Lk. 2:29-32 - A light for revelation to the Gentiles

So how was YHWH seen to have fulfilled the promise of Isaiah 52:7-10, in the light of events as they actually transpired? In what way was YHWH seen to have become a God who demonstrated his kingly reign on behalf of his people? Over what, and whom, precisely did he conquer? How did he reveal his righteousness to the whole earth? In what sense might it be the case for the psalmist to declare that, if not at the time, yet at some point in the future, ‘All the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God’? What kind of victory would be so astounding that it would seize the attention of the whole earth when the victory was declared?

As Andrew says, the journey of Jesus to the temple on a donkey enacted the return of YHWH to the temple. However, since YHWH had already been demonstrated to have been within Jesus, it is fair to say that this was both prophetic enactment and actual fulfilment. (Jesus himself had time and again demonstrated that the functions of the temple were now to be found in himself, and short of blasphemy, that could only have meant that he and God were mutually identified with each other).

What did Jesus as more than an emissary of YHWH go on to accomplish? Not a raid on the Antonia fortress (right turn at the temple on his journey thither), in which the final confrontation with Rome could have been orchestrated, but a few more days teaching in the temple precincts, before an arrest, rigged trial, crucifixion and death. And on the third day (whichever means of counting you employ), a resurrection from the dead, an ascension 40 days later (no more resurrection appearances) and an outpouring of the Spirit - the enduement of power on the church to complete its inner identity and to take the gospel to the whole world.

But what was the gospel? And how were the prophecies, such as those we are pursuing in these advent meditations, fulfilled? How were the enemies of Israel overcome? Who was Israel, more to the point?

Looking at it from this point of view, the enemies of Israel were the selfsame enemies of the nations - sin, and sin’s partner, death. At this point in the narrative, and the narrative as seen in its key historical perspective, sin, or absence of forgiveness of sins, was the problem which underlay all Israel’s problems. Her history stretched behind her like a reproach. In the past, temporary measures had been applied - a deliverer here, a King there, temple ceremonies. Now, these no longer seemed to work. There wasn’t even a proper temple where YHWH might be seen to abide. Moreover, the pagan oppressor, Rome, seemed to be able to exercise the heavy power of death as the means of oppressing the whole nation. Death by crucifixion was the ultimate sanction held against those who chose to resist its power. In this sense, death had been the ultimate sanction wielded by all the pagan oppressors. In the past, there had been times when God intervened, but now, Israel seemed to share the same underlying disease as those who oppressed her - all were sinners in the sight of God.

Yet in Jesus was somebody who seemed to bring something different. Many of the expectations of a return from exile, albeit without the expulsion of the pagans, were being fulfilled through Jesus and amongst those around him. Some of the pagans seemed to be included in Jesus’s exile-return too. This exile-return in Jesus was being seen as the provision of what Israel wanted and needed - inclusion of the marginalized and those excluded by the temple system, forgiveness of sins in its broadest sense - cleansing, healing, release from demonic oppression, restoration into the community, especially the new community of people which was forming around him. And so to his death - Jesus apparently at the mercy of all the powers that were ranged against life itself - oppressive Rome, corrupt Israel, a people choosing resistance by violence in its choice of Barabbas.

What was the significance of Jesus’s resurrection? A life which had overcome human and demonic powers, overcome the power of sin by overcoming death itself. Here, then, when it dawned upon his followers (and still remains to do so today, apparently), was the fulfilment of those magnificent verses in Isaiah, where the herald comes to the city from the battleground (the city none less than Jerusalem itself), announcing the victory of YHWH the King over his enemies, and summoning Israel, and no less the entire world to allegiance to the conqueror. Now the full significance of all that the veiled king had said and done in his three years of itinerance in Israel could be seen. Accounts of his life began to be formed, with a double perspective - how the disciples and Israel had seen him at the time, how he was to be understood now, in the light of events which had come about.

Further, that life which astounded the disciples in his resurrection was to be augmented by an enduement on all believers from the day of Pentecost onwards. Nothing less than a new creation was being brought into the old creation, beginning in Jesus’s followers, preparing for the day of complete consummation of YHWH’s plans for all creation.

The death and resurrection of Jesus were the victory spoken of by Isaiah and by the psalmist. The Spirit was the earnest of its reality in the lives of those who believed. The destiny of Israel to be a light to the nations was now a possibility and reality - a message to be taken to the ends of the earth. What else would have impelled the followers of Jesus to leave the safety and security of their homeland, and venture into the unknown world, against which hostility and contempt had been bred in their very bones?

