrance into the home of Elisabeth and Zechariah was the occasion for a marvelous event. The Holy Spirit filled both Elisabeth and the child within her and caused both to recognize the true significance of Mary’s entrance, for she did not enter alone. She also was carrying a child, who was no less than the Lord God Himself. Therefore, the only appropriate welcome was praise and worship directed to the babe in Mary’s womb.

How did Elisabeth know that Mary was bearing the Christ child? The account seems to suggest that the truth now came to her by direct revelation from the Holy Spirit, and not to her only, but also to the babe in her womb, to the unborn John the Baptist, for both mother and child joined in exalting the person within Mary.

Elisabeth declared in a loud voice that both Mary and her child were blessed (v. 42). She meant that both stood in a place of special divine favor, the mother because she had accepted the role of rearing the child in a difficult world and of supporting His mission to provide salvation for lost mankind, the child because He was the beloved Son of the Highest.

John, who was still three months from birth, was obviously too young to speak, and probably too young to understand the feelings within his own heart, yet his heart, now well enough developed to be pliable to the Holy Spirit, brimmed with joy. Overwhelmed by desire to express his joy outwardly, he leaped in his mother’s womb (v. 41).

Elisabeth’s next words showed the depth of the new understanding granted her by the Holy Spirit. Not only did she know that Mary and her child were blessed, but also she knew precisely who the child was. She named Him "my Lord" (v. 43). Her theology was so advanced that, unlike many Jews who later stumbled at the doctrine of the Incarnation as if it were foreign to their religion, Elisabeth knew perfectly well that the Christ child must be God in the flesh. Perhaps she and her husband had, in their study of Old Testament prophecy, arrived at this insight years before. It is certainly a doctrine clearly displayed in many texts (Ps. 2:6–7; 110:1–7; Isa. 7:14; 9:6-7). Jeremiah, for example, states that the branch or descendant of David who will someday rule over Israel will bear the name The Lord Our Righteousness (Jer. 23:5-6).

Her knowledge was not simply head knowledge, however. She understood how the identity of the child in Mary's womb impacted her personally. We see proof of her spiritual wisdom in how she responded. She declared her wonder that she, of all people, should be granted the privilege of entertaining the Christ child and His mother (v. 43). She was expressing a strong sense of her own unworthiness. Christ’s entrance filled her with sharp conviction of her low degree by comparison because she was a woman of faith living under the influence of the Holy Spirit. A person whose heart is attuned to spiritual reality cannot come into God’s presence without seeing himself or herself as a creature of sinful flesh, falling woefully short of divine holiness.

The reaction of the unborn John was a dramatic fulfillment of Gabriel’s prophecy to his father, Zechariah. The angel had said that John would be filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb (v. 15). The Spirit's influence enabled him to react appropriately to an event in the outside world, beyond the reach of his own senses as he lay confined within another body.

Application

Doubtless one reason Scripture records his reaction is to shed important light on a modern debate—the debate over when human life begins. Does it begin at birth or before birth? If a babe in the womb is fully human, then abortion is murder.

The clear and undeniable position of God’s Word, as revealed especially in this incident concerning John the Baptist, is that an unborn child is a person as much as anyone after birth. Proof that John at this time was fully human rests on three evidences.

