Section IX

the presentation of Jesus in the temple

(Luke 2)

In His relation to the essential appointments of the Old Testament law, Jesus was an Israelite who exhibited a life passed in conformity to the law, under the impulses of liberty. It was not till death that He was released from Israelite responsibilities. Through the law, He died to the law, as Paul and His people generally did, in fellowship with Him. Till His death upon the cross, however, by which His nation thrust Him out into the world, He exhibited His divine liberty under the condition of Israelite religious national duty.

Thus also did Mary act with the Holy Child. It never struck her to claim exemption for her child from Jewish duties. She understood too well the signification of the manifestation of the Son of God in the flesh. From her stand-point, however, she could not take a part in the typical customs which the birth of the child required, with slavish devotion and admiration.

The circumcision of the child was simply performed eight days after His birth, the time appointed by the law. The sign of theocratic civilization¹ had no other import for the sacred body, without spot or blemish, than that it thus became free from blame in the eyes of the Jewish Church.² There was nothing to ennoble in Him; the angel had named Him Jesus before He was conceived in the womb. Thus He brought the nobility of the true circumcision or civilization of nature into the world with Him. Hence it was the most essential part of the ceremony that this name, Jesus, should now be given to Him. As the ceremony could only bear testimony to His native nobility, His name bore testimony to His true destiny.

It has been justly remarked, that the simple celebration of the circumcision of Jesus stands in remarkable contrast to the great festivities with which the circumcision of John was solemnized. John concluded the Old Covenant. In him the rite of circumcision solemnized its last glory. Jesus commenced the New Covenant. In His life the rite was only the performance of a national duty.

During the flight into Egypt, the time which must intervene between a birth and the rite of purification had elapsed. Hence, when the holy family returned home, their first business was to present the Child in the temple.

There were in this case two religious duties to fulfil. The greater of these was, that the Child, as a first-born son, must be offered to the Lord (Exo 13:2; Num 18:15-16). As a first-born, He was regarded as a sacrifice, whose life belonged to the Lord, and must therefore be redeemed by a sacrifice. God had once inflicted death upon the first-born of Egypt and spared the first-born of Israel; hence they were, in a special sense, dedicated to Him (Exo 13:2). Therewith also was connected the notion, that the priesthood of the family was the duty of the first-born. Since, however, according to the theocratic appointment, the tribe of Levi represented the first-born of the nation in this duty, the redemption took place with reference to this obligation also (Num. 18) In the latter respect, the sacrifice seems to have been appointed to be rendered in money, viz., five shekels, after the shekel of the sanctuary. It was thus that Jesus was now redeemed from the service of the temple, while His mother at the same time celebrated the rite of her purification. If the woman had borne a son, she was to offer a lamb forty days after, or, if she were poor, a pair of turtle-doves or young pigeons (Lev 12:8). According to the statement of the Evangelist, Mary brought the offering of the poor.

While the parents were offering their sacrifice in the temple, the aged Simeon³ accosted and greeted them as though he had long known and waited for them. He took the child in his arms and praised God.

His prayer was indeed a swan’s song: ‘Lord, now lettest Thou Thy servant depart in peace, according to Thy word; for mine eyes have seen Thy salvation.’ He rejoiced that he could now die happily. He is the noblest type of the Jewish, and especially of the prophetic mind. With deep sorrow does he seem to have lamented the fall of his nation; a sorrow so deep, so tragically painful, that he could not die till his eyes had beheld the Messiah. God had, by the Spirit, given him a pledge that he should not die till he had seen the Christ. It was his joy, but also his sorrow. Hence is he, in the noblest sense, the wandering Jew of the Old Covenant, or rather its wandering Christologist. Now he is released from this fate. He has seen the Messiah; he can now die. His song of praise in the temple has not a Jewish sound. He praises the Saviour, first, as the salvation prepared before the face of all nations, as a light to lighten the Gentiles; he then calls Him the glory of His people Israel. Such words, especially in the mouth of an aged Jew, and spoken in the temple, testify to the most glorious presentiment of Gospel liberty. This is the form the Gospel takes with him. It is great, free, and world-embracing. But it is also very sad. Simeon blesses the parents of Jesus, and announces to Mary the sore conflict of the future. ‘This child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel, and for a sign that shall be spoken against.’ ‘A sword shall pierce thine own soul also,’ said he to Mary; adding, with deep sorrow, the words, ‘The thoughts of many hearts shall be revealed,’ as though his eye penetrated the deep corruption of the Jewish hierarchy.

