The Story of Elizabeth

Elizabeth is Eli-sheba. It means either ‘God’s promise’, or ‘my God is bountiful/generous’.
Mary means ‘wise woman’ or ‘lady’. It is a Greek form of the Hebrew Miriam or Mariamme, and was the most popular woman's name at the time of Jesus.
John means ‘God has been gracious’.
Zechariah means 'God has remembered'.

What the story is about:
Elizabeth, kinswoman of Mary of Nazareth, had given up hoping for a child. She was past menopause, and her husband was elderly. Yet she conceived, and became the mother of the man called John the Baptist. Events in her life echo several similar stories in the Old Testament, where God's power is shown through a woman. The evangelist Luke also used Elizabeth's story to mirror events surrounding the birth of Jesus - both have an Annunciation by the angel Gabriel and songs that praise God.

The story of Elizabeth contains three episodes:
1 Elizabeth becomes pregnant, Luke 1:5-25.
Elizabeth and her husband Zechariah are introduced as a childless couple who are advanced in age and have given up any expectation of having a child. But contrary to expectation, Zechariah has a vision and is struck dumb, and Elizabeth becomes pregnant.
2 Mary visits her kinswoman Elizabeth, Luke 1:57-66.
Now expecting her first child, Elizabeth is visited by her young kinswoman Mary of Nazareth, who is also pregnant. At their meeting, each recognizes that they and their children will be an extraordinary part of God's plan for humanity
3 Elizabeth gives birth to John, Luke 1:67-80.
Elizabeth's son John is born, circumcised, and named. Zechariah regains his speech and hearing.

First, Luke outlined Elizabeth’s family background. She was descended from a long line of priests – Luke established this fact right at the beginning of his gospel, because he wanted to counter the slanders that were being bandied around about Jesus’ legitimacy. Luke wanted to say, loud and clear, that John and Jesus both came from a respectable, well-connected family, so he began by pointing out that not just one but both John’s parents came from a priestly family, and that Elizabeth’s father was a priest – this is what is meant by ‘daughter of Aaron’. Her husband Zechariah was a member of the priestly order of Abijah.

Despite her impeccable family background, Elizabeth was barren. Normally, childlessness was not just a misfortune, it was a disgrace (see Genesis 16:4, 11; 29:32; 30:1, 1 Samuel 1:5-6, 11, 2:5, 7-8). But in Elizabeth’s case this could hardly be so, since her reputation showed she was blameless. Instead, there had to be some other reason. Perhaps, like Sarah (Genesis 18:11) and Hannah (1 Samuel 1-2) she remained barren because God had a greater plan for her. Her barren state would heighten the sense that her impending pregnancy was a miracle.

Having established the credentials of the elderly couple, Luke now set the scene for the first dramatic event. Zechariah’s priestly section was taking its turn to offer sacrifice at the Temple in Jerusalem - though the Jewish people were under Roman occupation, they enjoyed a high degree of religious freedom. Temple worship was sanctioned, as long as it did not hide or encourage sedition. Zechariah had been chosen by lot to enter the sanctuary of the Temple and offer incense as part of the daily worship at the Temple – only the single priest who had been chosen by random lot, and therefore by God’s hand, could enter the sanctuary. It was a pivotal moment for him, since the large number of priests, about 8,000 at that time, meant that any one priest could only expect to offer sacrifice once or twice in his lifetime. Now it was Zechariah’s moment.

A model of Herod's Temple. Zechariah offered sacrifice inside the doors of the main building, though not of course in the inner room called the Holy of Holies

At about 3pm on this particular day he stepped forward into the sanctuary to offer incense. The people waited outside, as did the other priests. At that moment, an angel appeared at the right side of the altar in front of Zechariah – in a throne room, a favored courtier or family member took the position at the right side of the throne, and this was where the angel now stood.

An angel? What exactly did that mean? Biblical writers gave no specific meaning, but they used this word to show that a human being had received a message from God. What they meant by the word ‘angel’ is an open question. In our skeptical, must-have-proof world we would probably say the same thing in a different way: that a deep conviction of purpose settled on the person involved, guiding them towards a particular course of action.

Henry Tanner, The Annunciation.
The artist envisages an angel as concentrated light and energy

The angel spoke. It reassured the terrified Zechariah, telling him not to be afraid.

Then it gave him momentous news: his wife Elizabeth would conceive and have a son. Since the hand of God is clearly evident in what is happening, the listener/reader knows that this will be no ordinary child. The angel was specific. The child would have four characteristics:

he would be great in the sight of God
he would drink no wine and thus live the ascetic life of a Nazarene, setting him apart from ordinary people
he would be filled with the Spirit from his conception
he would prepare for the Messiah and thus be a catalyst between Israel and God.

