The lectionary gospel reading for Advent 4 in Year C is Luke 1.39-45, with the option of reading on to Luke 1.46-55. Do please take the option of reading the Magnificat; reading the first half without the second would be like going to a Michelin-starred restaurant for dinner and leaving after the starter! There are three things to explore here: first, Mary’s encounter with Elizabeth; then the wider question of men and women in Luke; and then the Magnificat, read in tandem with the Benedictus with which it forms a pair.
‘In those days’ reminds us of Luke’s concerns with timing, and locating the events that he narrates within the events of the wider world, as a good first-century historiographer—starting with the mention of the ‘days of Herod’ in Luke 1.5, through the mention of Caesar Augustus and Quirinius in Luke 2.1–2, to the list of seven names in locating the ministry of John the Baptist in Luke 3.1. But the double phrase ‘she arose and went…’ reminds us of the semitism of the Old Testament; as is often the case, Luke locates his action at the intersection between ‘secular’ history and God’s actions in the world in continuity with his saving acts of the past.
As with Mark, Luke knows his geography and topography (in contrast to, for example, the second-century Protoevangelium of James, from which many of our unhistorical Christmas traditions are derived) and is aware that Judea is the ‘hill country’. Note that this means not only Joseph but also Mary has relatives in the south, away from Galilee, and so would have had somewhere welcoming to stay. It is rather striking that the house is known by the name of Zechariah (naturally)—but here he is not mentioned, as Mary goes straight to Elizabeth, illustrating the male-female dynamic in this gospel (on which see below).
This section of the gospel is full of greetings! Matthew and Mark each use the cognates ἀσπάζομαιͅ or ἀσπασμός three times, but Luke uses them five times in his gospel and another five in Acts. Mary wonders at Gabriel’s greeting (Luke 1.29); here she greets Elizabeth and Elizabeth hears the greeting; and then she refers to the greeting when she speaks to Mary. This is a gospel of encounter! But the effect of these encounters is worth noting, as it is associated with the filling of the Spirit.
The Spirit falls upon Mary which leads to the conception of Jesus; John will be ‘filled with the Holy Spirit even in his mother’s womb’ (Luke 1.15) and this is why he leaps on hearing Mary’s greeting; Elizabeth in turn is filled with the Spirit (Luke 1.41); and both Elizabeth and Mary and filled with joy, for Luke a consistent sign of the filling with the Spirit. Jesus is filled with the Spirit at his baptism as he goes into the desert (Luke 4.1) and returns full of the power of the Holy Spirit (Luke 4.14), and he rejoices in the Holy Spirit when the 72 return from their mission (Luke 10.21).
Raised as a Roman Catholic, I learnt the words of Elizabeth’s greeting as part of the Hail Mary, which I had to say after confession as penance (!). But to read this as an exaltation of Mary for her own sake is mistaken. Elizabeth makes clear that the privilege of meeting Mary arises because of the one she carries in her womb—’my Lord’—using the language that, amongst the gospels, Luke alone uses consistently for Jesus. Although this term, kyrios, can be a term of respect for a more senior figure, in Luke it is full of Christological overtones; John is (according to Zechariah’s hymn of praise) going to be ‘the prophet of the Most High‘ and ‘go before the Lord‘ (Luke 1.76) so this Lord is in fact the promised presence of God amongst his people.
And Mary is blessed because she ‘has believed’ the promise of God’s word to her, both in the Scriptures and in the words of Gabriel—so much so that her praise to God for what he will do is all cast in the past tense (on which see below).
It is often claimed that Luke emphasises the gospel for the poor, or that he focusses on women and their roles, in particular the contribution of the wealthy women in Luke 8.1 who contribute to the financial underwriting of the ministry of Jesus and his entourage.
In fact, Luke is rather more subtle than that. Felix Just offers this helpful table of parallel stories of men and women in Luke’s gospel. (I like the picture at the top since it hints at precisely this kind of pairing of men and women.) They are listed as a pair in the order the they occur, rather than putting the stories and texts about men in one column and the stories and texts about women in the other, so we can see that sometimes the men come first, whilst at others the women come first. In the pairing of Mary and Zechariah, there is a kind of chiasm, in that the narrative of Zechariah comes before the story of Mary, but Mary’s canticle of praise comes before Zechariah’s.
