Luke 1:35-45 Bible Teaching

WELCOME
PRAYER
SONG
SILENCE

Okay, so we left off with the Angel Gabriel greeting Mary and telling her that she would be the one who bears the Christ-child.

She asked the angel how this would be possible since she had never known a man and that took us to verse 35. Let’s read:

Luke 1.35-
April 28st 2019
Meat

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow you: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son (human son, only begotten son) of God.
36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.
37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.
38 And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

Alright back to verse 35:

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow you: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son (human son, only begotten son) of God.

Matthews report on what the angel said to Joseph affirms the fact that Jesus would be of the Holy Spirit, saying in Matthew 1:20:

“But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.”

The wording suggests that the conception would shall take place suddenly with the Holy Spirit being the instant giver of life to the egg of Mary.

The thinking behind this is that God Himself, by His Spirit, would give this child life and not the sperm of a man and with this being the case Jesus would come into the world absent the sin nature from the fall.

We do have to wonder however, but what about the sin nature of Mary? If the logic is the child had to be pure at birth and THEREFORE, the Holy Spirit would generate or give life to the embryo, what about the sin nature of Mary?

Did it not pass through to Jesus, at least in part, and taint the purity of the Spirit which fathered him?

1st John 3:5 says of Jesus:

“And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin.”

There are several popular responses to this (basic arguments given below) that show there is no contradiction within Scripture and his conception and life.

Of course, the Catholics address all of this through the immaculate conception of Mary – as we said last week.

But setting that aside as unbiblical, let’s first look at some of the ways Jesus was able to be born of a woman, born under the law, but without the stain of original sin upon him.

The first theory says that Jesus inherited genetic material from Mary (so as to be fully human – meaning, a descendant of Adam only to become the Last sinless Adam) but of course he did not get genetic material from Joseph.

Therefore, original sin, it is thought, must pass through the father to the offspring and this allows Jesus to avoid the state of possessing original sin.

From what I’ve seen this theory is called the “Father’ line” model and it initially sounds okay but like with all theories of man there are some problems associated with it.

First of all we have no Scriptures that connect the virgin birth to avoiding sin or the “sin nature.”

The scriptural reason for the virgin birth is that it fulfills prophecies like Isaiah 7:14 which says:

Therefore, the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

So, we have to automatically be cautious in making up theories as to why a virgin when God himself does not tell us.

Often in today’ culture people try to find materialistic explanations (because we live and are influenced by the materialism and naturalism that surround us and these all exclude supernaturalistic hope and views.

But even the best materialists have to admit that truth, logic, information, souls, mind, sin nature, and so on are not material entities.

It’s important to think about the difference between the material and the immaterial in this. Think about Adam first:

Adam originally had perfect DNA – at least we can assume this reasonably from
Genesis 1:31

“And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.”

And Deuteronomy 32:4 which says:

“He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.”

So, I think it is safe to say that at the creation Adam was sound and sinless.
Therefore, there was no original sin found in him at the start. However, I maintain that the sin nature was always present with Adam – which is why He was able to sin prior to taking the fruit.

So, the stain of “original sin” is in question in my book. And therefore, Jesus, being certainly born WITH A SIN NATURE – He was tempted after all – but the fact that He was the product of Mary only means to me that he inherited that nature in the flesh from her, but no condemnation of Adam’s sin passed upon him through her.

This is most reasonable to me and solves the problem or question in my mind.

Additionally, Satan and the demons may be another insight to show that a sin nature is not bound only to material means or DNA.

Hand in hand with this is the fact that a “sin nature” is not sin at all. In part, this model derives from Hebrews 4:15 which says:

“For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.”

Because God cannot be tempted with sin nor tempt others to sin, we must conclude that Jesus inherited from Mary the nature to sin, but not the mythical original sin idea.

Obviously, Jesus was tempted externally, (like when he fasted forty days and nights and then Satan himself tempted him three times with external transgressions against God.