Despite the extraordinary circumstances, Zechariah quibbled. He expressed doubts that this could happen. He discreetly implied that he was no longer capable of sexual intercourse, and that his wife had ceased menstruating. There was genuine confusion on his part here, but there was also the sense that he was objecting, as he asked for a sign – just as Abraham did (Genesis 15:8), and Gideon (Judges 6:36-40) and Hezekiah (2 Kings 20:8-11).

The angel responded by naming itself – ‘I am Gabriel. I stand in the presence of God’ – only the highest officials in an oriental royal court could stand in the presence of their king. Protocol demanded that most people bow low, or prostrate themselves, so Gabriel was letting Zechariah he had committed an offense in not believing what the angel said.

As punishment for his lèse-majesté Zechariah was reduced to silence, probably becoming both deaf and mute. In one way it was a reassuring miracle, but in another it was quite obviously a punishment, one that would last until the birth of the child set him free.

When Zechariah came out of the Temple he was unable to speak. Clearly something momentous had happened. The priests and people interpreted his silence as proof that he had had some profound religious experience, possibly a vision, but Zechariah could tell them of his experience. Frustrated by his inability to speak, he tried to explain by signing. This had limited success. He finished out his allotted time of office, then headed for home.

Zechariah had doubted but Elizabeth had not, and so now she, not her unfortunate husband, moved into the spotlight, favored above her husband. Home at last, Zechariah found comfort in the arms of Elizabeth. One thing led to another, and she became pregnant – to her surprise and the amazement of her family and friends.

When she realized she was pregnant, she went into seclusion. This meant she did not leave her house for any reason, nor receive any visitors. She stayed like this, leading a calm and quiet life, until her pregnancy became physically obvious to all who saw her.

MARY VISITS HER KINSWOMAN ELIZABETH
Luke 1:57-66

Meanwhile, in Galilee to the north, Elizabeth's young kinswoman, Mary of Nazareth, had become pregnant. The anguish this unexplained pregnancy caused and the effect it had on her family is underplayed in the gospels, not really mentioned at all, but it must have had a terrifying effect on this conservative rural community.

Mary had been betrothed to Joseph with a formal witnessed agreement, legally binding, between the families of the young people, and a bride price paid to Mary’s family. It was expected that the formal marriage would take place about a year later, when Mary would be taken home to Joseph's family to live. Since later on in the story Mary returned to her home, not Joseph’s, we can assume that Mary and Joseph were not married at this particular time.

Accustomed as we are to benign images of the Annunciation, and of Mary and Joseph with the baby Jesus, we tend to blot out the reality of the situation: a young girl was pregnant, her fiancé knew he was not the father, yet the bride price had been paid. In a Middle Eastern rural community at the time, this sort of situation could easily result in an honor killing of the young girl by her fiancé's family. What few commentators seem to realize is that Mary's visit to Elizabeth, about a hundred miles away in Judea, may have been a desperate attempt by her family to save her from this fate, to get her out of the way until some solution had been worked out.

Leaving Galilee and traveling south, Mary duly arrived at Elizabeth's house in Judea after a journey of about three or four days. At first glance, this might seem like a commonplace event as two kinswomen, both pregnant, meet each other. But Luke was making oblique references to Old Testament precedents, alerting the reader to a deeper meaning in Elizabeth's story: read 1 Samuel 1:1-2, Judges 13:2, about a couple like Elizabeth and Zechariah, unable to have children, and Genesis 18:11 which describes an elderly couple who thought they would never have a child.

The two pregnant women met, and at that moment Elizabeth's unborn baby responded by suddenly moving and kicking in her womb. Twenty-eight weeks, the end of a woman's second trimester, is the normal time to expect an unborn baby to kick in the womb, and this may well have been the first time Elizabeth's unborn baby moved - an exciting moment for any mother. She took this sudden movement, at this particular meeting, as a sign.

In a moment of penetrating spiritual clarity, Elizabeth recognized she was being visited by the mother of the expected Messiah. She pronounced a blessing on the younger woman:

'Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb. And why has this happened to me, that the mother of my Lord comes to me? For as soon as I heard the sound of your greeting, the child in my womb leaped for joy. And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfillment of what was spoken to her by the Lord.'

Mary responded with the words of the song called the Magnificat. Scholars now guardedly say this was a hymn sung by the early Christians in their liturgies, implying that it may have had a composition date later than the moment of meeting between the two mothers. They also imply that an illiterate peasant girl from Galilee would not have had the ability to compose such a hymn.

