Lange vs Lenski

DAL

Alright, for those of you who might own these 2 sets -- Who is better: Lange or Lenski? If you had a choice to buy one set, which one would you choose: Lange or Lenski? Thanks in advance for your input.

Leigh Johnson

So much depends on what you're looking for in a commentary.  Lenski is more recent but is only NT, Lange covers the entire Bible.  Here are the comments from Lange and Lenksi on Luke 1:26-38 so you can compare.  Hope this helps

Lange -

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

Vs. 26. Nazareth.—See remarks on Matt. 2:23.
Vs. 27. To a virgin.—Joseph is the most prominent person in Matthew’s narrative of events preceding the birth of Christ, Mary in Luke’s; an indication that in all probability she was, whether mediately or immediately, the source whence he derived the account of these facts. (Comp. Acts 21:17.)
Of the house of David.—These words, relating solely to Joseph, show that he was also of the blood-royal. That they by no means deny the descent of Mary from David, will appear hereafter.
Vs. 28. And [the angel] came in unto her.—Here is no mere apparition of an angel in a dream, as to Joseph; but a visit in open day, although, of course, in a quiet hour of retirement, as more befitting and satisfactory under the circumstances.—The words, the angel, although wanting in the best manuscripts, is intended. The substitution of any human being is inadmissible.
Highly favored.—It is apparent from ver. 30 that this is not spoken of the external beauty of Mary, but of the favor or grace she had found in God’s sight. The same epithet is bestowed upon all believers, Eph. 1:6, orig.
[The greeting of the angel in ver. 28 is called the Angelic Salutation or Ave Maria, and forms the first part of the famous Roman Catholic prayer to the Virgin Mary:

“Hail, Mary, full of grace, the Lord is with thee.”

The second part of this prayer is taken from the address of Elisabeth to Mary, ver. 42:

“Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.”

To this was added, in the beginning of the sixteenth century (1508), a third part, which contains the objectionable invocation of the Virgin:

“Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death. Amen.”

The concluding words, however, nunc et in hora mortis, are a still later addition of the Franciscans. Even the first two parts of the Ave Maria were not used as a standing form of prayer before the thirteenth century.—P. S.]
Vs. 29. She cast in her mind.—A proof of her serenity and presence of mind at a critical hour. How different were Zachariah, and many before him!
Vs. 32. Shall be called;—i.e., not only shall be, but shall one day be publicly recognized as what He really is.
The Son of the Highest.—This name seems here used by the angel, not in a metaphysical, but a theocratic sense. It points to the anointed King, so long foretold by the prophets, and to whom the words, 2 Sam. 7:14; Ps. 2:7; 89:28, so fully applied. Very deserving our consideration is the following observation of O. von Gerlach: “It is worthy of remark, that the proper divinity of her son was not definitely revealed to Mary: otherwise, neither she nor Joseph could have been in a position to bring up the child; for the submission, which was a necessary condition of His humanity, would have been submission only in appearance. But this promise, while it by no means abolished the parental relationship, would yet direct the reverential attention of the parents toward the child. From the very beginning of our Lord’s incarnation, we see that the knowledge of His divinity was not to be communicated in an external and awe-inspiring manner, but to be gradually manifested by His humanity and His work of redemption.”—For Mary, who was so intimately acquainted with the Old Testament, this prophecy would contain the essence of the most remarkable Messianic promises: 2 Sam. 7; Isa. 9; Micah 5, etc.
Vs. 33. Over the house of Jacob.—The announcement of His universal spiritual reign would have been, at this time, even more incomprehensible to Mary. It lies hidden, however, in the promise: “Of His kingdom there shall be no end.” We must not regard these words of the angel as an accommodation merely to the exclusively Jewish expectations then prevailing, concerning the kingdom of Messiah. Salvation is really of the Jews, and will one day return to Israel.
Vs. 34. How shall this be? etc.—A natural objection, and a question as much allowed by the angel, as that of Zachariah (ver. 18) was arbitrary and blamable. Comp. Num. 31:17; Judg. 11:39; Matt. 1:18.
Vs. 35. The Holy Ghost—the power of the Highest.—The parallel between these two expressions, exacts that the one should be interpreted by the other; and their mutual light teaches, that the Holy Spirit has verily a life-producing power, but by no means, that He is only power, without personality.
Shall come upon thee—shall overshadow thee.—Again two phrases reflecting light upon each other. Both point to the supernatural operation of the Holy Spirit, in bringing to pass that which ordinarily occurs only through conjugal intercourse. The word ἐπισκιάσει can no more be understood to denote a special divine protection (Kuinoel), than a cohabitation (Paulus, the rationalist).
Therefore also.—His miraculous birth is here spoken of as the natural, but by no means the only reason, why He, who had no human father, should receive the name of the Son of God.
Vs. 36. Thy cousin, or: kinswoman (ἡ συγγενής σον).—It does not quite appear what was the relationship between Mary and Elisabeth, the daughter of Aaron (ver. 5). This relationship, however, whatever it might be, proves nothing against Mary’s descent from David, as different tribes might be united by marriage. (Num. 36:6 offers no difficulty, as it relates only to heiresses, whose family was in danger of becoming extinct.) There is, therefore, no reason to conclude that Mary, by reason of her relationship to Elisabeth, was of the tribe of Levi (as in the Testam. XII Patriarcharum, p. 542, and Schleiermacher’s Lukas, p. 26).
Vs. 37. . With God nothing shall be impossible.—Nothing, i.e., no word (ῥῆμα) of promise. A powerful support for Mary’s faith, who might infer from the mirabile the possibility of the miraculum. It is at the same time the last, and indeed the only sufficient, answer to the horror of the miraculous, which characterizes modern criticism.
Vs. 38. Be it unto me.—Not only the utterance of obedient submission, but also of patient, longing expectation. The heart of Mary is now filled with the Holy Spirit, who can also prepare her body to be the temple of the God-Man.