1. Notice in verse 41 that the living thing inside Elisabeth’s womb, which political correctness in today’s world demands that we call a "fetus," is called a "babe," the same word Scripture uses for an infant after birth (Luke 2:12).
2. That the unborn John was not just a mass of tissue was manifest in his behavior, for at Christ’s entrance he leaped for joy. In other words, he possessed not only a body, but also a soul, which is the part of man that responds with emotion to experience in the world. Without a soul, the babe would have had no capacity for emotion. No such capacity exists in a mere mass of molecules. There is no way that you can put chemical units together so that they will acquire the power to distinguish good from bad or bad from good and to respond with appropriate feeling. The field of artificial intelligence has failed miserably in its attempt to make computers which can think and talk like people. It cannot be done. However complex a computer may be, it remains a machine for processing information, a mindless device wholly unconscious of any thought or feeling. Why? Because it is just an assemblage of molecules. So is the biological organ within your skull known as a brain. The notion that your brain is the site of your thoughts and feelings is a myth based on the theory of evolution. Your brain is indeed far more complex and sophisticated than man-made computers, for these are so stupid as to depend on binary arithmetic. Yet your brain is still no higher on the ladder of being than a mere computer. Why? Because your brain is also made of molecules containing nothing more than physical substance. No individual molecule is capable of consciousness. Therefore, a brain cannot become aware of itself through merger of self-awareness in individual components. Nor can consciousness be achieved by a brain operating as a whole if it contains nothing but mindless molecules. The brain cells that produce and receive electrical impulses are no smarter than the materials used to make a sign. Everything forming the words is wholly ignorant of their meaning. Neither can the print in a book read itself. It has no consciousness of any intended message no matter how long you make the book. Likewise it has no self-consciousness. The brain is a similar case. However the concept of self is written upon the brain, the inscription is meaningless to the mass of neurons. They are wholly blind to the significance of what they are doing. In their management of data, they cannot leap above rigid programming to any form of intelligence, and no amount of sophisticated engineering can empower them to understand the signals they are storing or transmitting. Hence, there must be more to man and the higher animals than cell tissue. Their minds must include some interpreter, some reader, of encoded data. What portion of a mind recognizes whether experience is good or bad and responds with appropriate emotion and behavior? It is the soul, a gift that God has given to man so that he will possess a conscious mind as well as a body. Scripture clearly teaches us that all the higher animals also possess a soul. The Hebrew word is nephesh, translated "soul" in literally hundreds of texts referring to something that man possesses (Gen. 2:7; Ps. 16:10; 34:2; Isa. 61:10; and many others).⁸ Yet Scripture also recognizes it as a possession of the higher animals. With reference to them, the KJV translates nephesh as "creature" both in the accounts of creation (Gen. 1:21, 24; 2:19) and the Flood (Gen. 9:10, 12, 15, 16).⁹ A higher animal is indeed conscious of his experience and in some measure is capable of responding with appropriate emotion and behavior. How then is man different from animals? One difference is that the soul of an animal is not immortal. To understand why, we must look at the third evidence that John was fully human.
3. How do we know that the creature in Elisabeth's womb had a higher standing than a mere beast? His full humanity was evident in the cause of his joy. Under the influence of the Holy Spirit, he was aware of God's presence in the person of Christ. Therefore, besides a soul, he must have also possessed a spirit (Heb. 4:12; Eph. 4:23), the part of man demonstrating that he was created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27). A man's spirit is responsible for all of his higher mental faculties, including knowledge, reasoning, and conscience (1 Cor. 2:11). Knowledge is fundamental to all abstract thinking. Any subhuman creature cannot speak because it does not even know that it exists. Much less does it know that God exists. Without a spirit, the babe in Elisabeth's womb would have been incapable of an intelligent response to the entrance of Mary. Because man has an immortal spirit, his soul, for reasons beyond our present comprehension, is also immortal, destined to eternal life consisting either of joy in heaven or suffering in hell.

Against the pro-life case I am presenting, someone might object that it applies only to a fetus like the one carried by Elisabeth, which has already gone through six months of development. At that stage of pregnancy, the unborn child has a fully functioning brain, so it is not unreasonable to identify it as a real person. But what about a fetus after only a few months of development, or even soon after conception? Can a tiny being with only a few ounces of tissue also be considered human? The passage we are reading addresses this question. How far along was Mary’s pregnancy when she entered Elisabeth’s house? We may assume that only a few days or a week had gone by since the Incarnation. Biologically speaking, the babe within her was a hardly visible mass of barely differentiated cells. But according to Elisabeth, speaking on the authority of the Holy Spirit directing her speech, the new life in Mary's womb embodied the actual person of the Lord God. God was incarnate in a human being, not in a mass of inhuman tissue. The miraculous union of two natures, producing a being who was both fully human and fully divine, had already taken place. We conclude that human life begins at conception. The biological simplicity of the zygote in no way diminishes its humanity, which rests upon its possession of an invisible soul and spirit.

Exposition

Elisabeth concluded her greeting of Mary by commending her faith and assuring her that the angel’s promise would come to pass (v. 45). She obviously intended her words to be received as encouragement from a loving source who was both an older saint and an older relative.

Application

Encouragement is indeed a very useful and proper way for the older to interact with the younger. Do we speak to the young people around us only in rebuke when we see them do wrong? That is hardly helpful to their spiritual growth. Rather, our main input should be encouragement when we see them do right. Although sometimes it may seem that they do not value our opinion, the truth is that our encouragement has more of an impact than we imagine.

