Matthew Poole and continuators on Luke 1:61

61 And they said unto her, There is none of thy kindred that is called by this name.

The Law for Circumcision Gen. 17.12. Levit. 12.3. was strictly for it to be performed the eigth day. We find nothing▪ commanded in Scripture, either as to the Person who was to perform the office of the Circumciser, or as to the place, Exod. 4.24.25. God met Moses in the Inn, and sought to kill him, because he had not Circumcised his Child, and Zipporah his Wife did it. It is said they afterwards did it in the Synagogues, but there is no Divine Law in the case. That the name was given to the Child upon its Circumcision, appeareth not from Scripture. It is said Gen. 21.3.4. that Abraham called his Son Isaac, and then v. 4. he Circumcised his Son Isaac being eight Days old, we read of no name given by Zipporath, to her Child when she Circumcised him. But the name was at Circumcision declared. It is most certain that Iohn was circumcised in his Fathers house, for we find his Mother was present, who at that time, was not in a condition to stir abroad. They called his name Zacharias, whence we may observe the ancient usage of giving to children, the names of their Fathers, and kindred. This in all probability is the reason of so many odd, and unjustifiable Names given to Persons, (such as are Names of Heathenish Gods and Goddesses, not fit to be named amongst Christians, &c.) We derive from Pagans, and tho some Heathens changed their Names, when they turned Christians, yet many (probably) did not, and by a long traduction, (the Names of Parents being given to Children) the Names of Pagan Idols, such as Fortune, Diana, and the like, are by a most [illegible: 1 letter]ordid practice made the Names of Christians, a thing which certainly ought to be reformed, for it is a doing honour to those Idols, if the giving a Persons Name to a Child, be (as we ordinarily account it, (an honour done to the Person whose Name is so given. The Jews from their beginning seem to have had a R[illegible: 1 letter]ligion as to this, giving Names to their Children, either significative of Gods mercy to them, or their Children, or their own duty to God, and the Names of the Parents, or some of the kindred, were in honour to them given to their Children, therefore when Elizabeth (who knew the Counsel of God as to this Child, either by some Writing from Zachariah, or some Revelation to her self) heard them call him Zachariah, she contradicted them in this thing, and nameth him Iohn, they object that none of her kindred was called by that name.