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. Concerning the person of Mary, her youth, and legends of her after history, see Winer in voce “Mary.” The beauty of her character, as “the handmaid of the Lord,” and the chosen instrument of the Holy Spirit, strikes us at the first glimpse at her. (A. H. Niemeyer gives a short but beautiful description of her, in his Characteristik der Bibel, i. pp. 40–42.)
2. Two views, which have obtained in the Christian world, concerning the person and character of Mary, are condemned by these early pages of Luke’s Gospel. The first is that of the Roman and Greek Church, which transforms the handmaid of the Lord into the queen of heaven; the mother of Jesus into the mother of God; the redeemed sinner into the mediatrix and intercessor. The other is that of Rationalismus vulgaris, which deprives the humble bride of the carpenter of the chastity and purity which were her richest dowry, and necessarily rejects the miracle of the supernatural birth; there being no reason for concluding that Jesus was the son of Joseph. The first idea was chiefly supported by the apocryphal Gospels, which surrounded the head of her, upon whom the light of the divine favor had indeed richly fallen, by a halo of celestial glory. Its result was an almost heathen apotheosis of the virgin-mother, producing all the follies of an unlimited Mariolatry. The second notion was first conceived in the brain of the heathen Celsus, who derides the mother of Jesus, as the victim of seduction; while the Jewish version of this fable names one Panthera or Pandira as her seducer. To the shame of Christendom, we have seen this blasphemy revived, in various forms, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Bahrdt, and, in some degree, Paulus and others). Its own intrinsic beauty, truth, and sublimity commend the Gospel narrative, in opposition to both these products of a diseased imagination.
3. With respect to the descent of Mary from David, it is undeniable that the words, ἐξ οἴκου Δαβίδ, Luke 1:27, refer exclusively to Joseph; yet they by no means assert, that our Lord did not descend from David on His mother’s side. We shall soon see that Luke 3. presents us with the genealogy of Mary, as Matt. 1. does with that of Joseph. The angel, too, who announces to her that she shall conceive a son, through the power of the Holy Spirit, could not possibly have added: “The Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David,” had not Mary herself been a daughter of David. Her song of praise, also, clearly shows what expectations she cherished for the house of David, and can only be fully understood, psychologically, when it is regarded as uttered by the daughter of a royal house, who, though that house was then in the depths of degradation, was yet looking forward to the elevation of the rightful dynasty, and the abasement of the foreign tyrant who then usurped the throne. The Magnificat (as Mary’s Psalm is called) is as unambiguous a proof of Mary’s royal descent as the genealogy, ch. 3.
4. The miraculous conception of our Lord, by the power of the Holy Spirit, is related by Luke, as a fact which cannot be doubted, and leaves no room for the hypothesis that we have here a myth or legend. It has often been said, but never proved, that the Jews of those days were expecting that Messiah would be born of a virgin, in some miraculous manner; but even then, it would not follow that the narrative was composed merely in obedience to the dictates of such an expectation. The analogy of certain heathen theogonies may perhaps prove the possibility of inventing such a narrative, in a polytheistic or pantheistic sense; but its reality, in a Christian and theistic sense, can by no means be thus accounted for. A comparison with the accounts in certain apocryphal Gospels on this point speaks more for, than against, the historical fidelity of Luke. Our Lord Himself, indeed, so far as we know, never spoke of this miracle; but His silence may be satisfactorily accounted for. His mother’s honor, the nature of the circumstance, the enmity of the Jews, all forbade Him to bring to light a mystery, for the truth of which He had only His own or Mary’s word to offer. Nor need it astonish us, that His contemporaries speak of Him as the son of Joseph (John 1:45); nor that Mary, speaking of her husband to Jesus, then twelve years of age, should say, “Thy father” (Luke 2:48); nor, least of all, that His brothers should not believe in Him (John 7:5); for, from all in the domestic circle, except Mary and Joseph, the affair was concealed with profound secrecy. We have already seen that Matthew also speaks of a miraculous birth; while Mark passes over in silence the history of Christ previous to His entry upon His public ministry, although he presents the person of our Lord in so divine a light, as naturally to lead to the supposition of His heavenly origin. John is also silent on the subject, though, in his description of the children of God, as born οὐκ ἐξ αἱμάτων, οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκὸς, οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρός, immediately before the words, ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, there seems contained a latent reminiscence of what he must have undoubtedly heard from Mary during his long and intimate intercourse with her. For if he says, that “that which is born of the flesh is flesh,” and that the λόγος δς ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, became flesh, we must, according to this Evangelist also, believe that this took place in some other way than through the θέλημα σαρκός. Nevertheless, though the conception by the power of the Holy Spirit may be deduced from his doctrine concerning the Logos, he certainly does not expressly declare it. Paul also contents himself with the general statement, that the Lord was born of a woman, and of the seed of David (Rom. 1:4; Gal. 4:4); and it seems clear that this miracle, though an indispensable element of gospel history, did not originally belong to the apostolic κήρυγμα, which, according to Acts 1:21, began with the baptism of John.
5. This does not, however, interfere with the fact, that the miraculous conception stands on a firm historical foundation, and is of great dogmatic importance. For the first assertion, they who deny it, a priori, as absolutely impossible, deserve no other answer than: πλανᾶσθε μὴ εἰδότες τὰς γραφὰς μηδὲ τὴν δύναμιν τοῦ Θεοῦ [Matt. 22:29]. Yet, far rather than say, with a modern theologian (Karl Hase), that “birth of a virgin cannot be proved to be impossible,” would we comfort ourselves with the words of the angel [to Mary, Luke 1:37]: ὅτι οὐκ ἀδυνατήσει παρὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ πᾶν ῥῆμα. The laws of nature are not chains, wherewith the Supreme Lawgiver has bound Himself; but cords, which He holds in His own hand, and which He can lengthen or shorten as His good pleasure and wisdom dictate. And surely, in the present case, an end worthy of divine interference justified the deviation. When the Eternal Word was, in “the fulness of the time,” to take upon Him the form of a servant, the new member could only be introduced into the human series in an extraordinary manner. He, who was in the beginning with God, and who came of His own will to sojourn in this our world, could hardly enter it as one of ourselves would. He, who was the light and life of men, must surely see the light of day, not by carnal procreation, but by an immediate exercise of omnipotent power. Besides, how could He be free from every taint of original sin, and redeem us from the power of sin, if He had been born by the fleshly intercourse of sinful parents? The strong and healthy graft which was to bring new life into the diseased stock, must not originate from this stock, but be grafted into it from without. To deduce hence the need also of an immaculata conceptio, in the case of Mary, would be to lose sight of the fact, that we do not lay the chief stress upon the article “natus e virgine M.,” but upon the preceding “conceptus e Sp. S.” From the moment of our Lord’s conception, the Holy Spirit certainly continued to influence and penetrate the mind and spirit of Mary, to suppress the power of sin, and to make her body His consecrated temple. If it be said (by Schleiermacher) that Christian consciousness is perfectly satisfied by accepting the fact, that God removed from the normal development of the Son of Man all the pernicious influences and consequences attending an ordinary human birth, the question here is not, What can the Christian consciousness of an individual bear? but, What saith the Scripture? We believe, on the authority of Luke, who took all pains and had the best means of reliable information (comp. 1:1–4), that the power of the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary in a mysterious manner. The moment of conception is simply hinted at by the words, “Behold the handmaid of the Lord,” and seems to coincide with the departure of the angel. Moreover, the true humanity of the Son of Man is by no means abolished, but rather explained by this miracle; for was Adam no real man, because he also, in a physical view, was a υἱὸς Θεοῦ? In short, the miraculous conception is a σκάνδαλον to those alone who will see in our Lord nothing more than His pure humanity, and who put the sinlessness of the perfect man Christ Jesus in the place of the real incarnation of God in Him. To us, who believe in the latter, His miraculous conception is the natural consequence of His superhuman dignity, the basis of His normal development, and a symbol of the ἄνωθεν γεννηθῆναι, which must take place in every member of the kingdom of God. Compare J. J. VAN OOSTERZEE: Disputatio Theologica de Jesu e virgine Maria nato. Traj. ad Rh. 1840.
6. The conception of the Son of God, by the Holy Spirit, is the beginning of the intimate union between the λόγος ἔνσαρκος and the πνεῦμα οὐκ ἐκμέτρου, John 3:34. Thirty years later, the Spirit descended upon Him in a bodily shape; and after He was glorified, He sent the Spirit upon all that believed on Him. The same Spirit who formed the body of Christ, forms also the corpus Christi mysticum, the Church.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