We can also see that Jesus was tempted internally when we look at the Garden of Gethsemane experience where he asks His Father to let the cup pass from him if possible.

Hebrews 2:18 adds to this, saying:

For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.

Also take note of when Paul wrote:

No temptation has overtaken you except such as is common to man; but God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will also make the way of escape, that you may be able to bear it. (1 Corinthians 10:13)

These passages show that to be tempted – which God cannot be, by the way – but to be tempted requires the ability to sin. But additionally, to be tempted is not sinful – and again I think we find a solution in the Mary flesh issue of original sin and the sin nature:

Original sin is a man-made construct that does not hold up to the virgin birth but sin nature does.

It is intriguing that James wrote about sin and said:

James 1:13-15 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:
But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desires and enticed. Then, when desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, brings forth death.

We see this “progression” (or digression) that James describes in Eve when we read in the Genesis account that:

Tempted by the serpent
Drawn away and enticed by desiring the fruit
Desire conceived when she ate . . .
And that digressive course led to ??? death.

Of course, Adam was the representative for humankind, and when he ate, all humanity became doomed to the Curse of death.

Which may be the better definition of Original sin and its effects on all of us – its death – spiritual and physical – of which Jesus DID NOT possess BECAUSE GOD WAS HIS FATHER!

So while He certainly did inherit from his mother the sin nature and the ORIGINAL SIN of the curse of both spiritual and physical death, the Spirit of God that fathered him overcame those effects and we are all good.

I personally though cannot see the way Man defines Original Sin as viable in the face of Mary’s conception of the Christ child.

Have you ever thought about the fact that the term “original sin” is not found in the Bible but are, like the Trinity, terms derived by humans who have tried to systematize passages of scripture.

So again, a tendency toward sin is not sin in and of itself. And therefore Jesus avoids ever being a sinner.

Remember, “ORIGINAL SIN” means our having a part in Adam’s original sin – therefore being condemned as sinners by God.

This makes no sense as we have shown that having the propensity to sin, which even Jesus had, is not sin itself.

Therefore the idea of original sin MEANS HAVING AN INDIRECT PART IN ADAM’S SIN – which is very different from being effected by the sin he committed which introduced death into the world.

Get it?

Now, that fact that we all have a sin nature does NOT mean that any of us have the capacity to avoid sin – for which we are fully guilty of committing before God.

Hence, we all need to be “born from above” (which equips us with the ability to overcome our nature – and by the way, which Jesus was from birth) and to be forgiven for the sin we do commit – by faith on him who, though tempted in all things, sinned not.

It is of interest that Jesus said in John 8:24:

“I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.”

In all of this I therefore conclude and openly teach the following:

There is no such thing as Original sin. It is the product of Men as much as the term and concept of the Trinity.
As a result Jesus inherited from His mother her sin nature – meaning the ability, perhaps even the desire to sin – but with God as His Father, he sinned not.
That because of His human nature, however, God was able to lay the sins of the world on Him who had done no sin, and did not deserve death, and in doing so, experienced death on our behalf.

So, another pass on verse 35

“And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow you: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son (human son, only begotten son) of God.”

We note that it was the Holy Spirit that would come upon her. But because Luke adds, “and the power of the Highest shall overshadow you,” some believe that this is a one-two combo of the Father and the Holy Spirit in the conception of Jesus of Nazareth.

The truth of the matter is that in the first chapter of Matthew we read:

“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.”

Why Luke nor Matthew say that the child is of the Father is a mystery especially when viewed in the confines of Creedal Trinitarianism which demands that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are separate and completely autonomous persons that unitedly make up the One God.

If this is true the technical father of Jesus of Nazareth is not God the Father but God the Holy Spirit.

To me its much clearer to say that Jesus is the Child of God and that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God – makes things much easier.

“The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow you: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son (human son, only begotten son) of God.”

There appears to be an allusion to the Spirit of God (in Genesis 1:2) brooding over the face of the waters in the Creation story here but I am not articulate enough to describe it.

