Those God Chose: Simeon, the Archetypal Disciple

Introduction

Through my studies I’ve become fascinated to note the characteristics of those God chose. Did he simply show more grace to some people by randomly electing them for honour in his service, or did they make themselves more eligible than others by their virtuous lives?

When Jesus was presented in the temple as a baby for redemption, Simeon was among those God chose to use. Let’s look at the short encounter recorded by Luke.

Reading

Luke 2:25–32 (ESV):

25 Now there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon, and this man was righteous and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. 26 And it had been revealed to him by the Holy Spirit that he would not see death before he had seen the LORD’s Christ. 27 And he came in the Spirit into the temple, and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him according to the custom of the Law, 28 he took him up in his arms and blessed God and said,

29 “Lord, now you are letting your servant depart in peace, according to your word;
30 for my eyes have seen your salvation
31 that you have prepared in the presence of all peoples,
32 a light for revelation to the Gentiles,and for glory to your people Israel.”

Comments

Simeon, or Shimon in Hebrew, was likely named after his great ancestor, born to Jacob and Leah. His name seems to mean “He heard.” That is, God heard Leah’s prayer for a son. Perhaps Simeon’s mother, like Leah, had felt unloved by her husband and the LORD had heard her prayer.

Simeon was in the temple at the time of Jesus’ consecration and redemption (as firstborn son), and so we can be sure that Simeon was a worshipper. In his frail old body, close to death, he put up with the discomfort of walking up to the temple, immersing himself in a ritual bath, and then climbing the many stairs to the temple courts so that he could serve and worship the LORD.

Luke describes Simeon as “righteous and devout” (or “just and pious” in some translations.) Jews have a special word for righteous people; the say that this or that person is a “tzaddik,” literally, “a righteous.” It’s not a term used lightly, so we can be sure that Luke was emphasizing that Simeon lived carefully in obedience to the Law. He kept God’s commandments. That doesn’t mean he was just doing dead works and didn’t have a personal relationship with God; on the contrary, his devoted observance was evidence of his relationship with God. I’d also say that, in order to keep God’s commandments, Simeon must have studied God’s Word very carefully to know what he required, thus offering what Jewish tradition considers the highest form of worship.

Jews also have a word for the devout, or pious: hasid. In rabbinical literature, the word was used of those who went above and beyond the requirements of the various forms of Jewish Law. It comes from the word hesed, a faithful loving kindness expressed toward God and fellow man. This suggests Simeon knew very well that keeping the commandments outwardly isn’t enough; as Jesus taught, the underlying motive for observance is crucial.

How often modern society scorns righteous living and devotion to the Lord, but Simeon is among those God chose, so we should see him as a role model. Some Christians have re-defined these words, such that “righteous” is read as “self-righteous,” and therefore wicked, and “devout” or “pious” is taken to mean “seeking to earn one’s salvation.” But that’s not what Luke meant. It’s our language that needs to be redeemed, not Simeon’s soul.

I believe God chose Simeon because he was righteous in his lifestyle, and devoted to the LORD. His righteous acts were not devoid of faith. Luke referred to the Messiah referred to as “the consolation/comfort of Israel.” Since long ago, rabbis have referred to the Messiah as the Comforter (or Consoler) based on the Isaiah’s kingdom-era prophecies that God would console Zion and his people, Israel. Simeon’s waiting was not passive; he was expecting, anticipating, praying for and trusting in God’s promised salvation in the person of Messiah.

So, we see in this passage that Simeon had great faith in two of God’s promises in particular. The first was faith that the LORD would send his Christ—his Messiah, or Anointed One—to establish his kingdom; and the second was that Simeon would live to see the Messiah himself. No wonder Simeon wanted to hang around in the temple as he realized his days were running out! The alternative was to doubt, give up on God’s promise, and stay in the comfort of his home. Instead, he mimicked his father, Abraham, trusting the LORD to keep his promise, even as he grew very old. Rather than becoming anxious, Simeon understood that he must “seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness,” which is precisely what Luke tells us that he did. That’s why I call Simeon, “the archetypal disciple.” Simeon’s righteous and devout living was inspired by his great faith in God to send Messiah to establish his kingdom, as the Jewish prayer goes: “in your lifetime and during your days.”

