Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers on Zechariah 12:10

  

they have stabbed. The single Hebrew word dāqārû, from the root dqr (“to stab, wound, pierce”), is surely one of the major interpretive cruxes in Second Zechariah, if not in all of prophecy. The outpourings of scholarly discussion do not center on the actual meaning of the word but rather on the identity of the one stabbed, the identity of those who commit this act of violence, the meaning of such an act, the relationship—if any—of this deed to general historical reality, and the possible allusion to this text to a specific political event. . . . Let us first establish that the root dqr does not mean “to kill” but rather “to stab, pierce, wound” with a thrusting weapon, notably a sword (e.g., Lam 4:9; Isa 13:15; 1 Sam 31:4 = 2 Chron 10:4). In several instances it is clear that the victim of such an attack died (as in Num 25:8 and Jug 9:54, in addition to the references just cited). But the very addition of another term (as “and he died”) indicates that although death would be expected because sword thrusts generally inflicted mortal wounds, this would not be necessarily or always the case. Indeed, Jer 37:10 mentions “wounded” soldiers who remain in their “tents” . . . and Jer 51:4 may also indicate serious but nonfatal battle wounds.

 

The question of whether the “stabbed” one in this verse has in fact died thus must remain open. That the perpetrators of the stabbing are not held accountable in terms of being themselves subject to the death penalty may indicate that the stabbing in this instance was serious but nonfatal. This leads to the possibility that the image of confrontation, of violent opposition, is that is intended here in a somewhat more figurative sense. Still, the next image is that of mourning; here it is likely that death is involved but that divine favor toward the future Davidides and other leaders precludes the ultimate penalty.

 

. . .

 

. . . the same word—“stab”—is found once more in Second Zechariah, in the next chapter. Although not used for an attack on true prophets, it depicts a legitimate confrontation with false prophets, whereby those who prophesy falsely in God’s name will immediately be recognized for what they are by those falsely in God's name will immediately be recognized for what they are by those who know them most intimately, and then they will be stabbed ( . . “Then . . will stab him” in 13:3). Because the case of Uriah demonstrates that swords were used against accused prophets, which are the weapons most likely to cause the stab wounds indicated by dqr, the use of “stab” may have come to denote all violent acts against prophetic figures, whether mortal or not.

 

Third, the retrospective nature of much of Second Zechariah must be taken into account. This prophet is keenly aware of centuries of Israelite history and tradition. He cites or alludes to the division of the monarchy (11:7, 14; . . . ), the exile of the northerners (10:10; . . .), and the fall of Judah (11:10; . . .). Furthermore, as we have explained above, the perpetrators of the stabbing are those who held power before the Exile. This too may thus be a retrospective reflection of the historical struggle between prophecy and the ruling establishment, a struggle that will come to an end in the future age described here.

 

. . .

 

. . . the prophet is not simply indulging in historical sentimentality. The very fact that this stabbing holds such a powerful position in chapter 12, with the subsequent morning developed through a series of similes and a subsequent Catalog of Mourners, suggests that the prophet is motivated by what he is experiencing in his own day, both personally and as a member of Yehudite society. As we have suggested elsewhere, the recurrent theme of the tension between prophetic groups—true and false prophets—surely indicates the prophet’s direct and probably difficult involvement in the ongoing struggle. Here and in 13:2-6 he sees it resolved: those who attempted to thwart prophecy in the past are remorseful and mourn their wrongdoings, and any future false prophets that arise will be cut down at their roots, so to speak-by their own parents. (Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Zechariah 9-14: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 25C; New York: Doubleday, 1993], 337, 338, 339)

 

Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers on Zechariah 9:9

  

O Daughter Zion. In Hebrew poetry, “daughter” (bat) plus a toponym is commonly used. It is thought to designate the inhabitants of a particular place (Haag 1975: 334) or to indicate the place itself and thus, collectively, its population. However, close attention to the grammar of the expression indicates population. However, close attention to the grammar of the expression indicates a more specific usage. Although “daughter” (bat) plus a place name is frequently translated “daughter of [place].” Thereby implying that the place has a daughter, it is clear that such a translation is erroneous. The idiom refers to the place itself, personified as a daughter. . . . The specific daughter-Zion combination appears twenty-six times in the Hebrew Bible.

