Be it to me according to your word (Lk 1:26-38)

Be it to me according to your word

Luke 1:26-38

Khen Lim

Screen capture from the motion picture 'The Nativity Story' (2006)

Here’s a question for you – If you’re a little kid and your father whom you love so much suddenly asks you to do something that is so completely out of this world, how would you react, let alone respond? 

And if what he wants you to do will, not only make you a complete laughing stock among your friends and family, but also cause them to shun you, would you still do it?

With all of this, would you think twice before you say yes, assuming you accept in the first place?



That’s what it would have felt like to be Mary (Heb. Miryam מרים meaning “beloved” or “love”), a little girl who would’ve just turned teenager at the time the angel Gabriel appeared in her life just as she was betrothed to marry Joseph. From the angel’s encounter with Mary, the announcement of Jesus’ birth offers us different angles for an emerging story and all of them should be familiar among us Christians:

One message from the announcement is that He will be the Messiah, the prophesied and promised heir in line to David’s throne:

“He will be very great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give Him the throne of His ancestor David.” (Lk 1:32, NLT)

The other message is that Jesus is, at once, born divine and human and is also figuratively and literally, the Son of God:

“The angel replied, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the baby to be born will be holy and He will be called the Son of God.” (v.35, NLT)

Although either message is important, there is another big story in these passages written by Luke. It’s a message wrapped up in a powerful lesson in true discipleship as well as one that offers us a peek into Mary’s inner being. If you think about it, Jesus’ very first disciple would have to be this truly young girl who, as His mother, gave birth to Him, surely the youngest of all His disciples.

From Luke 1:26-38, we have the opportunity to try to understand Mary’s response quality. The question we can ask is what it was that drove her to respond to God in this way. In a very similar way, we can also ask ourselves what our response is when God asks something so seemingly impossible for us to do. In trying to gain a clearer insight into Mary’s response, let us examine this young girl from four perspectives, namely:

Firstly, we’ll take a look at some background behind her young life from what we know

Secondly, we’ll study her apprehension on encountering the angel Gabriel

Thirdly, we’ll examine the wonder in Mary’s mind at that point in time and,

Lastly, we hope to learn from her incredible submissiveness in spirit.

Then we’ll round it off by looking at her faith and what lessons we can draw from it.

Part I: Mary’s life as foretold



Screen capture from the motion picture 'The Nativity Story' (2006)

“In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a village in Galilee, to a virgin named Mary. She was engaged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of King David. Gabriel appeared to her and said, ‘Greetings, favoured woman! The Lord is with you!” (Lk 1:26-28, NLT, my emphasis)

The Bible tells us that Elizabeth (Heb. Elisheva, אֱלִישֶׁבַע meaning “An oath to my God”) was Mary’s much older cousin who lived with her husband Zacharias in Hebron in the hill country. According to the Mandaean Gospel of John (the Baptist), his mother (referred to as Enishbai, see below) was eighty-eight years old when he was born while his father was eleven years her senior:

“‘My father,’ says Yahyā (John), ‘was ninety and nine and my mother eighty and eight years old. Out of the basin of Jordan, they took me. They bore me up and laid me in the womb of Enishbai. ‘Nine months,’ said they, ‘thou shalt stay in her womb, as do all other children.’ ‘No wise woman,’ said he, ‘brought me into the world in Judæa, and they have not cut my cord in Jerusalem. They made for me no picture of lies and for me hung up no bell of deceit. I was born from Enishbai in the region of Jerusalem.’”

Note: The Mandaean Gospel of John is holy scripture written in Mandæic Aramaic and is believed by Mandaeans to have been authored by John the Baptist himself, their chief prophet. Mandaeanism is a gnostic religion with a strong dualist worldview. Its followers revere Adam, Abel, Seth, Enos, Noah, Shem, Aram and particularly, John the Baptist. The Mandaeans do exist today and are largely in Iraq.

Elizabeth was pregnant with John the Baptist just at the time Mary was carrying Jesus. The angel Gabriel’s announcement to Mary took place about six months after her cousin’s pregnancy.

Leaving her hometown of Nazareth in the hilly southwest part of the Sea of Galilee “with haste” and travelling into the city of Hebron in the hill country of Judah, she visited and stayed with Elizabeth for roughly three months. This was after she was told by the angel that her cousin was in her sixth month of pregnancy. 

In case we’re wondering, that was a four-day journey of about 140 to 160 kilometres – for someone this young and pregnant that was no small feat. In greeting Mary at her arrival, Elizabeth acted prophetically, sensing that her young cousin would be “the mother of my Lord.”

Despite her tender age, Mary had an uncanny ability to take quick but decisive action. Other than her hasty journey to see Elizabeth, she then made the trip to Bethlehem for the census before going to Egypt. Every year after that, she and Joseph would also sojourn to Jerusalem like all Jews did.

In John 2:12, we also learn that Mary followed Jesus and His disciples to Capernaum and seventeen chapters later, in 19:25-27, the apostle recorded that she was back in Jerusalem for those fateful days of the Passion. The last we heard of her in the New Testament was the time in the Upper Room in the company of the apostles including some other women as well as her other sons, all of whom were united in prayer.

The enigma of Mary’s limited entries in the Bible makes for interesting discussion. It’s all quite strange, considering that she was the last of five women to be mentioned in the genealogy of Jesus. She was also the most natural given that she was the only human – and the rightful mother of Jesus – so closely involved in His conception and birth. Her significance and special place in the Bible should be palpable and yet, we know so little of her.

There is simply insufficient details to help us build a proper portrayal of this young girl, not even a brief one. For example, we hardly know anything about how she brought up Jesus as a little boy. In fact, we don’t even know what really happened to Joseph, her husband. In learning that he was a carpenter, chances are that Jesus learned from him but for how long and when? Did Joseph die young? Or did he leave?



Scene between Mary (left) and her mother Anna (right) in the motion picture 'The Nativity Story' (2006)

Based on Jewish tradition of the day, the likelihood was that Joseph was far more advanced than Mary in age. The apocryphal Proto-Evangelium of James, written around 150AD, presents him as an old man who was chosen by God, probably on the basis that he was from the Davidic line, to watch over Mary. 

The other apocryphal, the History of Joseph the Carpenter, written during the 5th century, focuses on the biography of Joseph according to Jesus, puts him at the age of 90 when he married Mary at the age of 14½. The book records Joseph’s death at 111 years old. But remember, none of these are official and therefore highly debatable.

Other than her encounter with the angel, we only know, from Scripture, that Jesus asked the apostle John to care for her in His dying hour (Jn 19:27) but other than that, information about her life from thereon is sparse. And if we don’t know that much, we surely have no idea how, when and where she died. It seems hard to believe that we know far more about certain other women mentioned in Scripture than we do of Mary.

Is Mary insignificant in the Bible (New Testament)?

Although the New Testament presents various different viewpoints concerning who Mary was, we still have to piece them altogether though even so, it remains disjointed and none more so than the Gospels to prove this point. Here’s where both Matthew and Mark offer little input while Luke, much like John, focuses on quite different things. And in the end, the story isn’t coherent with stuttering gaps from her birth to her death. In essence therefore, only certain parts of Mary’s life are available.

Given that Mary was Jesus’ biological mother, the New Testament disappoints. As a result, the paucity of details can be hard to understand. If it weren’t for Luke, we would end up knowing nothing about Mary. And because it is he who believes in Mary’s importance as a key character, he could draw the story of Jesus’ birth from her account, derive her thoughts and feelings. From Mary through Luke’s words, we now know what she was doing, how she reacted and then responded to the angel Gabriel.

But even so, there is so much more to Mary that we would’ve liked to know and learn. Unlike Luke though, pretty much the rest of the New Testament offers a somewhat negative – or absent – view of Mary. Given that Matthew’s intended audience were Jews, he writes from a strict traditional male perspective and that means very little, if at all, of Mary will be available. In a male-dominated narrative, her account wouldn’t be as interesting to his readers as Joseph’s.

On the other hand, Mark talks of Mary in conjunction with Jesus’ family although if you read carefully, you’ll find that he writes as if she stood in the way of Jesus and His message. So, overall, the Gospel writers are loathed to go into any particular detail about Mary unless it is because there are important facets about Jesus that mentioning her becomes unavoidable.

Then again, there are information on Mary that is outside the purview of the New Testament though one must be circumspect and prudent when it comes to authenticity. Of those available, quite possibly the only one that appears interesting is the Protoevangelium of James.

Written around 145AD, this is the apocryphal Gospel of James or as some know it as the Infancy Gospel of James (or even the Book of James). It goes back in time to the infancy stories that are found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke and then expands them with a narrative that brings fresh details to the birth and upbringing of Mary herself. Outside of the New Testament, this is the oldest source of information that tells us of the virginity of Mary not only before but during and also after Jesus’ birth.

From the Gospel of James, we learn much about Mary’s upbringing, her parents and the age at which she conceived Jesus and so on. But it’s unlikely that they’re all entirely true and that is, of course, disappointing. Still, that hasn’t stopped many other ancient writers to preserve the book, using different titles like ‘The Birth of Mary,’ ‘The Story of the Birth of Saint Mary, Mother of God’ and ‘The Birth of Mary; the Revelation of James.’

Take note also that none of the Gospels were authored in the few decades following Jesus’ death; the earliest being Mark’s (66-70AD) and then followed by Matthew and Luke (85-90AD) with John at the tail-end (90-110AD). Remember also that each of them was deliberately written for choice audiences with different interests in mind. These readers had divergent cultural and traditional values as well. In other words, one who is meant to read a particular Gospel was likely to not share the same thinking with another for whom was meant a different Gospel. And of course, all of that means there are variations in theological overtones.