Exposition

We can be sure that Mary was in no measure unappreciative of her cousin’s kindness. Apparently, they had always had a close relationship, but now it was even closer.

By the way, Scripture tells us that Christ was a physical descendant of David (Luke 1:32). Hence, Mary must have been in David’s line, for she was His only human parent. It is generally accepted that the genealogy recorded in Luke 3 is Mary’s. Verse 23 can be translated, "being regarded as the son of Joseph, but in fact the descendant of Heli." Heli must have been Mary’s father or perhaps her immediate or more distant grandfather. The backtracing of her ancestry in this chapter presents David as one of her forefathers (compare Luke 3:23 and 31). Yet she was also the cousin of Elisabeth, who came from a priestly family (Luke 1:5). The priests belonged to the tribe of Levi, whereas David and his offspring belonged to the tribe of Judah. How do we reconcile the seeming discrepancy? In fact there is no contradiction here. One possibility is that although Elisabeth's father could claim priestly descent, her mother came from Mary's family in the tribe of Judah. But a man from the priestly class was expected to marry a woman with the same background.¹⁰ So a stronger possibility is that Mary’s mother, coming from the same priestly family that produced Elisabeth, was the link between the two families. We see now the likelihood that on her mother’s side, she, as well as her son Jesus, had no less than a priestly heritage.

Verses 46-55. The next passage records Mary’s response to Elisabeth’s greeting. This young Jewish girl, far more mature than her age would suggest, was so filled with wonder and exhilaration that her mind naturally resorted to the most natural expression of profound feelings, which is poetry. From deep in her soul came words elevated to the level of beautiful song. They are words of testimony to her gratitude for all that God had ordained to accomplish through her and her exalted child. Whether this lofty outpouring of worship was a composition crafted while she was traveling to Elisabeth’s house, we do not know. Perhaps when she heard her cousin’s greeting, it issued spontaneously from a heart filled with the Holy Spirit. Either way, it is proof that she was no ordinary girl. First, she was endowed with spiritual wisdom, for, as we will see, she understood her true position before God. Second, she was gifted with an exceptional mind. What else would we expect in the girl chosen to be Jesus’ biological mother? Her poem might be viewed as a reworking of Hannah’s prayer of praise after the birth of Samuel (1 Sam. 2:1–10). But it is far from rote memory. It uses familiar words as a springboard for something essentially new, demonstrating a highly creative mind imbued with a thorough knowledge of Scripture.

The opening declaration, "My soul doth magnify the Lord," has provided the name for her whole song, which is generally known as the Magnificat, Latin for "magnify." Like Gabriel’s opening words when he came to Mary, Mary’s song has been the basis of countless musical compositions, especially in the classical tradition. They are known simply as settings of the Magnificat. And this is certainly an appropriate text for music that seeks to glorify God because its theme is God’s goodness to His children.

Application

Mary's poem is a rich and moving expression of the thankfulness that filled her heart. That God should have chosen her, a person of no importance either in her own sight or in the sight of fellow Jews, for the stupendous privilege of bearing the Christ child was almost beyond belief. After learning of her central role in God's plan, she could have reacted by becoming very self-satisfied. But instead, she clearly saw her own unworthiness to receive such goodness from the hand of God, and with deep thought she created her own song of thankfulness so that time and again throughout her life she could lift these words to heaven's throne.

Likewise our response to any gift from God should never be a sense that we are getting what we deserve. Rather, we should always humbly receive it as grace alone. The definition of grace is, of course, unmerited favor. If we are wise when we pray, we scour our memories to recall the good things, major or minor, that God has done for us, and with hearts brimming with love and worship, we tell Him how thankful we are.

Exposition

To see the connection between Mary’s song and Hannah’s, let us read what Hannah prayed when she brought her little boy Samuel to the Temple so that he might spend his life serving the Lord (1 Sam. 2:1-10). Although her words and Mary’s are distinctly different, there are also some definite parallels. Compare, for example, Luke 1:49 with 1 Sam. 2:1-2a, also Luke 1:52 with 1 Sam. 2:4 and Luke 1:53 with 1 Sam. 2:7-8a.

The recurring idea in Mary’s song is that God deserves worship because He shows no preference for the proud and the strong. Indeed, He rejects them and instead pours blessing upon the weak and the lowly. It is obvious that Mary regarded herself as belonging to the second group, as a person of no earthly consequence. Thus, her prayer is another striking demonstration of her humility. Notice the various terms that she uses to describe people like herself: of "low estate" (v. 48), who fear God (v. 50), not among the proud (v. 51), of "low degree" (v. 52), "hungry" (v. 53), a member of the nation in need of help and mercy (v. 54).