As for national Israel, the future in the immediate was both sad and tragic. Hostility to Rome came to a head, a futile rising was put down with incredible savagery. Judgement - or a misguided persistence in pressing for a national triumph which would provide an alternative fulfilment of prophecy, according to an alternative reading of her narrative history? Certainly not the fulfilment which Jesus came so magnificently to fulfil through the paradoxical means of his humble birth and earthly life, his suffering and death, his resurrection from the dead, his outpouring of the very life of YHWH on his followers, and the inauguration of a mission to Israel, which became Israel’s mission to the entire world.

Are these the retrospective interpretations of a church which has lost connection with its historical moorings in the very origins of the faith? Is it an interpretation which divides Greek universalising from Jewish particularism? No - this is the story proclaimed by Peter at Pentecost, by the apostles, and the story which is the thread connecting the strange history of Israel, and not just her history, but her account of the world’s history in her sacred texts. The story make sense of the song of Simeon, the prophets and psalms quoted by Andrew, and which is our story today, if we are willing to receive it. Can there be a better story? “And when you hear a wonderful story, you want to tell it to your friends; tell them that a lifetime spent with Jesus is like a street that never ends” - Larry Norman/Sweet, sweet song of salvation.

Andrew,

I am greatly appreciating your advent texts and comments. The Simeon account, with sure echoes of Isaiah’s message of consolation, does indeed have a significant missional thrust that must be one of the ongoing purposes for the people of God as the same passage is cited by Paul in Romans 10.

My friend Stanley Porter recently spoke with me about this text in terms of the feet metaphor that highlights movement and presence. “St. Paul’s quotation of Isaiah in Romans 10:15 is an affirmation of incarnational presence. It speaks of corporeal involvement, as Christ’s coming to us meant that he had to assume feet of clay. The divine apostolic movement that is behind this allusion to the feet is no less than an expression of Trinitarian love.”

This is hugely important to Simeon’s understanding of Israel as a light of revelation to the Gentiles, which is, indeed, its glory. (Luke 2:32) No wonder that Simeon was free to depart in peace. In this way, the Nunc dimittis is powerful for us as well. Let’s recite it or sing it throughout this advent season with commensurate zeal.

To follow Andrew’s argument, localized national salvation logically would lead to cosmic redemption (Romans 8:18-31). Paul makes it very clear in Romans 5 that through the “one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men… even so through obedience of the One the many will be made righteous” (Romans 5:18-9, NAS). This is not the same as universal salvation (salvation for all men). The reason Christ’s incarnation does not lead to universal salvation is that faith comes by hearing the Gospel (Romans 10:14-15). Yes, redemption is now made available to all, but upon hearing and even seeing the good news, some still will not accept it since not all will understand it. This is the paradox of the gospel since it is both hidden and revealed (upon seeing Jesus healing people, some still did not believe he is the son of God and wanted to kill him – Matthew 9:27-34; 12:13-14). The gospel is ultimately foolishness to those who don’t have the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 2:14). This is why Paul points out that the Gospel is either a fragrance to those who accept it and a stench to those who wants nothing to do with it (2 Corinthians 2:15-16).

Indeed the in-breaking of Christ’s physical presence in the world will not go unnoticed. This is seen in his personal ministry on earth. Moreover, God’s plan of redemption and reconciliation (reconciling of enmity between God and man, and man and his fellow man) is further amplified in the meal of the Last Supper. This intimate act of sharing a meal is a sign of peace and reconciliation between enemies (c.f. Psalm 23:5). Imagine if the church truly practiced this institution within its four walls and also in the world. Surely this will not go unnoticed by the world. The arrival of Christ and his kingdom is a reality demonstrated in signs such as the Last Supper.

As Andrew points out, Simeon’s search for the “consolation” of Israel is an echo of Isaiah 40-66 and in particular, Isaiah 52:7-10. Paul alludes to this same passage when he talks about Israel’s stubbornness and unwillingness to believe even God himself demonstrated miracles and signs (Romans 9-10). Simeon’s understanding of baby Jesus as the fulfillment of God’s promise to Israel leads him to say that the birth of Jesus is something God has “prepared in the presence of all peoples” (Luke 2:31, NAS). This preparation of fulfillment began long ago since the beginning of creation, and as Paul points out, this message has been spoken in the majesty and glory God imbued throughout creation (Romans 10:18 and Psalm 19). Paul’s reference to the wisdom psalm (Psalm 19) is further indication that God’s plan is cosmic, a plan to redeem not just man but also creation itself.

I thank Andrew for pointing these several direct references to the arrival of Jesus as a national savour of the Jewish people.

How do we then interpret verses like: “…as he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets from of old, that we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all who hate us; to show the mercy promised to our fathers…”?