The simple fact that Mary is even mentioned in the New Testament is in itself not insignificant. After all, if it didn’t have anything to do with Jesus or the growth of the Early Church, there are few reasons, if at all, to mention her. She could very well be consigned to a few footnotes at best. Besides, if we take note that Jesus’ earthly father Joseph basically disappeared and that we too hardly know anything about him, Mary’s appearance is an acknowledgement that in the nascent years of the Early Church, she did hold some sway.

Over the next few centuries (as late as five hundred years after Jesus’ death), Mary simply became the brunt of hostilities between the Jewish and Christian groups. Jewish writings of that period referred to her by her Jewish name, Miriam. Probably out of vindictiveness, some considered her nothing more than a hairdresser and that Jesus was an illegitimate offspring of a Roman soldier by the name of Panthera.

In recent centuries with the rise of Reformation followed by Protestantism, Mary could have been further victimised. With the Roman Catholic Church venerating her, Protestant Christendom went the opposite way although, to be fair, there was no reason for any of us not to admire her godliness and submissiveness and the very truth that God found favour in her. None of these we could ever take away from Mary but we are right not to venerate someone who is pure human and not a God. And maybe that could be the reason why the apostle Paul hardly ever mentioned her by name through all his letters. Neither did Peter.

Realise too that first-century Jewish women had limited rights, both legally and economically. Insofar as economic rights, a young and unmarried Jewish girl like Mary was expected to live with her family and be part of the household, doing her fair share of the chores at home.

If she had a job, her wages went straight to her father and if her father was deceased, her mother would be the recipient. If she was married, she would of course leave her family and cleave to her husband to whom her wages belong. In other words, unless she was a widow fending for herself, someone like Mary would be neither financially or legally independent.

On the issue of divorce, Jewish women had it just as bad, if not worse. Divorces were a one-way street – Jewish men did the divorcing but not their women. If she were to attempt divorce proceedings – assuming she was bold enough – she’d lose everything including property and children. This means that she would not have legal access to her inheritances and her husband would gain complete responsibility over their children, which might imply visitation rights as well.

As it turned out, it’s not difficult to find such information. In fact, the Bible proves useful in this respect but there are also other handy literary sources. Other than the renowned Flavius Josephus (37-100AD), here is a short list of some of the other well-known historians-cum-writers of the period:

Pliny the Elder (23-79AD) a.k.a. Gaius Plinius Secundus; author, naturalist, natural philosopher and naval and army commander; author of the celebrated Natural History, an encyclopaedic work of uneven accuracy that purported to cover all ancient knowledge

Pliny the Younger (61-113AD) a.k.a. Gaius Plinius Caecilius Secundus; lawyer, author, magistrate and nephew to Pliny the Elder; left behind a rich collection of private letters of great literary charm but essentially focused on the public and private life of ancient Rome

Eusebius of Caesarea (263-339AD) a.k.a. Eusebius Pamphili; historian, exegete, Christian polemicist and bishop of Caesarea Maritima; scholar of Biblical canon whose account of first-century Christianity called Ecclesiastical History, is a landmark in Christian historiography 

Philo Judaeus (25BC-c.50AD) a.k.a Philo of Alexandria; Hellenistic Jewish philosopher; said to have impacted the apostle Paul as well as John through his writings and was the pioneer conceptualist behind Logos to mean the Divine Mind

Publius Cornelius Tacitus (58-117AD) a.k.a. Gaius Cornelius Tacitus; senator, historian, orator, public official and author; known to be one of the greatest Roman historians; in his final work called Annals, he wrote of the existence of early Christians in Rome as well as about Christ and His execution

Other than the gnostic-based Gospel of James, there are other apocryphal writings although, again, accuracy and consistency might be problematic. Many Jews tend to rely on early rabbinical texts that do reveal interesting aspects of Jewish life, culture and tradition of that period. Like Pliny the Elder and Tacitus, there are Roman texts throughout the provinces of Rome that have survived the thousands of years and remain accessible today not to mention also archaeological findings through material clues that reveal the way the Jews lived, ate and worked. Unearthed artefacts offer up highly interesting details such as cooking, eating and farming utensils.

Hailing from an allegedly poor family, Mary, like most Jewish girls, would have spent her time giving a hand to helping out however way possible. This can mean tending over kitchen stoves, making the beds, washing and folding the clothes, preparing meals, looking after livestock, drawing water from wells and cisterns and where required, attending to repairs that the house required from time to time.

And of course, besides daily chores, many Jewish women grew up to take on jobs that brought income back to the family though she’d hardly keep any for herself with most if not all of it going to the father. While all these sound ominous for today’s modern and sophisticated urban women, they were what was expected of Jewish girls living in first-century Roman Palestine.

Of course, it matters that Mary did not possess apostolic authority although some Mariaphiles might argue that she should, taking into account her being Jesus’ first disciple and that she was, after all, His biological mother. Without a doubt, she was looked upon with great favour by God and in fact, it was He who, among so many other Jewish girls, specifically picked her out for the virgin birth.

However, none of these necessarily suggest that she would play as significant a role as Jesus’ disciples. Remember, Jesus did not include His mother in ministry work the way He did with His disciples. Besides, in an age where men dominated society, it is not hard to imagine Mary and all other Jewish women not given the same opportunities as the men.

At her age and despite being betrothed, the chances are that Mary would have continued living with her parents that is, until she left with Joseph for Bethlehem where she gave birth to Jesus. In true Jewish tradition, the young and unassuming Mary would also have done her fair share of the difficult and heavy work in a town not known for anything outstanding let alone a popular destination. 

Amidst the drudgery that many Jewish women would have to endure at that time, her single most anticipated event in her life at that point in time would have to be the her wedding to a local carpenter. Other than that, nothing in the Bible tells us that she was any more outstanding than the many other girls of her age in Nazareth.



Screen capture from the motion picture 'The Nativity Story' (2006)

While it might be presumptuous to say that Mary was a mediocre Jewish girl, ordinary might be a better description given that her life was nothing too special compared to the rest. Yet God chose her and not some other girl. Remember, there was nothing extraordinary about Mary. Scripture also says nothing about her being exceptionally attractive. Or unusually intelligent. For all we may know, she was no Miss Israel. And so, that’s the point – it wasn’t Mary’s piousness, beauty, smarts or worthiness but simply put, God’s favour. As the angel said to her, “Greetings, favoured woman!” (Lk 1:28, NLT)

If Mary was just an ordinary Jewish girl, Nazareth was no trailblazing city either. Known more as a sleepy hollow perched in a high valley area of Galilee, Jerusalemites were long contemptuous of its inhabitants. The disciple Nathanael once said, “Can any good thing come from Nazareth?” (Jn 1:46), alluding to the town’s lowly reputation. But then again, the angel Gabriel did not go to the religious hub of the nation or the capital. Instead, he went to the obscure and ill-reputed Nazareth whom no one cared much for and it was there that he announced to a young and innocent girl that she was God’s choice of His human instrument to bring forth His Son into the world.

In that same announcement, the angel informed Mary that her own cousin was already six months pregnant. Exactly why she was told this piece of news is not clear but then her cousin Elizabeth was not exactly young when she discovered she was pregnant. A righteous woman of a priestly lineage, she miraculously gave birth to John the Baptist as an old woman, reminiscent of Sarah, wife of the patriarch Abraham. This birth was foretold to her husband, Zacharias (Heb. Zəḵaryāh זכריה or Greek Ζαχαρίας meaning “remember Yah”) by an angel who told him to name the baby John and that he would be the forerunner of the Lord (Lk 1:12-17).

We are told that Zacharias was at that time ministering at the altar of incense at the Temple of Jerusalem. To that piece of startling news, he was stumped, expressing doubt because he felt he and his wife were too far advanced in age to consider an addition to their family. Besides, Elizabeth was supposedly barren. 

But that’s where Zacharias might have had taken leave of history for had he recalled, he would have remembered how that was the case with Abraham and Sarah. But he didn’t. And the price he paid for his doubt was considerable – the angel struck him dumb and he stayed that way “until the day these things take place, because you did not believe my words, which will be fulfilled in their own time” (Lk 1:20b, NLT).

At the same time, his wife Elizabeth chose seclusion for five whole months. When she realised her ‘predicament,’ she felt too embarrassed to be seen in public. By the sixth month of her pregnancy – the time when the angel told Mary of the news – her much-younger cousin travelled to their home to pay her a visit. On Zacharias’ return home, Elizabeth finally conceived (vv.24-25).

From Luke’s account of Mary’s encounter with the angel and the surrounding events plus what Jewish customs and tradition then tells us, Mary wasn’t just a virgin but at 12 to 12½ years old (customarily), she was also extraordinarily young. On the other hand, the carpenter she was to marry was apparently on the wrong side of ninety but that wasn’t something her parents weren’t aware of since they were very likely the ones who arranged the marriage.

We are also told that by past convention, an actual Jewish marriage actually involved two steps, beginning with the betrothal and an interval of several months to a year when the young girl would have been taken to the prospective groom’s home. At some point, there would have to be a wedding celebration much like the one in Cana where Jesus performed His first miracle, turning water into wine (Jn 2:1-11).

Once they began to live together, the couple, in this case Mary and Joseph – would be considered properly married. And because marriages then were arranged and agreed upon between parents, the boy and/or girl could easily have been engaged as early as five years old. Mary wouldn’t have had a say in who she married since that was the case.

More about traditional Jewish betrothals and weddings

In the times of Jesus, people did get married young and the marriages were contracted in a closed group comprising the family and members of the clan. The reason for that was simple – no one was keen to introduce any foreign elements into their culture. In that sense therefore, marriage is an agreement not between the bride and the groom but instead, between their two families.

