LUKE 1
In Paul’s closing words in Timothy he called attention to the fact that Luke was with him, which is a spiritual intimation that Luke’s service was closely associated with Paul’s. Luke’s writings I present things which are essential to the understanding of Paul. He alone of the evangelists relates particularly the circumstances connected with the Lord being carried up into heaven. Paul was converted by seeing Jesus in heaven as the glorified One, but the Person whom he came to know as in heaven had been seen on earth by eye-witnesses, and we need the gospels, and particularly Luke, to give us the knowledge of the Person who is now in heaven. We need to learn Him as He was here that we may know Him where He is in heaven. The One who is now in heaven has trodden this earth as the lowly Man; He has been seen and heard and attended by a company of persons who became acquainted with Him. This gospel is written that we might have the supreme favour from God of seeing and hearing in a spiritual way what those saw and heard who were eye-witnesses and attendants on the Word. We have the privilege of sharing with them what they saw and heard in that blessed One. No greater favour could be shown us, and if we do not know what it is to study Him in His course through this world we shall not know Him as He is now in heaven. Our knowledge of Him in heaven is dependent On what was disclosed in Him down here.
Luke and Paul were both in the same position as ourselves in regard to the Lord as seen down here; neither of them had known Him thus personally, but Luke became accurately acquainted from the origin with all things concerning Him, and God had taken Luke up to communicate accurate knowledge and certainty as to these things. There are certain “matters fully believed among us”. The believing company is still on earth, and certain matters are fully believed in that company. Thank God it is so! But that does not deprive us of the privilege of knowing the certainty of those things. The gospel of Luke is largely the unfolding of the glory of the Lord as the [p. 2] Mediator and as we contemplate it by the Spirit we shall be changed into the same image.
To Luke as to John the Lord was “the Word”. I have often wondered why we do not speak more of Christ as the Word. It was evidently a common and well-known designation of Him, for both Luke and John use it as a well-known title. It conveys that God is now in full expression as to His mind and nature in a Man. We have to do now with matters that are far greater than creation. God could speak in power and creation came into being. John tells us that “without him not one thing received being that has received being”, but there was not in that any communication of the mind of God, or any disclosure of what He was in His nature and character. Now there is the full telling out of what God is in His nature, in His thoughts, in His heart, and this in One who trod this earth as Man, who was seen and heard and attended by men like ourselves. A man might make a watch if he was skilful enough; God could make one by a word; but there would not be any expression of God’s thoughts or of His heart in making a watch, a world, or a universe. That would not bring out God’s mind or His heart, but “the Word” does. Revelation is greater than creation. Men and women like ourselves were privileged to be eye-witnesses of and attendants on the Word. They were privileged to be in His retinue, and the Spirit of God would give us, through the gospels, the privilege of personal nearness to the Word. One would judge that the greatness of divine revelation was very much before the minds of the apostles and early saints. They thought and spoke much of “the Word”. We think of Christ as Lord, as Saviour, as Head, and as Priest, and these are wonderful titles and characters, but how great and glorious He is as “the Word”! John and Luke had an immense sense of it. In the Word God expressed what was in His mind and His heart, what He is in His very nature. It bows one’s soul to think of it. It was a necessity to God’s love that He should speak out of His nature, His thoughts and His heart, and that He should have beings capable of appreciating it. It was not like a royal visit when some great personage comes, and there is reserve; everybody must be respectful; there are soldiers to keep the people back; all is in formal and stately splendour. There is nothing like that here. Peter says, “the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us”. It was a lowly Man coming in and going out [p. 3] in all the ordinary circumstances of human life, but in those circumstances expressing the nature and character of God and the activities of God in boundless favour and grace towards men. He was “The Word”. It says in Hebrews I that God spoke in the Person of the Son. We do not wonder that many took in hand to record it. How could they help it? “Many have undertaken to draw up a relation concerning the matters fully believed among us”. What men saw and heard — what held them in attendance upon Him — was the wonder of the expression He was giving of God. Sinful men, for the first time, saw and heard “the Word”. It would have been strange if many had not undertaken to draw up a relation concerning such matters. They are matters of such profound interest and importance to all men that to know of them kindles a desire to make them known. We can say with deep thankfulness that these matters are “fully believed among us”.
God has been particularly favourable to us in employing a Gentile to write this gospel. Luke was probably a Gentile and he was writing to a Gentile, whose name means “Lover of God”. That this wonderful gospel should be written to one individual shows the delight that God has in making Himself known to one man. Each individual reader can take it all to himself. God has been very favourable to us in enabling Luke to put these matters on record in a divine way. Other people had done their best, but that was not good enough for us; God took up Luke and made him the medium of these communications by the Holy Spirit, so that all these matters concerning the Word should be made known to us accurately and with method. It is the consideration of divine grace for us; we might well admire and adore the grace that has given us such a gospel.
Luke is writing to a lover of God, and it is only such who can appreciate his gospel in a spiritual way. He also calls attention to the fact that he writes “with method”, he puts everything in order; so we have to notice in Luke not only what he writes but where and how he puts things. It is like a beautiful picture gallery, but the pictures are not hung anyhow; every picture is in its right place; everything is “with method”. So we may not only admire Luke’s pictures by looking at them in an isolated way, but we may see that every picture has its place in the series. Luke takes up incidents,
[p. 4] and puts them just where they are “with method”; he has an object in it.