The calm, unostentatious entrance of the Divine into the world of man.—God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty.—The true veneration of Mary: 1. Exhibited; 2. justified; 3. carried out.—The present worship of Mary [in the Roman and Greek Churches] judged before the tribunal of Gabriel: 1. Mary is called by him, highly favored; by her worshippers, the dispenser of favors; 2. by him, blessed among women; by them, raised above women; 3. by him, the handmaid of the Lord, a sinful daughter of Adam; by them, the Queen of angels [and saints]; 4. in his eyes, a sinful daughter of Adam [nowhere exempt in the Bible from the general depravity of Adam’s posterity]; now [according to the papal dogma proclaimed in 1854], conceived without sin (immaculate concepta).—Mary a type of faith; in her just astonishment, natural fear, gentle boldness, quiet reflection, and unlimited obedience.—The blessed among women: 1. Poor, yet rich; 2. “troubled,” yet meditative; 3. proud as a virgin, yet obedient as a wife; 4. first doubtful, then believing.—The angelic appearances to Zachariah and Mary compared.—Jesus a gracious gift: 1. To Mary; 2. to Israel; 3. to the world.—The greatness of Jesus, and the greatness of John, compared (vers. 15 and 32): 1. Jesus greater than John in Himself; 2. a greater gift of God; 3. therefore worthy of our greater appreciation.—The throne of David: 1. Raised up after deep abasement; 2. raised up amongst Israel; 3. raised up amongst us; 4. raised up to fall no more.—The question: “How shall this be?” may be asked: 1. In a sense lawful for man, and reverential toward God; or 2. in a sense unlawful for man, and dishonoring God.—The operation of the Holy Spirit in creation (Gen. 1:2), and in redemption or the new creation (Luke 1:35), compared: 1. In both, a long and silent preparation; 2. in both, a life-giving and fructifying operation; 3. in both, a new world created.—The support which those, who are “highly favored,” find from contemplating others also highly favored: This support perfectly lawful, often indispensable, always limited, and the highest, and often the only, support of faith, in a power to which nothing is impossible.—With God nothing shall be impossible, an answer by which: 1. Unbelief is put to shame; 2. weak faith strengthened; 3. and faith excited to thankful adoration and unlimited obedience.—Behold the handmaid of the Lord! 1. Her hidden conflict; 2. her complete victory; 3. her full reward; 4. her happy peace.—The messenger of Heaven and the child of earth united, to perform the counsel and good pleasure of God.—The greatest miracle in the world’s history, encompassed with the thickest veil of obscurity.
STARKE:—God knows where to find His children, however hidden they may be (2 Tim. 2:19).—God is wont to bestow His favors in times of quiet and retirement, Isa. 30:50.—All believers are the “blessed” of the Lord (Eph. 1:3).—The holier, the humbler.—The “troubles” of holy minds always end in comfort.—The members of Christ’s kingdom have in Him an everlasting King, an everlasting support, and an everlasting joy.—Let even thy nearest and dearest forsake thee, so thou make sure the Lord Jesus be with thee, and abide in thee.
HEUBNER:—Mary and Eve: their similarity and dissimilarity, their relation to the human race.—Mary the happiest, but also the most sorely tried, of women.—Christians born of the house of Jacob, according to the Spirit.—Humility the best frame of mind for the reception of grace.—Our birth is also a work of God.—The miraculous birth of Jesus, a glorification of the whole human race.
WALLIN:—The angel’s salutation of Mary may be applied to Christians in all the holy seasons of life: baptism, confirmation, the time of chastening, the day of death.
FR. ARNDT:—How does the time of regeneration begin in the world, and in the heart? By an announcement of the grace of God, which is: 1. Heard in humility; 2. received with patience and entire self-resignation.
VAN OOSTERZEE [in sermons previously published]:—Mary the handmaid of the Lord. This saying the inscription of the history of Mary, as maid, wife, and widow.—Her character presents a rare combination of: 1. Genuine humility, with joyful faith; 2. of quiet resignation, with active zeal; 3. of faithful love, with unwavering heroism.—That the Word was made flesh, is: 1. An undoubted fact; this proved by: (a) the life, (b) the words, (c) the works of the Lord; 2. an unfathomable miracle; (a) the unprecedented, (b) the intimate, (c) the voluntary, nature of the union of the Divine Word with flesh; 3. an ever-memorable benefit; for this incarnation is: (a) the glory, (b) the light, (c) the life of mankind. To conclude, the questions: Do you believe in the fact? adore the miracle? highly esteem the benefit?