This mercy promised to their fathers wasn’t promised to a small sub-group (Messianic Jews) that would almost vanish within a few short generations. Most of the OT prophets have prophecies about a coming time when YHWH will move mightily to re-gather and restore Israel as a prosperous, secure nation, who will then become a true light to the whole world. (Isa 66:18-21, Isa 49:22-23, Jer 30-31, Jer 31:36-41, Jer 33:14-26, Ezek 43:1-12, Joel 3:1-2, Amos 9:11-15, Micah 4:1-7, Zeph 3:9-20, Zech 14:16-21) I believe Zechariah & Simeon both told us that Jesus was going to be the one to bring these many prophecies about- the great longed for ‘consolation of Israel.’

One problem is that we (western tradition Christians) aren’t accustomed to thinking about Jesus in this light. Another problem is that events didn’t turn out that way. The national saviour died horribly instead. (Oops.)

The options that I can currently see follow. Please excuse the tongue in cheek.

1) Ignore the whole Israel thing and get back to what we’re good at (gentile stuff). De-Judahising Jesus has sort of worked for several thousand years now, even if he some of what He said doesn’t seem very clear.

2) Swap out all the references to “Israel”, replace them with “Church,” and be creative with the ones that don’t fit. It would seem to me that a major problem with this approach is it demands that a string of major prophets weren’t actually prophesying about the people they said they were (and were delivering the prophecy’s to), but were actually talking about a small sub-group who would one day form a new religious community that would quickly be taken over by gentiles. One the other hand, one big advantage of the swap approach is that it makes more sense historically.

3) Allow a time gap. This approach lets Jesus be born as a national saviour of the Jewish people, The Messiah who will save his people from their sins, who will restore them from a state of physical distress and exile, who will gather them from the four corners of the earth, put a new covenant into their hearts, and establish Jerusalem as a light to the whole world. Only strangely, he doesn’t do this during his life time. He dies, there’s a long time gap, and then he returns to (among other things) sort out Israel’s oppressors.

The beauty of the third option would seem to be that the many, many prophecies about Israel’s restoration can be read literally, they don’t need to be “spiritualised away”, or applied to already occurred events in a forced or perhaps even neglectful (to the scriptures) manner.

So, I’d like to suggest that Simeon really did see the one who was to be YHWH’s salvation and glory to His people Israel (not a new Israel-replacing sub-group), but unbeknown to Simeon (or seemingly anyone else), this baby wouldn’t bring this about for over another 2000 years.

Looking at your options, I have to say that I think at least Paul would opt for option 2, rather than 3. Paul believed that baptism into the Spirit of Christ made one into part of the “true” or “new” Isreal. He believed that this gesture of faith had much more signifcance to God than one’s lineage. He cited the fact that Abraham was chosen for the convenant because of his faith. This was an extremely unpopular idea among both Christian Jews (like Peter & James) and the Gentiles he sought to convert- even though they all acknowledged a place for Gentiles within the movement, which included baptism. Everybody liked their lineage, especially the Jews, they did not want to give up their status as God’s chosen people. But Paul was very tenacious about this concept which he maintained God revealed to him through a vision of the holy spirit.

By the way, I’m stealing all this from a pretty cool book called “Rabbi Paul.” This is the only book I’ve read on the subject, so I’m sure my perspective is skewed by it. Though it is written from a historical perspective, and is not always flattering of Paul’s character, it definitely doesn’t seek to “debunk” Paul’s ideas. And this one, about the “New Israel” in particular, is well backed up by Paul’s own writings.

So, from what I’ve read, if you don’t agree with redefining Isreal as those that are baptize into the holy spirit, or as you called it “the church,” I think that you are disagreeing with Paul. However, from what I read in this book, in disagreeing with Paul, you are in good company, with the likes of Peter and James.

The reason that Jews didn’t think that they should eat with Gentiles was that much of the meat that one bought in the market was “sacrificed” when it was slaughtered to one pagan god or another. This was not too common in Israel, but in the diaspora, it was simply how things were done. It was even a form of advertising, like getting Isis to endorse your ground chuck. Diaspora Jews keeping the Torah had to go out of their way to avoid these meats. Obviously, gentiles did not. This made eating with gentiles more than just a dietary or purity issue- eating the meat in a gentile home could make you an idolator without your knowledge. This is what Paul was talking about in 1 Chor 8:4-13. In this verse he takes the very controversial stance that since the pagan gods do not exist, a baptized christian can eat this meat- because they know that the sacrifice was just a fake, superstitious ritual performed by ignorant pagans. (Of course he qualifies this by saying that people with this new enlightened perspective shouldn’t use it to tempt those who are trying to follow the Law.)

Again, I don’t mean to say that Paul thought there was no difference between jews and baptized gentiles at all, but he did think that thtere was less difference than anyone else did. He was so emphatic about this that he attempted to erase rather serious taboos, like the one above.