In the same sentence which Luke tells us that Simeon was righteous and devout, he also mentions that Simeon was filled with the Holy Spirit. There seems to be a cycle in which God calls, man obeys, God draws near, man worships God, and so on. The more we obey the LORD, the more of his presence we can enjoy as the Holy Spirit comes upon us. Luke tells us that three times in quick succession:

Luke 2:25: “the Holy Spirit was upon him;”
Luke 2:26: the Holy Spirit had revealed to him that he would live to see the LORD’s Messiah;
Luke 2:27: he came to the temple “in the Spirit.”

We need to take special note when the Bible repeats something three times. As for Simeon, it’s safe to say that he was motivated by faith and led by the Holy Spirit. That is why he is among those God chose. The closing verses of Psalm 92 make a fitting tribute to Simeon(ESV, emphasis added):

12 The righteous flourish like the palm tree
and grow like a cedar in Lebanon.
13 They are planted in the house of the LORD;
they flourish in the courts of our God.
14 They still bear fruit in old age;
they are ever full of sap and green,
15 to declare that the LORD is upright;
he is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in him.

Paul and "the Jews" in 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16

In 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16, Paul wrote what appears to be the most virulent anti-Semitic expression of the New Testament. This text is so extreme, not to mention inconsistent with some of Paul’s other letters, that scholars have questioned whether it is original to the letter, not perhaps an interpolation by a later editor, yet the evidence points to the verses’ authenticity. Here is the ESV translation of the text:

For you, brothers, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea. For you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews, ¹⁵ who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out, and displease God and oppose all mankind ¹⁶ by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles that they might be saved—so as always to fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them at last!

What follows is a concise response from my postsupersessionist perspective. I’ve listed some key references at the end.

Firstly, there are good reasons to narrow the target of Paul’s attack to a small sub-group of the Jewish people at the time:

• The word that the New Testament uses for “Jew” can equally be translated as “Judean.” Use of people in the Diaspora, “Jew” is an appropriate translation, but when the setting is Jerusalem, “Judean” is generally better, differentiating Jews of Judea from Jews of the Diaspora. (At least the ESV translators inserted a footnote after verse 14 make mention of some ambiguity around the meaning of “the Jews”: “The Greek word Ioudaioi can refer to Jewish religious leaders and others under their influence, who opposed the Christian faith in that time.”)
• This comma between verses 14 and 15 is so critical that much research has been done on it. Why? Because by its inclusion, the text implies that all the Jews (at least of that era) were guilty of murdering Jesus and the prophets, but without the comma, the “who” restricts that guilt to specific Jews—those who committed such acts themselves.
• The comma simply cannot be justified, since it’s clear that Paul did not intend to condemn all the Jewish people. (Note that the punctuation was only inserted several centuries later.) 1 Thessalonians 2:14 shows that Paul is referring to the Judean Jews in particular; he is concerned about the churches in Judea. Moreover, Paul often used articular participles to restrict the application of a general term (here, “the Jews”) to a subset of that group. In all six times Paul used participles with the definite article from the start of the letter up to 2:15, he was denoting a sub-group of the broader group by that name. It’s good, therefore, to note that the NIV omits the comma, unlike most English translations.
• Tōn apokteinantōn (in v15), typically translated as “who killed” could reasonably be translated “those who killed.” Examples of such use of the definite article are easy to find, e.g. in Romans 1:32, hoi prassontes: “those who do.”
• Not only that, but Acts 21 tells us that myriads of Jews in Jerusalem were believers, so he didn't mean all Judean Jews.
• Some scholars have made a plausible case that “the prophets” referred to those of Jesus’ followers who had already been martyred. While, in no way would that alleviate the gravity of the offence, it would clearly restrict the blame to a minority group of Ioudaioi within the general population of Ioudaioi.

For all these reasons, the phrase is better translated to indicate a particular group of guilty individuals rather than the entire Jewish population:

“from those [particular] Judean Jews who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets”.