Finding and agreeing to a match between a boy and a girl was something between the two fathers but even so, it was always the boy’s father who was more concerned about his matrimonial prospects. Hence, it was the girl’s father who received the dowry (Heb. mohar) as part of the traditional Jewish wedding contract (Heb. ketubah). The mohar wasn’t always in cash terms as we saw how Abraham’s servant, who, after his request for Rebecca to marry Isaac, was granted, “brought out silver and gold jewellery and clothing and presented them to Rebekah. He also gave expensive presents to her brother and mother” (Gen 24:52-53, NLT). In that act, the servant gave gifts (Heb. mattan) to Isaac’s intended bride and the mohar to her brother and mother.

To understand the significance of the mohar, consider that in the marriage, the groom’s family gained a new member in their household* while the bride’s family lost a valuable member to help them in their daily chores. Hence, the mohar can be seen as compensation equating to the value of the daughter lost to another family.

[* In most new marriages therefore, the married man usually finds somewhere in his family’s house first before contemplating a new home of their own.]

The hallmark of traditional Jewish marriages at least up to the Middle Ages were the two ceremonies punctuated by separate celebrations at two separate times. These were set apart with an interval in between. The origins of this division (into two separate events) were from ancient times when marriage was deemed no more than a purchase in both its outward form and inner meaning. As such, the girl was no more than just chattel to be bought in marriage. In harsh terms then, she was not recognised as a person.

The first ceremony was the betrothal (Heb. erusin) where the girl was officially and legally married but she would remain in her father’s home. Being legally married meant that she did not belong to any other man unless she faced divorcement from her betrothed. The second ceremony comprised the wedding (Heb. nissuin), which was marked by a colourful procession in which the betrothed girl was brought from her family home to the house of her groom. There, the legal tie between the two would be consummated.

Because Jewish tradition long regarded marriage as a form of contractual purchase, there were two distinct acts, the first of which consisted of payment of the price (the mohar) and a detailed agreement based on the conditions of the ‘sale’ between the two families followed later by the ‘purchaser’ taking possession of the object, which would occur in the second ceremony (the wedding).

So long as marriage was seen as a purchase agreement, the betrothal was the more vital of the two events but once women began progressively exerting their importance as individuals, marriage was less seen as a purchase and instead acquired a more meaningful moral significance. Once that happened, the betrothal began to be shaded by the actual wedding.

In other words, the girl had no say in who she married because that decision was made between hers and the prospect’s family, eventually becoming a mutually agreed legal contract. Leaving behind her parents and all the people she had grown accustomed to would have been traumatic for someone so young like Mary. And then to go live in an alien household would simply compound the problem.

Given that the betrothal period was a commitment in readiness for marriage, breaking it off was tantamount to having it in writing as a divorcement. In fact, betrothal is so alike a marriage that should the groom die within that period, the girl would be akin to a virgin widow. When Joseph discovered that Mary was pregnant, he could have swiftly annulled the relationship and thus formally instituted proceedings to actually divorce her. It was only because the angel got to him in time that helped save it from falling apart.

Surprisingly complex genealogical issues

Screen capture showing a pregnant Mary (on donkey) and Joseph (far right) bidding farewell to her parents Joachim and Anna as they embark for Bethlehem in the motion picture 'The Nativity Story' (2006) 

Mary’s descendant line is a little complex but we do nonetheless know that her cousin Elizabeth came from the genealogy of the original Levite high priest, Aaron (Lk 1:5). However, Mary herself may have had Davidic roots on her father’s side on the basis that Jesus would inherit “the throne of His father David…and reign over the house of Jacob forever” (Lk 1:32-33). Arguably, Luke’s mention of Jesus’ ancestry could offer us a look at Mary’s lineage as well although this isn’t without dispute (Lk 3:23-38).

On the other hand, Joseph’s case isn’t as clear cut. The Gospel of Matthew does mention in his genealogy that he was in fact a descendant of David and as such, was a member of the royal family. This was an important point because more than a thousand years of prophecies had pointed to Jesus coming from the seed of David. However, a possible fly in the ointment commonly called, the ‘curse of Jeconiah’ might get in the way and if this is proven true and applicable, Jesus might after all not be able to claim the throne of David.

The ‘curse of Jeconiah’ (a.k.a. ‘Jehoiachin,’ see 1 Chr 3:16 or ‘Coniah,’ see Jer 22:24) bears reference to the king of Judah who was captured by the Babylonians and deported (Est 2:6, 1 Chr 3:17). In fact, he is listed in the genealogy of Jesus and is in Joseph’s lineage (Mt 1:12). The prophet Jeremiah spoke of the same curse where God likened the king to a signet ring on His hand, which “I would pull you off” (Jer 22:24), symbolising the Lord’s intense displeasure with him. In verse 30, God pronounces a very clear curse, saying:

“Let the record show that this man Jehoiachin was childless. He is a failure, for none of his children will succeed him on the throne of David to rule over Judah.” (Jer 22:30, NLT, my emphasis)

The problem with this curse is that it appears to invalidate Jesus’ right to the throne of David. The Davidic Covenant promised that the Messiah, the ‘Son of David,’ would forever rule upon Jerusalem’s throne (1 Chr 17:11-14). However if Jesus is a descendant from the line of Jeconiah, this might actually not be possible because the curse would have been a severe compromise. It would have barred any of Jeconiah’s descendants – and that included Jesus – from claiming the throne of David!

To see if that is possible, let us consider the following three possibilities.

In the first possibility, we look at Jeconiah’s offspring for clues. Reading the text more closely, it is possible that God’s curse was specifically trained on his immediate offspring but not beyond. As I have highlighted above in verse 30, “none of his children” could be literal, meaning it doesn’t extend down the genealogical line.

What this then means is that the curse was only effective while Jeconiah was still alive. In fact, as it turned out, that was exactly what happened. In his failure over the three months of his abrupt reign after his capture and deportation to Babylon, none of his seven sons got to rule Judah (1 Chr 3:17-18).

While that was fairly straightforward, the second possibility mightn’t be. Here, we focus on Mary’s virgin birth where Jesus’ biological parentage comprised only one human, meaning Mary. No doubt that in Mary’s case, she was a descendant not of Jeconiah but of David (Lk 3:31).

As for Joseph, Mary’s betrothed, the closest role he played was that of Jesus’ legal father. He had no place in Jesus’ biological makeup because his contribution to His parentage was never a physical one. What this means is that Jesus retained the royal bloodline through Mary and with that, the curse of Jeconiah came to an abrupt halt since Joseph had no means of passing it on to Him.

As for the third possibility, God could have actually reversed the curse back on Jeconiah’s family. Let’s take a look at what Haggai told Zerubbabel, Jeconiah’s grandson as far as God would, in His pleasure, make a ‘signet ring’ for him on His hand:

“Tell Zerubbabel, the governor of Judah, that I am about to shake the heavens and the earth. I will overthrow royal thrones and destroy the power of foreign kingdoms. I will overturn their chariots and riders. The horses will fall and their riders will kill each other. But when this happens, says the Lord of Heaven’s Armies, I will honour you, Zerubbabel, son of Shealtiel, my servant. I will make you like a signet ring on My finger, says the Lord, for I have chosen you. I, the Lord of Heaven’s Armies, have spoken!” (Hag 2:21-23, NLT, my emphasis)

I certainly don’t believe that the “signet ring” was repeated here out of sheer coincidence since both Zerubbabel and Jeconiah are directly and closely related. In fact, it was repeated to show how God honoured and blessed the grandson and He used the same “ring” analogy to do it. Another interesting fact is that some rabbinical texts teach that Jeconiah did repent in Babylon, resulting in God forgiving him and lifting the curse.

Moving past the curse, let’s not forget that the apostle Paul’s introduction to his letter to the Romans bears reference to Jesus being of the seed of David as foretold in Scripture. From the promises, He was also to be the seed of the woman, which would then be necessitated by the virgin birth. From the prophet Isaiah, God made a similar promise that a virgin would conceive and bear a Son and His name would be Immanuel.

Part II: The trepidation of Mary’s heart



The moment Mary felt fear suddenly encountering the angel Gabriel in the motion picture 'The Nativity Story' (2006)

“Confused and disturbed, Mary tried to think what the angel could mean. ‘Don’t be afraid, Mary,’ the angel told her, ‘for you have found favour with God!” (Lk 1:29-30, NLT, my emphasis)

It is useful to note that Mary was hardly older than 14 years of age (if not younger) when she encountered the angel Gabriel. Fresh in her teen years, she was very likely an innocent and naïve girl. At that age, nothing prepares anyone for an unplanned meeting with an angel! So, for her to become “confused and disturbed” shouldn’t be surprising. The angel’s sudden appearance would have been startling enough to cause her to be uncertain and somewhat defensive.

In his Gospel, Luke said Mary was greatly troubled. The Greek translation for that word is ‘diatarassó’ (Gk. διαταράσσω), which is a verb for “to agitate greatly” or “greatly disturbed.” Within the context of how Luke uses the word, Canadian author and Professor of Hellenistic Greek, George Abbott-Smith (1864-1947) puts it as, “intensely going back-and-forth between inner thoughts and emotions.” In other words, she wasn’t exactly excited or awestruck but rather very undecided and unsure of herself.

Some people might think that such a rare encounter with an angel would make one the talk of the town but for Mary, it was probably just the opposite. In her state of confusion, she wouldn’t have been in the right frame of mind to stand at the top of the mountain and shout out joyously. Come to think of it, it probably wasn’t the best day of her life either. More likely, she had every reason to feel very troubled on the inside.

Seeing how Mary became so unsettled, the angel Gabriel responded, saying, “Don’t be afraid, Mary…” Here, the word ‘afraid’ comes from the Greek word ‘phobeó’ (Gk. φοβέομαι), which means “to terrify” or “to be in an apprehensive state.” It paints a picture of a very young girl gripped with fear, confusion and perplexity. But again, this shouldn’t be surprising.

