Chapter # 1 Paragraph # 5 Study # 2
Lincolnton, NC
July 25, 2004
(080)
AV Translation:
59 And it came to pass, that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child; and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father.
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:
59 And it came to pass on the eighth day, that they came to circumcise the child; and they would have called him Zacharias, after the name of the father.
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 59 the Textus Receptus uses a shorter phrase and different word order than the Nestle/Aland 26 in reference to the eighth day. The Textus Receptus says "in the eighth day" and the Nestle/Aland 26 says "in the day, the eighth". The Nestle/Aland 26's text emphasizes the fact that it was the eighth day, whereas the Textus Receptus has no emphasis there. 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. Clearly, based upon the amount of space given to the issue, the focus of this material is upon the issue of the name. It is even emphasized by the additional comment that the choice made them all "marvel", which, in itself, is rather surprising.
- II. However, Luke's record goes first to the issue of circumcision as the occasion for the disturbance regarding the name.
- III. Then Luke says "they" called him Zacharias. This, for 21st century Americans, is remarkable in itself; that "others" would presume to "name" a child not their own. The unidentified "they" that came to circumcise the baby, and then presumed to argue with Elizabeth over his name, remain unidentified. "They" are simply those who offered Luke the "occasion" to make a bigger deal over the name than would normally be warranted.
Notes:
- I. The Nestle/Aland 26 emphasizes the "eighth" day wherein it was the divinely established practice to circumcise male offspring and, apparently it had become the custom by some means to also officially "name" the child at this time.
- A. The issues of the choice of the "eighth" day.
- 1. The "law" was given in Genesis 17:12: "...he that is eight days old shall be circumcised...".
- 2. The issue of "eight" is raised in multiple places...
- a. In Exodus 22:30, the "firstborn" of animals were to be left with their mothers until the eighth day; then they were to be "given" to Yahweh [see also Leviticus 22:27].
- b. In Leviticus 8-9, Moses consecrated Aaron and his sons for the priesthood and they remained in the Tabernacle for the 7 days of their consecration; then, on the eighth day, they began the ministry of priesthood.
- c. In Leviticus 14:10 and 23, the leper that was cleansed began his new life of being free from leprosy on the "eighth" day by offering sacrifices to God. "Cleansing" from defilement often took 7 days so that the 8th day was the "new beginning".
- d. In Leviticus 23, the feast of Tabernacles was to begin with a solemn Sabbath and end on the eighth day with a holy convocation, which was also a Sabbath.
- e. In Leviticus 25:22 the rule was that the land would lie fallow on the seventh year and the people would plant again in the eighth year...a new beginning of the cycle of production and rest.
- f. 1 Samuel 17:12 says that David was the "eighth" son of Jesse.
- g. In 1 Chronicles 24:10 we are told that Abijah was the head of the "eighth" course...so that Zacharias, being of the course of Abijah, was tied to the "eighth"...
- h. In 1 Chronicles 26:5 we are told that "eight" sons were a sign that Yahweh had "blessed" the man.
- i. In Luke 9:28, Jesus was "transfigured" eight days after telling His disciples that some would see the kingdom of God.
- j. In John 20:26, Jesus brought Thomas to faith on an eighth day.
- k. In 1 Peter 3:20, it was "eight" souls that were saved from the flood.
- l. In 2 Peter 2:5, Noah is called "the eighth".
- m. In Revelation 17:11, the antichrist is the "eighth" head of world empires.
- n. In Revelation 21:20, beryl is the "eighth" foundation stone of the New Jerusalem. This was, apparently, the stone of Zebulon who was so named out of the fantasy of Leah based upon her notion of "love" by reason of "accomplishment"...i.e. "legalism". It was also the stone associated with the "glorified" physical body and the implication is that it is only after resurrection that "joy" will spring from "accomplishment".
- 3. The overall sense of "eight" seems to be a recognition of a "new beginning" after having the old situation remedied by "cleansing for seven days", or, at least, being "rested" after the difficulties presented by the old situation.
- B. The issue of "circumcision" was a key issue to the people of God who were Israelites.
- 1. It had been given to Abraham in Genesis 17 when he was 99 years old (the very year that Sarah conceived).
- 2. It was at this time that God changed his name from Abram to Abraham and He changed Sarai's name to Sarah.
- 3. The cutting of the flesh was an "in your body" sign of a covenant between Yahweh and Abraham in which Yahweh "became" the "Elohim" to Abraham and his seed forever (Genesis 17:7).
- 4. Anyone who refused to circumcise, or be circumcised, was "cut off from his people" (this may have been a way to express a capital crime as God sought to kill Moses for this very failure in Exodus 4).
- C. This same issue became a primary "sticking point" when the apostles began to take the Gospel beyond the boundaries of Israel.
- 1. In Romans 4 Paul makes a significant point of the fact that "righteousness" was granted to Abram "by faith" in Genesis 15:6, years before the "sign" of circumcision was levied upon him.
- 2. In Romans 2 Paul argues that "circumcision" is only of benefit if one is a Law-keeper and that Law-keeping is tantamount to "circumcision" even for one who is uncircumcised.
- 3. In Acts 15, where this issue was brought to critical mass in the church's formulation of doctrine, Peter himself admitted that "circumcision" was an introduction to a "yoke" that none could "bear" (Acts 15:10), and the teaching that one had to be circumcised was a "subversion of the soul" (Acts 15:24).
- D. John was born "under the Law" and it was necessary for him to be circumcised as his parents "walked in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless". But, for him to be named "John" signalled a major theological shift of focus from an insistence upon human performance to a declaration of divine performance. Luke, as the on-going companion of Paul -- the apostle of "grace" -- was obviously intensely interested in establishing this shift of focus as it was at the very root of the purity of the Gospel.
- 1. There was no indication in the days of the birth of John that there was going to be a huge shift in the divine program from the Nation to the Church, but Luke was not writing during the era involved in the days of John's birth. His was the perspective of hindsight after the shift had already been underway for some time.
- 2. It seems clear, in hindsight, that "John" came to introduce Him Who brought us "grace and truth" and He whom he introduced actually became the embodiment of Law-keeping for the precise reason that the performance of man was never going to be sufficient to sustain a good foundation of a relationship between God and men. Thus, the process of shifting the theological focus of mankind from human performance to divine performance was set in gear more than 30 years before the actual shift was displayed in history. The Gospel, though the undercurrent of all of theology of all of the ages (Abraham was "justified by faith"; Habakkuk clearly understood "justification by faith"), was to become a beacon of brilliant light to summon men to a solidly founded relationship to their Creator and God by sharpening the focus on the details of grace -- the chiefest of which was the death of the Christ "in the stead of" all who would become the people of God.