The annunciation of the birth of John the Baptizer to Zechariah is the beginning of Luke’s Gospel narrative. It begins with the statement placing his story within the reign of Herod (verse 5) and ends with the statement of Elizabeth’s confinement and her explanation of the confinement (verse 25). The previous section, which ends at verse 4, is his personal introduction to Theophilus. The next section, beginning at verse 26, begins the story of the annunciation to Mary. The majority of the pericope is taken up with the interaction between Zechariah and the angel Gabriel.

In the larger context of Luke’s Gospel, the two annunciation pericopes, together with the two birth narratives (John and Jesus), form a larger unit which is often studied as a whole. In my opinion, the annunciation and birth of Jesus often overshadow the John narratives so that the John material receives less attention than it deserves. This under-reading and under-attending to the annunciation of John robs us of some of the richness of Luke’s Gospel as a whole.

The John annunciation narrative (JAN) is not read in the Revised Common Lectionary nor the Book of Common Prayer. It is also not in the Lesser Feasts and Fasts. Most articles on the Lukan birth narratives focus either on the Jesus passages or treat the birth material as a whole. While the issue is not under view here, it might be an interesting study to survey the liturgical history of the passage. If it received attention in the past, it has certainly fallen into disuse today.

Within the New Testament itself, neither the Lukan or Matthean birth narratives receive attention outside of the pericopes themselves. The epistles and the preaching recorded in Acts are devoid of references to the birth of Jesus or John (Evans, 137). There is the highly figurative reference to the birth of Jesus in Revelation 12, but it could hardly be considered much of a commentary on the original passage. Even in the Gospel of Luke itself (or the companion volume of Acts) there is no reference back to the birth narratives. I will argue, however, that the JAN is essential to the literary and thematic structure of the Gospel of Luke.

The only textual issue of concern is the possible variant of proseleusetai for proeleusetai in verse 17. The variant, found in B* C L f¹³, is considered very unlikely by textual scholars (Metzger, 129).

The translation of the passage is fairly straightforward, with the RSV giving a fairly literal rendering. There are no major translational issues in the passage. Translators do have to make a decision how to translate the heavily Semitic Greek in the beginning of verse 5, with the RSV giving: "In the days of Herod" where it states literally in Greek: "It happened in the days of Herod."

Structurally, this passage fits into a tightly organized set of birth and childhood narratives. It has seven sections: annunciation of John’s birth; annunciation of Jesus’ birth; visit of Mary to Elizabeth; birth, circumcision and naming of John; birth of Jesus with circumcision and naming; and Jesus in the Temple at twelve years of age (Evans, 139). The relationship between the John account and the Jesus account is especially closely related, with many parallels between the two. The function of placing the two accounts together seems to be to highlight Jesus (Fitzmyer, 315). In every parallel, Jesus comes out ahead. Jesus receives twice as much space as John. John is born to a barren (steira) woman; Jesus is born to a virgin (parthenon). John will be "the prophet of the Most High" (verse 1:76), but Jesus will be "the Son of the Most High" (verse 1:32) (Green, 51).

Within the JAN itself, there is also a tight structure as the central section of the pericope (vv. 8-23) form a chiasm:

(A) Service, Sanctuary, People (vv 8-10)

(B) Angel’s Appearance and Zechariah’s Response (vv 11-12)

(C) Announcement of Good News (vv 13-17; cf. v 19)

(B’) Zechariah’s Objection and Angel’s Response (vv 18-20)

(A’) People, Sanctuary, Service (vv 21-23) (Green, 67)

The effect of the chiasm is to highlight Gabriel’s announcement and also lends a very Septuagintal flavor to the narrative.

Many commentators have pointed out (and tried to explain) Luke’s shift to a highly Semiticized Greek which seems to echo the style of the LXX (Fitzmyer, 312). Without delving into source criticism, we can certainly conclude that Luke was very familiar with the LXX. Not only is he reflecting the style (in vocabulary, syntax and structure) of the LXX through the birth narratives, the JAN is awash with OT allusions. "In the story of Jesus’ [and John’s] birth and childhood large portions of the LXX have served as a kind of second language for Luke" (Green, 57).

The JAN contains the common features of an OT birth announcement: appearance of an angel, fear, announcement, request for sign, and giving of sign (Fitzmyer, 318; c.f. Evans, 144-145). Since OT birth announcements always precede a great act of deliverance by the God of Israel – Isaac, Samson, Samuel especially – this immediately causes the reader to expect that God is about to deliver Israel in some way (Green, 55).