Lange, J. P., Schaff, P., van Oosterzee, J. J., & Starbuck, C. C. (2008). A commentary on the Holy Scriptures : Luke (19–22). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

 

Lenksi

26) Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was commissioned from God to a city of Galilee, for which the name Nazareth, to a maiden having been betrothed to a man, for whom the name Joseph, out of David’s house. And the name of the maiden Mary.
Luke connects the story of Mary with that of Elisabeth because they belong together; hence his designation of the time for the annunciation: “in the sixth month,” i. e., after Elisabeth had conceived. The angel indicates his identity in v. 36: he tells about Elisabeth, her conception and the length of her pregnancy, and thus reveals that he is identical with the angel who was sent to Zacharias. In neither appearance is this angel described. To say that Mary did not perhaps even know that she was speaking to an angel is therefore pointless. She knew this as well as Zacharias did. The message delivered to Mary was infinitely greater than the message given to Zacharias, and the messenger could not have appeared in a commoner form, i. e., as a mere man.
The idea in ἀπό is not that of agency: commissioned “by God” (ὑπό), but derivation: “from God,” sent with a message from his presence. Nazareth is mentioned as a city of Galilee and is so insignificant that Theophilus could not be expected to know its location; but it is noteworthy also that this town, which is so important in the sacred history, was located in the despised province of Galilee. The dative with ὄνομα (here and in v. 27) is idiomatic for one of the ways of introducing a name, ἦν is always left out (B.-D. 128, where the different ways are listed).
27) We are told twice that the person to whom Gabriel was now sent was a παρθένος, a “maiden” or “virgin.” Luke evidently intends to stress this fact. But this virgin is described as “having been betrothed to a man” named Joseph. The perfect participle tells us that the betrothal had taken place some time before and was now in force. But we should understand this in the Jewish way: the Jewish betrothal was public and had vows that constituted virtual marriage and needed only that the bridegroom should come at the set time, take his bride, celebrate, and live with her. That is why a betrothed maiden could be called a wife (Matt. 1:20), and her betrothed man her husband. It is unwarranted, however, to demand that we must today enter marriage in the same way. The Word of God demands nothing of the kind; and they who insist on the Jewish way never carry it out as it is sketched, for instance, in Matt. 25:1, etc. In our practice betrothals are engagements and not yet essentially marriages but only promises of future marriages, and the binding marriage vows are not made until during the marriage ceremony, upon which the consummation of the marriage follows at once. See further the comment on Matt. 1:18.
There is some discussion on the connection of ἐξ οἴκου Δαβίδ. It is dodging the issue when R., Tr., omits all punctuation. Zahn connects it with Joseph, but his argumentation betrays the fact that it results from his contention that Luke’s genealogy (3:23–38) is that of Joseph and not that of Mary. It is rather superficial to think that the main person to be introduced is Joseph, and that we must know about his Davidic descent. The main person is this maiden, and Joseph is introduced only as the man to whom she is betrothed, and it is about her descent that we must know. Luke tells Mary’s story throughout these chapters—Joseph is quite secondary. We construe: “to a maiden … out of David’s house.” The fact that she is the person appears from the way in which her name is introduced, not incidentally like the names Nazareth and Joseph, but at the end in a separate sentence in which “maiden” again occurs. It is true, as the genealogy of Joseph shows (Matt. 1:2, etc.), that he, too, is of Davidic descent. But this is no justification for attaching Luke’s phrase to both “maiden” and “Joseph” as has been done. Zahn forgets the Gentile Theophilus, to whom these verses are written. It was vital for Jews and Jewish Christians to know that the legal father of Jesus was a descendant of David. Jewish legal ideas about descent could count little with a Gentile, the actual physical descent would be the essential point to him. “Mariam,” as Luke writes her name, was of David’s royal line. More on this question will be found in connection with 3:23.
28) And having gone in to her, he said, Greeting, favored one! The Lord is with thee!
Gabriel appeared to Mary in her own home, as εἰς in the participle would indicate. He perhaps walked in through the door. It would be unwarranted, however, to assume that he hid his supernatural character and appeared as an ordinary man. The reactions of Mary are not like those of Zacharias, but this is due to the difference in the persons rather than to any difference in the angel’s appearance. The maiden who was selected by God to become the mother of his Son was superior to the old priest in the Sanctuary as all that we know of her character shows. Χαῖρε, the present imperative, is the common form of greeting in the Greek. No person now greets another, either on arriving or on leaving, by saying, “Hail!” yet this translation persists. Perhaps the translation, “Greeting!” will do as well as any; in the Aramaic it must have been the common wish: “Peace to you!” The Germans translate: “Sei gegruesst!”
The perfect participle κεχαριτωμένη has the strongest connotation of the present: “having been favored and as a result still being in this blessed condition.” The root in the verb is χάρις, grace, the unmerited favor bestowed by God. The passive voice makes God the agent. The special grace on account of which the angel greets Mary is God’s selection of her to be the mother of his Son. “Blessed thou among women” is found in good texts but seems to have been inserted here from v. 42. Bengel interprets the passive voice: non ut mater gratiæ sed ut filia gratiæ. The deification of Mary by Romanism is constantly rejected as being contrary to the text. The Vulgate’s translation gratiæ plena is ambiguous; it may pass if “full of grace thou hast received” is meant, but certainly not if the meaning is to be, “full of grace thou now hast to bestow.” Mary is a vessel to receive, not a fountain to dispense.
