Chapter # 1 Paragraph # 5 Study # 3
Lincolnton, NC
August 1, 2004
<082>
AV Translation:
60 And his mother answered and said, Not so; but he shall be called John.
61 And they said unto her, There is none of thy kindred that is called by this name.
62 And they made signs to his father, how he would have him called.
63 And he asked for a writing table, and wrote, saying, His name is John. And they marvelled all.
1901 ASV Translation:
60 And his mother answered and said, Not so; but he shall be called John.
61 And they said unto her, There is none of thy kindred that is called by this name.
62 And they made signs to his father, what he would have him called.
63 And he asked for a writing tablet, and wrote, saying, His name is John. And they marvelled all.
Textual Issues:
In verse 61 the Textus Receptus uses a different spelling for "they said" than the Nestle/Aland 26, but there is no significant difference in meaning. It also uses the phrase "in your kindred" where the Nestle/Aland 26 uses "of your kindred" (a difference in both the prepositions and in the case endings for "kindred"). In verse 62, the Textus Receptus uses the masculine form of "him" and the Nestle/Aland 26 uses the neuter form. And in verse 63 the Textus Receptus has the definite article "the" before the word "name" whereas the Nestle/Aland 26 omits it.
Luke's Record:
- I. John's mother reacts to "their" assumption that the name will be "Yahweh remembers".
- II. "They" react by calling on some apparent 'tradition' in naming offspring that uses names of kindred.
- III. Then "they" "make signs to his father" -- a remarkable statement seeing that he was mute, but not deaf.
- IV. Then Zacharias writes "His name is John" on a tablet and "they" marvel...another anomaly in that there is no apparent reason for this kind of reaction.
Notes:
- I. The first question is this: why did Luke shift from calling Elizabeth by name to calling her "his mother"? [The word 'father' is used by Luke 67 times; he uses the word 'mother' 17 times; 'Elizabeth' is used 8 times (all in chapter 1 and the final time is in 1:57) and 'Zacharias' is used 10 times (only in 3:2 and 11:51 outside of chapter 1).]
- A. All of Luke's record (with one exception) regarding Elizabeth focuses upon her as "Elizabeth" until we get to this paragraph. The exception is the reference to John being "filled with the Holy Spirit from his mother's womb".
- B. A brief survey of Luke's references to "mother" shows that he deliberately uses the term to focus attention upon the mother-child relationship in a way that is prejudicial to our thinking. It makes us consider the relationship rather than the "identity" issues.
- 1. So, what is the "mother" issue?
- a. In the excesses of humanity, "mother" is a highly developed "ear of sympathy" to the degree that she will do a foolish thing that would not pass muster with someone who was not "thinking with her empathetic inclinations".
- 1) Thus, mankind is widely known for its desire that "God" be a "Mother".
- 2) Also, there is the widely appreciated willingness of a "mother" to make the greater sacrifices and to vent her rage against anyone who dares to offend her offspring.
- b. In the biblical balance, "mothers" are the complement to "unfeeling rationality". Where "fathers" tend in the direction of emotionally distant reason; "mothers" tend in the direction of emotionally involved intuition.
- 1) If one of these was "the exclusive good", God would not have produced "both". The problem of humanity is that each of us tends to exalt the way "we" are...whether male or female.
- 2) However, it is clear from the headship by the male that it is "untempered rationality" that needs tempering, not "untempered emotionalism"...i.e. "emotionalism" is never supposed to have the lead. Emotion is what makes life "good", but reason is what makes life "livable". In other words, emotion is to be added to reason, not vice-versa.
- 2. Why did Luke switch from the "identity" issue to the "relationship" issue?
- a. Elizabeth, as to her identity, was one to whom "God" had "promised" ["El" plus the word for "oath"].
- 1) There was a host of opportunities for Elizabeth to "doubt" over the duration of her lifetime.
- 2) But, in the face of "fulfillment", Elizabeth was in the greatest position of strength (the position of clear proof of God's integrity and personality so that faith was at a peak) to stand against "stumbling" in the pursuit of the will of God.
- b. Elizabeth, as to her new relationship, was one from whom "God" expected legitimate nurturing (if the name 'Elizabeth' is translated in the Hiphil sense, it means God has caused one to take an oath -- there is this reality: God's promises always require faith-unto-action responses).
- 1) This was going to begin by "faith" as she opposed those who would transform the magnitude of mercy into the tradition of normal legalism.
- a) The first recorded "act of faith" by Elizabeth after "fulfillment" is this one -- opposing those who would name her son by his father's name.