| Angel Gabriel appears to Zechariah (1:8-23 – L) | Angel Gabriel appears to Mary (1:26-38 – L) |
| Canticle of Mary (Magnificat; 1:46-55 – L) | Canticle of Zechariah (Benedictus; 1:68-79 – L) |
| Simeon encounters the infant Jesus & his parents in the Jerusalem Temple (2:25-35 – L) | Anna thanks God & prophesies about Jesus in the Jerusalem Temple (2:36-38 – L) |
| Widow of Zarephat & Israelite widows (4:25-26 – L) | Naaman the Syrian & Israelite lepers (4:27 – L) |
| Exorcism of a Demoniac at Capernaum (4:31-37 – Mk) | Healing of Simon’s mother-in-law at Capernaum (4:38-39 – Mk) |
| Centurion’s slave is healed (7:1-10 – Q) | Widow of Nain’s son raised from the dead (7:11-17 – L) |
| Naming of the twelve apostles of Jesus (6:12-16 – Mk) | Naming of women who accompanied Jesus (8:1-3 – L) |
| Jairus’ daughter is raised to life (8:41-42, 49-56 – Mk) | Bleeding woman is healed (8:43-46 – Mk) |
| Parable of the Good Samaritan (10:25-37 – L) | Examples of Martha and Mary (10:38-42 – L) |
| A neighbor asks for bread at midnight (11:5-8 – L) | A widow asks for justice persistently (18:1-11 – L) |
| A woman in a crowd shouts out to Jesus, “Blessed is the womb that bore you…” (11:27 – L) | A man at a dinner tells Jesus, “Blessed is anyone who will eat bread in the kingdom of God!” (14:15 – L) |
| The Queen of the South (11:31 – Q) | The Ninevites (11:32 – Q) |
| A crippled woman is healed (13:10-17 – L) | A lame man is healed (14:1-6 – L) |
| “Daughter of Abraham” reference (13:16 – L) | “Son of Abraham” reference (19:9 – L) |
| Parable of a man planting a mustard seed (13:18-19 – Mk) | Parable of a woman mixing yeast & flour (13:20-21 – Q) |
| Parable of a shepherd looking for a lost sheep (15:3-7 – Q) | Parable of a woman looking for a lost coin (15:8-10 – L) |
| Example of two men together asleep (17:34 – Q) | Example of two women grinding meal (17:35 – Q) |
| A servant girl questions Peter (22:56-57 – Mk) | Two men also question Peter (22:58+59 – Mk/L) |
| Simon of Cyrene carries Jesus’ cross (23:26 – Mk) | Jesus meets women on the way to Calvary (23:27-29 – L) |
| Joseph of Arimathea buries Jesus’ body (23:50-53 – Mk) | Women see where Jesus is buried (23:55-56 – Mk) |
| Women find Jesus’ tomb empty (24:1-11 – Mk) | Two disciples journey to Emmaus (24:13-35 – L) |
Literary Sources: L = only in Luke; Q = Luke and Matthew, but not Mark; Mk = from Mark (and usually also in Matthew)
But more noteworthy is the fact that, of these 21 paired stories, nine have both halves unique to Luke (designated by an ‘L’), and a further seven have one half unique to Luke, making a total of 16. Of the remaining five, three are pairs of stories also found in Mark, and the other two are combinations of Mark, Luke and Matthew. In other words, most of this ‘pairing’ phenomenon is distinctive to Luke and (we may infer) part of his deliberate organisation of his source material gathered from his research (Luke 1.1).
This certainly means that, when reading or preaching on these stories, we should look for the connections with the other half of the pair, and explore either points of commonality or points of difference between the two. And it means that for Luke the gospel isn’t ‘merely’ for the poor, the woman, the marginal—it is for rich and poor alike, for women and men alike, for the marginal and the central alike, and for the religiously respectable and religiously scandalous alike. This is a both/and gospel, and not an either/or gospel.
One particular example is the first in this list, the pairing of Zechariah and Mary. It is not uncommon to hear exposition of the contrasts, which flow naturally out of the common verbal response to Gabriel ‘How can I be sure of this/How can this be?’ (Luke 1.18, 34) which turns out to be a statement of doubt for Zechariah but a statement of faith for Mary. But it is less common to compare the Magnificat (from now on referred to as M) with the Benedictus (referred to as B), to see any points in common and any contrasts of focus. Given Luke’s concern with pairings, surely this is a good idea. (I am not aware of any other comparative studies of the two canticles; do let me know in comments if you have come across one.)
It is first worth noting the things that the two canticles have in common. The most obvious is the language of ‘remembering’ and the mention of Abraham. Both canticles also draw extensively on Old Testament texts and ideas, though in rather different ways. Joel Green (in his NIGTC p 101) notes the links in the Magnificat with the Songs of Moses (Ex 15.1–18), Miriam (Ex 15.19–21), Deborah (Judges 5.1–31), Asaph (1 Chron 16.8–36) and especially Hannah (1 Sam 2.1–10). ‘As others have noted, Mary’s song is a virtual collage of biblical texts’. See here a list of the echoes of scripture in the Benedictus—though this analysis doesn’t note the differences introduced (like the ‘forgiveness of sins’) and so presses the text too much into a political framework. And clearly the Benedictus is not simply making a collage in the way that the Magnificat is.