As the perfect participle in the address refers to a very special gift of grace, so the assurance: “The Lord is with thee!” refers to far more than to his ordinary helpful presence. The fact that a godly Jewess enjoyed Yahweh’s grace (ὁ Κύριος as before) and helpful presence needed no angelic announcement. Far more is meant here. By becoming the virgin mother of God’s Son, Mary would most certainly need the fullest protection on the part of God. How could she defend herself against slander, and how could she protect her babe from murderous hands? So in advance, before Mary is further enlightened, the assurance of the Lord’s presence, help, and protection is given to her. The Greek may omit the copula when it is in the present tense, but not when the tense is past, future, perfect, or when the mode is not the indicative. Hence “the Lord with thee” is not a wish but the statement of a great fact. The two go together: inasmuch as Mary is favored with this special grace the Lord’s helpful presence is with her in that special degree.
29) But she was greatly perturbed at the word and began to argue with herself of what kind this greeting might be.
The aorist denotes the fact of her perturbation, but the imperfect states only that she began to argue back and forth (διά) with herself, i.e., reckon up the reasons that might explain the angel’s word (meaning all that he said) in one or in the other way. The question Mary debated was: “Of what kind is this greeting?” The optative has almost faded out of the Koine, but here we have an example where in an indirect question after a secondary tense the indicative “is” is in classic fashion changed to “might be,” εἴη, R. 1044.
30) And the angel said to her: Stop being afraid, Mary! For thou didst find favor with God. And lo, thou shalt conceive in the womb, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Jesus. He shall be great and shall be called the Highest’s Son. And the Lord God shall give to him the throne of David, his father, and he shall rule as king over the House of Jacob to the eons, and of his kingdom there shall not be an end.
Before Mary has time to arrive at an answer to her mental question, the angel goes on speaking to give her full information and thus to end all doubt and debate in her heart. The present negative imperative is the same as that which is addressed to Zacharias in v. 13: “Stop fearing, Mary!” So her perturbation included fear, that fear which befalls mortals when they are in the presence of heavenly beings. It is unreasoned and automatic and must always be checked in order not to interfere with the intended blessed effects of the divine words.
As in v. 13, so here the bidding to stop being afraid is at once fortified with the strongest kind of reason for dismissing all fear. In the case of Mary this reason (γάρ) is the fact that she has found χάρις with God. This is the noun that lies in the participle that was used in v. 28 and always means undeserved favor, “grace” in the sense of the divine motive and of the gifts that are due to that motive, which are wholly unmerited by us. This is the heart of the meaning when it is God’s grace that is referred to. When it is used with reference to others it is modified to match the person referred to. This divine grace is always found, never earned. It falls into the lap, we do not go and work for it. It is a gift, pure and simple, in toto. The last thing that Mary dreamed of was becoming the mother of the Messiah, God’s own Son. The Greek expresses simply the fact: “didst find” (aorist), the English would use the perfect “hast found.”
It is true enough that χάρις has in it sweetness, charm, loveliness, joy, delight, the note of kindness, and, in fact, much else that is delightful; but these are only the by-products, the odor of the rose, not yet the rose itself. Any and all of these resultant ideas are due to the essential idea, that of unmerited favor and gifts of favor. The angel is leading up to the great announcement he has come to make. His statement is still general, only a little more direct than his first words. The aorist is noteworthy; Mary found this favor with God long ago. It is all arranged in God’s plan far in advance. Mary must know that. If she learns of it only now, that does not change her blessed state in the past. What she now learns is to fill her with the highest delight.
31) When Gabriel tells Mary in the clearest and simplest way about God’s intent with reference to her, if ever the interjection ἰδού, “lo,” was justified, it is so here. Three brief clauses present it all. Mary shall conceive, she shall give birth to a son, and that son’s name shall be Jesus. The verb for “conceive” is the same as that used in v. 24, the addition of ἐν γάστρι, a stereotyped phrase, really adds nothing. The future tenses are futuristic and prophetic, none of them is volitive. All these things shall occur without any question; any human will and consent that may be necessary shall be forthcoming. The prophecy can be made in such a positive way because the divine foreknowledge coupled with the divine purpose cannot fail. The name “Jesus” is not explained to Mary as it was later to Joseph. “Jesus” was to be the son’s personal name, Yeshoshu‘a or Yeshu‘a, “Yahweh is help or salvation,” meaning, “the One through whom Jehovah brings salvation”: “for it is he that shall save his people from their sins” (Matt. 1:22). Not one word is said about Joseph as being the father of this son which Mary is to bear; we have only the mention of the Lord and of God!
32) But the prophecy is not yet half told. The conception, birth, and name befit only this son. Regarding the son of Zacharias the angel said, “He shall be great in the Lord’s sight,” i.e., in his judgment, but of Mary’s son the same angel says, “This one shall be great.” He adds nothing and thus means “great” in the absolute sense. We might expect “for” in explanation of his greatness; instead we have καί which introduces a coordinate statement, one that thus stands by itself: “and the Highest’s Son shall he be called,” i.e., rightfully, that name states exactly who he is. Indeed, none could be greater.
The title ὕψιστος, “Highest,” “Most High” (superlative), by itself or combined with Θεός (Heb. 7:1; Gen. 14:18; repeatedly in the mouth of demons, Mark 5:7; Luke 8:28; Acts 16:17), designates God in his supreme exaltation and majesty. Neither noun has the article, which stresses the idea expressed by each. The view that υἱός is indefinite, “a son,” is due to ignorance of the Greek in which the added genitive always makes the noun definite. In 6:35 the genitive has the article, which stresses only the concept “sons” which is modified in the ordinary way by its genitive; but here νἱὸς ὑψίστου is really one concept.