 

The frequent use of “daughter” or “daughters” in Scripture to personify a place and to enhance its role in a poetic text is imperfectly understood. Perhaps because place names are normally feminine, this female kinship term came to designate various locales and their inhabitants. The suitability of “daughter” here is probably related to the dependent status of daughters. Just as unmarried daughters cannot act independently of their parents, so Yahweh’s people must rely on God and on the king who is coming for their future to be arranged. . . . “Daughter Zion” in this verse is parallel to “Daughter Jerusalem,” the two expressions together signifying the holy city. Although these exhortations at the beginning of verse 9 apparently draw upon Zeph 3:14 . . .they do not include “Israel,” which accompanies “Zion” and “Jerusalem” in Zephaniah. Zechariah 9, in contrast, focuses especially on Jerusalem. This attention to Zion/Jerusalem in verse 8 that God will be in the Temple in Jerusalem . . . Just as this verse echoes the language of the oracular expansion of Zechariah 2 (especially 2:14 [NRSV 2:10]), so too the previous verse uses images associated with that chapter of First Zechariah, again 2:14 (NRSV 2:10) in particular. The fact that both verses 8 and 9 connect with First Zechariah, along with their common concern for Jerusalem, provides continuity between the first and second subunits of chapter 9. The theme of Jerusalem as a sacred city where the future king will rule (v 10) is thus a natural sequel to the theme of reestablishing God’s presence in the Temple. Thus, although the second subunit (9:9-10) of this chapter in many ways stands apart from verses 1-8 and 11-17, it nonetheless is thematically connected to its context . . . The call to Zion as witness and celebrant of a new world order, characterized by stability (worldwide peace), is part of Zion’s traditional role in the expectation for Yahweh to overcome Israel’s enemies and establish Israelite/Davidic/divine sovereignty in Jerusalem. This role for Zion is part of the “Zion tradition”, in which a number of motifs accrue to the depiction of Zion, especially in Psalms . . . These motifs are part of a general Near Eastern typology of royal accession . . . It should be noted that “Daughter” appears twice here, thus prefiguring the double use of “sons” in verse 13 . . . This is another of the ways in which the subunits of Zechariah 9 are interconnected. (Carol L. Meyers and Ric M. Meyers, Zechariah 9-14: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 25C; New York: Doubleday, 1993], 121, 122)

 

Although a lowly beast (Gen 49;14ff.), it also could signify royalty. The story of Saul retrieving asses may be an allusion to his future office, and the succession story of Solomon has him on a mule rather than a horse (although the word there is pered rather than ḥămōr [1 Kgs 1:33, 38]). The range of images attached to ḥămōr is striking, and they all may contribute to the message of this passage—that the king represents peace, that his humble beast is suitable for his role in submitting to divine power while exerting his own royal dominion, and that he is a legitimate monarch. The use of a lowly animal is one of the ways in which a royal figure partakes of the life-style of the people he dominates. In this way he bridges the structural gap between those in power and those subjugated and thereby helps to win the cooperation of people dominated by a royal elite . . . (Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Zechariah 9-14: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary [AB 25C; New York: Doubleday, 1993], 130)

 

Excerpts from The Office Journal of President Brigham Young: 1858-1863 Book D

 The following excerpts are from:

 

The Office Journal of President Brigham Young: 1858-1863 Book D, ed. Fred C. Collier (Hanna, Utah: Collier’s Publishing Co., 2006)

 

February 24, 1860

 

President Young in the course of his remarks alluded to the zeal of Hyrum Smith, Brother of the Prophet, in his views of The Word of Wisdom, who prophesied that Every Saint who Chewed tobacco would apostatize. President Young observed, he [i.e. Hyrum] prophesied by Hyrum Smith and not by the Spirit of the Lord, and that he (Hyrum would eat about 3 lb of fat pork in a day; and yet be so severe upon a tobacco chewer; upon other points, observed the President, Hyrum Smith was a man of knowledge. Once Joseph told his Brother Hyrum [that] if he would suffer him to dictate him, he should lead the Church to Hell, and he would frequently sit and sneer at the remarks of Bro Hyrum, which were frequently delivered to the congregation when they were weary with the remarks of the preachers that had preceded him. This variety of men composes those who love God, and one class have certain failings, and another failings of a different kind and we must learn to bear with each others failings while we are all trying to do right. (p. 42)

 

March 12, 1860

 

