I was struck by Elizabeth's response: astonished, humbled, and rejoicing that the mother of the Lord would come to her on her mountain. That, dare I say, God-in-utero has come to her, confirming all that she was told and was experiencing, confirming her as the first prophet to hail the messiah, as her own son would do some years later, in his own turn (although he, too, declared his recognition of the one greater than himself, while also in-utero).
If Mary stayed for 3 months and Elizabeth was already 6 months pregnant, is it conceivable (no pun intended) that Mary was present for the birth of John?
A fair question and as you may imagine, it's been asked before. Luke's narrative seems to imply no, in that the next verse (57), after the report of Mary's departure, goes on to say the time for Elizabeth's delivery then came. Others find the idea of Mary leaving at that point inconceivable (there you go!) but I'm not sure this is Luke's issue. Part of the extent of the visit seems likely to be the clarity added to Jesus' virginal conception by her separation from Joseph for the whole of any plausible time in which he could have become the Father. Speculation will continue...
Perchance I shall do a little speculating in my sermon this week...Thanks for this. I especially like that both Joseph and Zechariah are mute (one just never speaks, and we know why Zechariah is silent) in these texts and the women's voices are amplified.
Note, too, how in this pericope there are two men who are named but absent / silent: Mary "entered Zechariah’s home and greeted Elizabeth" (40)and Abraham (55; I'm assuming Israel is not Jacob btw). So the passage is bookended with missing men.
I think Israel is (also) Jacob, in apposition to Abraham as ancestral figure; but of course like Abraham and even more so, Israel is synecdoche for Israelites.
Thanks Andrew. How had I never noticed that the Magnificat is all in the past tense?
Compare Jonah's hymn of thanksgiving to God while still in the belly of the fish...
I was struck by Elizabeth's response: astonished, humbled, and rejoicing that the mother of the Lord would come to her on her mountain. That, dare I say, God-in-utero has come to her, confirming all that she was told and was experiencing, confirming her as the first prophet to hail the messiah, as her own son would do some years later, in his own turn (although he, too, declared his recognition of the one greater than himself, while also in-utero).
If Mary stayed for 3 months and Elizabeth was already 6 months pregnant, is it conceivable (no pun intended) that Mary was present for the birth of John?
A fair question and as you may imagine, it's been asked before. Luke's narrative seems to imply no, in that the next verse (57), after the report of Mary's departure, goes on to say the time for Elizabeth's delivery then came. Others find the idea of Mary leaving at that point inconceivable (there you go!) but I'm not sure this is Luke's issue. Part of the extent of the visit seems likely to be the clarity added to Jesus' virginal conception by her separation from Joseph for the whole of any plausible time in which he could have become the Father. Speculation will continue...
Perchance I shall do a little speculating in my sermon this week...Thanks for this. I especially like that both Joseph and Zechariah are mute (one just never speaks, and we know why Zechariah is silent) in these texts and the women's voices are amplified.
Note, too, how in this pericope there are two men who are named but absent / silent: Mary "entered Zechariah’s home and greeted Elizabeth" (40)and Abraham (55; I'm assuming Israel is not Jacob btw). So the passage is bookended with missing men.
I think Israel is (also) Jacob, in apposition to Abraham as ancestral figure; but of course like Abraham and even more so, Israel is synecdoche for Israelites.