R., W. P., is too ready to yield the point that deity is not expressed here since in 6:35 Christians who exercise love are called νἱοὶ τοῦ ὑψίστου, “sons of the Highest.” But mere outward similarity of phrasing, aside from the context, is not determinative. If Gabriel did not mean deity, what did he mean? The subtile Arianism of von Hofmann (Philippi’s correct judgment) has tainted many interpretations. He here uses Ps. 82:6, where judges, etc., are called sons of the Most High, because God lent them his majesty in administering the law; compare John 10:34, etc., in the author’s work on John. He overlooks Luke 6:35.
Modernism has stressed the idea that “Son of God,” “Son of the Highest,” etc., are merely synonymous with “Messiah,” both are ancient, outworn categories of thought or thought forms. If that were true, and if we are dealing only with changing forms of human ideas, any modern ideas that are offered us in place of the ancient ones would be only like new coats that take the place of the old but themselves soon become old and outworn too—with no coat in sight that would never grow old, change, and become worthless.
33) This exalted person who is to be born of the maiden Mary is to be the promised Messiah. The angel puts this into Old Testament language which Mary will the more easily understand, and which will at the same time be convincing to her as being the fulfillment of the old prophecies. Note 2 Sam. 7:13: “I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever”; and v. 16: “And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established forever before thee: and thy throne shall be established forever.” Compare Ps. 89:4, 29, 35–37 (John 12:34). “The Lord God” is the same Old Testament name as that found in v. 16 (which see).
This great covenant God shall give to this child Jesus “the throne of his father David.” Any gift of the Father to Jesus is, of course, made to his human nature. The royal side of Jesus’ office is described here. He himself spoke of his kingdom as not being of this world, John 18:36, 37. Thus “he shall reign over the House of Jacob to the eons,” which means that “of his kingdom there shall be no end.” The manner of his rule will be like the kingdom he rules, a rule with truth in the power of grace. “The House of Jacob” denotes all his descendants, not merely the Jewish nation as such, but the spiritual descendants on through the ages (Rom. 9:6–8). We need not be reluctant about accepting the angel’s word in its full reality that Jesus should rule forever over the spiritual House of Israel, believing Jews and Gentiles alike. He does so rule now, and this the angel actually foretold. Isa. 9:6, 7; Jer. 23:5, 6; 33:15, 16.
Jesus is to have “the throne of his father David.” The effort is made to deny that Jesus was a descendant of David, Mary being of the royal line. The usual interpretation is that “of his father David” refers to Joseph’s descent from David, Jesus being Joseph’s legal son and thus also David’s legal son. The untenableness of this view is apparent. Read 2 Sam. 7:12: “I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom” (LXX, ἔσται ἐκ τῆς κοιλίας σου). We are, however, told that we should not let the Old Testament prophecies control our New Testament exegesis!
The phrase εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, literally, “unto the eons,” is the Greek way of saying “to eternity.” An αἰών is a vast extent of time that is distinguished by the character of what happens in it; so we have “this αἰών or world age” and “the αἰών to come,” that in heaven. To gain the idea of eternity the eons were simply multiplied in an indefinite succession. The fact that this is the sense of the phrase is made plain by the next statement, that of his kingdom “there shall be no end.” This is the common way of defining eternity: time without an end. The fact is, however, that our minds are so bound to the notion of time (and also of space) that we cannot visualize anything that does not fit into this succession of moments, days, years, millenniums, etc. Yet eventually “time shall be no longer” (Rev. 10:6), this succession shall come to an end; eternity is the opposite of time, simul tota, an absolute altogether, an endless now without past or future—we can say it but not conceive it. The kingdom is eternal.
It is important to know what is meant by “the throne,” by βασιλεύειν, ruling as a king, and by this βασιλεία or kingdom. The usual view is to take an ordinary earthly throne, kingdom, and royal rule as the pattern and to conceive of Jesus’ kingdom in an analogous way. But all things earthly are but poor shadows of the heavenly; they are so of this kingdom that is not of this world. The earthly kingdom makes its king; without it he could not be king; and he may easily be dethroned and cease to be king. But the heavenly king makes his kingdom; without him it could not exist; and the only question is whether we will accept his rule and kingship or perish in our hostility. Thus the kingdom is where the king is, where he exercises his blessed rule of eternal grace, whether on earth or in heaven. Not the people as subjects make up the kingdom—there are really no subjects, for all in whom Christ rules are themselves kings and rule with him, and in this sense he is the King of kings (of us whom he has made spiritual kings by his spiritual rule). All the infinite realities of divine grace are compressed in the angel’s words.
34) But Mary said to the angel, How shall this be since I know not a man?
The question as well as the answer it receives indicate no unbelief on Mary’s part. She is not like Zacharias but, in a way, like Nicodemus who also asked “how,” namely about the new birth. What perplexes Mary is the fact that she is to have a son, not at some distant time after her marriage to Joseph (about whom the angel said not a word), but, as she properly judged, beginning shortly after the announcement she just heard. With “how” she asks for some explanation, and with “since” she states the reason for her perplexity, namely that she “knows not a man,” a typical Jewish way of stating her virginity. “To know a man” means to know sexually. The point in stating this reason is that she is able to conceive a son only by sexual union with a man, the universal natural law of procreation. Mary is entirely willing to have the great son of whom the angel speaks—but how about the husband through whom she is to conceive that son? Does the angel say that Joseph, her betrothed, will promptly consummate his marriage with her? We know that Joseph waited for several months and, in fact, intended to wait still longer (Matt. 1:18), but God himself hastened his resolve. Since her marriage is still a long way off, how was she, an immaculate virgin, to have a son? The point to be noted is that, unlike Zacharias whose only difficulty was his age, Mary had no ancient analogous cases to help her out, and the angel had intimated nothing whatever about how she would become a mother.