But there is no reason to think that Mary could not have been capable of composing it herself. The Magnificat is closely based on the Song of Hannah in 2 Samuel 2:1-10, and Mary knew this Song well. She certainly would have learned it by heart, since women at the time had a rich oral tradition, all of it memorized, and she would have seen the Song of Hannah as appropriate, since Elizabeth's pregnancy so late in life mirrored the pregnancy of Hannah. Adapting passages from the Jewish Scriptures to suit current situations was a familiar part of the oral tradition, and Mary and her female relatives would have been familiar with the technique. True, there is some evidence it was adapted along the way before Luke translated it into Greek, but Mary is certainly the source of this glorious song.

It is not clear from the text whether Elizabeth had the help of her young kinswoman when she gave birth to her baby. Commonsense and the lapse of time would suggest she did. Elizabeth would certainly have been surrounded by loving, concerned relatives and friends, especially since her advanced age must have made it a difficult birth.

Elizabeth had a son, and all her friends and relatives were overjoyed for her. She seems to have recovered well from the birth itself, because eight days afterwards she was up and around, ready to attend the circumcision of her son.

A baby was usually named on the day of his circumcision, and a common practice at this time was to name a first son after his grandfather. In this case however, Elizabeth's extended family seemed to have decided that the baby would be called Zechariah, after his stricken father. But Elizabeth stepped forward and briskly contradicted them. Her son's name was to be 'John', she said. Everyone disagreed with her, pointing out that there was no family precedent for the name 'John', but Elizabeth stood her ground. She insisted so fiercely that, exasperated, the family members turned to Zechariah for support. Since he could not speak, he asked for a writing tablet - a small wooden tile with a wax surface. With a stylus he scratched a single sentence: 'His name is John'.

Immediately, to the amazement of the onlookers, he regained the use of his speech and hearing. A skeptic no more, his first words were in praise of God. The sound of his voice silenced even the most talkative of his neighbors. They were awed and not a little frightened by what they were witnessing. Like neighbors everywhere, they could not wait to pass on the story of what had happened, and discuss its meaning. The son of Elizabeth and Zechariah must certainly be destined for greatness - 'the hand of God was with him', and he would be different and unique. Now the name 'John' seemed appropriate, since without any family precedent, it gave him an identity of his own that had nothing to do with the past.

Their assumption was cemented by the words Zechariah now spoke. This little child would one day be a prophet of the Most High, he said, preparing the way for the Messiah.

This scene is the last we see of Elizabeth. By the standards of the time, she was already elderly, and she may not have lived to see her son grow to manhood. It has often been suggested that John, described as living in the wilderness (Luke 1:80), may have been a member of the Essenes at Qumran. This group was known to adopt young children and look after them, hoping they would become permanent members of their community. If Elizabeth and Zechariah were both dead the Essenes may have done just this for John. If so they were disappointed, since John broke away to forge his ministry in the desert, preparing the way of the Lord.

At a time when most of us are settling down to a quiet old age, Elizabeth's life took an unexpected turn. She became pregnant, and bore the son she had always hoped for. It was an unlikely birth, and she gave her son an unfamiliar name. This, and the sudden affliction and recovery of her husband Zechariah caused consternation among Elizabeth's neighbors who discussed, no doubt at some length, the meaning of these events. What would Elizabeth's child become? Certainly something special, something out of the ordinary - a child with a great destiny. Like her kinswoman Mary of Nazareth, Elizabeth must have pondered all this in her heart.

THE HISTORICAL BACKGROUND TO THE STORY

Though he lived centuries before Christ, Alexander the Great (356-323 BC) influenced the Jewish world in which Elizabeth lived. Alexander was not merely a military conqueror, but a visionary with an ambition to spread Greek culture throughout the world.
There was much that was refined and intelligent in Hellenistic (that is, Greek) culture, and many Jews were tempted to adopt it. But as they did, they found that their own culture and identity were threatened. For this reason, Greek culture was resisted by many Jews and its influence was uneven.

For example, Nazareth where Jesus grew up was a conservative town that clung to traditional Jewish culture. But only a few miles away the town of Sepphoris showed strong Greek influence, with a Graeco-Roman theatre capable of seating 5000 people. So it is difficult to generalize about the impact of Greek culture. Nevertheless, its influence was pervasive, and eventually altered European thought and culture.