The first feature of method which we notice is that Luke introduces us to what may be called a priestly atmosphere. It is as much as to say that the things he is about to write can only be entered upon in spiritual conditions. So he brings before us first priestly conditions and an atmosphere of prayer. He sheds the perfume of incense over the opening of his gospel, indicating conditions which are suitable to what God was about to introduce, and also that this gospel must be approached in a priestly spirit if we wish to apprehend the substance of it in spiritual reality. No doubt we are all familiar with the text; believers generally are as familiar with Luke as with any part of Scripture, but there must be suitable conditions if we are to enter into it with spiritual appreciation. So we find a man and his wife here, both of the priestly family, and both walking consistently with the light that God had given them up to that time. If we are not walking in consistency with the light that has been given to us we are not in a condition to get more. These two, Zacharias and Elizabeth, were in accord with the light that God had given to them, fearing Jehovah and walking blamelessly before Him, and Zacharias was engaged in the priestly service of offering incense. Incense in Scripture is typical of prayer (Psalm 141: 2), but of a special character. I have no doubt that this gospel has in view the setting up of priestly conditions. It ends by showing us a company of persons in the temple praising and blessing God. There is a praying company in the temple at the beginning of the gospel, but all their prayers are answered at the end, so they are praising and blessing God. If our prayers have incense character they will surely eventuate in our praising and blessing God. The psalmist said, “Let my prayer come before thee as incense” — it should be an exercise with us whether our prayers have this character.
Incense according to Exodus 30 is very precious; it was composed of fragrant drugs and pure frankincense, but compounded according to the art of the perfumer; it was pure and salted and holy. That indicates a character of prayer that is delightful to God. Incense is prayer that is in accord with the mind of God. The most wonderful example of prayer that was truly incense is recorded in John 17; every grain of that precious prayer was indeed fragrant. If we read Paul’s prayers [p. 5] for the Colossians and Ephesians we see in them prayers that had the character of incense; every grain of those prayers was fragrant to God as the expression of His own thoughts for His people. In the Lord’s prayer we do not find the slightest allusion to any failure on the part of His saints. And in Paul’s prayers there is no allusion to any failure on their part; he is entirely occupied with the thoughts of God about His people. That is incense. I have no doubt that Zacharias had prayed on that line. The angel said, “Thy supplication has been heard”. It was many years before that he had prayed for a son, and the answer given showed the kind of spirit in which he had prayed. He had evidently wanted a son who should be in some way an expression of God’s favour to Israel, and the angel said, Your prayers shall be answered; you shall have a son and his name shall be called John (meaning The favour of God), and many of the sons of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. Zacharias had longed that the sons of Israel should be turned to the Lord their God. That is the kind of prayer that is truly incense. Then in this chapter the fragrance of incense was going up inside the temple and the people were in accord with it; they were praying outside.
If we are to profit from Luke’s gospel we shall have to pray in our chambers, in our households, and in our meetings. It is no good to think of reading the gospel of Luke without prayer. The Lord is specifically presented as the Man of prayer in this gospel; there are at least seven instances of His praying. We have the privilege of caring for the interests of God in our rooms and households. If we pray in our own rooms we shall find it so sweet that we would not like to deny ourselves the privilege of praying in our households, and we shall find that so sweet that it would lead to our taking up the privilege of praying in the assembly. God would not have dumb priests; such a one is not equal to his own desires. We often have holy and spiritual desires, but we are not equal to them, and so we come under some expression of God’s displeasure. God was displeased with the unbelief of Zacharias, and He is displeased with us if we are not equal to our prayers. We have perhaps often had to confess that when we have got off our knees we have been characterised by something quite contrary to what we have been praying about.
This chapter brings out the fact that God will move on in His grace in spite of the unbelief that will not trust Him to do it. The angel says, “the which shall be fulfilled in their time”; that is, faith or no faith, God says, ‘I am going on with My thoughts of grace’. What we see in this gospel is an irresistible and unquenchable grace, so that, even when a man prays and is not equal to his own prayers, God says, ‘I am equal to them, and I am going to answer them, I am going to carry out not only what was in your heart, but all that is in My heart!’ God is going to do it in His persistent grace, He reaches the fulfilment of His own thoughts in spite of unbelief. I suppose everyone who has read these early chapters of Luke has been impressed by the nearness of heaven which is disclosed in them. In Matthew the communications from heaven are in measure veiled; an angel appears to Joseph but it is in a dream; there are no dreams in Luke. There is a, certain suggestion of distance about a dream, but what strikes one here is the personal and intimate character of the communications from heaven.
Zacharias was a priest morally as well as officially; he had known what it was to draw near to God in private. And, as we have noticed; he had desired some mark of God’s favour to Israel. We have referred to his unbelief, but it is well to bear in mind that his exercises before God had been very genuine, and had been regarded by God, and they were answered by glad tidings from heaven. The very mind of God as known in heaven was revealed in glad tidings to a man on earth. A heavenly personage appeared to Zacharias. It is interesting to see that angels have names which are expressive of what God is: Michael means, “Who is like God?” and Gabriel means, “God is mighty”. Gabriel’s accustomed place was to stand before God; he was sent to Zacharias as one conversant with the mind of God as it was known in heaven.