It was his gospel that he could fall asleep in the peace of his Lord before Good Friday came. What a character!

But how did he find the holy family? A mysterious but powerful impulse of the Spirit had led him to the temple. And how could he distinguish the Holy Child from an ordinary child? asks the critic. But who would judge of the prophetic glance of an aged man such as he was by his own feeble powers of discrimination? Besides, Simeon saw the child with His mother. And thousands in the middle ages learned to know the glory of the child, through the noble form of the mother.⁴

But why were the parents astonished at the words of Simeon concerning the child? asks the critic again. Truly they already knew all; they knew that the child was the Son of God. If nevertheless they were astonished, it was not because they heard perhaps an orthodox formula, but in free and heartfelt delight especially that God should have revealed this holy secret to Simeon. How often is it considered perfectly becoming to be astonished at the higher mysteries of this world? The prophetess Anna now joins the group. She was an aged widow, the daughter of one Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser. She forms a striking contrast to the aged Simeon. He was led by the Spirit to the temple. With her it was an old custom to continue in the temple, with prayer and fasting. He solemnly chanted forth his dying lay at the sight of Christ; she gained fresh life and courage from the same sight, and began to publish the glad tidings to them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem. So different were these characters, and their believing reception of the Gospel, and yet they exhibited a unity, in which the true Messianic life of Israel greeted the Redeemer in the temple.

They who make teleology a reproach to us, and insist that when a butterfly, a hurricane, or even an historical event is in question, we must not inquire concerning its purpose, meet us here with the inquiry, what purpose could there be in bestowing so great a revelation upon these aged people?⁵ They ask us, for what purpose does this old man, in his second childhood, thus dress himself in festal grave-clothes to chant his swan-like lay, and the aged Anna hasten again, like a bride, through the streets of Jerusalem?

───♦───

Notes

It is worthy of note, that even Neander (Life of Christ, p. 25) feels bound to defend the presentation in the temple. ‘Both (namely, the offering of the redemption-money for Jesus, and the sacrifice of purification for Mary) are striking when compared with the circumstances which preceded the birth of this child,’ &c. The Apostle Paul has entirely done away with anything that might be striking by that beautiful saying, ‘He thought it not robbery to be equal with God.’ If it should be felt a difficulty that Christ displayed His divine life amidst the restrictions of Judaism, it must seem quite as striking that He should display it amidst the restrictions of humanity. The glorification, however, of limitation was part of the purpose of His mission. While supranaturalistic prejudice is ever involuntarily criticising the full and sufficient form of Christ’s incarnation, and hence finding in such features of conformity to the law as occur in His life a kind of voluntary complaisance; rationalistic critics would, on the contrary, often make Him display an antinomian spirit, nay, a spirit of opposition to Jewish ecclesiasticism. This arises from a want of appreciation for the distinction between the essential law and the scrupulous observance in Israel. Upon this distinction depends that glorious alternation between conformity to law, and liberty displayed in the life of Jesus, that infinite dexterity with which His pure walk was ever able to steer between the observance of law and the non-observance of scrupulous additions;-to dance among eggs without breaking them, would but poorly express the difficulty of such a course.

1) Comp. Winer's R. W. B., Art. Besehneidung.

2) [The imputation of our sin to Christ began at the moment "He took our nature upon Him ; and being, as Mediator, subject to the law both in its requirements and penalty, His circumcision had a meaning in the eye of God as well as in the eye of the Church, It was the sign of subjection to the whole law in all its aspects—ED.]

3) He has been supposed, though without foundation, to have been Rabbi Simeon, the son of Hillel, and father of Gamaliel, who filled the office of president of the Sanhedrim after Hillel.

4) [This explanation rather mars than assists that just given. The statement of Luke (ii. 27), that Simeon came ‘by the Spirit’ into the temple, is of itself sufficient explanation of his recognition of the Messiah. Comp. the apocryphal account quoted by Ellicott, p. 67.—ED.]

5) Strauss, i. 290. Comp. Ebrard3 175.