It’s not as if any of us meets a real angel every day or if at all. When something – or someone – forces you to take a few steps back, it can be quite disconcerting, forcing all sorts of alarms to go off in your head that compel you to become defensive in the way you respond. It’s not just angels that would do that to any of us; sudden changes in general often force us to go on our back foot. But then most of us would react in the same way. And since Mary was so much younger than most of us, the whole experience would have been terrifying.

There’s no doubt too that a terrified Mary would be wondering what “favour” God found in someone like her. As Nathanael said, nothing amazing ever happened in Nazareth and that included its inhabitants. It was no magnet for academic brilliance or remarkable sportspeople. Neither was it a place where the rich and famous resided nor was it a seat of political power. It was a nothing town. And Mary was essentially a nothing person. So, why her?

The angel Gabriel said, “Don’t be afraid, Mary … for you have found favour with God.” In the Douay-Rheims Bible translation, the same verse reads quite differently:

“And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.” (Lk 1:28, DRB, my emphasis)

The Greek word for “favour” in this context is ‘kecharitomene’ (Gk. Κεχαριτωμένη), which literally, means, “You, who have been graced.” The KJV puts it as, “You that are highly favoured.” The interchangeability between the words “grace” and “favour” is not without logic. The original Greek word, ‘charito’ (or ‘charis’) means “a gift, something that is free or unmerited.”

In other words, grace is unmerited favour, something we do not deserve but nonetheless, God offers it to Mary (and us), which means that neither she nor anyone of us was born with it. It was His gift for something she did. In His eyes, Mary not only believed in Him but she walked in a way that pleased Him through spiritual growth and service. That certainly does not mean that she was sinless but instead, it said volumes about the way she went about life that all of us are equally as capable of but only a few would.

But even so, here’s the dichotomy – although Mary’s response might appear normal and spiritually healthy, there was a potential risk that could have brought ruin to such an opportunity. Recall that Mary was awash with fear on the sudden encounter with the angel Gabriel, which was why he had to reassure her not to. He didn’t even have to wait for her to say anything. Sensing her being “confused and disturbed,” it was enough for him to settle her nerves.



Mary (left) and her cousin Elizabeth (right) in Hebron in the motion picture 'The Nativity Story' (2006)

Mary could have seriously stumbled. She could have allowed her fear to get the better of her just like it is with us. Fear could have controlled her and then shift the whole narrative to a trajectory that was not God’s intention. On seeing something so unfamiliar as an angel, Mary could have run away in complete fear. Or she could have remained frozen, rooted to the ground and not respond at all. Quite possibly, fear could have consumed her to the extent that she’d chased the angel away.

In other words, any of us could have been just as shocked. Any of us could have reacted in a way that wouldn’t bring pleasure to God. Any of us could have produced a response that is neither fruitful nor productive let alone bring glory to Him. Make no mistake about it – we could all have ended up cowering in trembling and trepidation.

In truth, many of us are like that. We do live in fear, fearing one thing or another. Many of us allow fear to creep into our lives so much so that we become afraid of life itself. We become so unsure with every step we take because we unwittingly allow fear to reshape our lives. To be afraid is not about avoiding risks. Instead, being overly nervous and anxious shuts us off from literally anything that might have yielded better results than we thought. Invariably, what we end up doing is to mentally stumble ourselves.

Fear has many faces but that doesn’t mean all of us are familiar with them. Being negative and pessimistic is a real sign of fear. Negativity leading to depression is a result of uncontrolled fear. Turning back home and not having dinner just because of gathering dark clouds is a common form of fear. Watching a soccer match and being wildly fatalistic every time the opposition team is on the attack is another one although seemingly harmless. Hysteria at the first sign of the country’s declining economy is definitely another good example.

On an everyday basis, we can fear the food we eat and the drinks we consume, afraid that they may be contaminated. Because someone was kidnapped from her morning jog and now suspected dead, we fear going out for a walk. We hear of growing divorce numbers and then fear our spouse leaving us. With so many forms of crippling illnesses, we fear getting sick. As we grow old, we fear Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s or worse, both. And with crippling rising costs of living, we fear we might not have enough to retire on.

You can probably come up with your own examples. Fear can have such a grip on life that we waste a lot of time and effort fighting it when we could have used it to do positive things. Without a doubt, the one thing fear does to us is to cause us to lose touch with reality. We replace reality with a make-belief world that everything will fall into pieces around us. We become so mentally distorted simply because we encounter something far too unusual for us to understand or relate to.

And instead of remaining calm, reasonable and curious, we react like a trigger response, acting on our innate fear as part of a wider defensive mechanism as we seek to avoid, prevent or reject change. Therefore, rather than giving into an experience where we can gain something positive from, fear clouds our sensibilities and deny us all of that. It does that by overcrowding out what’s left of our faith, turning us into poor and aimless disciples.

So, while we call ourselves Christians, we have, in effect, turned into immovable monoliths who, after being stonewalled by fear, freeze at the thought of doing courageous things for Christ, things that would otherwise transform us from the inside out. In turn, fear prevents us from being in God’s plan.

If we are to remain true to Christ and powerfully equipped by the Holy Spirit, this means we must resist the kind of entrenched siege mentality that makes us grow our unbelief and become paranoid about others. We must stop ourselves from creating a breeding ground of hostility against everyone around us. If we leave fear unchecked, we will invariably allow it to control our minds and set us up for long-term failure.

Part III: The wonder in Mary’s mind



Mary in her encounter with the angel Gabriel in the motion picture 'The Nativity Story' (2006)

“‘You will conceive and give birth to a son and you will name Him Jesus. He will be very great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give Him the throne of His ancestor David. And He will reign over Israel forever: His Kingdom will never end!’ Mary asked the angel, ‘But how can this happen? I am a virgin.’” (Lk 1:31-34, NLT, my emphasis)

Once again, consider Mary’s age. We have to accept that as a very young teenager, we can’t count on her maturity. Despite being brought up by God-fearing parents, that doesn’t mean that she has the necessary wisdom to understand the angel’s message. Otherwise, she wouldn’t have asked such a question. Having said that, no one can fault her for asking and if truth be told, most of us would, in her shoes, have had done and said the same thing.

What is very important about the above passage is the angel’s proclamation of Jesus’ birth. It is, in the whole of Scripture, one of the most exalted and anticipated narratives to behold because it speaks of a time event that pretty much the whole world has been savouring. It is also the event that we keep celebrating every year by reminding ourselves what the angel said:

“He will be very great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give Him the throne of His ancestor David. And He will reign over Israel forever; His Kingdom will never end!” (Lk. 1:32-33, NLT)

In Jesus, the excitement of the fulfilment of the ages is about to come. The Messiah, so breathtakingly awaited in the history of God’s people, promises to bring to union, the everlasting reign of David and the pledge of life to the family of Jacob (Israel). And it seeks to do that by enabling His people to understand how special – and powerful – His Name is. Derived from the Hebrew word meaning “Saviour,” the name held enormous significance, denoting the promise of the One who will come forth and save His people.

All that is fine but no one in their right mind, not least Mary, could imagine how Jesus would come. None expected that she would be called to conceive a child in a totally unexpected way. It was both unimaginable and unthinkable. And of all people, God chose her to be the one to know two special roles – the one she was about to play and the one the child would fulfil in the salvation of all God’s people. It’s little wonder then that Mary needed to ask, “But how can this happen? I am a virgin” (Lk. 1:34, NLT).

In the original Greek manuscript, the word “virgin” (‘parthénos’ Gk. παρθένος) is actually not part of Mary’s original response. A clearer and purer version is available from the King James Version (KJV) Bible where the translation puts it as “…seeing I know not a man” (Lk 1:34, KJV), in which the word “know” is originally ‘ginṓskō’ (Gk. γινώσκω), meaning “to come to know, to recognise, to perceive.” Contextually, the word ‘ginṓskō’ refers to “sexual intimacy with a man.” So, given all that, what did Mary want to say?

Here are two simple possibilities:

Firstly, Mary might be thinking that what the angel proposed couldn’t happen because she was not intimate with a man, any man for that matter. Or she could be wondering how God could do this if the normal means of pregnancy wasn’t available given the fact that she had neither a man in her life nor was she promiscuous.

In that sense, what the angel said to her obviously had to be a supernatural act, a miracle no one had ever seen before. If the parting of the Red Sea was some sight to behold, this virgin birth would be seismically different. Mary’s response was justifiably innocent because even she knew that miracles couldn’t just occur all of a sudden but then as we know, this was how her own cousin’s husband, Zacharias, felt (Lk 1:18).

Or perhaps, secondly, Mary’s response revealed a complete utter disbelief not in a doubtful sense but more like an incredulity. The things that the angel said to her couldn’t possibly be within the scope of her understanding. We must be mindful that Mary was just an ordinary country girl in a rather insignificant town with a less-than-perfect reputation. It wouldn’t be too far-fetched to think that she might even question why something like this would happen to her. Mary’s response could therefore likely be one of wonderment and dazzled amazement though ultimately, nothing would remove her from her faith.

People often say that it’s never a good idea to question God especially if it’s done in doubt. Zacharias did that. He paid a price – temporarily, at least – with his disbelief. Mary certainly questioned but it was obvious that the angel didn’t perceive it to be something punishable. The fact is Mary wasn’t casting doubts or belittling his message and in that sense, God saw no issue with her inquisitiveness. And that’s a good thing to know.



Portrayals of Mary's parents Joachim and Anna in the motion picture 'The Nativity Story' (2006)

Mary’s question was different. God saw it as an opportunity for a very young girl to grow and learn. In the same way, we also benefit when we ask questions that help broaden our minds and hearts and enhance our understanding of God’s will. Asking questions and seeking the right answers deepen our faith and broaden our wisdom. It adds meaning and purpose to our Christian life and even if the questions draw no answers, the exploration of our faith will bring us closer to Him.

