Several years ago, I was invited to attend a lecture by a Scripture professor at a Catholic college.  The lecture began with a discussion of exegesis, that is, the science of determining the meaning intended by the Scriptural authors. 

Catholicism teaches that an authentic and appropriate reading of the Scriptures requires one to attend to the meaning expressed by the biblical authors and to avoid imposing one’s own meaning on the biblical texts.  

Imposing one’s own meaning on the Scriptures obscures the saving truth that God communicates through the Scriptural text.  Failing at exegesis leads to failing at faith because believing a falsehood does not lead to knowledge of God’s will. 

The lecturer spent quite a lot of time addressing the issue of determining the biblical authors’ intended meaning, and he did an excellent job of explaining the importance of avoiding meanings extraneous to the text.  I was impressed with his attention to the demands of faithful Scriptural interpretation, until he began to comment on a specific text of Scripture. 

He began his commentary on the Scriptures by citing the passage that comprises our Gospel reading today.  Having spent quite a lot of time warning against the practice of imposing one’s personal meanings on the Scriptures, he did exactly what he said should never be done.  He preached faithful Scripture interpretation but did not put it into practice. 

The event in today’s Gospel reading is commonly called “The Visitation.”  The story describes Mary fulfilling the demands of familial piety by paying her respects to her elder relative, Elizabeth.  The Gospel author provides unmistakable clues about the meaning he intended to convey through the story. 

In Luke’s Gospel, the people, places, and events central to the author’s intended meaning are given specific names.  The people, places, and events that are not named serve as literary foils, that is, background against which the action in the story occurs. 

In the story known as “The Visitation,” Mary, Zechariah, and Elizabeth are named; these characters play a central role in communicating the meaning intended by the author.  Although the starting point of Mary’s journey is not mentioned in today’s reading, it was specified earlier in the narrative as “a town of Galilee called Nazareth.” (Lk 1:26)  Mary’s point of origin, then, is central to the meaning of the story.  

Mary’s destination is specified as the region “Judah,” but the name of the town in Judah where Zechariah and Elizabeth lived is not mentioned.  Zechariah and Elizabeth’s exact location, then, is not central to the story, nor is the distance Mary traveled on her journey. 

The fellow whose lecture I attended, took these details and misinterpreted them by depicting Mary’s journey from Nazareth to an unspecified town in Judea as long, arduous, and dangerous.  The lecturer opined that this story is about Mary’s heroic courage in undertaking a perilous journey to a distant destination.   

Mary’s perseverance in the face of dangerous and difficult circumstances makes an engaging story, but it’s not the story that Luke’s Gospel tells. 

According to the Gospel author, Mary left the predominantly pagan territory of Galilee and traveled to Judea, a territory of the Land promised to God’s People on the condition of their faithfulness to the Covenant with Moses.  She did so to show respect to an elder, an obligation of the Mosaic Covenant.  She was greeted by the faithful couple who spoke of her journey in the terms used about both the Exodus from Egypt and the Exiles’ return from captivity in Babylon. (Lk 1:42-45) 

In the story of “The Visitation,” the Gospel author says that the impending birth of Jesus is to be interpreted as God leading God’s People from captivity to freedom and peace.  First, God led the People out of Egypt, then out of Babylon but now, God will lead God’s People out of faithlessness to a renewed fidelity to the Covenant. 

It wasn’t the Gospel author’s intention for us to admire Mary’s courage and perseverance.  Rather, it was the author’s intent for us to see that, even before it occurred, the birth of Jesus announced an extraordinary new offer of salvation by God. 

The difference in the lecturer’s meaning and the author’s meaning is crucial.  Virtue can be admired at a distance and, thereby, have no lasting effects in one’s life.  The birth of Jesus and God’s offer of redemption are not to be admired but accepted and appropriated, thereby transforming one’s life completely.   

The central aspect of this story is not Mary’s journey but the Church’s.  The Gospel author intended that the baptized imitate Mary’s journey, not between geographical locations, but away from faithlessness (symbolized by the pagan territory Galilee) toward faithfulness (symbolized by the Land of Promise, Judea).  That journey of faith does not occur automatically; it is always and only the result of intentional action, like Mary’s choice to obey God’s will. 

It’s easy to talk glowingly about faith and virtue; it’s quite another matter to translate faith into the practice of virtue.  God’s Word is recorded in the Scriptures not only for informational purposes but for transformational purposes, as well.  

Religious practice that is occasional, passive, or self-serving does not amount to authentic faith in God.  Authentic faith in God, by comparison, expresses itself in religious practice that seeks actively to follow God’s will daily.  The latter leads to new life while the former goes nowhere. 

The Gospel author asks where we are going today, not in a physical or geographical sense but in the sense of the direction given to our lives by our daily choices.  Are we moving toward God and the transformation of our lives by Grace or are we moving in another direction?