President Young said: “I will tell you how I reason—the Lord placed certain plants here for some purpose; the Lord has given us wheat & beef for nourishing our bodies and if the herbs were useless what did he put them there for. The President believed and practiced the taking of medicine, and it is better to gather up a little catnip and make tea of it than to ask the Lord to send an Angel to cure us when we can do so much ourself—nevertheless he believed in the ordinances to be used with mild herbs according to the revelation given upon that subject. (p. 53)

 

February 23, 1861

 

Telestial Glory

 

President Young attended a party at the Social all. Gov^r Cumming & Judge Crosby & Kinney were pre there also. While the President fell into conversation with the brethren about the three glories a which are described in the vision given to Joseph Smith J^r, which we find written in the book of Doctrine & Covenants. The President emphatically and distinctly said [that] those who enter the glory of the Telestial world will have to dwell singly and separately apart; they will not marry there, they will be happy. It will be nearly the same with the telest Terrestrial Glory—they will not marry although their glory will be infinitely greater. None but the Gods will be allowed to multiply and increase. In Celestial Glory there will be many who will be single also. (p. 212, emphasis in bold added)

 

March 3, 1861

 

President Young attended Tabernacle in the afternoon. He remarked [that] if our Saviour as here we should not like him so well as we did him—he, Brigham, was more like us than the Saviour. (p. 214)

 

September 17, 1861

 

Br Stoddard further remarked that he heard Joseph Morriss say to the brethren, “hold on a few days longer and we shall see the destruction of the Mormons and the power of God in their behalf”; the Morrissites would not join the Militia of the Territory—they would rather pay the fines. They should [showed] Br Stoddard a Map of the different worlds, showing the processions of them—for one of them was B. Young’s world, another was Joseph Morriss’s worlds &c. Joseph Smith had only 1/6 part of the Keys of the Kingdom,--also Mentioned an order of confirmation, ^^{of an Elect lady & heiress} pouring oil on their head, saying: We annoint your head with holy and consecrated oil in the name of Jesus Christ and by authority of the holy priesthood of this the seventh dispensation, we also annoint your womb that you may bear children to the Glory of God &c. ^{bring forth a holy seed unto the Lord and} that thou Mayest be an heiress to the Melchzedeck priesthood. (pp. 291-92)

 

January 8, 1862

 

Elder E. T. Benson who had called in with Peter Maughan & Bp. Harrington, mentioned that Joseph Morriss the Crazy prophet said that these light Snows was an evidence of Gods favor to them, in their unsheltered state. He mentioned that Br. Primrose asked Morriss to show him Aaron’s rod. The prophet told him he was mistaken—he had no such rod—the Morrissites had burnt up every thing near them for fuel, and their necessarily must soon break up. (p. 334)

Blake Ostler, "Acts 7:51-60: Christ as Lord and Son of Man"

  

Acts 7:51-60: Christ as Lord and Son of Man

 

The imagery of the king enthroned at the right hand of God in Psalm 110 also appeared very early in the Christian experience of visions of the resurrected Christ. Stephen angered the Jews to whom he preached by declaring the coming of the “Righteous One,” (the KJV has “Just one,” του δικαιου, tou dikaiou, = צדדיק, tsedek) probably alluding to Melchizedek, or malchi tzedek, the king of righteousness to whom Jesus is implicitly compared (Acts 7:52). Such a connection appears even more likely in the context of allusion not the royal Psalm 110 where Christ is enthroned as king or melek. Christ thus becomes the just king or melek tsedek. Stephen said that the Jews had unjustly murdered Jesus, the “Righteous Ones” whom the prophets had testified would come. The acclamation of the king as Lord by “my Lord” in Psalm 110 culminated in a declaration that the king is also a priest after the order of the king of peace, Melchizedek: “The Lord hath sworn and will not repent, Thou art a priest after the order of Melchizedek” (Ps. 110:4). Luke records words attributed to Stephen that so outraged the Jews that they took up stones:

 

55. But he, filled with the holy Spirit, looked up intently to heaven and saw the glory of God and Jesus standing at the right hand of God,
56. and he said, “Behold I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.” (Acts 7:55-56, NAB).