The Angel then says something intriguing:

“Therefore also that holy thing (or person)-shall be called the Son of God.

Other translations put this line this way:

“and so that which will come to birth will be named holy, Son of God.”

“that Holy [One] which will be born of you shall be called Son of God.”

“therefore the holy progeny shall be called the Son of God.”

“the child will be called ‘holy,’ and ‘Son of God.”

“for this reason your holy offspring will be called `the Son of God.’

“therefore also the holy-begotten thing shall be called Son of God”

Just to point out the only word in the Greek is hagias (which means holy) and the terms: thing, son, child, offspring, progeny, or One ) are added to the text by translators – without cause (other than attempts to establish clarity).

This may be splitting hairs, but the language of the angel to Mary is that the Holy (being, child, progeny, one) would be called, “The Son of God.”

The Angel does not say that the child (thing being) was the Son of God. I am not saying in any way or shape that Jesus was NOT the Son of God.

But what I am pointing out is that all the angel says is that this child that Mary would bear would be called, (referred to as) the Son of God.

In the 28 times the term, Son of God is uses in the Gospels, it was men, and devils, who used this title except for five of those times it was used by Jesus (Luke 22:70, John 5:25; 9:35; 10:36; 11:14).

In contrast Jesus uses son of Man 81 times in the same segment. Why? What do we learn and know from all of this? What message was Jesus sending?

He certainly referred to himself as the Son of God in those five references but why the over-weighted use of “Son of Man?” And why does the angel phrase this line to Mary in this way?

We plainly see here, that the angel does not give the title, “Son of God” to the Divine nature of Christ; but to that holy person or thing which was to be born of the virgin by the powerful dunamis of Holy Spirit.

In other words, the Divine nature was not born of the virgin – the human nature was born of her. The Divine nature had no beginning; it was God manifested in the flesh; it was His Word which was in the beginning (of eternity) and created all things.

That divine eternal word was with God, it was God, and it was Emmanuel, God with us – Made flesh and “tabernacled” among us.

Of this Divine nature the angel does not particularly speak but speaks to Mary of what his name would be called once thriving in the tabernacle or shrine which God was now preparing for it – meaning, “the holy thing that was to be born of the virgin.”

In other words, there are two natures that are always distinguished in Christ: the human nature (which is wherein he would be called, the Son of God, and the divine nature.

That divine nature, from all of this, was from eternity, the word of God, uncreated, self-existent, but I question whether it was ever then called or known as the Son of God.

In other words, that title Son of God was only bestowed in the Word of God becoming incarnate as there are no passages of scripture where it is plainly said that the Divine nature of Jesus was the Son of God?

I can ask this because:

1st. I have not been able to find any express declaration in the Scriptures concerning it.

2nd, If Christ be “the Son of God” in his Divine nature, then he cannot be eternal; for a son always implies a father. And a father, in reference to a son, implies precedency of time or chronology.

3rd, if Christ is the Son of God in terms of his Divine nature (again), then the Father, who is of a rational necessity prior, there is a also a necessity of superiority.

To me all of this DESTROYS the eternality of the LORD and robs him of His Deity. Therefore I see Him as God with Us, NOT the Son of God with us in terms of Divinity.

It is incomprehensible to me to refer to Jesus as the Eternal Son because in terms of chronology and order, we have an absurdity as eternity has no beginning, nor stands in any reference to time and Son pre-supposes time, generation, and father.

Therefore, Son and eternity are impossible contradictions.

And here is where the enemies of Christ’s divinity have the upper hand – unbeknownst to the insipid ideas of Trinitarians who demand Eternal Sonship.

Why? How?

Because if we simply said that Jesus was God with us, and that the title Son of God was applicable to His earthly life alone, we would have the upper hand.

But when we demand the trinitarian creeds to have application – God the Son, God the Father and God the Holy Spirit – we confine ourselves to a corner of incomprehensibility and therefore we run against the grain of knowing God in spirit and truth being eternal life.