Mary’s question was born straight out of faith. Unlike Zacharias, it was not seeded in doubt.

Part IV: Mary’s humbleness in spirit



Portrayal of the angel Gabriel in the motion picture 'The Nativity Story' (2006)

“The angel replied, ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the baby to be born will be holy, and He will be called the Son of God. What’s more, your relative Elizabeth has become pregnant in her old age! People used to say she was barren but she has conceived a son and is now in her sixth month. For the word of God will never fail.’ Mary responded, ‘I am the Lord’s servant. May everything you have said about me come true.’ And then the angel left her.” (Lk 1:35-38, NLT, my emphasis)

Without a doubt, the most uniquely powerful message is in verse 35. There it is, the grounded truth revealed about faith that is centred on the triune God. In that verse alone, all three persons in God are revealed – God the Father whom we declare as “Most High” followed by Jesus, the “Son of God” and then the overshadowing presence of the Counsellor whom we know as the “Holy Spirit.” It is this power combining the three persons in a single breath that underscores God’s purest intention and purposeful design on Mary.

Now, let’s look at part of the last verse. The NLT Bible puts it as:

“Mary responded, ‘I am the Lord’s servant. May everything you have said about me come true.” (Lk 1:38, NLT, my emphasis)

Next, take a look at the King James Version (KJV) translation:

That, however, reads far more poignantly in the King James Version, which says:

“And Mary said, ‘Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.’” (ibid, KJV, my emphasis)

We see two different ways of saying the same thing but in my mind, one has a functional value in that it’s easy to understand what Mary is saying. On the other hand, the other is simply profound and powerful. Awesome even.

“Be it unto me according to thy word.” That means, may it be to me as you have said. That’s truly an incredible thing to say. Coming from such a young and simple country girl who, in our day and age, hasn’t even finished high school, that’s even more startling and humbling. That’s because Mary was well aware of what her submissiveness could actually mean. It’s easy to say words when you don’t mean it. It’s far harder to say what you mean knowing that there is a price to pay. Mary’s words could easily fall into the latter category.

Over two thousand years ago, life for someone like Mary was entirely different. Although betrothed, we know she lived with her parents. Saying such things could cause a serious fallout in her family. Despite their godliness, her parents would be under severe pressure to punish her and then to reject her episode with the angel. 

Most people – probably including her own parents – could view her encounter with the angel as an excuse to cover up an illicit adulterous affair with another man. In other words, very few would think that Mary wasn’t lying and that an angel did appear before her. Such a story was simply too incredible to be believable.

It is entirely plausible to believe that if the angel’s intervention was not timely, Mary’s betrothal to Joseph would already be annulled. No doubt his reaction would be strong but many would come to sympathise with him. The divorcement would be shameful and humiliating but it would set the stage for him to move on, leaving Mary with all the burden to fend for herself. With Joseph out of the picture, it would be very doubtful if she could ever be of marriageable material for any other eligible Jew at least in Nazareth.

In the strictest of Jewish traditions, a daughter who brings disgrace to the family could face serious repercussions. Depending on the extent of shame, the punishment could be severe. Adultery is a very grave allegation and if the parents truly believed Mary’s pregnancy had something to do with it, they would likely not want to have anything to do with her and that alone would have left her feeling very vulnerable.

Knowing that the townspeople would be deciding her fate would be even more devastating to such a young girl. If so, the rest is just downhill all the way. Branded an adulterer, it’s not difficult to see where that would lead to. With her parents having abandoned her, Mary would face persecution and legal problems. The most obvious thing she would have to face is stoning and like Stephen, there would be little chance for escape. In other words, a horrible death would have awaited her.

If, by some miracle, she were to escape severe persecution (meaning stoning), she would certainly have to wear the label of an adulteress or a harlot for the rest of her life. In practical terms, that would mean wherever she went, people would snigger, laugh and mock her. Men would assume and view her as nothing more than a ‘piece of meat.’ 

It’s easy to talk about getting her married off very quickly but finding a suitable suitor who would be willing to commit to it would be, at best, difficult. So with no family backing, Mary would easily find herself on her own and if she couldn’t get work to cover herself financially, she’d eventually find herself becoming a prostitute.



A tender moment between Mary and Joseph in the motion picture 'The Nativity Story' (2006)

Mary might be highly favoured in God’s eyes but if her life were to be turned upside-down (with a pregnancy she’d struggle to explain), that would be something else altogether. But as it turned out, it’s the kind of irony that underscores the exceptional way by which God works. Just as we think the worst of what could happen, God turns the tables and made it look like the greatest event the world has ever witnessed.

Of course, at the centre of it all was Mary’s choice. She agreed to present herself at God’s behest. Despite her tender age, she knew about being the Lord’s servant. She knew to be part of His will. And quite probably, Mary’s spiritual maturity was the result of godly parents who taught her well. And all this, in its gist, is the bedrock of our discipleship. In her encounter with the angel, Mary accepts the truth that God is sovereign. We can learn from her attitude and look to our relationship with God so that we too can serve the Lord obediently and submissively and not be a master of our own destiny.

Mary understood well enough not to be in the way of the Messiah who was to come. She was obviously well taught – to make such a decision at such a young age – by her parents to properly understand and accept her role as God’s instrument. This was especially so, knowing that she actually had an easier choice of avoiding all of that.

She could have elected to master her own destiny and focus purely on her own desires. She could easily have felt that it was far less threatening and more straightforward to steer clear of the difficulties and pain that could have gone her way. Considering the unavoidable ostracism, chastisement, mockery and serious life-threatening repercussions, it would have been very tempting to simply say no and walk away. After all, an inexplicable pregnancy was like a time bomb waiting to explode in her face.

Let’s admit it – getting involved in doing God’s work isn’t on top of everyone’s list. Most of us are far likelier to not want to because no involvement means no complications. Many of our ethnic Chinese Christians in Malaysia are wont to tell their children to stay away from church work because it doesn’t pay well (or even not at all) not to mention embarking on a pastoral career. And yet, Mary chose to respond to God positively. And in doing so, she set a precedent for us to do the same and say, “Behold the servant of the Lord, be it unto me according to Your word.”

The way we see it, the coming birth of Jesus had nothing to do with Mary’s plans or her timing. It wasn’t a centre stage for the world to declare Mary as the holiest person alive in the world because she wasn’t. No matter what the Roman Catholics might want to say, she wasn’t and never was. As a human, she was born with sin like all of us.

Instead, Jesus’ birth was all about God’s timing and the way He did things. From the exquisite choices He made and the perfection of His execution, it was a typical masterstroke. Mary might have found herself in a bit of a bother but the far larger picture was God’s beginning of a process of bringing the biggest and most important change to the world.

Through the coming of the world’s first Christmas, He has put into motion a path to redemption and reconciliation through Christ who brings to us the promise of salvation. And by that, He has opened a new way for us to review our lives, to realign our priorities and to reconsider how we can be part of His plan. And Mary’s response to the angel was central to it all. 

Although God’s chosen biological mother to the Messiah, Mary had no distinct advantage over any of us. As far as we know, she was neither a scholar nor someone with outstanding capabilities or unusually rare skills. All she was, was a young homely girl who was betrothed at that time. Her only ‘qualification,’ as far as many of us know, was that she could do house chores. But to God, none of this mattered. However, we can take courage, realising that Mary’s opportunity to respond to God is the same as what each of us is given today also. Since we’re all part of the family of God, this should not be a surprise.

But here’s the message we can all learn – we’re just like Mary and like her, we don’t have any qualifications that warrant us serving God in deference to others. We can stop counting on our university degrees or whatever honorific titles that add endless dotted capital letters after our names. We can forget about the glitzy material wealth on show because God won’t ever be interested in the least bit. Neither will He care about whatever power that comes with all the highfalutin positions in the dizzying corporate world.

Frankly, we have no place to be in service to God because our sinfulness puts paid to it. But in Mary, we see opportunity through grace and favour. We realise that we are on equal footing with someone like Mary. So long as we’re in the family of Jesus, we do have that amazing chance. Mary’s conduct in response to the angel certainly showed us the way.

A response of faith



Scene between Joseph and Mary in the motion picture 'The Nativity Story' (2006)

For more than two thousand years, the same story is told and retold at the end of every year throughout the world. That is incredible enough as it is but then we also somehow let Mary’s role slip through our fingers.

There is no doubt that the Good News begins with the main plot. It is predictable and significant all the same. Telling the story of Jesus’ birth is right at the centre of Christmas. It’s the cornerstone of how we keep the faith and persist in listening to the message year in and out. However, in Mary’s role comes a slightly different message but nonetheless, it is the same one God has for each and every one of us today.

Just like how He put Mary in a fix through the angel Gabriel, what if He turns our own routines upside-down just to see if we have what we need to be committed to His will? What if the things He asks us to do can potentially derail our routines and even place us on the brink of survival? What if we realise that to submit to God makes us a target for persecution or condemnation?

For all that, once again, Mary is our benchmark. The late Karl Barth, Protestantism’s greatest theologian of the previous century in his book entitled, ‘The Great Promise: Luke 1,’ referred to Jesus’ mother:

“Here is an event, unique and beyond question repetition, an event which is totally without analogies, which stands out of the series of other events at the Advent as much as Mary is a figure absolutely raised above all the other figures of the Advent: the extreme end of those who have received the promise and now wait for the Lord.” (Barth, 2004)

That’s a very bold statement to make but it’s also refreshingly accurate. If we see John the Baptist as someone who reminds us to prepare the way of the Lord, Mary resonates with the greater need to prepare Him room. In her, we see the real response of faith.