 

Those present would have heard an allusion comparing Christ to Melchizedek and also to the Son of Man figure—both as a second deity in heaven given power and authority by the Most High God. Whether the Jews generally were aware of the exalted view of Melchizedek as God’s chief agent and even “god” at Qumran is uncertain, but such a comparison would explain their reaction to Stephen’s message—they cried that he had committed blasphemy warranting stoning. The Jews were “merely” angered at Stephen’s claim that they had murdered Jesus; but his claim to see Jesus standing as the Son of Man at the right hand of God outraged them to that they “covered their ears” and picked up stones to kill him on the spot. They clearly regarded Stephen’s claim as blasphemy. However, Jesus does not sit on a throne but “stands” at the right of God, thus indicating that he is both distinct from and subordinate to God. He is God’s royal vizier. As Stephen approached death, Luke (who was not present) says that he exclaimed; “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit” (Acts 7:59, alluding to Psalm 31:6). This statement is significant, not only because Stephen again uses the term “Lord Jesus,” but because he remits his soul to Jesus and not to the one God by quoting a Psalm that originally referred to Yahweh.

 

The fact that the epithet “Lord” used for God was also used for Christ indicates that Jesus Christ was seen as sharing in the divine qualities and name of God. In Larry Hurtado’s terms, the use of the kyrios-title, “Lord,” indicates that Jesus had been made to share in the divine glory and transcendence as the chief agent of God. The fact that Jesus is enthroned as the right hand of God shows that he is second in divine authority only to God. In the culture of honor and shame, to sit at the right hand of the patron meant that a great honor was bestowed. When his notion is joined with the grant of the title “Lord” and the inheritance, the message is clear: Jesus has been given the highest honor possible by being given the name and everting that the benefactor has to give by honoring him as his own son and heir. Adela Collins summarized well the significance of Psalm 110:

 

The regal connotations of the epithet are clear in the Synoptic passage that portrays Jesus asking, “How can the scribes say that the Messiah is the son of David? David himself, inspired by the Holy Spirit, declared, ‘The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand. . . .” The implied interpretation is that the speaker in Psalm 110:1, David, refers to the God as “Lord” and then to the Messiah also as “Lord.” The Messiah is thus the final and definitive king who is superior even to the ideal king of the past, David. The realm of messianic Lord is all creation, not just the land of Israel. (Adela Yarbro Collins, “The Worship of Jesus and the Imperial Cult,” 239)

 

This same view of Christ as God’s chief agent and vizier is succinctly stated in one of the earliest Christian documents (about 50 A.D.), 1 Thessalonians 1:9-10, which states that one of Paul’s Gentile converts had turned from idols to worship “and to await his son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus, who delivers us from the coming wrath.” As Larry Hurtado noted, this “last statement presents Jesus in a role strikingly similar to the Melchizedek of 11QMelchizedek, who likewise functions as the divinely appointed deliverer of the elect, God’s chief agent and vizier of eschatological redemption.” (Larry Hurtado, One God, One Lord, 95-96)

 

Blake T. Ostler, Exploring Mormon Thought: Of Gods and Gods (Salt Lake City: Greg Kofford Books, 2008), 130-32

Canon 35 of the Synod of Laodicaea and the Invocation of Angels

 Canon 35 of the Synod of Laodicaea (mid-4^th century) reads as follows:

 

Christians must not forsake the Church of God, and go away and invoke angels and gather assemblies, which things are forbidden. If, therefore, any one shall be found engaged in this covert idolatry, let him be anathema; for he has forsaken our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and has gone over to idolatry (NPNF2 14:150)

 

Schaff provides the following notes to this canon:

 

Ancient Epitome of Canon XXXV.

 

Whoso calls assemblies in opposition to those of the Church and names angels, is near to idolatry and let him be anathema.

 

Van Espen.

 

Whatever the worship of angels condemned by this canon may have been, one thing is manifest, that it was a species of idolatry, and detracted from the worship due to Christ.

 

Theodoret makes mention of this superstitious cult in his exposition of the Text of St. Paul, Col. ii. 18, and when writing of its condemnation by this synod he says, "they were leading to worship angels such as were defending the Law; for, said they, the Law was given through angels. And this vice lasted for a long time in Phrygia and Pisidia. Therefore it was that the synod which met at Laodicea in Phrygia, prohibited by a canon, that prayer should be offered to angels, and even to-day an oratory of St. Michael can be seen among them, and their neighbours."

 

In the Capitular of Charlemagne, a.d. 789 (cap. xvi.), it is said, "In that same council (Laodicea) it was ordered that angels should not be given unknown names, and that such should not be affixed to them, but that only they should be named by the names which we have by authority. These are Michael, Gabriel, Raphael." And then is subjoined the present canon. The canon forbids "to name" (ὀνομάζειν) angels, and this was understood as meaning to give them names instead of to call upon them by name.