- b) In the big picture, a name sometimes gets lost in the shuffle, but, in this case, it had better not.
- 2) This was going to develop by "faith" as she maintained a grip on the theological shift that "John's" birth had birthed in her heart.
- II. Luke's Record of "Their" Objection.
- A. The objection was that the name was "untraditional"...that "relationships with humans" should rule "identities" rather than identities being ruled by faith in the words of God (this entire episode was chosen by Luke out of a myriad of things 'going on' and is used to highlight certain truths that not only tend to get lost, but will get lost in the shuffle if they are not highlighted).
- 1. This was a "fixed" reality in the minds of the vast majority of the Jews..."because we are Abraham's seed, we are the people of God no matter what we 'believe'."
- a. This is a two-sided matter: if men can establish the primacy of human relationships, they can 'profess' to be who they are by their 'human connections' while simultaneously trying to leverage others by applying the pressure of 'human connections'...i.e. they can claim privilege while attempting to play God.
- b. This is deeply embedded in the fallen human psyche -- who I am gives me the right to tell you how you will act.
- 2. Jesus set the record straight when His "mother and brethren" sought to take Him home because "He was beside Himself". He said that His "true" mother and brethren were those who heard the Word of God and did it (making "faith in the words of God" the determinate issue). "True" identity is governed by internal 'faith issues', not external human relationships.
- a. This approach gives people 'identity' on the basis of 'promise'.
- b. But it also prevents people from attempting to play God because only God's words have any 'necessity' in them.
- 3. This is not an easy matter to keep straight because many "identity words" have been rooted in human relationship issues rather than word of God issues.
- a. Because Elizabeth became a "mother" by birthing John, many began to think of her identity as "mother". This is "identity by performance/accomplishment". At its worst, identity by performance is raw legalism.
- 1) "Jesus", born under the Law to fulfill the Law, was so called because of what He would accomplish -- "he will save his people from their sins".
- 2) But Jesus' alteration of people's names typically indicates a "characterization" rather than an "accomplishment".
- b. "Characterization" issues are those which describe a person's "glory", whereas "relationship" issues describe a person's exercise of that glory. Because I am a man, I can be a father/husband/uncle/grandwhatever/greatwhatever. Likewise, because Elizabeth was a "believer" in God's oath, she became capable of being a "mother".
- c. In this regard, take note of the following observations...
- 1) God's "name" is "Yahweh" -- a name that is related to the issue of infinite being. Most of His other "names" characterize Him in terms of other attributes as they affect His dealings in relationship with man. "Yahweh" is related to the fact that God has no "boundaries" -- He is infinite in all of His being.
- 2) Interestingly, when God named "Adam" [Genesis 5:2] it was because of His intention of describing his origins as a commentary on his "glory".
- 3) Likewise, when "Adam" named "Woman" [Genesis 2:23] it was because of where she came from and what she was made of, i.e. her "glory". Then in Genesis 3:20, Adam called the name of his wife "Eve" because she was the mother of all living...i.e. because of what she was able to do.
- 4) It is probably notable that Adam was never "called" by another "name" even though he called Woman "Eve".
- 4. The bottom line here is this: there is nothing more critical than developing understanding by the words of God; and there is little more critical than developing understanding of God by the word "John" [Yahweh is gracious].
- a. It is no "accident" that the Gospel that was written specifically so that people could come into a relationship with God through understanding was written by a "John" and has in its introduction the deliberate contrast between "Law" (which was given by Moses) and "Grace" (which came by Jesus Christ) [John 1:14-17]. It is also no "accident" that the "John" who wrote that Gospel deliberately pointed to "John" who was a "witness to the True Light".
- b. It is also highly significant that the "John" of our text was the divine instrument to turn the hearts of the people back to God as his fundamental 'reason for being' (Luke 1:16-17).
- B. They persisted in "objecting" by turning to the "father" and "signaling" that it was time for him to 'step up to the plate, here, and set your wife straight'.
- 1. The "father" issue is highlighted by the fact that, in 1:67, both the word "father" and the name "Zacharias" are used in tandem as if the reader(s) was ignorant of the entire preceding material--i.e. it seems extraordinarily redundant to a careless reader.
- 2. That the "father" validated the principle of the "mother" (that identity will stream from the words of God rather than the leveraged desires of men) was a "shock" to them all.
- a. The text tells us that they all "marvelled" when the "father" backed the "mother" up on the name issue.
- b. This kind of reaction is unusual: it indicates something going on that is more profound than simply deciding what a son will be called.