St Luke - Chapter 2
Herod's Temple |
| Steps leading to Gate Beautiful. J-J Tissot |
These steps were very low ; three taken together only gave a height of half a cubit, so that the whole fifteen steps represented but two and a half cubits, which give a total height of about four and a half feet. It is Josephus who gives us these details, and they help us to understand the legend, telling how Mary when presented in the Temple at the age of three years, cleared all the steps at one bound. This, which would have been impossible with an ordinary staircase, would thus really have been a simple matter.''
 |
| Model of Jerusalem, Herod's Temple |
And after the days of her purification,[1] according to the law of Moses, were accomplished, they carried him to Jerusalem, to present him to the Lord:[2]
Berthold Werner [Public domain]
 |
| Plan of Temple |
1. Holy of Holies
2. Veil
3. Holy Place: the Hekal
4. Altar of Incense
5. Court of Priests
6. Court of Israel
7. Altar of Sacrifice
8. Nicanor Gate
9. Court of Women
10. Temple Treasury
11. Gate Beautiful
12. Court of Gentiles
And when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished, they brought Him to Jerusalem, to present Him to the Lord. Observe that here three different ordinances are intertwined and joined together.
(1) The first is that of Lev. 12:2, et seq., that a woman, if she have borne a male child, shall remain unclean for forty days, and then be purified in the temple legally, that is by the sacrificial rite prescribed by the law.
(2) The second, that the mother offer to God a lamb, as a holocaust for her own purification (not that of her child, as S. Augustine would have it), and a young turtle-dove or pigeon as a sin-offering, if she be rich; but if poor, only a pair of turtle-doves or two young pigeons (Lev. 12:6, 7).
(3) And the third, that if the offspring be a male, and the firstborn, it be set before God, and offered to Him as His due, and holy, that is, consecrated on account of the immunity of the firstborn of the Hebrews granted them by God, when the firstborn of Pharaoh and the Egyptians were smitten by the angel in the time of Moses (Exod. 13:1). The child, however, so offered might be redeemed by his parents for five shekels (Num. 3:47). Symbolically, these five shekels stood for the five wounds of Christ, with which, as with a price, He redeems the human race.
[1] The days of her purification. In the old law the woman bearing a child was unclean, with a natural, a legal, and a moral uncleanness; but especially because she bore a child whom she conceived in original sin. The natural uncleanness was that physically incidental to her gestation and delivery; and the legal defilement was consequent upon this, for the law, on account of these impurities, regarded her as impure, and directed that she be kept away from the temple, and be held, as it were, “unclean” for forty days, until, on the fortieth day, she was purified by the prescribed rite.
With reference to the question whether the Blessed Virgin suffered this impurity, S. Jerome (Ep. 22 ud Eustochium), John of Avila, commenting on Lev. 12, and Erasmus on this same passage, affirm that she did. All other authorities, however, agree in the contrary view, since the Virgin’s parturition was perfectly pure. See S. Augustine (de Quinque hæresibus, ch. v). This point has been treated in what has been said on v. 7 of the present chapter. Hence the Blessed Virgin incurred no defilement, and therefore was not bound by the law of purification. Yet, in her zeal for humility, in order to make herself like other women who bear children, that she might not give scandal in seeming to be singular, and that she might conceal her virginity and her conception by the Holy Ghost, the Blessed Virgin was willing to be purified, even as Christ, for similar reasons, was willing to be circumcised. Hence S. Bernard (Serm. 3 on the Purification) says: “In this conception, and in this child-birth, there was nothing impure, nothing sinful, nothing that had to be purged, for this offspring is the fount of purity, and is come to make a cleansing of sins. What is there in me for a legal observance to purify—in me, who, by this immaculate parturition, am become most pure? Truly, O Blessed Virgin, thou hadst no need for purification; but had thy Son need of circumcision? Be thou among women as one of them, for so too is thy Son among men.”
Tropologically, the purification of the soul is penance, and this the Blessed Virgin underwent, not for her own sins, seeing that she had none, but for those of others, as Christ did. Still she did not undergo the Sacrament of Penance, because she had no sins of her own to confess. See S. Chrysostom, Tertullian, S. Augustine, and S. Ambrose in his book “On Penance.”