The angel appeared “on the right side of the altar of incense”. It was not at the brazen altar, though no doubt the morning or evening lamb had been offered there, nor would we forget that the blood of the sin offering had been put on the horns of the altar of incense. But Luke does not introduce the sacrificial side; the altar of incense is the point at which the communications from heaven come in. It does not speak of dealing sacrificially with sin in the way of atonement — deeply essential as that is — but the burning of holy fragrance before God in which He could find delight. It suggests that the favourableness of God to men is according to Christ; His thoughts of [p. 7] favour manward have found expression in Christ, and they are a delight to God as expressed in Him. God was about to have One on earth in whom He could delight as the full setting forth of His favour to men. There was sweet fragrance in this for the heart of God.
“The right” is the favourable side; the Lord sets the sheep on His right hand, and when Bathsheba came to Solomon he caused a throne to be set for her on his right hand; it is the place of favour, and here in Luke I it is expressive of the favour of God to men. The birth of John was announced there, John means “The favour of God”. The great thought in Luke is the favour of God to men; heaven draws near at the right of the altar of incense. Luke does not dwell on the sacrificial side, but the side of divine favour to men. So the death of Jesus in Luke is not presented from the sacrificial side, but rather as in Hebrews 2, “that by the grace of God he should taste death for everything”. It is the extreme favour d to men set forth in the death of Jesus. All the grace been brought near to men in this world; the of it came by a great and heavenly personage, to Zacharias or to Mary; it was by one whose name set forth the might of God, but whose service revealed that the might of God was acting in favourableness to men. The greatness of God in His grace to men is what is magnified in Luke. We might well say with David, “Great is Jehovah, and exceedingly to be praised; and his greatness is unsearchable”, Psalm 145:3. Later in this gospel we read that “all were astonished at the glorious greatness of God”, chapter 9: 43. It is not a question in this gospel merely of meeting man’s need but of the revelation of God’s greatness in grace. The end in view is that God may have good pleasure in men.
name means “The favour of God”. No doubt Zacharias had prayed that he might have a son who would be the expression of the favour of God to the sons of Israel, and his subsequent unbelief did not invalidate the genuineness of his exercises before God, nor prevent God from answering those exercises by bringing in His own favour. There never had been such an expression of divine favour in this world before, because John was not to be like an Old Testament prophet who could speak of divine intervention as a more or less distant prospect. John was to be the immediate forerunner of Jesus; that is why he was [p. 8] great before Jehovah as expressing divine favour to men as no prophet had ever expressed it. Gabriel announced the birth of John as glad tidings from heaven; he would be joy and rejoicing to Zacharias, and many should rejoice at his birth, for he would be great before Jehovah. He would not be marked by natural energy or excitement — wine or strong drink — but by being filled sovereignly with the Holy Spirit. He would be the expression of the sovereign favour of God in regard of Israel’s departure from Him. He would be a vessel of divine power and grace to turn many of the sons of Israel to their God. It was when the sons of Israel had departed from God, that divine favour came in to turn them to Jehovah their God. It was all to make ready for the Lord a prepared people. There must be a people prepared to appreciate the grace that was coming out of heaven — the divine favour to men that was about to be expressed in Jesus. We all have to be prepared to appreciate it as much as the sons of Israel had to be prepared.
In Mary we see divine favour magnified more than in any other instance. No human being was ever the subject of such favour as Mary; Gabriel’s salutation to her was, “Hail, favoured one!” His coming to her is not presented as being in answer to her exercises, but as the unsought and blessed outflow of the favour of heaven. That is the character of Luke’s gospel — heaven breaking forth into this world so as to bring divine joy to the children of men. It is not divine favour known providentially or in changed circumstances for men, but God Himself coming in in a grace that surpasses everything, in grace that was as high above the thoughts of men as heaven is above the earth. Mary is in one way a contrast to Zacharias; in Zacharias there was self-consideration which led to unbelief, but in Mary there was complete absence of self-consideration. She yielded herself to God to be the vessel for the working out of His supreme thoughts of grace. She said, “Behold the bondmaid of the Lord; be it to me according to thy word”. There was no self-consideration. Elizabeth might well say, “Blessed is she that has believed”. Mary is an outstanding example in Scripture of a believer. Heaven was about to break forth in the way of boundless favour to men, and there was one heart at least divinely prepared to appreciate it. The thought of it raises exercise as to whether we are prepared to appreciate through divine grace the great things of God which are unfolded in this gospel. Mary only [p. 9] asked how. It was a question of faith, not unbelief. She was not dumb; how beautifully she spoke! It is to be noticed that she did not speak as being full of the Holy Spirit like Elizabeth or Zacharias. She spoke out of her own faith and her own simple joy in grace. “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Saviour”. It is the precious and holy activity of Mary’s own spirit that is brought before us; she could say these things as being equal to them in her own spirit. To speak out of one’s own spirit and one’s own understanding, is in one sense a greater thing than to speak in the power of the Holy Spirit, because in the former case we have a person formed intelligently in the things of which he speaks. The Spirit might take up a vessel like Balaam and make him say wonderful things that he knew nothing about himself, but it is a greater thing to say things about divine favour as knowing the blessedness of them oneself. Mary was a suitable vessel to be taken up in divine favour, and what she was came out in what she said. She was imbued with the spirit of her sister Hannah in the Old Testament.