And now we begin to see some of the differences. At first sight, M is much more personal, focusing on what God has done for Mary as an individual. To this extent, it echoes the language of the personal psalms of victory and celebration, and repeatedly follows their structure of first articulating praise and then going on to give the reason for that praise (‘My soul glorifies…for he has…’). By contrast, B focusses on what God is doing for his people Israel, and to that extent is more corporate and more formal in its celebration. The contrast is not quite so simple though: M does lead from the personal to the corporate, ending with a celebration of what God has done for Israel; and B moves in the opposite direction, in the (widely recognised) second half moving to what God will achieve through the particular individual John, Zechariah’s promised son.
This leads to two further observations about the difference. We repeat the M so often that we might not realise the strangeness of the tenses: all of the action is set in the aorist (past) tense, and is a celebration of what God has already done. If you don’t think that is odd, just remember where in the wider narrative of Luke this comes! Strictly speaking, God hasn’t yet done very much! Jesus has not yet been born, and in a context of high infant mortality, this is no mere detail! In her song, Mary’s understanding of God’s deliverance is highly realised, and she sees the pattern of God’s redemption as already anticipated in his gracious dealing with her. It is rather startling that (in contrast to B) there is absolutely no mention of what this promised child will do. Mary here becomes less of a means of God’s saving action, and instead a pattern and a model for it. By contrast, B is largely focussed on the future; God has done something (‘raised up for us a horn of salvation/mighty saviour’) but this is with the intention of enacting salvation, which has not yet happened. The second half, focussing on John, is all in the future tense. So God’s action here is less a pattern of salvation and more a means by which salvation will come.
The second thing flowing from this basic difference in orientation is the different focus. M takes up a frequent theme in the psalms and the wisdom literature, that of justice in Israel and God’s reversal of the current order of rich and poor. Although there is ‘help [for] his servant Israel], that ‘help’ is all about the reforming and reneweal of the people; the focus is internal. But in B, the focus is outward; salvation comes to give Israel security from those who threaten and oppress her, to allow the nation to worship God in peace. There is a shared focus on God’s strength, and both draw on the theological tradition of God as warrior. But in M God is a warrior in Israel on behalf of the poor and opposing the oppressor within the nation; in B God is a warrior for Israel, rescuing her from her external enemies. Both canticles include the idea of covenant renewal, but they have quite distinct elements of that covenant in view.
Finally, both include themes that will be picked up and elucidated further in Luke’s gospel. Mary’s theme of reversal occurs most notable in Luke’s version of the Beatitudes (Luke 6.20–26), and the theme of feeding the hungry with good things and sending the rich away empty is most dramatically illustrated in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16.19–31). The connections in B are harder to spot but equally important: the language about God ‘coming’ to his people and the dawn from on high ‘coming’ to us both use the verb episkeptomai ‘to visit’. This visitation brings blessing if received—but judgement if refused. Jesus weeps over Jerusalem in Luke 19.44 because the people ‘did not recognise the time of God’s visitation (episkope)’.
So, in this ‘both/and’ gospel, salvation is both personal and corporate. It renews God’s people in justice and righteousness, and it saves them from their enemies. It is both realised and yet to come, both incorporating and adapting God’s promises from of old. It brings both grace and (if that grace is refused) judgement, focussing both on God’s own initiative and the invitation to respond. And it is recognised by an old, priestly man and a young lay woman. Let us celebrate all of these this Christmas.
Come and join James and Ian as they discuss all these things in this week’s video discussion:
CHOSEN VESSELS
What a majestic prologue to the life of Jesus
Two chosen vessels; there is no history of their beginning or end
What we are permitted to know and see was that they were full of faith.
Who could they have fellowship with but each other?
Such fellowship is the essence of all fellowship, how our spirits leap when we encounter a fellow believer in whom there is the spirit of Holiness, Grace and Beauty in whom Christ is born.
Chosen vessels prepared by God in similar ways to previous prepared vessels, they were not randomly chosen, plucked out of obscurity but having a history with God.
Joseph, Cyrus, Samuel, the marauding nations who swept Israel clean were all chosen vessels
To fulfil the purposes of God. Some vessels were put to honourable uses and some vessels put to dishonourable, and some are vessels of wrath.(2 Tim.2)
Paul rightly realized that in a great house there are vessels of honour and dishonor.
It matters little not whether we are noble or common vessels but what is within the vessel does.
For we have this treasure in but earthen vessels. that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us”
It is the cry of the faithful as they remember His birth “Be born in us [all] tonight”
We are born again when Christ is born in us.
As a user of the Church of England’s daily office, I use the Benedictus every day at Morning Prayer (except on high days when I use the Te Deum instead) and the Magnificat at Evening Prayer, and it’s been that way round for centuries in the C of E and in the RC church. Does anyone know why it’s that way round and/or have a view on whether it’s actually appropriate that way round?