[2] To present Him to the Lord. The Syriac version has “in the presence of the Lord.” The Blessed Virgin, holding Christ in her hands, on bended knee, offered Him to God with the greatest reverence and devotion, saying, “Behold, O Eternal Father, this is Thy Son whom Thou hast wished to take flesh from me for the salvation of men. To Thee I render Him, and to Thee I offer Him entirely, that Thou mayest do with Him and with me as it shall please Thee, and by Him mayest redeem the world.” So saying, she presented Him to the priest as to the representative of God; and then she redeemed Him with five shekels, as the law prescribed.
[23] sicut scriptum est in lege Domini : Quia omne masculinum adaperiens vulvam, sanctum Domino vocabitur :
As it is written in the law of the Lord: Every male opening the womb shall be called holy to the Lord:
As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord (Exod. 13:12)—that is, shall be offered and consecrated to God as a thing dedicated and holy. Christ was not bound by this law, both because He subsisted in the Person of the Word, which is bound by no laws, and also because He did not open His mother’s womb, but came forth while it remained closed. So Cyril (Hom. De Occurs. Dom.), Pope Hormisdas (Ep. i. ch. iii.), Bede, and others.
Rupertus, John of Avila, Jansenius, and Maldonatus, therefore, who take the phrase “that openeth the womb” as merely equivalent to “first-born,” and suppose, on this ground, that Christ was included by these words, but otherwise excepted from the law as being God and the Son of God, are incorrect in their view. Lastly, I quote the following from S. Bernard’s “Sermon on the Purification”—“Very slight, brethren, does this oblation seem, in which He is but presented to the Lord, redeemed with birds, and straightway taken back. The time shall come when He shall be offered up not in the temple, nor within the arms of Simeon, but outside the city in the arms of the Cross. The time shall come when He shall not be redeemed with blood not his own, but with His own blood shall redeem others, because God the Father hath sent him to be the redemption of His people. That shall be an evening sacrifice, this is a morning sacrifice—this is the more joyous, that shall be the fuller.”
[24] et ut darent hostiam secundum quod dictum est in lege Domini, par turturum, aut duos pullos columbarum.
And to offer a sacrifice, according as it is written in the law of the Lord, a pair of turtledoves, or two young pigeons:
And to offer a sacrifice according to that which is said in the law of the Lord, A pair of turtle-doves, or two young pigeons, because they were poor; for the rich were obliged to give in addition to this a lamb for a holocaust. Although the three kings had offered to Christ a great quantity of gold, still the Blessed Virgin, zealously affected towards poverty, accepted but little of it, that she might show her contempt of all earthly things, and what she took she spent in a short time, says John of Avila, on S. Matt. ii. Quest. 47; or, if she took much, say S. Bonaventure and Dionysius, she distributed it among the poor. And, lastly, because she was by her condition poor, she would be reckoned among the poor, and offer the gift of the poor.
The purification of the Blessed Virgin is commemorated by the Church on the second day of February, in order, Baronius says, to abolish the Lupercalia, which used to be celebrated at Rome on that day. The order of the rite of purification was as follows:—First, the woman came into the “court of the unclean”—she being unclean until her purification. Next, she offered a sin-offering of a turtle-dove or a young pigeon. It is probable that she was also sprinkled with water mixed with the ashes of the red heifer, this water being, as it were, an “aqua lustralis” used in all purifications.
Then she offered the infant to God, and redeemed him. And, lastly, she offered to God as a whole burnt-offering of thanksgiving a lamb, or else a turtle-dove, or a pair of young pigeons. These last two acts were performed by the woman (by this time purified) standing in the “court of the clean;” there she would offer the infant at the door of the tabernacle; and there watch from afar off her holocaust being offered in the “court of the priests”—for between the court of the priests and that of the people there was a wall or a partition three feet high, so that the people could, from their court, watch the offerings, and all that was being done in the court of the priests.