I think we should he justified in regarding Mary as the representative of that humanity with which the Lord was about to identify Himself. Mary was saluted from heaven as a favoured one — “Hail, favoured one”, and “Thou hast found favour with God”. It was not a question of meeting need but of divine favour being expressed from the height of heaven. The birth of the Holy Child Jesus as conceived and born of a woman was the supreme expression of that favour. There could be no closer identification with humanity than to be born of a woman. “Come of woman”, Paul says. How favourable God is to men! He would send forth His Son, come of a woman, as a Child born. The prophetic word had said, “Unto us a child is born”. Mary was actually His mother, but He was born unto us who are of the race of men; He came forth a shoot out of the stock of Jesse. May the greatness of it arrest, and hold our hearts! The Scripture we have read is covered by the two statements — “Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given”. The Child born secures everything in divine favour for men, the Son given secures supreme delight for God in Man. In the apprehension of this, God would enable us to give Him a Name, He would enable us to call Him Jesus. God would have all that is covered or expressed in that Name — the infinitude of divine favour manward — to be intelligently recognised by us — “Thou shalt call his name Jesus”. There can be no greater thought of divine favour than is expressed in that Name. It means “Help of Jehovah” or “. Salvation of Jehovah”. We get God’s help or salvation for men spoken of typically or prophetically in the Old Testament, but now it is in One who comes in in a divine way as born to us. All the grace of heaven is in that Name of Jesus, brought into humanity so as to be recognised and known by men. Have we learned to name Him as the expression of infinite divine favour?
The angel said to the shepherds, “Fear not, for behold, I announce to you glad tidings of great joy, which shall be to all the people: for today a Saviour has been born to you in David’s city, who is Christ the Lord”. The coming in of this Child has a bearing in divine favour towards all men. In the gospel of Luke it is not only that man needs God, but that God needs man in order that He may express in man and towards man the favour of His own heart. Jesus coming in manhood is all for men. It is sovereign in the sense that God took His own way unsolicited; He moved according to His own pleasure in causing the Dayspring from on high to visit us — the shining forth from heaven of what was in His own heart.
I do not wonder that Satan makes every effort by his servants to cast doubt on the virgin birth of Jesus. If he can succeed in that he has gained his, whole object; he has robbed us of all that the birth of Jesus means: he has robbed us of the favour of God, and of God’s salvation. If Nazareth and Bethlehem go, Calvary goes also, and there is no Jesus of Nazareth glorified at the right hand of God. The whole fabric of Christianity is gone.
In order to understand the expression, “He shall be great and shall be called Son of the Highest” we must go to chapter 6: 34, 35. “If ye lend to those from whom ye hope to receive, what thank is it to you? For even sinners lend to sinners that they may receive the like. But love your enemies and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return, and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be sons of the Highest”. The Highest as referred to in Luke seems to refer to the way in which God is above all the evil of men. He is so great and so high that the evil of men does not hinder Him; He moves on in the height of His own blessed way of grace and [p. 11] goodness because of what He is. The greatness of Jesus as Son of the Highest is the greatness of superiority over evil, He was unhindered by it. God goes on with His elevated thoughts, He is not diverted from them by the evil in man. God’s intent is to bring men into correspondence with Himself.
If God is superior to all the evil in men and is favourable to them in spite of the evil in them, He takes account of the fact that there are powers adverse to men, and that is why the throne comes in. “The Lord God shall give him the throne of David his father” — David’s throne was a victorious throne. What marked his reign was the subjugation of all that was adverse to Israel. God takes account of man as having fallen under the power of things that are adverse to him, but God is favourable to man and He has set up a throne in Jesus, a throne of unchallenged supremacy over every power that is adverse to man. It had pleased God to put men in positions of rule, but they had all failed; but now He speaks of One who would meet victoriously all the powers that are adverse to man — Satan, principalities, authorities, and all the influences emanating from them, and even death itself. The throne has proved itself supreme, and will do so publicly ere long.
His reigning over the house of Jacob brings out the calling and election of God, in sovereignty. But for that there would be no subjects for the reign of Jesus. Jacob needed lifelong discipline; he had to be corrected and adjusted, but God had taken him up in grace and faithfulness, and He did not finish with him until He had brought about what He intended. He said to him, “I will not leave thee until I have done what I have spoken to thee of”. Jesus reigns over the house of Jacob; all the subjects of divine calling and election come under the sway of Jesus. God’s object in His calling and election is to secure a people who shall come effectively under the sway of Jesus — under the influence of divine grace set forth in Him — and as we do so we shall reach eternal life; that is suggested in the words, “of his kingdom there shall not be an end”. Nothing more is needed to bring us into eternal life than to be under the sway of Jesus. Supreme grace in Jesus brings in eternal life, for it brings in conditions that displace lawlessness and idolatry, and the power of death.
“Mary said to the angel, How shall this be?” When there is any difficulty as to divine things and we ask for explanation, we always get an enlargement of what has been spoken of [p. 12] When the Lord explained His parables He always added their import. When Mary asked Gabriel how this was to be, she got great enlargements. It is noticeable that in the first statement Mary is prominent as the subject of divine favour, but in answer to her question the angel turns to speak of things on the divine side, so what is prominent is the Holy Spirit, the power of the Highest, and the Holy Thing that shall be called Son of God. It is now what is for God. There was to be One found in manhood for the complete satisfaction and delight of the heart of God; He was to be called the Son of God; it is what He is in relation to God. The things we have been looking at show what He would be on God’s part in relation to men, but now we set what He would be in relation to God — the Son of God. That suggests the other side of the glad tidings; God’s thought is to have sons for Himself. Eternal life is for men, but sonship is for God, for His own delight. There was about to be One in this world in manhood who could be called Son of God; the full delight of God was secured in Him in view of men being brought into sonship for God’s delight. The complete thought of God is set forth in the two things — eternal life and sonship — and all was to be secured by the coming in of the Child and the Son given.