 

Perchance the authors of the Capitular had in mind the Roman Council under Pope Zachary, a.d. 745, against Aldebert, who was found to invoke by name eight angels in his prayers.

 

It should be noted that some Latin versions of great authority and antiquity read angulos for angelos. This would refer to doing these idolatrous rites in corners, hiddenly, secretly, occulte as in the Latin. But this reading, though so respectable in the Latin, has no Greek authority for it.

 

This canon has often been used in controversy as condemning the cultus which the Catholic Church has always given to the angels, but those who would make such a use of this canon should explain how these interpretations can be consistent with the cultus of the Martyrs so evidently approved by the same council; and how this canon came to be accepted by the Fathers of the Second Council of Nice, if it condemned the then universal practice of the Church, East and West. Cf. Forbes, Considerationes Modestae. (NPNF2 14:150-51)

 

In his commentary on Col 3:17, Theodoret made a similar argument to the Synod of Laodicea:

 

Offer thanksgiving to God and the Father through Him [Christ], not through angels. The Laodicean synod, following this law and desiring to find a cure for that old disease, enacted a law that they should not pray to angels, nor forsake our Lord Jesus Christ. (Original translation by Seth Kasten, PG 82 :620, in Seth Kasten, Against the Invocation of Saints: An Apology for the Protestant Doctrine of Prayer Over and Against the Doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox Church [Royal Oak, Mich.: Scholastic Lutherans, 2023], 73)

Charles Joseph Hefele (1809-1893), a leading Roman Catholic historian, wrote the following about the canon in his work on the Councils of the Church:

 

Can. 35. “Christians shall not forsake the Church of God and turn to the worship of angels, thus introducing a cultus of the angels. This is forbidden. Whoever, therefore, shows an inclination to this hidden idolatry, let him be anathema, because he has forsaken our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and gone over to idolatry.”

 

The Apostle Paul had before found it needful in his Epistle to the Colossians (2:18), which was probably addressed also to the Laodiceans, to warn the Christians of Phrygia against a worship of angels, which was contrary to the faith. Notwithstanding which, however, this superstitious worship of angels still continued in those countries, the very native home of this Synod, for in the fifth century Theodoret of Cyrus bears witness to it in his commentary on the passage of S. Paul just quoted, observing that the Synod of Laodicæa had forbidden “praying to the angels” (τὸ τοῖς ἀγγέλοις προσεύχεσθαι), but that, in those regions of Phrygia and Pisidia “Michael-Churches” were to be met with as late as his own time. The basis of this worship of angels was the idea that God was too high to be immediately approached, but that His good will must be gained through the angels.

 

It hardly needs to be observed that this canon does not exclude a regulated worship of angels, such as is usual in the Church, although on the Protestant side it has often been so interpreted. Augustine and Eusebius have long ago given the true view of this. If the ancient Church allowed the worship of martyrs, why should she have entirely forbidden the worship of angels? This canon expresses the idea of the worship of angels by ὀνομάζειν ἀγγέλους, which gave occasion for the statement in a capitulary of Charlemagne of the year 789, that “the Synod of Laodicea had forbidden the giving of other names to the angels than those authorized: Michael, Gabriel, and Raphael.” Perhaps, however, the capitulary in question had in view a Roman Synod under Pope Zacharias in 745, which, in contradistinction to the eight angels invoked by the heretic Adelbert (at the time of S. Boniface, the apostle of the Germans), only allowed the names of the angels above mentioned.

 

Lastly, it must be observed that, after the example of several codices of the translation by Dionysius in Merlin’s edition of the Councils, instead of angelos was written angulos, which of course was originally a mere clerical error. (Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, 5 vols. [trans. Henry Nutcombe Oxenham; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1876], 2:317-18)

  

John Chryssavgis (EO) on Ignatius of Antioch's Comment that the Church of Rome "Presides in Love"

  

Now what does Ignatius have to say about the Church of Rome? In the prologue to his Letter to the Romans, the bishop of Antioch observes that the Church of Rome presides in love: προκαθημενη της αγαπης. It is important to note here that Ignatius is not referring to the pope (or bishop) of Rome, but to the Church of Rome. It has been argued that Ignatius may not have been aware of the Roman pontiff’s name.