This brings me to the time when I was a student at the school of my father’s alma mater. A Roman Catholic missionary school with a past reputation the envy of many in the country then, I recall a wooden life-size statue of Mary standing erect but quietly near the entrance to the chapel that has since been dismantled to make way for a hostel on the same floor for Muslim boarders.

Those were the days when I had to walk past the statue on the way to attend catechism classes. As a young teenager during then, I remember that she looked composed, pure and flawless. Indeed, there was that quiet strength about her. And so, just to walking past and looking ever briefly at it, there was that undeniable ‘presence’ I felt. Of course, being a Roman Catholic school, Mary’s reverence was undeniable and unavoidable. In those ‘politically incorrect’ days, that statue was a powerful reminder of the school’s roots with the Holy See.

Going back further to my prep school days, kids like us were required to begin our classes with a prayer. We would also end our day with a prayer before we were let out of class. Looking back, I was grateful for the experience because it was in school that we learned about the Lord’s Prayer as well as the Ave Maria, the traditional Catholic prayer seeking Mary’s intercession.

In the early Eighties, I became a born-again Christian but I never forgot my roots in the missionary school. Yet of course, in our Protestant setting, we spend far less time knowing, let alone understanding, who Mary was. 

Other than acknowledging that she was Jesus’ biological mother, she received very little attention as far as the contemporary Christian position. We can attest to this by looking at the limited attention she received beyond the four Gospels and Luke’s rendition of the Acts. Paul’s letters, for that matter, mention nothing of Mary other than to say ‘mother of Jesus.’ It’s as if she never existed.

Here’s a quick look at the two spots in the Old Testament where Mary is mentioned not by name but indirectly:

Gen 3:15 – Moses alluded to Mary when he mentioned “the woman” here.

Isa 7:14 – Isaiah refers to Mary as “a virgin” in his prophecy about the birth of Jesus.

But of course, the Gospels provide most of the references to Mary because understandably, she lived during the time in which the New Testament is depicted to us. Other than Luke 1:26-38, here are the following entries where both Luke and Matthew including Mark* do mention Mary by name, meaning that there are no issues with uncertainty or ambiguity:

Author	Passages
Luke	Lk 1:41-43, 48, 2:19, 34-35 including Acts 1:13-14
Matthew	Mt 1:20, 2:11
Mark	Mk 6:3 * Although Mark mentions Mary in this verse, he says nothing about the virgin birth of Christ

Yet, there are also other incidents where Luke, Matthew, John and Paul indirectly refer to Mary without her name being mentioned. Here are the ones:

Author	Passage	Observation
Luke	Lk 2:46-49	Luke recorded the incident in the temple where Mary and Joseph found young Jesus among the rabbis, listening to them and also asking them remarkable questions. In these verses, the apostle referred to Mary as “his mother” as well as “your father and I” but there is no dispute that these references point to her.
	Lk 2:51	The same applies to this verse where Mary in conjunction with Joseph are referred to as “them.”
Matthew	Mt 12:46	In this verse, Matthew refers to Mary indirectly as “his mother”
John	Jn 2:3-10	In this verse, John refers to Mary very clearly as “the mother of Jesus.”
	Jn 19:25-27	The same goes here with Mary referred to indirectly as “his mother”
	Rev 11:19-12:2	John in his visions sees Mary but he only refers to her as “a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and on her head, a crown of twelve stars; she was with child and she cried out in her pangs of birth, in anguish for delivery.” We learn that the queen of the apostles (the twelve stars in Revelation) is said to be Mary.
	Rev 12:5	Again, John refers to “she” as Mary within the context of the reader knowing who her son is.
	Rev 12:7	In the war waged by the dragon against “the woman” or “her,” John is referring to Mary.
Paul	Gal 4:4	Paul refers to Mary indirectly as “born of woman”

Since the historical Protestant position tended to ignore her*, we have a debt to the Roman Catholic Church for their effort in ensuring Mary’s place in the good story.

* NOTE: It is important to not misread this. Most Protestant churches then and today widely acknowledge Mary’s position particularly in God choosing her and also her status as the mother of Jesus. It is apparent that Mary exuded godliness and holiness and that she was remarkably obedient and submissive to God. It is also correct to say that God saw favour in her as Luke testified. But unlike the Roman Catholic Church, the Protestant position is not to venerate her. 
Hence we do not have the same position of praying for her intercession for the simple reason that she is not a God. As for the allegation that Christians are inclined to ‘ignore’ Mary, there is actually no concrete proof of that other than the fact that outside of the Gospels (essentially Luke and Matthew only), pretty much every author in the New Testament failed to acknowledge her or the virgin birth of Christ. But there are good reasons for this and here are some facts worth noting:

- Each Gospel was written to address a different audience and therefore, it records a different aspect of Jesus’ life.

- Mark’s Gospel focuses on Jesus as a servant of the Lord and therefore says little to nothing about His first thirty years of life. Mark considers those years as not to his purpose.

- John’s Gospel focuses on Jesus as God from all eternity but who became a human (Jn 1:14). He emphasises the sublime truth that Jesus came into the world not in the manner in which He came. Like Mark, he also says nothing about His first thirty years of life. John has little need to talk about the virgin birth since he already informed his readers that Jesus had existed in the beginning as God.

- Just because both Mark and John are silent about the virgin birth doesn’t mean they were ignorant of it. It only means that for reasons (given above), they chose not to mention it. Yet if we study the two Gospels carefully, we will take note that they imply the knowledge of the virgin birth without directly mentioning it.

- For example, Mark calls Jesus, Mary’s son but says nothing of Joseph being the father because he was aware of not wanting to contradict the virgin birth.

- In John’s Gospel, Jesus’ divine origins begin with the Jews accusing Him of being illegitimate, meaning they were aware of Mary being pregnant before her marriage. This then implies that they also had knowledge of Joseph considering divorcement after the fact. John’s decision to record this dispute with the religious leaders as proof that the virgin birth was well evident and no ordinary event.

- Paul mentions nothing of the virgin birth or Mary because he doesn’t deal with the life and story of Jesus. Yet in Galatians 4:4, he does concede knowledge of it. That verse alone attests to Paul’s acknowledgement that Jesus had a mother but not a human father.

As we struggle with our faith, Mary becomes someone from whom we can learn much. Although many Christians have long understood her unassuming part in the overall New Testament, real history suggests that her place in the virgin birth of Jesus is forever immortalised. Her response paints a powerful picture of faith that is commensurate with God’s grace.

As Scottish theologian P.T. Forsyth (1848-1921) said, “Faith is not something we possess but something that possesses us.” It is the right response when God reveals Himself in our lives. It is what obedience drives us to do in the midst of God’s grace.

In Christ, we encounter a God whose grace defines what truly loving and giving is. Nowhere else can we experience grace the way God reveals in His love and care for us. It is His real character in action that epitomises grace that literally no one can match let alone offer. It is unmatched because it is neither superficial nor sentimental. It has no precedence and there is nothing like it. To experience God’s grace is to understand why He is who He is.



A scene involving Mary and her family members in Nazareth in the motion picture 'The Nativity Story'(2006)

From the incident with the angel Gabriel, Mary saw God’s love and care in action, learning some important lessons along the way. Firstly, God’s love is neither fake nor corny. It’s as real as it can ever be but it’s not something to get soppy over. Even so, as Mary’s encounter proves, God’s love is not always easy or straightforward to handle. 

Just as birth is accompanied by cries of joy as much as cries of pain, we also experience the piercing pain and emptiness when we confront loss in the form of death. From the beginning to the end of life’s journey, God’s love can often be tougher than we realise. For Mary, it began with the simple command, with “You will name Him Jesus” (Lk 1:31b, NLT).

When we consider that Mary’s big miraculous moment – the virgin birth – required no human intervention, our faith too doesn’t because it is grounded on trusting God. We place our complete trust in God to deliver us from the pits of darkness and despair. Real faith is not one that is inherited because our spouse or partner or parents are Christian. Instead real faith is something we own because it is a gift we receive directly from God. It is founded on a relationship that matters so centrally in our lives. And none of it has anything to do with anyone else but God.

Shortly after my mother passed away, I spoke to my father about his faith. Aware that his faith had long hinged on my mother’s – he became a Christian because mom decided to be one – it was important for him to understand that he could no longer just be a Christian because of her. Now that she was no longer with us, such faith was always going to be fragile and vulnerable. I explained to him the importance of owning his own faith, meaning claiming it to be his rightful own. And to do that, he needed to personally seek God and have a direct relationship with Him.

In other words, my father’s relationship with God has to be one where he experiences His love first hand and perhaps even be a witness to the wonders and miracles He brings to His life. It was time for him to truly understand why he believes in Him rather than to merely follow, in obedience, what mom did before she passed away. It was, in many ways, the most important thing he had to do for his own self now that it is something solely between him and God. Without mom around, this was actually the only thing remaining that he must do to bring real meaning to his life.

Thinking about how Mary’s response placed her in the most unsettling position, requiring God to intervene in order to reinstate her betrothal, we are not much different. When we accept God into our lives, we allow our faith to be used for the larger battles in our lives, the kind that has the same potential to rock us beyond our imagination. They can come in different guises – failures, crises, setbacks, discouragements and even deaths – but they’re the ones that God uses to shape us for things to come.

No one told Mary what to say at that moment with the angel. Neither her parents nor anyone. In the same way, with the exception of God, no one else can create faith in us also. We may think that we became Christian because we were inspired by someone else but they only shape our journey because behind the whole life-scape, it’s always God who is pulling the strings and orchestrating things and people in place. Only He has the plan as to how we discover faith in each of us. Only He tells us that we have been chosen and blessed. Only His grace finds favour in us.