“When the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, come of woman, come under law, that he might redeem those under law, that we might receive sonship”. We are living in this extraordinary time in the ways of God, a time marked by fulness; there is supreme favour for men and supreme delight for God. It is the time of the fulness of the thoughts of the heart of God in blessing manward and for the delight of His own heart. People talk of being poor, miserable things, but God would say to them, ‘Do you understand the character of the moment? Do you understand that there has been a Child born and a Son given? Will you not take account of all that has resulted from that for you and for Me?’ We have the shining of God in the revelation of Himself in grace, and it becomes great to us. We begin to contemplate with adoring and satisfied hearts the fulness of what has come in through the Child born and the Son given. All is secured there for men and for God. Luke’s gospel shows how God needs man in order to express His own unbounded favour. The question is often asked, Why did God permit sin to come in? He allowed it to come in because in relation to a sinful [p. 13] creature He could give expression to the boundless grace of His own heart in a way that He could not express to an unfallen being. It has given God occasion to make Himself known in the supremacy of His grace, that in result He might have men as objects of delight for His heart. It shows the extra-ordinary place man has in the thought of God. The divine Person who came of a woman was before God in purpose as the expression of the thought He had in His mind in relation to men. God’s thought for man for His pleasure was that he should be in sonship.
One feels the necessity for being somewhat in Mary’s spirit, “Behold the bondmaid of the Lord, be it to me according to thy word”. She submitted herself to be the vessel of these wondrous thoughts of favour. God is looking that we should submit ourselves to His thoughts of favour in regard to us, and His thoughts for His own delight. We came to them in a spirit of subjection as subdued by the grace and love which has made them known.
There could hardly be anything more beautiful than the conditions that are set before us in these holy woman. “The hill country” is an appropriate setting for such incidents; there is a moral elevation about these favoured persons and their utterances which is far above the level of the world and the thoughts of men. Both Elizabeth and Mary were extraordinary subjects of divine favour, Mary particularly so. They are representatives of humanity as the subject of supreme divine favour. They both spoke of what God had done to them, of how He had acted with reference to them. We do not see a trace either in Mary or Elizabeth of the degradation of the fallen creature. What shines out in each of them is the exaltation which grace confers on the creature: “He has exalted the lowly”. In the persons of these holy women we see humanity most blessedly exalted as the subject of divine favour. There is a moral suggestion in the “hill country”; it is an elevated region; and it is important for us to take account of it with reference to the incoming of Jesus. We see in Mary and Elizabeth a lowliness and an exaltation, neither of which belong naturally to the fallen creature. We see subjection to God and an appreciation of divine favour; we see elevation and dignity through the knowledge of God; and a laying hold of what was in God for the creature; all that is exaltation, not degradation. We have to take account of the degradation of [p. 14] man as a fallen creature, but as we read the gospel of Luke we are brought to take account of the elevation which divine favour confers upon that fallen creature, so that no trace of the degradation is left. What could be more exalted than the utterances of Elizabeth and Mary!
It is of the utmost importance +at we should see two histories in Scripture. From the beginning of Scripture to the end we find in a great variety of ways the portrayal of the degradation of the fallen creature. But alongside of that history we find another; from the first chapter of Scripture to the last we find the history of the moral elevation to which the favour of God can exalt men. Those two histories cover the whole of Scripture. I dwell on this because it is of vital importance in regard to the coming in of the Son of God into this world. The Lord came in to identify Himself with man as the subject of divine favour. The Lord never identified Himself with the degradation of the fallen creature until He took it up sacrificially upon the cross. It was there and then, and there and then only, that the Lord came into personal contact with sin. He “did no sin”, He “knew not sin” and “in him sin is not”; He was “the holy thing”, but on the cross He touched sin vicariously and sacrificially; He was made sin; He bore the judgment that attached to the degradation of the fallen creature. But in life He never identified Himself with the degradation of the fallen creature; He identified Himself with all that was of God.
Mary and Elizabeth stand as representatives of that history of man which is connected with man as a subject of divine favour. All through the Scriptures we see that there is something else beside the degradation of the fallen creature; there is the work of divine grace in man. Right through the ages from Abel down we find men marked by the fear of God and faith in God, and by the appreciation and joy of knowing what was in God for them and what He could be to them. Nothing that is on that line belongs to the degradation of the fallen creature. It marks the moral exaltation of a creature who has learned to fear God, and to hope in His mercy, and to be lowly as knowing what attaches to himself by nature — knowing well that by nature he is a child of wrath even as others. How much there is in Scripture of the history of faith, of man as morally elevated by divine favour! It is of the utmost importance to see that the Lord Jesus in coming into humanity did not [p. 15] partake in any way in the degradation of the fallen creature, nor did He personally identify Himself with it until He was made sin upon the cross, but He did identify Himself with those who were morally elevated by divine mercy and favour. I believe that is vital to the truth of Christianity, and I do not think the truth\ of the Lord’s Person or of divine grace will be rightly apprehended apart from the recognition of it.
