If your theology pretty much matches up with mine (as outlined in my “Welcome” and “Statement of Faith” tabs in the blue menu bar at the top of this page) and you’d like to contribute a guest post, drop me an e-mail, and let’s chat about it.
Mary’s “Unplanned” Pregnancy
by Charlotte Staudt
Have you ever heard Jesus’s birth described as an “unplanned” or “unexpected pregnancy”? Unfortunately, I’ve heard that description several times, and it seems to be gaining traction among some conservative Christians. I first heard it when I worked for a Christian public policy group, but I’ve also seen it on Focus on the Family’s website, a pregnancy care center, and even on a car magnet. During this Christmas season, you may come across this description yourself, so I would like to offer a few points as to why this description is wrong and why we can’t use the Biblical account of Mary or any part of Luke 1 to form pro-life arguments.
Unhelpful, Cultural Euphemisms
In today’s culture, “unplanned” and “unexpected” are usually used as euphemisms for pregnancies resulting from illicit relationships. There are exceptions, of course, but for the most part, this is the case. Since those words are generally used to describe pregnancies resulting from sin, should we use them to describe Mary’s pregnancy with Jesus, the Son of God, by the Holy Spirit? Of course not! Using such descriptions is unhelpful to say the least, and it is certainly disrespectful of God’s sovereignty. While such disrespect is probably not intentional, it simply isn’t beneficial to use cultural euphemisms to describe a part of God’s perfect plan of redemption for His people, which had been planned since before the beginning of time.
Ignoring Biblical Context
When reading the Bible, we know that context matters. As we begin a book of the Bible, it’s important to ask and understand answers to some of the classic grade school questions of who, why, when, etc. For this point, I’d like to focus on Luke’s reason for writing, his “why.” He states this himself at the very beginning of his work: “to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, that you may have certainty concerning the things you have been taught” (Luke 1:3-4). In other words, Luke is simply writing a complete account for a brother in Christ. He wants Theophilus to have “an orderly account” or a reliable record of the life of Jesus, and in this account, he starts at the beginning, first with the announcement of the coming of John the Baptist, and then the announcement of the coming of Jesus.
While using cultural euphemisms was merely unhelpful, using Luke 1 to argue a pro-life position is eisegetical, the practice of eisegesis. Merriam-Webster defines eisegesis as, “The interpretation of a text (as of the Bible) by reading into it one’s own ideas.” Costi Hinn expands on this idea, writing, “Eisegesis takes a specific passage from the Bible and isolates it from its original meaning, the author’s original intention, and God’s original purpose.” Thus, when reading this account, or any Bible passage, we can’t make the text say anything the original author didn’t. As we read about Mary, we can’t project our 21st-century ideas and emotions onto the text. That would be eisegesis. We can’t cast Mary as a scared young woman facing an “unplanned pregnancy” and wondering what to do about it. There is no indication of that in the text. In fact, the text indicates quite the opposite. She was “troubled” when the angel first appeared to her, but once she hears his message, she asks one question, and simply responds, “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word” (Luke 1:38).
Additionally, some pro-lifers will also cite Luke 1:41, “And when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the baby leaped in her womb,” to argue their position. In fact, Roland Warren, president and CEO of the pro-life ministry Care Net, states the following, “If you’re a pro-choice Christian, what this actually does in Scripture is it tells you that late-term abortion and early-term abortion are both killing a life.” Does the Biblical text give any indication of any of this? No. Remember, this is an account, a record of the life of Jesus. Thus, John the Baptist’s leap is simply an action, not a foundation for an argument.
Missing the Biblical Lessons
Since Luke 1:26-45 does not provide us with pro-life arguments, what does it teach us? What lessons can we glean from the text? First, everyone in this passage recognized Jesus as God. Gabriel tells Mary that Jesus “will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High” (Luke 1:32). In other words, Jesus was God. John MacArthur explains this by saying, “to identify Jesus as the Son of the Most High is to declare that He has the same essence as the Most High God.” He also states, “Gabriel’s announcement also affirms the deity of Christ.” According to Luke’s narrative, Mary asks no questions regarding this and simply takes the angel at his word. Elizabeth and an unborn John the Baptist also recognize Jesus as God. In verse 43, Elizabeth calls Mary, “the mother of my Lord,” meaning she realized the baby Mary was carrying was the Son of God. Elizabeth’s explanation of John the Baptist’s leap in verse 44 shows that he also recognized Jesus in Mary’s womb. How would they both know this? Verse 41 tells us that “Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit.” Thus, her understanding “must be attributed to the illuminating work of the Spirit,” according to John MacArthur.1 Likewise, the response of John the Baptist was “supernaturally prompted by the Spirit of God.”2
The story of Mary also teaches us about trusting and submitting to God. Her reply, “Behold, I am the servantof the Lord; let it be to me according to your word,” shows complete submission to the will of God. John MacArthur uses “willingly” and “gracefully” to describe her submission. R. C. Sproul refers to it as “subjection,”3 which Merriam-Webster defines as, “one that is placed under authority or control.” In other words, Mary not only recognized God’s authority over her, but she also trusted it. She didn’t ask for a sign as Zechariah did (Luke 1:18), or doubt as many of us may struggle with from time to time. She understood Who God is and trusted Him because of it.
In conclusion, as we read and ponder Luke 1 this Christmas, that reading shouldn’t inspire us to pull verses out of context and argue our position. Rather, the accounts of Mary and Elizabeth should inspire us to glorify God for Who He is and what He has done. As we celebrate and enjoy the Christmas season, perhaps we would all do well to remember these words of R.C. Sproul, “We come at Christmastime, not to celebrate the birth of a baby. We come to celebrate the Incarnation of God.”
1-2 MacArthur, John. “Luke.” In the John MacArthur Bible Commentary, 1274. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.
3 Sproul, R.C. “The Annunciation.” In Luke: An Expositional Commentary, 22. Sanford, FL: Ligonier Ministries. ePub.
Charlotte Staudt happily calls the South her home. On any given day, you’ll most likely find her reading and researching, with her calico cat and a cup of tea close at hand. She doesn’t have any social media to share, but she hopes you find her writing encouraging and helpful.