So typically of God, He chooses those we least expect to do His will. The prophet Isaiah reminds us that after all, He doesn’t think the way we do (Isa 55:8-9); so, it’s no surprise that those who aren’t on our radar are often the ones He favours, Mary being an excellent example. A young girl from an evidently poor family living in the backwaters of Nazareth isn’t the kind that features on a hardbound coffeetable book but it is her whom God called for the Saviour of the world to be born though there is a further catch – the birth of Jesus was to be before Mary’s wedding and not after.

God’s decision for the birth to be prior to her wedding was not without reason although still, it would spark serious repercussions in Mary’s young life. Jesus had to come before she could have her own biological children. Jesus had to stand out as a virgin birth, immaculately conceived by the seed of the Holy Spirit and not man. In having His way, it is us who found it unacceptable. It is our culture and tradition and narrow-mindedness as well as our unwillingness to accept God’s unlimited sovereign power stands in the way of us understanding. Till today, there are still millions who refuse to.

But God is God. In Him, rules are rewritten or in this case, they never mattered. In the Jewish tradition and culture of the day, a married woman’s position in society is a reflection of her husband’s and also her ability to conceive and bear offspring. The Bible offers many visages of this.

Hannah suffered at the hands of Penninah, the other wife of Elkanah, her husband. In 1 Samuel 1:6-16, Scripture tells the story of how barrenness caused Hannah to weather the storms of society. Penninah mocked her for it as she bore Elkanah child after child while all Hannah could do was to stand and watch in torment. As Lillian Klein wrote, “the desperation of Hannah’s vow indicates that merely bearing a male child would establish her in the community.”

Sarah, wife of the patriarch Abraham, was also in a similar position. Like Hannah, she too was barren but she was far older. Thinking that she was too far advanced in age to bear even a child, she resigned herself to suggestion that their Egyptian maid, Hagar, procreate with Abraham (Gen 16:2-4). 

All that did was to shift the balance of the dynamics to the point where the maid no longer respected her (v.4) simply because her mistress could not bear children but on the other hand, she could. The torture became unbearable enough for Sarah to blame Abraham even though it was her who asked him to sleep with the maid (v.5).

In the Book of Ruth, we learn that after being widowed, Ruth the Moabitess decided to remain with her Israelite mother-in-law Naomi who herself was also a widow, saying, “Where you go, I will go and where you stay, I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God” (Ruth 1:16-17). In so doing, of course, Ruth accepted the God of the Israelites as her God and the Israelites as her people. 

In 2:11, Ruth “left [her] father and mother and [her] homeland and came to live with a people [she] didn’t know before,” which is tantamount to saying that she cared enough for Naomi to give up everything she had before.

But of course, by doing so, she also left no guarantee of personal security for herself. This was a huge risk Ruth took especially when considering the relationship between the people of Israel and Moab at that time.

Israel’s enmity with Moab

The history between the two nations would begin sometime around when the Israelites were journeying to the Promised Land. Along the way, they defeated Sihon, the king of the Amorites (Num 21:21-31). Fearing the same fate could befall him, Balak, the king of Moab enlisted the prophet Balaam to lay a curse on the Israelites (Num 22). However, once the prophet encountered God, Numbers 24:10 tells us that he instead declared favour on Israel before the Lord, which obviously wasn’t what Balak had in mind. And because of Balak and Balaam’s actions, no Moabites were allowed to enter “the assembly of the Lord” (Dt 23:3).

Yet, we discovered later that despite this impasse, Israelites began to intermarry with Moabites and worse, worshipped pagan Moabite gods. Further down the Book of Numbers, God, in His righteous anger, commanded Moses, saying, “Take all the chiefs of the people and hang them in the sun before the Lord, that the fierce anger of the Lord may turn away from Israel” (Num 25:4). Given this piece of history, it should cause Ruth to hesitate in returning with Naomi to Israel. Such was her boldness and loyalty.

Without a doubt, Ruth’s devotion to Naomi came with a huge cost for her. Not only had she left her own people to live with the enemy, she had basically turned her back on them, knowing the tumultuous history between Moab and Israel. There is also that little aspect of Ruth returning to her homeland as a traitor and if that proved to be the case, it’s unimaginable what they could do to her. Only Naomi’s other widowed daughter-in-law Orpah would have understood her fate, having reluctantly chosen to return home.

Mary herself understood the tradition and culture of her own people too. According to the apocryphal Gospel of James, Mary was the daughter of Joachim and Ann, both of whom were godly and pious people. Anne was barren and at her advanced age, her chances of bearing a child were as good as either Sarah or Hannah. 

Being barren was a very difficult piece of truth to swallow, given how narrowly focused Jewish tradition was at those who couldn’t contribute to family building. But they did what Hannah did with Samuel – her parents offered Mary to service as a consecrated virgin in the Temple of Jerusalem.



Joseph and Mary enters Bethlehem in the motion picture 'The Nativity Story' (2006)

Without a doubt, Mary was cherished, loved and chosen by God for who she was. And in responding in faith, the Lord placed in her, the Seed of promise where she would be central to the birth of the Saviour for all generations to come. And it’s the same for us. Mary’s experience is available to us. 

Our status with God has nothing to do with social success, material wealth or fame. No skills we acquire or our popularity are needed for God to find favour in us. Remember, we are loved first and with that, we can turn to God in faith, knowing that in Him, we are empowered to do great things.

In Mary’s response, some say it was an example of weakness. Many feminists reel at the idea of a young girl who timidly submitted to God when she could have asserted herself with boldness. They expect someone like Mary to take the upper hand and asked questions and sought assurance before taking on the world with the virgin birth.

When compared to the story of her cousin’s son, John the Baptist, Mary’s humble demeanour was never going to be popular with contemporary thinking. On the other hand, the rough-and-tough John the Baptist with his famous thunderous voice would be a more saleable proposition. In contrast to Mary’s perceived feebleness, John epitomised strength and bravado. But even so, God liked what He saw in her – that beautiful inner strength that gave her a quiet aura.

And that quiet strength – meekness in any other word – prepared her for great things at such a young age. She was able to do things that many others at her age might not have been able to. Consider that in her final trimester, Mary made the long trip to Bethlehem. That couldn’t have been easy. Mothers today would be in a hue and cry if their daughters in a similar state were to travel that far on a donkey.

And although the Bible doesn’t record it, Mary’s arrival in Bethlehem wasn’t greeted by a rapturous welcome. She and Joseph were shunned, which was why they had such great difficulties finding somewhere to stay the night and invariably, give birth. In actual fact, history tells us that there was no inn (or tavern) in Bethlehem itself and that the nearest one was quite farther down the route closer to Jerusalem. 

With Mary’s reputation (pregnancy out of wedlock), no Jew wanted to be seen offering a helping hand. There were probably rooms available but they were all out of bounds for Mary and Joseph. This was just one of many such stigmatised ill-treatments they received up till the time of Jesus’ birth. And so in that sense, Jesus was brought into the world under very trying circumstances; certainly not the kind that we’ve been hearing all our lives.

But that wasn’t the end of it. After the birth, there was no luxury of lying about and relaxing. For whatever rest that Mary certainly deserved, there was none accorded because of the threat hanging over their heads. With the tyrannical Herod on a rampage and hell-bent on having Jesus killed, she and Joseph had to escape as quickly as possible to Egypt. Although she was no longer pregnant, having an infant in tow would be just as difficult especially knowing that their lives were in constant danger.

Even after the threat was over – Herod the Great died shortly thereafter around 4BC – Mary then had to deal with the formative years of Jesus’ life as a little boy, a son whom she would love but yet proved a struggle to understand because here was a kid who was far from ordinary. Let’s not forget that in those years, Mary had other children as well. We don’t know how well they (the children) all got along with a young Messiah in the mix and what that meant for Mary.

None of these, although testy, would have prepared a much-older Mary to kneel before the cross on which her son was nailed, hung to die. Being versed in Scripture courtesy of pious parents, she would have been aware of the prophecies of a Saviour who would come to take on the sins of the world but nothing could prepare a mother to watch her son this way even if she knew why. As she watched her son in agony, a sorrowful Mary drew strength from God, knowing all too well that this was well within the Lord’s will. Her strength was in God. Her strength glorified Him.

Of course, none of this mean Mary was fearless. Far from it. Even as she committed to the Lord’s plan before the angel Gabriel, she would have known what would happen to her son who was set to fulfil the Father’s will. Never underestimate the gravity of this. 

Remember, she was only a young and innocent girl when she was thrust into the limelight. Acknowledging the angel’s instruction was one thing but placed at the centre of the world’s most important event was something else altogether. This was history in the making but for Mary, it was probably truly frightening.

What Mary felt, we’ll never really know because Luke didn’t offer us a deeper sense of it. But nowhere in any of our lives will we ever fully understand the depth of it. Nowhere will we have any stories to compare with Mary’s. We think we have, that is, until we come to grips with what Mary had to go through, what her response was and what it meant to her in the immediate aftermath. While our stories might have some personal individual impact, Mary’s story transformed all four corners of the world.

We keep reading about the Christmases through all the years gone by. Some of us get to experience it in more than one country. Yet we cannot properly perceive the reality of what happened that day when Mary was met with by the angel Gabriel. Words can only help us form a certain picture in our minds but it’s impossible to fully know or feel the extent of it.

And yet despite all the fear, Mary’s strength sprang from nowhere. Like a single green leaf sprouting from a ground destroyed by a bushfire, there is hope in faith. Though this is strength borne of suffering, it couldn’t have come from ourselves. We are too weak for that. And faith itself doesn’t prepare us for pain, sadness or disappointment. Just as Mary experienced, faith alone without resilience is always tough. Even at so young an age, she was not spared of her humanity but in God, she could draw great strength and an iron resolve to live life to the fullest and to live it redemptively.