The titles and designations which the Lord assumed all indicate His identification with men, or with women, viewed as the subjects of divine mercy and grace. He is spoken of as the seed of the woman, and the seed of Abraham, and the seed of David. All these designations suggest the operations of divine mercy and grace. Abraham is the great father of the faith family, the root of the olive tree of promise; he is a singular example of man as the subject of divine favour. David was the depositary or vessel of the promises relating to the kingdom, just as Abraham was the vessel of the promises of world-wide blessing to the families of the earth. That Christ should be the woman’s seed indicates this line of mercy and divine favour in a most extraordinary way. When Jehovah Elohim spoke to the serpent of the woman’s seed, and said, “He shall crush thy head”, what favour He was putting on the woman! It was as much as to say, ‘You have corrupted and degraded her, but I will put honour upon her; I will give her a Seed who shall be capable of destroying your power altogether’. It conferred a distinction upon the woman that was purely of divine mercy and grace. The seed of the woman in principle covers, not only Christ, but all the saints. God said, “I will put enmity between thee and the woman” — I think that indicates that the woman represented humanity as the subject of divine mercy — “and between thy seed and her seed”. Abel was the first on the line of the woman’s seed, and Cain the first of the serpent’s seed; there was enmity between them, and there has been enmity between the two seeds ever since. The serpent’s seed are men viewed in the degradation of the fallen creature, but the woman’s seed are men who become the subjects of divine favour and are thereafter morally exalted. The Lord identified Himself with humanity in the latter aspect. It is said of Him in Hebrews 2, “For he does not indeed take hold of angels by the hand, but he takes hold of the seed of Abraham”. He takes hold of humanity viewed [p. 16] as linked up with the promises of God, the faith family. He identifies Himself with that family: “Behold I and the children which God has given me. Since therefore the children partake of blood and flesh, he also in like manner took part in the same”. Mary and Elizabeth were two of “the seed of Abraham”, not merely by nature but morally as having faith. They represent the kind of humanity that the Lord Jesus, the holy Son of God, could identify Himself with. It would be blasphemous to say that He identified Himself with fallen humanity, save, of course, in atonement.
The Lord spoke of Himself often as the Son of man, but that title does not suggest the thought of man as a fallen being, but of what Christ is as the Heir of all that attaches to man in the mind of God. If we read Psalm 8 we shall see that it is man supremely exalted. Two words are used for man in Psalm 8 “What is man that thou art mindful of him?” — the word there means mortal or fallen man — “Or the son of man that thou visitest him”. Christ is the Son of man. God is mindful of the fallen man, He regards him in mercy and grace, but the Son of man is the heir to all the thoughts of greatness, exaltation and supremacy that God has in mind for man. The title Son of man is really Son of Adam; Adam was the name God gave to man as unfallen, the heir to great dignity and exaltation, indeed to universal supremacy according to Psalm 8.
It has often been said that the Lord’s genealogy in Luke is traced up to Adam, but if we read it we shall see that it is traced to God, and that makes a great and vital difference. It is traced step by step right back to God, and I believe that every person in that chain was the subject of the sovereign mercy and favour of God, and was found in the line of His grace and favour. The Lord came in to take His place in that generation; He was of that stock.;. not the stock of the fallen man marked as the subject of divine mercy and grace; He was a shoot out of the stock of Jesse. Vagueness as to this is at the bottom of many erroneous ideas as to the Person of the Lord, and if we are not clear as to the Person of the Lord we shall not be clear as to anything.
The Lord’s identification in baptism with those who were being baptised by John is confirmatory of what we are saying. When He saw the repentant remnant submitting to the baptism of John, He went also to be baptised of him in Jordan. He identified Himself publicly in baptism with them, because [p. 17] they were moving Godward in repentance. He did not identify Himself with them as lawless sinners, but as repentant. It is true that He received sinners and ate with them, for He was here to express the infinitude of divine grace to men, but we may be sure that none came to Him in this way but repentant ones; only those who feared God really came to Him. Mary spoke of God’s mercy being to generations and generations right through to the end. The Lord said, “When the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” Of course He will, because God will maintain it in His grace.
I do not doubt that Adam had faith, for he “called his wife’s name Eve, because she is the mother of all living”. It was, I believe, the evidence of his faith. Everything began with God; then we have this long line, a chain of many links, beginning with God and ending with Jesus. It was the line of man viewed as the subject of divine mercy and grace. On that line man is greatly exalted in the knowledge of God. That is the line that the Lord could be identified with; He was never identified with fallen man except upon the cross sacrificially and substitutionally. He said prophetically in Psalm 16, “To the saints that are on the earth, and to the excellent, In them is all my delight”. That was His generation, and we see a sample of it in Mary and Elizabeth; the Lord came into a generation which was morally suitable for Him.
Seth was a vessel of God’s praise, for he was appointed by God instead of Abel — appointed to take the place of one who had the thought of what was excellent before God, “the firstlings of his flock, and of their fat”. It was not the efficacy of Abel’s sacrifice which commended it, but its excellence. By faith he had an apprehension of Christ in the excellence that would be brought to light through death, so that his sacrifice is not called a burnt-offering, or a sin-offering, but an oblation, referring to the pleasure of God in His gifts. Then Enos was a vessel of God’s praise in the acknowledgment of what man is as having come under sin and death — his name means weak or mortal — and it was in the sense of this that “people began to call on the name of Jehovah”, Genesis 4: 26. We have only to mention Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Boaz, David (as a few well-known names selected from the genealogy) to see that it represents a line marked by divine mercy and grace. Indeed it would be true to say that they all derived from Christ. He was David’s Root as well as his Offspring; in a [p. 18] spiritual sense David derived everything from his greater Son. Abraham derived all from the One who could say, “Before Abraham was, I am”. It was the Spirit of Christ in Old Testament saints that gave them character and faith. Whatever was, brought into humanity that was of God was by His sovereign favour, and Jesus came in as connected by birth of Mary with the unbroken continuity of the line of divine favour to men. He came in as identified with “Mercy (as he spoke to our fathers) to Abraham and to his seed for ever”. His genealogy was morally suitable to Him, as having features which were of God right through.