Of the MAGNIFICAT How natural that one filled with the Holy Spirit should sing to herself in Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs
.For illustrations see
The Drunkard’s Magnificat /biblehub.com/library/wesley/the_journal_of_john_wesley/the_drunkards_magnificat.htm
Vindication of Christian Women.
biblehub.com/library/tatian/tatians_address_to_the_greeks/chapter_xxxiii_vindication_of_christian_women.htm
Tatian’s Address to the Greeks — Tatian
Rejecting the profane and wanton songs they heard around them,–“Satanic minstrelsies,” as St. Chryosostom names them,–they beguiled their toils and soothed their sorrows with “Psalms and hymns and spiritual songs.” As St. Jerome relates, “You could not go into the field, but you might hear the ploughman’s hallelujahs, the mower’s hymns, and the vine-dresser’s chant of the Psalms of David.” See Cave’s Primitive Christianity, p. 132.]
[508] [St. Paul’s spirit was stirred within him, beholding the abominable idolatries of the Athenians; and who can wonder at the loathing of Christians,(for the common popsongs?
) whose wives and children could not escape from these shameful spectacles. The growing asceticism and fanatical views of sexual relations, which were now rising in the Church, were a morbid but virtuous revolt of faith against these impurities.]
The Magnificat is a beautiful poem, establishing Mary’s important role in the story of salvation, evoking joy, and proclaiming God’s justice for the world.
The opening line of the Magnificat:
The Liturgy of the Hours in English is a poor translation. It follows neither the Greek (“megalunei”) nor the Latin (“magnificat.”) The verb μεγαλύνει (megalunei) means: “to enlarge, amplify, to manifest in an extraordinary degree.”
Mary is saying that her soul makes God appear bigger to her and also to us; that we are able to see God better through Mary. Mary’s exaltation magnifies our awareness of God’s goodness to us. God takes centre stage, and receives all our energy and attention.
And in so doing:
Mary magnifies God and finds joy in Him as her and as the world’s saviour. Mary magnifying God moves her to her prophetic proclamation:
Mary speaks in the past tense. Mary has so magnified God, she has made God so large in her spirit, that she is able to see the work God is doing in the world as a completed reality. Mary is proclaiming the promises of God as if they have already happened. And she is not just focused on God’s promises for her in particular, but on God’s promises for the world.
Thanks, HJ.
Would that we were so enlarged in and by God in his salvific triunity.
Jack, I am afraid you are mistaken about the meaning of ‘magnify’, and I think you fall into the genetic fallacy of believing the meaning of a word is determined by its etymology.
BDAG understands the verb to mean: ‘to cause to be held in greater esteem through praise or deeds, exalt, glorify, magnify, speak highly of’.
The pattern of the poem follows classical Hebrew parallelism, so we should see ‘My spirit rejoices in God my Saviour’ as a parallel to ‘magnifying the Lord.’ Hence some ETs render the first verb as ‘glorify’ or ‘praise’.
In French the verse are ‘exalter’ and ‘réjouier’ which captures the parallel well.
Ian, I’m not sure there’s a significant difference between what I’ve written and the BDAG understanding: ‘to cause to be held in greater esteem through praise or deeds, exalt, glorify, magnify, speak highly of’.” Mary is magnifying the Lord by proclaiming how great He is. The synonymous parallelism is in the next line as Mary expresses her sheer joy in God as her Saviour and for what He has done for her and for the world.
The New American Bible (Revised Edition) uses the same word in Philippians 1:20 for Paul’s desire to glorify/enlarge/exult Christ through his deeds in life and in his death: “My eager expectation and hope is that I shall not be put to shame in any way, but that with all boldness, now as always, Christ will be magnified in my body, whether by life or by death.”
I think of ‘megalunei’ / ‘magnificat’ in the same way that we speak of a magnifying glass: it does not make the object larger but it increases the size of our perception. Our constant temptation is to think of God as an object in this world rather than as the One in whom and by whom all things exist.
‘Tell out, my soul, the greatness of the Lord’ is a good paraphrase of the text – as well as an excellent hymn which we chose for our wedding. I came across Timothy Dudley-Smith only once but have appreciated his hymns for most of my life. He died not long ago and St Andrew’s Cathedral, Sydney, marked his passing by making all their hymns one Sunday D-S compositions. The choirmaster/organist at St Andrew’s used to be at Christ Church Bristol and shared recollections of Dudley-Smith, including his custom of writing hymns from his deckchair on a Cornish beach. Dudley-Smith also wrote two volumes of the biography of John Stott which is still incomplete.
‘Tell out my soul, the greatness of the Lord’ is a straight lift from the NEB translation. The rest of the hymn is a free-er rendering but the inspiration remains the NEB.