A response in obedience



Mary contemplating after her encounter with the angel Gabriel in the motion picture 'The Nativity Story' (2006)

And there you have it. The same usual Christmas story told and retold over the ages, faithfully this time every year across the world. However, this year, we have the chance of looking at it through the lens of a very young and unassuming girl whose faith has now become our focal point. And still, despite how much ground we’ve covered here, there can be some of you who may have lingering questions, questions that are likely borne of intellectual frustration for I cannot think of any other reason.

Some of you might ask why Mary, after asking the right question, chose not to wait for all her doubts to be answered. Why did she put up with all the risks without being given any assurances herself? How could anyone, much less a girl so young, accept at face value what the angel said? Why didn’t she come up with some tougher questions? Why accept everything the angel said in reply? Why didn’t she just keep probing?

Yet none of these are necessarily intellectual questions. They’re simply questions anyone could have asked. More so, if you doubt God has the best interest in your future. Or if you’re unsure that His will is good enough for you. Maybe you think it’s too compromising to leave everything to Him. Perhaps you’re worried that the trade-off is you lose your sense of comfort or freedom. If these are the kind of issues you have, they’re hardly intellectual. Rather, they all have one thing in common – fear.

Swiss Protestant theologian, the late Emil Brunner (1889-1966) once wrote, “Faith is obedience, nothing else; literally, nothing else at all.” Quite possibly, he was referring to Mary’s response to the angel Gabriel. Faith isn’t about dwelling on what we don’t understand. It’s also not about procrastinating over anything because we can’t decide. Instead, faith is being obedient to God so that we can be safely assured to be integral to His will.

And so, faith is not an act. It is not a flash in the pan or something that comes and goes. It is, on the other hand, a process. Faith is an outpouring of reliance on God, leaving whatever we don’t know behind. We care about what we know and what we know is God’s eternally reassuring love for us. As for whatever else that we have neither knowledge of nor a proper understanding about, we’re better off leaving them the way they are. If we can do that, then we can commit all of ourselves to the task of knowing and understanding about God in Christ.

In taking one last look at the angel Gabriel’s message, we may find something quite extraordinary – as God readies for a seemingly impossible miracle (the virgin birth), Mary, on the other hand, has to prepare herself to face ridicule, have her morals questioned and then very likely be alienated, suffering in the pain of rejection and persecution.

But God didn’t choose an extraordinary person to go through all of that. He didn’t choose a well-matured young woman in her prime. He also didn’t choose a married woman who would understand about pregnancies either. Instead Mary was simply an ordinary little country girl who probably wasn’t thinking about getting pregnant and having babies. At 12 years old or thereabouts, that is hardly the prospect. Rather, she would have been preoccupied with house chores and not much else.

And for all that, Mary’s response leave us with the most powerful few words that may have gone fairly unnoticed for centuries but this Christmas, they resonate beautifully with our faith. “Behold the servant of the Lord, be it unto me according to Your word,” she replied. That alone made her truly exceptional and someone we can humbly learn from.

Recommended reading materials

Allison, Dale C. and Davies, W.D. (May 2005) Matthew: A Shorter Commentary (London, UK: T&T Clark International) available at https://www.amazon.ca/Matthew-Commentary-W-D-Davies/dp/0567082490

Barth, Karl (Apr 2004) The Great Promise: Luke 1 (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers) available at https://www.amazon.com/Great-Promise-Karl-Barth/dp/1592446507

Bond, Helen and Goodacre, Mark and Ilan, Tal and Maunder, Chris and Peskowitz, Miriam and Charlesworth, James (Aug 2011) Mary – A Central Figure (BBC Religion) accessible at http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/christianity/history/virginmary_1.shtml

Brownrigg, Canon Ronald and Brownrigg, Ronald (Nov 2001) Who’s Who in the New Testament (New York, NY: Routledge, 2^nd Edition) available at https://www.amazon.com/Whos-Testament-Canon-Ronald-Brownrigg/dp/0415260361

Brunner, Emil (Sept 2002) Dogmatics, Volume 3 (Library of Theological Translations) (v.3) (James Clarke Lutterworth) available at https://www.amazon.com/Dogmatics-Christian-Consummation-Theological-Translations/dp/0227172191 (Note: Translated by Hans Freund from the German original ‘Die Verheissung’)

Carlson, Stephen C. (Dec 2018) Portraits of Mary in the Gospels (Bible Odyssey) accessible at https://www.bibleodyssey.org/en/people/related-articles/portraits-of-mary-in-the-gospels   

Fathers of the Church: The History of Joseph the Carpenter (New Advent) accessible at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0805.htm

Forsyth, P.T. (1978) God the Holy Father (Edinburgh, U.K.: St Andrew Press) available at https://www.amazon.com/God-Holy-Father-P-T-Forsyth/dp/0715204068

Ehrman, Bart D. (Sept 2005) Lost Scriptures: Books that Did Not Make It into the New Testament (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, First Printing Edition) available at https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Scriptures-Books-that-Testament/dp/0195182502

Enns, Paul (Feb 2008) The Moody Handbook of Theology (Moody Publishers, Revised, Expanded edition). Available at https://www.amazon.com/Moody-Handbook-Theology-Paul-Enns/dp/0802434347

Gambero, Luigi S.M. (Sept 2006) Mary and the Fathers of the Church: The Blessed Virgin Mary in Patristic Thought (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 59,570th Edition) available at https://www.amazon.com/Mary-Fathers-Church-Blessed-Patristic/dp/0898706866 (original title: Maria nel pensiero dei padri della Chiesa)

Hanks, Patrick and Hardcastle, Kate and Hodges, Flavia (Jul 2006) A Dictionary of First Names (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2nd Edition, The Oxford Reference Collection) entry for Mary, available at https://www.amazon.com/Dictionary-First-Oxford-Reference-Collection/dp/0198800517

Jeremias, Joachim (1969) Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, translated from the third German edition, 1962) available at https://www.amazon.com/Jerusalem-Time-Jesus-Joachim-Jeremias/dp/B009ABY6FU

Klein, Lillian (Mar 2009) Hannah: Bible (Jewish Women’s Archive) accessible at https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/hannah-bible

Klein, Lillian R. (n.d.) Hannah: Maligned Victim and Social Redeemer in Brenner, Athalya (editor) (Jun 2000) A Feminist Companion to Samuel and Kings (Sheffield, U.K.: Sheffield Academic Press, Feminist Companion to the Bible (Second) Series (Book 7)) available at https://www.amazon.com/Feminist-Companion-Samuel-Kings-Second/dp/1841270822

Luginbill, Prof. Robert Dean (no date) Mary ‘Full of Grace’ (Ichthys) accessible at https://ichthys.com/mail-Mary-full-of-grace.htm

Oakes, John (Jul 2005) Who are other Historians other than Josephus and is their work different from the “Writing o (Evidence for Christianity) accessible at http://evidenceforchristianity.org/who-are-other-historians-other-than-josephus-and-is-their-work-different-from-the-writing-o/

Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, Sir James and Coxe, A. Cleveland (editors) (1886) Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. 8: The Twelve Patriarchs, Excerpts and Epistles, The Clementina, Apocrypha, Decretals, Memoirs of Edessa and Syriac Documents, Remains of the First Ages [1886] (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co.) available at https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/coxe-ante-nicene-fathers-volume-8 and https://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/coxe-ante-nicene-fathers-the-writings-of-the-fathers-down-to-a-d-325-10-vols

Sandmel, Samuel (May 1979) Philo of Alexandria: An Introduction (New York, NY: Oxford University Press) available at https://www.amazon.com/Philo-Alexandria-Introduction-Samuel-Sandmel/dp/0195025156

Schauss, Hayyim (1976) The Lifetime of a Jew (Union of American Hebrew Congregations) available at https://www.amazon.com/Lifetime-Jew-Hayyim-Schauss/dp/B000HBRGY0/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&qid=1472218261&sr=8-1&keywords=lifetime+of+a+jew&linkCode=sl1&tag=myjewishlearn-20&linkId=4f5e55ba93f3eced27bfb9b99d0f1126

Stewart, Don (n.d.) Why Do We Find the Virgin Birth Only Recorded in Matthew and Luke? (Blue Letter Bible) accessible at https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_1329.cfm

Tabor, Dr. James (Apr 2018) Mark and John: A Wedding at Cana – Whose and Where? (Bible History Daily) accessible at https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-topics/new-testament/mark-and-john-a-wedding-at-cana-whose-and-where/

Tatum, W. Barnes (Jan 1994) John the Baptist and Jesus: A Report of the Jesus Seminar (Westar, OR: Polebridge Press) available at https://www.amazon.com/John-Baptist-Jesus-Report-Seminar/dp/0944344429

Translation of Luke 1:28 “Greetings, favoured one!” (Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange Beta) accessible at https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/11627/translation-of-luke-128-greetings-favored-one

Wink, Walter (Oct 2000) John the Baptist in the Gospel Tradition: Society for New Testament Studies Monograph (Book 7) (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock Publishers) available at https://www.amazon.com/John-Baptist-Gospel-Tradition-Testament/dp/1579105297

Wittstock, Peter (Jul 2004) Hear Him! The One-Hundred Twenty-Five Commands of Jesus (Xulon Press) available at https://www.amazon.com/Hear-Hundred-Twenty-Five-Commands-Jesus/dp/1594674574

Yonge, Charles Duke (translator) (1995) The Works of Philo – Complete and Unabridged (Hendrickson Publishers, New Updated Edition) accessible at https://www.elib.biz/go.php?q=the%20works%20of%20philo%20complete%20and%20unabridged (take note that this is a subscription website)

Younger, K. Lawson (Feb 2002) Judges and Ruth (The NIV Application Commentary) (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 0002nd Edition) available at https://www.amazon.com/Judges-Ruth-NIV-Application-Commentary/dp/0310206367