In a style reminiscent of Daniel (1:1; 2:1; 7:1; 8:1; 9:1; 10:1; 11:1), Luke begins his tale by placing his story in the time of a king. The main characters are Zechariah and his wife, Elizabeth. Zechariah is a priest and his wife is of priestly descent as well. While there may not be evidence to support the common sermonic gloss of Zechariah being a "simple country priest (Evans, 145)," there is nothing, aside from their piety (1:6) to distinguish them.

Zechariah is one of twenty-four divisions of priests who serve in the Jerusalem Temple. While only four divisions of priests returned from captivity, these four were re-divided back into twenty-four. Each division serves twice a year for two weeks at a time. Within each division, the priests draw lots to determine who will have the honor of offering the incense on the incense altar. Each priest could perform this duty but once, and may not be selected to do so his entire life (Caird, 51). This was a great honor. Perhaps the Lukan emphasis on the lot (1:9) highlights that what is about to take place was orchestrated by the Lord, who controls such things as lots (note the parallel with Acts 1:24-26).

One priest would serve as chief officiant (Bovon, 34) and several others would assist with his duties. This offering was made twice a day (Johnson, 32), once in the morning and once in the evening at the time of prayer, which this incident seems to be. The chief priest, at the prescribed time, would offer the incense and "have a brief moment before God [as the] chief officiant" (Nolland, 28). While the priests were performing their duties, the people were outside praying. The smoke of the incense represented the prayers of the people rising to God. The priest represented the people by offering their prayers to the Almighty (Caird, 50). When the priest was finished, he emerged with the other priests and together they pronounced a blessing upon the people.

In the chamber, before the altar of incense, the angel Gabriel appears to Zechariah and announces Elizabeth’s impending pregnancy and John’s birth. John’s birth will bring "joy and gladness" (kai estai chara soi kai agalliasis), an OT theme linked with the coming of salvation (Conzelmann). He will be "great before the Lord," which is affirmed in 7:28. He will abstain from alcohol, which some take as a Nazirite vow, but I believe is probably just a part of his asceticism and prophetic holiness. And he will be "filled with the Holy Spirit," a very Lukan theme (16 mentions in Luke and 55 in Acts). Salvation in Luke is strongly linked to the coming of the Spirit. Finally, Gabriel declares that John "will turn the hearts of the fathers to the children." No one makes an entirely convincing argument about what Gabriel means. He could be promising the restoration of temporal family relationships (Bock, 89; Hendriksen, 72-74) or the re-connection of the current generation with the patriarchs (Godet, 80; Calvin, 21), who are portrayed as being pleased with the repentance of their children. The debate about the phrase probably misses the larger issue, which is that the passage is a direct quote from Malachi 4:6. Whatever the exact implication for fathers and children, the Malachi passage seems a metonymy for repentance in general. In Malachi, Elijah must be heeded, or judgement will come.

Another mystery in the passage is the angel’s response to Zechariah’s question. Why is Zechariah punished for questioning the angel and Mary is not (1:34)? The solutions to this are varied, but the most likely, albeit still unsure, is that Zechariah’s question: "How shall I know this?" (kata ti gnosomai touto?) addresses the fact of the promise, while Mary’s question: "How shall this be?" (pōs estai touto?) addresses the manner of the promise. In other words, Zechariah is saying, "How can I be sure you are telling the truth?" while Mary is asking, "How is this going to be fulfilled? Am I supposed to go in to my husband?" (Brown 1995, 525) Zechariah’s question comes from lack of faith. Ironically, God answers his request for a sign and deals with his unbelief with the same response; Zechariah will be mute (1:20).

Zechariah emerges from the chamber unable to speak. While some note that Zechariah was only one among several priests, as if his muteness would mean little to the crowd, in actuality, his position as chief officiant probably meant that he led in the blessing (Nolland, 33). While his fellow-priests could have offered the blessing, his muteness, combined with his vexation, probably created enough of a disturbance to interrupt the normal flow of the liturgy that day.

While it is hard to know exactly how the crowd knew that he had "seen a vision" (1:22), this sort of thing was not unknown (Schweizer, 21). It could be that the Temple would be the likeliest setting for that sort of thing.

Returning home still mute, Zechariah impregnates his wife. She responds by secluding herself for five months, which is the pericope’s final mystery. Why would she hide herself if the Lord had taken "away my reproach"? The most satisfactory answer might simply be that she wanted to wait until everyone could see what the Lord had done (Bovon, 40; Hendriksen, 77).

While source critics tend to discount the birth narratives of Luke because their uniqueness, it is the uniqueness of the birth narratives, as well as the final two chapters of Luke, which should draw our attention (Kistemaker, 33). What is Luke doing with this pericope in the tightly-organized birth and infancy narratives? What is his purpose?