Aside from that vital information, there are other mitigating factors to consider:

• Paul was writing as a Jew who practised a messianic form of Judaism. He had not converted to another religion. This much is clear from the New Testament, as confirmed by modern scholarship.
• Paul wasn’t standing apart from the Jewish people, pointing fingers at them, but he was standing as a representative of one Jewish sect critiquing others. It was very common to do so then even as it is today. There are many examples in Jewish and non-Jewish writings of the period in which members of a society make scathing attacks on other members, yet without meaning to attack all the people.
• Paul’s main purpose was to comfort and encourage the Thessalonian believers, not to vilify the Jews. He wanted to remind the Thessalonian believers who were being persecuted by their own people that the churches in Judea knew what that felt like. In fact, Judean believers had had it worse. God’s faithful people tend to get persecuted by their own people. Paul himself had suffered at the hands of his kinsmen. But we know from his other writings that Paul loved the Jewish people dearly – and so does the LORD.  The Thessalonian church was not alone in being persecuted by their countrymen.
• His forceful comments were a common rhetoric device. Both Jewish and non-Jewish writers of the time also used it. His critique is similar to that of the prophets and other Jewish writers of the time, like the Qumran community, who did not write off the people of Israel but sought their repentance, lashing out at those among them who hindered God's eschatological work. Likewise, Paul saw Judean opponents of the gospel as blocking God's purpose of saving the nations.
• On Jesus’ similar words about Jerusalemites, “who kill the prophets”: these were a lament, not a curse, and ended with confirmation that its people will repent and that Jesus will return to them.
• Ultimately, the wrath of God (v16) comes (aorist tense) on those particular Jews. The temporal sense of the verb is uncertain. Perhaps Paul thought the downturn of fortunes of Judean Jews in the late forties signalled the soon return of Messiah. Or perhaps he was expecting a worse outcome for them in the future. In any case, we should not be surprised that, inasmuch as the guilty are judged, those not guilty (the majority of the Jewish people) of the particular offence Paul mentioned are not judged for it.
• Finally, the purpose of Paul in mentioning the judgement of those particular Jews who were guilty of killing Jesus and the prophets was simply to encourage the believers in Thessalonica: their own persecutors would face God’s wrath. Paul wasn’t developing some doctrine of anti-Semitism.

All told, the evidence in this very superficial study is more than adequate to challenge the tradition Christian reading of 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16. What’s the problem with this text? Paul is not the problem. His writing is not the problem. Rather, it is the translation of his text, its reading, and application by Christians that is the problem! And the evidence for this gets stronger the more closely one studies the literature. (See the readings listed below; I didn't use them all but found Brown very useful.)

Recommended Reading

Bockmuehl, Markus N A. “1 Thessalonians 2:14-16 and the Church in Jerusalem.” Tyndale Bulletin 52, no. 1 (2001): 1–31.

Brown, Dave. “Documentary Study of 1 Thessalonians 2:14-16,” n.d. https://www.academia.edu/9256736/Documentary_Study_of_1_Thessalonians_2_14-16.

Dickieson, Brenton DG. “Antisemitism and the Judaistic Paul: A Study of I Thessalonians 2:14-16 in Light of Paul’s Social and Rhetorical Contexts and the Contemporary Question of Antisemitism,” n.d. http://place.asburyseminary.edu/trendissertations/4126.

Gilliard, Frank D. “Paul and the Killing of the Prophets in 1 Thess. 2:15.” Novum Testamentum 36, no. 3 (1994): 259.

Gilliard, Frank D. “The Problem of the Antisemitic Comma Between 1 Thessalonians 2.14 and 15.” New Testament Studies 35, no. 04 (1989):481–502.

Lowe, Malcolm F. “Who Were the ΙΟΥΔΑΙΟΙ?” Novum Testamentum 18, no. 2 (1976): 101–30.

Book review: Searching Her Own Mystery

What is the basis for current dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church (and Christians in general) and the Jewish people? What theological points of contact exist between them? Is there connection merely historical, or is there a "living link" still in our age? Do they have a shared destiny? How should Christian doctrines of Christology and ecclesiology be shaped by a correct biblical perspective on genealogical Israel (the Jewish people)? What about the identity of Jesus as the priest, prophet and king of Israel: Does it mysteriously bind the church to the people of Israel?

Mark Kinzer addresses these questions (and more) in his new book, Searching Her Own Mystery (2015, Cascade Books). He examines key Catholic sacraments in the light of a twofold (bilateral) ecclesiology to produce a fresh and surprising, postsupersessionist perspective that finds Israel at the centre (with Christ in the centre of Israel). And there is also a surprising connection between Jewish kedushah (holiness) and Christian sacraments! Kinzer reviews five aspects of kedushah (relating to people, time, space, Word, and deeds) that serve as sacramental signs through the ministry of Jesus. Finally, the author concludes that, with Jesus continually present among his own (Jewish) people, as well as among people from all nations who believe in him, there must be some significant overlap, even "mutual-indwelling," between the two peoples of God. It is here that Messianic Jews play a particularly significant role as the living witness of the bond between these peoples.