Roman Catholicism (also Bengel) reads οὐ γινώσκω, a plain, ordinary present tense, in the sense of the future, as declaring that Mary has vowed perpetual virginity. Zahn’s observations are much to the point. If that were the sense of Mary’s words, since no other than the natural way for her to have a son has been intimated, she would be denying the angel’s word in flat unbelief—her vow of perpetual virginity would make the angel’s word impossible. Again, Mary was betrothed to Joseph; if she had made her vow prior to the betrothal she had already broken it by the betrothal, the first vital step in entering marriage; but if she had made the alleged vow after her betrothal she would by such a vow have broken her marriage tie with Joseph. But the Scriptures know nothing of such a vow (entschiedener Vorsatz, Bardenhewer) as they know nothing of the Mariolatry of Romanism.
35) And answering the angel said to her, The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the Highest’s power shall overshadow thee; wherefore also that holy thing being born shall be called Son of God.
See v. 19 on “answering.” Mary’s question is fully and completely answered, and there is no intimation that there was an impropriety in her asking it. In fact, it seems as if the angel purposely left out this vital point in his announcement and thus induced Mary’s question in order to state this point the more emphatically, for it is absolutely essential in the proper conception of Mary’s son, our Savior. This angel’s word answers the question of the entire church as to how the Savior could be born of a virgin, and the answer is adequate in every way. Hence the church has always confessed “conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary.”
The conception was a miracle—and all who reject miracles will find some other way to interpret the angel’s word. All who want a Savior without deity will do the same. A son who was conceived by Mary through Joseph, conceived before their marriage was consummated, or a bastard who was conceived through somebody else (the Jews called him Penthara), is seemingly more to their liking than God’s Son born of the Virgin Mary. Two things are certain: the texts of Matthew and of Luke still stand, and the sense of what they record also stands; all efforts to the contrary only make these facts stand out the more.
It is unwarranted to declare that Πνεῦμα Ἅγιον does not here come under the rule that proper nouns and names may or may not have the article, hence that the third person of the Godhead is here not referred to but only a holy spirit power as opposed to the flesh in ordinary conception. “Holy Spirit” is freely used either way in the Greek, with or without articles. Matthew writes twice (1:18, 20) that Mary’s conception was ἐκ Πνεύματος Ἁγίου. Mary’s power to conceive was derived (ἐκ) from the divine Spirit.
In Luke’s account the angel takes us a step farther: the Spirit “shall come upon thee.” And even this is made plainer: “the Highest’s power shall overshadow thee.” Farther than this the miracle could not be revealed, for the human mind could not follow farther. The points are these: the conception shall be caused by the third person of the Godhead; he shall not operate from a distance but shall himself come upon Mary; he shall work the conception by his almighty power; and this shall occur when, like the Shekinah (Exod. 40:34–38), the power shall overshadow Mary. Just as Πνεῦμα ᾍγιον is not indefinite (it is used without articles throughout this chapter), so also δύναμις ὑψίστου is not indefinite. On the latter compare the parallel expression υἱὸς ὑψίστου in v. 31; it is the genitive that makes the noun definite.
There is only one power of the Highest, his omnipotence. This power belongs to the Spirit as well as to the other persons. There is no reason for regarding “the power of the Highest” as denoting the power of the Son instead of that of the Spirit so that the eternal Son overshadowed Mary and wrought his own conception by his omnipotence. This would certainly militate against Matthew’s twice-repeated ἐκ and would make the Spirit’s part in the act only secondary, merely sanctifying Mary or the ovum used in the conception by the Son. The entire conception was wrought by the omnipotent operation of the Holy Spirit.
Beyond this we cannot go. All else is impenetrable. But we should remember that an ordinary, human conception is also, in spite of all our science, as great a mystery as ever—a new person, an immortal soul suddenly comes into existence. We who cannot penetrate this everyday miracle should not feel aggrieved when the miracle of the incarnation of the second person of the Godhead is veiled in mystery for us. The divine record presents the facts and no more.
Why the Spirit wrought this conception and not the Father or the Son we may not ask; we are compelled to stop with the fact. Why he proceeded as he did, coming upon Mary, etc., we again may not ask; the facts must suffice, and even these are in reality beyond us. But John 1:13 (rightly interpreted, not with reference to the believers, but to the conception of the Logos—see the author’s commentary) points out the corollaries: “of God,” i.e., of the Spirit, hence not of blood or mere human life, not of the will of the flesh or our human nature, and not of the will of man (male) in copulation—three ἐκ negatived by the one positive ἐκ (like the two in Matthew). Pagan mythologies may claim divine birth for some of their heroes, but we cannot place the incarnation of God’s Son into that category. Look at what those heroes were, then look at what Jesus was; and remember that the method of Jesus was, not to proclaim his deity in advance, but to let men discover it by their experience with his person and his work (John 1:14; also 1:47–51).
After stating the divine how of Mary’s conception and making it entirely a divine work that is infinitely above ordinary conceptions the angel states in the most exact terms who the son who shall be thus conceived shall be. We need not put a future sense into the present participle γεννώμενον, “that which is to be born”; it merely describes the unborn child: “being born.” This word should not be translated “being begotten.” Jesus was conceived but not begotten. The view that the Holy Ghost took the place of the human father and supplied the male seed to fructify the ovum is false in toto. The incarnation was vastly beyond this, for the eternal Logos became flesh. This pre-existent person was conceived by a direct divine act, without a sexual act or any substitute therefor.