One concern for Luke is the eschatalogically-linked salvation which has come in Jesus Christ. John is the harbinger of the Day of the Lord, the new Elijah (Luke 1:17; Malachi 4:5). John’s ministry and Elijah’s look a lot alike. Bede points out that they both were celibate, both wore rough dress, both lived in the desert, and both were persecuted on behalf of justice at the hand of a wicked king and queen (Just, 10). Jesus confirms the identification (Matthew 17:12). The day of the Lord is coming, and the significance of John is the calling of the people of Israel to repentance, with the promise of healing (Malachi 4:2), but also the warning of judgement.

The eschatalogical nature of this passage is also highlighted by the strong allusions to Daniel (Green, 59). "Zechariah’s experience is to be compared to that of Daniel to whom God announces the eschatalogical events" (Nolland, 29). Angels are not usually named in Scripture. It is only in Daniel do we find the names of two of God’s angels: Michael and Gabriel. Gabriel speaks to Daniel at the evening sacrifice as well (Bock, 79). Gabriel’s role in Daniel is communicating God’s purposes to humans (Daniel 8:16ff, 9:22ff). In both of the Daniel passages, Gabriel explains things having to do with the "time of the end." The appearance of Gabriel would instantly evoke eschatalogical themes for readers familiar with Daniel (which would include most religious 1^st century Jews, Daniel was a very popular book). In the Daniel 9 passage we have the prediction of "seventy weeks of years…to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place" (verse 24). While certainly controversial, many evangelical scholars read this passage as a direct prophecy of the advent of Christ (Young, 192-205). This interpretation, however strongly debated, offers the attractive narrative connection that what Gabriel begins announcing as a far-off salvation in Daniel, he finishes by announcing as an arriving reality in Luke 2. Luke certainly might have made this connection. Without a doubt, he thought the last days had come (Brown 1993, 271).

In the narrative, Zechariah and Elizabeth serve to represent both the longing and need of Israel. "Israel’s plight is paralleled and dramatized by an aging couple’s waiting and hoping for the birth of a child" (Culpepper, 48). She is barren, as Israel has been without prophetic voice since Malachi (not by accident one of the two prophets linked most strongly to this passage). They are able to serve as representatives for Israel because Elizabeth’s barrenness is not a result of their sin (Evans, 145), they are "righteous" (dikaioi) and "blameless" (amemptoi). Their need signifies the need of Israel. The lifting of her barrenness is the end of the barrenness of Israel. When the angel Gabriel speaks to Zechariah, he tells Zechariah, "Your prayer (hē deēsis sou, 2^nd person singular) is heard." Surprisingly, it isn’t the prayer for the deliverance of Israel (Godet, 75) offered by the multitude outside that has been heard, it is Zechariah’s old prayer for a son. But the answer of Zechariah’s prayer is also the answer of the prayer of Israel. John will "make ready for the Lord a people prepared" (1:17). Zechariah and Elizabeth represent all of Israel who are genuine and pious and have waited beyond hope for the consolation of Israel, the consolation which has now come.

Zechariah also seems to represent the passing of the old dispensation of Israel. The priesthood and the Temple, which are both in the center of this narrative and the Gospel of Luke as a whole, are coming to an end. Jesus fulfills the sacrificial system. He the great high priest. An age has ended in the coming of Christ and the Last Days have begun. Luke’s narrative begins and ends in the Temple. When the narrative begins, we have the majesty of Old Testament worship, with a faithful priest and expectant Israel. He is unable to pronounce the blessing. At the end of the Gospel, Jesus ascends "lifting up his hands bless[ing] them." (Luke 24:50). "It is not farfetched to think that Luke has attached to the risen Jesus the fulfillment or replacement of the Temple ritual" (Brown 1993, 280-281). While Brown is virtually alone in his conclusion (see Bock, 95-96), it does seem that the others are allowing the trees to obscure the forest. Lukan scholar Robert N. Holt agrees, "They don’t know how to read narrative."

"The infancy narrative can be seen as a true introduction to some of the main themes in the Gospel proper" (Brown 1995, 242). The infancy narrative introduces the theology of the work in a way which makes it analogous to the prooimia (prefaces) of classical and Hellenistic literature (Nolland, 18). The awaited salvation of the Israel, the beginning of the Last Days, the end of the Temple system, repentance, and even prayer, are key themes in the Gospel of Luke (as well as other themes introduced in the remainder of the infancy narratives). Luke includes this material because it serves the purpose of his gospel by introducing in short form what he will demonstrate at greater length throughout the Gospel. Luke, often viewed as anti-Jewish (Thielman, 132), also wants to demonstrate the deep connections that exist between the Old Testament and its fulfillment (Danker 2001, 16). Jesus is the consolation of Israel, her messianic king. And the coming of John signals that the end has begun (Stonehouse, 48).