For a more detailed synopsis of the book, see my review here: https://www.academia.edu/17417887/Searching_Her_Own_Mystery_by_Mark_S._Kinzer_.

Unity with distinction in Acts 15

The rulings of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 for Gentile believers were just four minimal rules that would allow table fellowship of believing ("Messianic") Jews with Gentile believers (Christians). Their eating together was an important sign of their unity in Christ without any discrimination against either party, yet without nullifying the Law of Moses. The Gentiles didn't convert to Judaism, and the Jews didn't abandon their Law. They continued to live as Torah-observant Jews, eating and worshiping side-by-side with Gentile believers. Now we are touching on what has been called unity with distinction, or what Mark Kinzer refers to as bilateral ecclesiology. (See my review of Kinzer's book, Postmissionary Messianic Judaism.) So there is still discrimination between (that is, "differentiation of", not "discrimination against") Jews and Gentiles - which starts in Genesis and continues to Revelation. Otherwise there was no need for the Jerusalem Council to make a ruling; they could have just said, "The Gentile believers are free from the Law just as we have been freed from the Law." But they didn't.

For a careful study of Acts 15, and Peter's mention that God made "no distinction" between Gentiles and Jews (Acts 15:9) in particular, see my paper, "Does Acts 15:9 refute intra-ecclesial Jew-Gentile distinction?"

Macina on the Messianic Reign

Over the past few year I have started to revisit various theories regarding the end times, especially from the perspective of some leading Messianic Jews. Last week I discovered a profound paper on belief in the Messianic era (the reign of Messiah on this earth) in both Jewish and Christian (especially Catholic) teaching: is it a "common legacy" or a "millenial heresy"? The author, Menahem Macina, has published scores of papers, mostly in French, and mostly relating in some way to the Jewish people.

The paper that caught my attention was "The Belief in a Messianic Reign on earth: common legacy for Jews and Christians alike, or millenarian heresy?" I won't summarise it here, except to say that it presents a tactful challenge to Christians who reject the notion of a literal future reign of Christ from the throne of David in Jerusalem for a very long period ("a thousand years" in biblical language). In particular, Macina calls for the Roman Catholic Church, in this post-Vatican II period, to reconsider millennial doctrine, arguing that both Jewish tradition and very early (second century) Church Fathers supported it. The oldest case in which this is clearly portrayed in Christian literature is found in the writings of Irenaeus, Against Heresies, who insisted that the teaching of a millennial reign was faithfully passed down by the presbyters from the apostles and even Christ himself.

I no longer see the study of the age to come as an optional component of Christian or Messianic faith; the heart of the gospel is the coming of God's Kingdom, and the fullness of that kingdom is something that lies in the future, something that I long to see - God's righteousness established and maintained throughout the earth. For me, Macina's paper makes that vision clearer and more certain. It's definitely worth a read.

Richard Harvey: "But I'm Jewish"

I recently met a leading Messianic Jewish scholar in England, Richard Harvey. Richard is a senior researcher at Jews for Jesus and an associate lecturer at All Nations Christian College. He also recently started a blog promoting awareness of Messianic Jewish history. He was very kind to help me with my travels, encourage me with my research, and to give me a couple of booklets which he authored, one of which is titled: But I'm Jewish! A Jew for Jesus tells his story.

This is an autobiographical work - Richard's story about his life until the time of publication in 1996. Richard and his wife, Monica, are Jews who each came to the understanding that Jesus is the Messiah of Israel. For Richard, this mystery was gradually revealed in the early 1970's, and he has lived to testify to it since then, continuing in the face of much rejection and even abuse. The book is a wonderful, short read, sketching Richard's Jewish upbringing and educational background as well as the first two decades of his life as a follower of Jesus. It's available for free in electronic format here.  

My thesis online

My thesis is available on the Academia.edu website (see https://sats-za.academia.edu/DavidWoods), but I understand some folk don't want to create an Academia profile, so I've made a copy here that is free and easy to access.

Title: Jews and Gentiles in the Ecclesia: Evaluating the theory of intra-ecclesial Jew-Gentile distinction

Download options:

1. Whole thesis
2. Abstract only
3. Conclusion only