 

Still, the word “love” (αγαπη) is more pertinent here. Is the word “love” a designation of the brotherhood or charity that united and bound Christians throughout the world, in accordance with Christ’s exhortation to his disciples: “By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (Jn 13.35). (In this case, scholars have sometimes read the papacy into the phrase; however, this would probably be reading too much into Ignatius) A second interpretation understands the word αγαπη in the literal and ordinary sense of “Love.” This would mean that the phrase suggests an expression of mere courtesy, ascribing to Rome a special place of honor but not necessarily a status of privilege. (The Greek phrase “privilege of honor” [πρεσβεια τιμης] was later translated into Latin by, among others, the monk Dionysius Exiguus at the beginning of the sixth century as ‘”primacy” [primatus]) Finally, does the word αγαπη denote the Eucharist? This would imply that προκαθημενη signifies presiding over the Eucharist, which in turn would indicate a local Church or community since there can only be a local eucharistic assembly. Inasmuch as Ignatius places great emphasis and importance on the celebration of the Eucharist in the defined region (The literal sense of the word “parish” in Greek: εν-ορια) of the local community under the presidency of the local bishop, this last interpretation is probably also the most likely. (John Chryssavgis, “The Apostolic Tradition: Historical and Theological Principles,” in Primacy in the Church: The Office of Primate and the Authority of Councils, ed. John Chryssavgis, 2 vols. [Yonkers, N.Y.: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2016], 1:57)

 

Luke 1:34 in light of Mishnah Ketubot 5.2

  

Mishnah Ketubot 5.2 reads as follows:

 

One gives a virgin twelve months from the time the husband asked to marry her after having betrothed her, in order to prepare herself with clothes and jewelry for the marriage. And just as one gives a woman this amount of time, so too does one give a man an equivalent period of time to prepare himself, as he too needs time to prepare for the marriage. However, in the case of a widow, who already has items available from her previous marriage, she is given only thirty days to prepare. If the appointed time for the wedding arrived and they did not get married due to some delay on the part of the husband, then the woman may partake of his food. And if her husband is a priest, she may partake of teruma, even if she is an Israelite woman. The tanna’im disagree about the permission granted to a priest to sustain his betrothed with teruma before she is married to him. Rabbi Tarfon says: He may give her all of her required sustenance from teruma. During her periods of impurity, e.g., menstruation, when she cannot partake of teruma, she may sell the teruma to a priest and use the proceeds to buy non-sacred food. Rabbi Akiva says: He must give her half of her needs from non-sacred food and half may be from teruma, so that she can eat from the non-sacred food when she is ritually impure.

 

In this text,

 

a virgin is given a year from betrothal to prepare herself for marriage, during which time she remains under her father’s roof. Gabrial’s visit was early in [Mary’s] betrothal, and yet he came bearing imminent news: “behold (ιδου) thou shalt conceive in thy womb” (Luke 1:31). Such a greeting, “behold,” or literally, “Look!” “is an attention grabber appropriate to the context, [and] often introduces something new or unusual, or something that requires special attention.” Something very significant was about to happen. Just as Gabriel’s “behold (ιδου)” as spoken to Zacharias a few verses earlier indicated that he would become immediately mute, just so the “behold (ιδου)” to Mary indicated that she would become immediately pregnant, and so she interprets it: “Behold the handmaid of the Ord; be it unto me according to thy word” (Lk 1:38). Mary forthwith departed “with haste” (Luke 1:39) to visit her cousin Elizabeth, announcing that she “hath rejoiced” at what the Lord “hath done” (Luke 1:49), spending “about three months” with her, and then “returned to her own house” (Luke 1:56). Although she was betrothed, none of her behavior suggests that the marriage was imminent at the time of Gabriel’s visit. Matthew relates that Mary “was found with child” (Matthew 1:18), indicating that Joseph was not told of the pregnancy, but rather discovered it on his own, something that could have happened no earlier than Mary’s return from her visit with Elizabeth, at the beginning of the second trimester (Luke 1:56), when a woman begins to show visibly. Thus, while Mary did not act as if her marriage was imminent, her pregnancy certainly was. Her question to Gabriel, therefore, rather than revealing a vow of perpetual virginity, more naturally expresses puzzlement about the proper order of events—to wit, how a pregnancy could take place immediately when marriage was still a distant event. (Timothy F. Kauffman, “The Blessed Virgin Mary,” in A Gospel Contrary! A Study of Roman Catholic Abuse of History and Scripture to Propagate Error [2023], 203)