In Elizabeth we see a woman filled with the Holy Spirit, and her child filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb; there could not be a greater expression of the sovereign favour of God than that. John had not yet come into responsibility, but he had come into sovereignty, and in sovereign favour he was filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother’s womb. Elizabeth, filled with the Holy Spirit, recognises the unborn child as “My Lord”. As to Mary hers was the blessedness of a believer; the things spoken to her would be fulfilled; all that was conferred upon her was purely in divine favour. In a spiritual sense she derived all from God and from her blessed and holy Son. How lovely are her words! “My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit has rejoiced in God my Saviour”. The question of what was coming in was before her; her whole inward being was absorbed with the blessedness of divine favour, and it is God’s thought for every one of us that we should be absorbed with it. Mary was truly a lowly one exalted; she was naturally a child of wrath, even as the rest, but as a subject of divine favour she does not make the slightest reference to her state as fallen. She speaks indeed of her low estate, but her low estate not as a lawless sinner, but as a bondmaid of God. She was wholly committed to His service and surrendered to His pleasure. Hers was a low estate, but what exaltation was conferred upon her! Henceforth all generations were to call her blessed, but her exaltation was altogether of divine favour, no part of it could be attributed to her. “For the Mighty One has done to me great things, and holy is his name”. She speaks of His mercy, and of how He has helped Israel. All is on the line of what man is as the subject of divine favour, and it produces in Mary a spirit of adoration. She herself was conscious of divine favour, and she [p. 19] thought of generations who should fear the Mighty One, and appreciate the favour manifested in Jesus.
In reading this gospel I believe God would have His grace to liberate us completely from every consideration connected with our natural state as sinful so that we might be fully and adoringly occupied with the supreme blessedness of His favour that has come to us in Jesus. God scatters haughty ones and puts down rulers; He sends away the rich empty, but He exalts the lowly and fills the hungry with good things.
We have been speaking of Elizabeth and Mary as representatives of humanity as the subjects of divine favour. The key-note of the portion that is before us now would seem to be the word “mercy”. Mary said, “His mercy is to generations and generations of them that fear him”; she looked forward to many generations as being subjects of mercy: it would be those generations who would call her blessed. And again she says, “He has helped Israel his servant, in order to remember mercy (as he spoke to our fathers), to Abraham and to his seed for ever”. The question was asked J.N.D. in the closing days of his life: What is the difference between mercy and grace? His answer was, Mercy is great in the greatness of the need, grace in the thought of the one who exercises it. That sentence is well worth weighing. Take an illustration. The king might be pleased to bestow upon me some mark of his favour; that would be purely a question of what was in his own heart. Grace is great in the thought of the one who exercises it. But suppose I were a convicted criminal in Exeter jail, mercy would be requisite, and the king could only show me his favour in the way of mercy; so mercy is great in the greatness of the need.
We have been speaking very much of grace — of divine favour — which is purely a question of what is in the heart of God. But then we have also to take account of the sinful condition of men, and that makes mercy requisite. Israel’s fathers were poor idolaters, so that when God called Abraham out it was indeed mercy. When God made a covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, He had the history of the people before Him; He knew all that they would be, right down to the crucifixion of Christ. Israel was His servant as a matter of pure mercy, and all that He spoke to the fathers was mercy. Mercy supposes conditions that are contrary to God, but in presence of them He shows mercy. When Israel worshipped the golden calf God said, “I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy”. Nothing can invalidate the mercy of God with us; He reviewed all our history before He began with us; He knew all we should be as sinners, and as failing believers; He began with us in mercy, and it will be mercy from first to last.
Mercy is spoken of here in connection with the coming in of Jesus; God remembered mercy. At the end of Exodus 2 we are told that God remembered His covenant. The people were poor slaves and idolaters; Ezekiel tells us that they worshipped idols when God took them up in Egypt, but He remembered His covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and He acknowledged them as subjects of mercy. That is how God has acknowledged us. The state of Israel in Luke I was a very sad one, but Mary took account of them as subjects of mercy. John came in altogether on the line of mercy; Jehovah “magnified his mercy” with Elizabeth, and when her neighbours and kinsfolk heard it they appreciated it and rejoiced with her. The subject of conversation in all the hill country was the acting of God in mercy. Thank God there are still people living in “the hill country” who are not engrossed with business, or pleasure, or politics, or religion, but who converse together on the ways of God in mercy! God made His covenant in mercy, and He remembers it, and nothing can invalidate it. He brought in Jesus purely on the line of mercy. God is said to be rich in mercy; He has such an abundance of it that He has a large quantity to dispense.
We see here that there were persons who appreciated mercy, but they had to learn to discard natural thoughts. It was very natural to call the child after his father, but John had been named from heaven. He was the expression of the favour of heaven, and Zacharias and Elizabeth were in the confidence of heaven. They were free from natural thoughts, and they both appreciated that his name was John. The Lord Jesus Christ is the great expression of God’s mercy, and Elizabeth was occupied with Mary’s Child rather than her own, and Zacharias was full of thoughts of Christ rather than of John. He spoke of God fulfilling “mercy with our fathers” and remembering “his holy covenant”. He speaks of “the bowels of mercy of our God”. That is the source from which all blessing comes; Jesus comes to be the full expression of it.