The construction of the A. V. is correct over against that of the R. V. It is τὸ ἅγιον that is modified by γεννώμενον, not the reverse, nor is ἅγιον to be the name of the one who is to be born of Mary. He who shall be called “God’s Son” needs no second name, and the neuter ἅγιον is not a name, especially when it is placed beside the masculine Υἱὸς Θεοῦ. When Jesus is called “the Holy One,” this term is never neuter. Note the absence of καί, which is not explained by saying that “God’s Son” rises above “holy.” The verb “shall be called” is the same as it was in v. 32; and “God’s Son” is the same as “the Highest’s Son” in that verse. The sense is that he shall be called what he really is. The translation “a Son of God,” one of a number of such sons, is not justified by the absence of the Greek article before “Son” just as little as the absence of the article with Spirit means “a spirit.” All that the angel has said makes certain in what sense “God’s Son” is meant.
He says that Mary’s son shall be called “God’s Son,” not that he shall call himself “God’s Son.” Much has been made of the fact that Jesus did not keep calling himself God’s Son, and this is extended to the assertion that he never called himself by this name. Jesus had the good sense to let people recognize his deity by their experience with him. The angel seems to refer to this when he says that Jesus shall be called God’s Son. The agent involved in the passive verb is not named. But the fact is that Jesus was most decidedly called God’s Son by many people, by his own Father from heaven, by Gabriel in this chapter, and by himself every time he spoke of his Father and finally when he was asked a question under oath (Matt. 26:63–65 plus 27:43).
As already stated, “God’s Son” is not identical with the title “Messiah.” The latter expresses office, the former being. God’s Son was the Messiah, i.e., he had this office; but he was God’s Son long before he assumed that office. An unwarranted view is that Jesus became God’s Son only by his wonderful birth; but for that he could not have been considered God’s Son. “Only-begotten” is also understood in this way: the only one ever begotten in this way, i.e., of a virgin, and thus God’s Son. But this denies the pre-existence of the Logos, destroys the essence of the incarnation, and leaves us with a Savior who, aside from what he may be called, is in reality no more than a man. It may be well to add here as was done in v. 15 that the three persons in the Godhead are mentioned before Jewish ears without the least explanation as being perfectly known. This is the regular practice and contradicts the assumption that the Old Testament revealed the Holy Trinity only faintly (or not at all).
36) The angel continues: And lo, Elisabeth, thy relative, has herself also conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month for her who is called barren; because with God nothing shall be impossible.
What the angel adds is plainly intended to aid and to confirm Mary’s faith. The degree of relationship that is expressed by ἡ συγγενίς σου is quite uncertain. Zahn combines it with the close acquaintance that is evidenced in v. 39, etc., and thinks this sufficient to prove that Mary, like Elisabeth, was a descendant of Aaron, the daughter of a priest, and by no means a descendant of David. The daughter of a priest could have any number of relatives who were not at all of priestly connection. It is fruitless to assail the actual Davidic descent of Jesus.
The angel points out the miraculous thing that has happened to Elisabeth, that she who had come to be called barren by all who knew her had now in her old age conceived; and though the child is yet unborn, the angel calls it “a son”—sufficient evidence that it is Gabriel who speaks to Mary. By mentioning Elisabeth who is now in her sixth month, well on toward the day of birth, the angel silently suggests to Mary the very thing she now undertakes, namely a visit to her aged relative. It is certainly thoughtful to point Mary to this one person to whom she might freely confide her tremendous secret. She could not speak to Joseph who needed far more than her word (Matt. 1:20), still less to any others in Nazareth.
37) The added ὅτι clause states the great reason that underlies what has occurred in the case of Elisabeth and is now to occur in the case of Mary in a far higher manner: “nothing shall be impossible with God.” This rendering of the A. V. regards ῥῆμα in the sense of the Hebrew dabar, which was current also as a Greek colloquialism, “a thing or matter mentioned.” It goes back to the LXX’s translation of Gen. 18:14, which is exactly the same except that the words are there a question and have the interrogative particle μή; but they are uttered to Sarah in connection with the promise of her having a son. The future tense of the verb may well be a rendering of the Hebrew imperfect. Of course, οὐ … πᾶν means “nothing,” R. 752. The sense is that nothing that comes from God (παρά) shall be impossible. On this assured fact Mary may rest her faith. The other rendering, “for no word from God shall (will) be void of power” (R. V.; R., Tr.), disagrees with the meaning of the verb as it is used in Matt. 17:20 and especially in Gen. 18:14, LXX.
38) Now Mary said, Lo, the slave-maid of the Lord! May it be to me according to thy utterance. And the angel went away from her.
The angel left Zacharias dumb, he leaves Mary with a full, calm, deliberate word of assent. Her final reply is so brief, yet so beautiful and spiritually quite perfect. The exclamation “lo” marks the depth of her feeling. Think to what she was consenting! “Handmaid” in the A.V. is beautiful and refined but inadequate. Mary pronounces herself “the slave-maid” of Yahweh (κύριος as throughout this chapter). She is Jehovah’s willing property for him to use as he in his covenant grace desires; she declares this of herself. The translations do well to insert no “I am.”
In γένοιτο we have one of the few optatives that are found in the Koine, it is here the optative of wish: “may it be to me.” It is thus volitive—Mary wills that what the angel has said to her may come to pass; κατά means in exact accord with the utterance (ῥῆμα) that has fallen from his lips. This is holy submission, mighty confidence, blessed readiness—all this in one so young whereas the saintly old Zacharias, while serving in the Sanctuary itself, stumbled at far less.

Lenski, R. C. H. (1961). The Interpretation of St. Luke's Gospel (59–77). Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Publishing House.