As far as we know, Luke's gospel was written by a physician 30-40 years after Jesus' resurrection. As a caretaker of people, he carefully gives details he considers to be significant. I think if I was writing this narrative, and was trying to convince a young Mary to believe that she was a virgin with child, I would also have mentioned Elizabeth. Remember, Elizabeth was well past normal child-bearing age, and at the time of Mary's visit from the angel, Elizabeth was in her sixth month. I think the angel wanted to give Mary something concrete to believe in--a sign, if you will, to help her accept that her child was miraculous, in a similar way that Elizabeth's child was a miracle. The finishing touch to this message is its conclusion: "Nothing is impossible for God." I wonder if the details that Luke does not include would be interesting for us to know? What do you think is "between the lines" of Luke's story?
In His peace,
Pastor Paul
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Even with the promise that "nothing is impossible with God," I can't imagine what Mary might have been thinking and feeling. It WOULD be great if we had the video version so we could see those things that Luke may have left out - facial expressions, body language, length of time between responses and tones of voices. But even without the video version, these are two remarkably faithful women - Mary and Elizabeth. Their trust in God is a model for us all.
Post a Comment