Zacharias dwells entirely on what God has done. There are no “ifs” of any kind in what he says; he does not even [p. 21] bring in the thought of faith on the part of the people of God. Everything is seen in its absoluteness as wrought by God in mercy; he was full of what was coming in Jesus. He does not speak, like Simeon, of the Child being set for the fall of many in Israel and a sign spoken against. He speaks of what was coming in on God’s part in all its greatness as mercy to His people. He had visited and wrought redemption for His people and raised up a horn of deliverance. “Bowels of mercy” show the tender yearnings of God over man, over Israel. What God is in His nature is the source and spring both of mercy and grace. Scripture does not say that God is grace or that God is mercy, but that God is love; that is what He is in His nature, and mercy and grace both flow from that. God has visited His people in the way of redemption, and raised up a mighty horn of deliverance that His people may be liberated from everything adverse to them, so that they may serve Him in piety and righteousness before Him all the days of their life. God has made full provision for it.
This utterance of Zacharias shows that God is moving in the presence of conditions of need that call for mercy. The thought of influences adverse to God and adverse to His people is clearly referred to, for He speaks of “deliverance from our enemies and out of the hand of all who hate us”. There are hostile conditions in view but the Horn of deliverance is equal to them all. It is a happy thought that if we are hindered by any hostile power there is not the slightest reason for it on God’s part, for He has raised up a Horn of deliverance that is equal to anything. We all have enemies. A great deal rises up in ourselves and many influences act upon us through others, but God’s Horn of deliverance is more than equal to liberate us from all. There is no need now for us to be hindered by any influence adverse to God. Peter speaks about fleshly lusts that war against the soul; if I have a fleshly lust it is an opportunity for me to prove the power of God’s Horn of deliverance. Then there are reasonings. Did you never have a battle with your own reasonings? God’s Horn of deliverance would set us free from all “reasonings and every high thing that lifts itself up against the knowledge of God”.
How is it that people do not get deliverance? I believe we do not get deliverance because we have not definitely committed ourselves to the service of God. Every person who definitely commits himself to the service of God will find there is [p. 22] deliverance in that mighty Horn that God has raised up. We have to come to it that it is the happiest possible thing to serve God. If I want happiness I can only find it on the line of serving God. To serve myself or my lusts and pleasures is bondage; we have all proved it to be so. If I am just going on with a comfortable life in the world, my soul is robbed of all I might be enjoying in the service of God. Liberty is found in serving God; it is the happiest thing possible to connect all you do with what pleases God. No one can get deliverance until he can say of God, like Paul, “whose I am and whom I serve”. It is when we take that ground that we prove the power of God’s Horn of deliverance. God does not grant deliverance as a thing; what He has provided is deliverance in a Person; He has raised up a Horn of deliverance — Jesus. There is a power of deliverance in Jesus to set us free from everything that is adverse to God and to us. The deliverance of the people from Egypt was a picture of it. God came in in mercy to deliver Israel from the bondage of Egypt so that they might serve Him. “Let my son go, that he may serve me”; that is what He wanted. It was seen in picture in Israel, but now we have come to the substance of it in Jesus. There is wonderful power in Jesus. I suppose none of us really apprehends the immense divine power that is available for us in Him. Satan always works to get us to serve some other than God; he is always saying, Serve yourselves, or Serve the world, or, Serve your circumstances. But happiness lies in serving God, and the great evidence of mercy is that God has brought in a power adequate to set us perfectly free so that we may not ever do anything from morning to night every day of our lives but serve God, and find our happiness in doing so. Whether we are in the daily occupations of life, in the household, or business, or in the assembly, we have nothing to do in any sphere but to serve God. That is supreme happiness, and deliverance is needed for it, and the power of it lies in Jesus.
What is requisite on our side is self-judgment, and that is why John goes before the face of the Lord as the prophet of the Highest; the effect of John’s ministry is to bring about self-judgment and repentance. If I am a self-judged person there is nothing to obstruct the movements of the Highest in supreme grace; He can take His own way with me. If I am self-sufficient or haughty I cannot expect anything from God [p. 23] in the way of blessing, but if I am self-judged there is nothing to hinder God from moving in His way of grace. John was to be called the prophet of the Highest to go before the face of Jehovah to make ready His ways. What ways they were! As we move through the gospel let us never forget that we are observing the ways of the Highest. Every self-judged soul gets the benefit of them. He comes to remit sins, and to give knowledge of deliverance by doing so.
The light of heaven — the dayspring from on high — breaks forth in this wonderful way. The light of heaven has broken in to give remission of sins on account of the bowels of mercy of our God. There is such an intensity of mercy in our God — such yearnings on His part to be known by His sinful creatures — that He comes out to remit our sins. If God will remit sins He will do anything that we need. If God remits His people’s sins, will He leave them helpless in the hands of the enemy? Never. The fact that He has remitted our sins is the pledge that He will deliver us from every influence and power that is hostile, so that we may be set at liberty to serve Him continually. There may be painful experiences externally, but they are not superior to the joy that is within. Two dear brethren had painful experiences at Philippi, but they were able to sing through them. They were in the joy of deliverance inside before they had outward deliverance. They were praying and singing praises to God; they were as completely free inside as any lark that ever soared into azure with its breast full of song.