In the countless pictures and statues showing the Madonna and her child, the artist has invariably assumed that Mary was a beautiful young girl. But the Gospel accounts say nothing to support this common belief. Beauty need not produce vanity. A beautiful girl can escape it if the dark realities of life in a sinful world have taught her not to admire herself. But Mary’s outstanding humbleness of heart points to at least the possibility that she was spared from any of the usual sources of pride: that she had neither riches, nor social position, nor beauty. Notice that in her poem she even suggests that she knew what it meant to be hungry (v. 53). The limited information we have suggests that she was unusually independent and resourceful if she was a girl in her early teens. But perhaps she failed to find a suitor and husband as soon as most girls in her culture. It is possible that she was actually an older girl.

Application

I say all this because in our culture we need to guard our girls from thinking that beauty is all that counts, that is impossible to be a heroine unless you are beautiful. No, we want our girls to understand that beauty is skin deep, a passing phase with no lasting significance, indeed a condition to be viewed as a spiritual handicap (Prov. 31:30).

Exposition

Before we leave the Magnificat, we must show how Mary’s words contradict the superstitious idolatry that has centered on Mary ever since the Middle Ages. See what she said of herself in verse 47: "My spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour." If Mary were in fact a sinless woman as Catholics imagine, why did she need a Savior? She did not say, "God the Saviour" but "God my Saviour." Her words in Greek are even more explicit. She said, "The God, the Savior mine."¹¹ The concept of personal possession is attached specifically to "Savior," not to the whole phrase. When her child Jesus grew to be a man and suffered a cruel death on a cross, He would die as much for the sins of His mother as for the sins of any other human being. Thus, He was her Savior as much as ours. The teaching that Mary originated in an Immaculate Conception exempting her from a sin nature is a myth, as well as an exercise in illogical thinking. Scripture reveals that our sin nature comes from our father’s side. Paul says in Romans that sin passed to the human race from Adam and not from Eve, although she was the first sinner (Rom. 5:12). How this could be is a mystery whose credibility we in our finite limitations are in no position to judge. Jesus’ sinlessness was possible only because He had no human father. But Mary, the offspring of a father descended from Adam, could not escape inheriting a sin nature.

In her poem, Mary exhibits literary skill in her choice of words. She refers, for example, to "God the Saviour" (v. 47). Yet this is exactly what is meant by the Hebrew form of the name "Jesus."¹² She is therefore using a play on words to express her joy at carrying the child Jesus in her womb. The word play illuminates a double meaning. The child within her was her God and Savior in the same sense that He is ours. But this God and Savior was hers in another sense too, because He was her own baby.

Another word play appears at the end, when she says, "As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed forever" (v. 55). The superficial reference is to Israel, but Mary knew that in the Hebrew original of Genesis 22:16-18, the seed God promised Abraham as a means of blessing to the whole world is identified by a word with masculine singular inflection.¹³ So, "his seed" also refers to one man, to the coming Christ, who was the very child that Mary was carrying.

So, in two clever allusions framing her poem, she laid out the theology of the Incarnation by affirming both her child's deity and His humanity. He was not only God and Savior, but also He was the seed of Abraham.

Verse 56. Mary stayed with Elisabeth and Zechariah for three full months, doubtless so that she could be a constant help to her cousin during her difficult pregnancy late in life. Once John was born, however, she returned to Galilee. If she came to Elisabeth's home near the time of Passover, the calendar had now moved forward to the time of Pentecost. When Joseph left her at the home of Elisabeth, he no doubt promised that when he came to Pentecost, the next festival on the calendar, he would stop there on his way to Jerusalem and pick her up so that they could attend the feast together. Then afterward they would return to Nazareth.

It was a good time for Mary to go home because although it would no longer be possible to conceal her pregnancy, observers in Nazareth had no reason to suspect that it preceded her marriage to Joseph. He later adopted yet another safeguard for her reputation. After the Syrian governor called for all citizens to sign an oath of loyalty to the emperor, he left town while Mary was still pregnant and traveled with her to Bethlehem. Then he did not return with his little family to Nazareth for perhaps a year, the result being that no one there knew exactly when Jesus was born.