Bottom line: the doctrine of the eternal Sonship destroys the deity of Christ and if his deity is taken away or put into jeopardy, the foundation of the Good news is ruined.

I blame the man-made trinity for much of this. And it is passages like this that help us see what God has meant and done all along.

As modalist as this sounds, I prefer the passage in Isaiah to describe for us the divine nature of the Lord and Savior. Pay close attention to the words used as it says:

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.

Okay, so onward as the angel adds:

36 And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.

It seems that Elisabeth’s situation is mentioned to inspire Mary with confidence, and to assure her that what was now promised would be fulfilled and perhaps also to get her to visit her cousin in the future.

Because Mary would be aware of Elizabeth and Zacharias’s age, this would have been a great sign that all things are possible with God – which causes the Angel to say to Mary:

37 For with God nothing shall be impossible.

Which is sort of the basis – as we’ve pointed out over the past few weeks of study of the Christian faith – with God ALL THINGS are possible.

I would suggest the caveat to this is that all refers to all things that God promises of decrees.

In other words, God cannot do anything – that is a humanist lie and the false doctrine of the Sovereign God myth taught by Men.

God, for instance, cannot lie. He cannot sin. He cannot be tempted with sin. He cannot be unloving. All of these things cause us to caveat this verse and to take it reasonably.

But one thing that God could would and did do was cause a woman stricken with age to conceive and her cousin, a virgin, to do the same. Here Mary shows the faith she possessed as a daughter of God and she said:

38 Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.

To be the hand-maid of the Lord is to be submissive and obedient, and is the same as saying, “I give complete credit and trust to all that has been said, and am willing to obey all the commands of the Lord.”

Verses 39-45 we covered in two weeks ago so we will not get to much into all of them today:

39 And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda;
40 And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth.
41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:
42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.
45 And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.

Okay, back to verse 39:

39 And Mary arose in those days, and went into the hill country with haste, into a city of Juda;

And Mary arose. The word arose here is equivalent to setting out or starting on a journey.

The hill country was a region in the vicinity of Jerusalem, commonly called the hill country of Judea.

In to the “City of Juda,” which is a mystery city some say is Jerusalem, others say Hebron, but all is conjecture. It was probably what they called, “a Levitical city,” which was the apparent residence of Zacharias when he was not employed in the temple.

40 And entered into the house of Zacharias, and saluted Elisabeth.

Walked in and rejoiced at the sight of Elisabeth.

41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit:

Some commentators say that the meaning of this was that she was filled with joy but the Greek reads hagias pneuma – and I take that over this inferior interpretation.

We covered how she would have been filled with the Holy Spirit two weeks ago so check that out if you are interested but the discussion was in reference to the Angel Gabriel telling Zacharias that John would also be FILLED (with the Holy Spirit) from the womb.

42 And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, (to Mary) “Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.”

We notice that here Elizabeth nearly repeated the exact sentiments the angel Gabriel said to Mary.

43 And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

This was an expression of humility – toward her younger cousin – and what it this to me (in other words, who am I) that the mother of “my” Lord should come to me?”

While the word “Lord” sometimes describes divinity in scripture it also describes a superior, a master, a teacher, or a governor.

It was given by the Jews to their expected Messiah but we are not sure if they knew the real meaning of the term even though they used it (speaking of his divinity)
It is intriguing that Elizabeth, however, refers to the future child of Mary as “her Lord.” (verse 44

44 For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

And we discussed this already (verse 45)

45 And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the Lord.

Apparently, Elizabeth is speaking of Mary here and her choice or decision to believe in the words of the Angel.

That is, Mary, who believed what the angel spoke to her. She was blessed not only in the act of believing, but because the thing promised would certainly be fulfilled.

We can see from these expressions of Elisabeth that “the spirit of prophecy had not entirely ceased among the Jews.”

We generally suggest that all prophecy ended in the intertestamentary period but here we have two women speaking truth by the Holy Spirit.

We will stop here.

Q and A
Prayer