An aerial view of the ruins of Sepphoris, and a colonnaded street there that Jesus and Joseph may have helped to build

In 63BC the Roman general Pompey occupied Jerusalem. From that time until after the time of Jesus, Palestine was governed as a vassal state by the Romans. The ruler of Palestine from 37-4BC was Herod the Great, who was a great builder, founding among other things the seaport of Caesarea and the fortress of Masada. He rebuilt the Temple (the present-day Wailing Wall in Jerusalem dates from this time). He also helped to finance the Olympic games in Greece!
In 4BC Herod was succeeded in Judea by his son Archeleus, who mismanaged state affairs so badly that he was removed from office by the Romans, and replaced by an official called a procurator, who supervised the troops, gathered taxes, and administered criminal justice.

During these later years, most of Palestine was undergoing a serious economic recession. Despite the fertility of the land, there was unemployment and poverty throughout the country. The great building programs of Herod the Great had come to an end, throwing thousands of tradesmen out of work. Without a modern social security system to fall back on, the families of these unemployed men were in a serious situation.
The gospels show evidence of social dislocation and political unrest. Jesus’ arrest, trial and execution took place in a climate of political instability and economic uncertainty.

ATTITUDES TO WOMEN AT THAT TIME

Gospel stories are often discussed as if they happened in isolation, outside the real world. But in fact they occurred within a historical context, against a cultural background quite different to our own. Knowing about the world of the gospel gives the reader a better understanding of the stories.

Greek philosophy was greatly admired at the time of Jesus, and it had a profound impact on the way that people saw their world. One of the greatest philosophers, Plato, proposed the theory of dualism, suggesting that everything in the cosmos had an equal and opposite other. This theory had a profound impact on the way that women were viewed, and it was not to women's advantage. 'Woman' was placed in a category containing elements that were viewed as negative:

   Man   -                 Woman
   Civilization   -      Nature
   Reason/logic   - Emotion
   Good   -               Evil
   Light   -                Darkness

Keep in mind that
    Civilization was the ideal; Nature was mistrusted and potentially dangerous
    Logic and reason were admired, and emotion was to be subordinated.
    Goodness was always preferable to evil.
    Light, especially in the pre-industrial world, was preferred to darkness.

These are examples only, but they show that Platonic dualism placed women in a negative category. They were seen as closer to the natural/animal world than men. By nature they were irrational and untrustworthy, and therefore unfit to make their own decisions and govern their own lives. They had to be looked after and controlled, never treated as equals.

This differed from the traditional Jewish way of looking at the world, which saw all things in creation as integrated and complementary, rather than as opposites of each other. An example of this is the creation story of Eve, which relates that the first woman was created from a rib taken by God from Adam's side, thereby suggesting that a man could never be fully complete unless he was in partnership with a woman.

Jewish and Jewish/Christian women resisted the ideas of Platonic dualism, which patronized them and diminished their status. While Christianity remained a Jewish sect, the status of women within the Christian communities was high.

But as the ideas of Christianity moved out into the Gentile, Hellenised world, the first Christians found they had to use the Greek philosophical framework to explain their beliefs and be accepted. So Jesus' original ideal of mutual respect between the sexes was watered down and changed. Women found they were given roles that were acceptable in the outside, Hellenistic culture. In doing so, the Christian church stepped back from the radical ideals of the first Jewish/Christians.

Women were still powerful in the private sphere, but were shunted to the side in the public arena. This shows up, for example, in 1st and 2nd century re-tellings of the biblical stories. Where these stories had often had women as central characters, they now focused on men and male activities.

An example of this is the story of Moses’ birth in Josephus’ Antiquities (Josephus was a Jewish writer and historian of the 1st century BC).
In the original biblical telling of the story (in Exodus 1 and 2) the baby Moses is saved by the two midwives, by his mother, by his sister, and by Pharaoh’s daughter – all, obviously, women.

In Josephus’ retelling of the story written in about 94AD, the focus is largely on Moses’ father Amram. He performs many of the actions previously attributed to the women. Female characters in the story are changed. The mid-wives in Josephus’ retelling
    are Egyptian, not Hebrew
    are unnamed
    are not present at Moses' birth
    kill Hebrew babies, not save them.
The basic story of Moses’ birth remains the same, but the female dimension has been lost.

There were reasons for the changes Josephus made to the story. He was trying to counter the anti-Semitism that existed in Rome at the time, so he wrote about Jewish women who behaved like decent Roman matrons! This ideal of Roman womanhood had been vigorously promoted in a ‘back to basics’ program by the emperor Augustus and the Roman authorities.

The ideal Roman woman, they said, was a mother of many children, content with her household duties. She kept to her traditional role, in the home, and did not speak assertively to the men in her family. She did not enter the public world.