Tropologically, the turtle-doves and the pigeons which the woman used to offer for her sin, i.e., her defilement or legal uncleanness, signified the groaning or compunction of the penitent by which sins are expiated, especially when they accompany the sacrament of expiation. Moreover, the Blessed Virgin, having no sin, needed no sacrament to expiate it, but she received the Sacrament of Baptism as a profession of the Christian religion, that of Confirmation, the Eucharist, and perhaps also Extreme Unction. She entered into the state of matrimony with Joseph, but this was not a sacrament in the old law. She never confessed her sins or received absolution from a priest, in that she had no sins. It may be said, however, that the Blessed Virgin had reason to fear lest she had been guilty of some distraction in prayer, some venial negligence in word or thought, and that she might have confessed such as these, since, as S. Gregory says, “It is the characteristic of good souls to acknowledge fault where there is no fault.” And this is true in the case of sinners and those in the state of original sin, but not for those who are innocent and unspotted as the Blessed Virgin was. Wherefore, as the angels see clearly all their own actions, and the defects—even the most trifling—in them, and as Adam, too, saw his own actions when he was in the state of innocence—in accordance with the perfection which belongs to this state—so the Blessed Virgin in like manner saw all her own acts in the past and in the future, and knew that they were most pure and most holy, and altogether without any defect, even venial, and for this reason she could not confess them as sins. She did not, however, lift herself up on that account, but humbled herself the more, knowing this to be the gift of God and not her own merit. Hence the opinion of Sylvester, in the “Golden Rose” (tit. 3, ch. 53), to the effect that the Blessed Virgin received the Sacrament of Penance and was accustomed to confess venial sins conditionally to S. John, must be flatly rejected, especially as absolution cannot be given on uncertain matter, but the penitent, to be capable of it, must confess some particular sin—Vasquez (part iii., disp. 119, ch. 7).
 |
| The Aged Simeon. J-J Tissot |
And behold there was a man in Jerusalem named Simeon, and this man was just[1] and devout,[2] waiting for the consolation of Israel; and the Holy Ghost was in him.[3]
And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon; and the same man was just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him. Calvin would have it that Simeon was of obscure birth and unknown; but that he was venerable by his age and his sanctity appears from what follows here. Many hold that he was a priest, and that it was in this capacity that he blessed Mary and Joseph. So say Lyranus, Dionysius, Cajetan, Francis Lucas, Toletus, S. Athanasius (in “The Common Essence of the Father and the Son”), S. Cyril (De Occursu Dom.), S. Epiphanius (“Treatise on the Fathers of the Old Testament”), and Canisius (de Deipara, bk. iv. ch. 10). But Theophylact, Euthymius, Jansenius, and Barradius are of opinion that he was a layman, and gave his blessing not as a priest but as an old man,
[1] And the same was just. From this Galatinus (De Arcanis Fidei, l. 1, cap. 3) gathers that Simeon was the disciple and son of Hillel, who, a little before the birth of Christ, was the founder of the Scribes and Pharisees, as S. Jerome states on Isa. 8. The words of Galatinus are: “Simeon, the son of Hillel, whom the Talmudists, by reason of his extraordinary sanctity, call ‘Saddic ‘the Just. In whom (as it is related in the ‘Pirke Avoth’ or ‘the chapters of the fathers’) the rule of the great Academy of the Synagogue came to an end. He spoke many things concerning the Messiah, and, at length, being in his extreme old age, and having received an answer from the Holy Ghost that he should not see death without seeing the Messiah, receiving Christ Himself in his arms, he confirmed, in the presence of Christ, the truth of those things which he had taught about Him under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And his noteworthy sayings are to be found scattered about in the books of the Talmudists.”
Genebrardus (Chronology, bk. ii.) is of the same opinion, and adds: “For the belief that with Simeon the spirit of the great Synagogue—a spirit less than the prophetic but greater than the common—died out, the Talmudists are our authority in the treatise ‘Pirke Avoth.’ The Rabbi Moses, the Egyptian, records that he was not only the disciple, but also the son of Hillel, and the teacher, and indeed the father, of Gamaliel, at whose feet Paul learnt the law.” All this, however, while it appears highly probable, is at the same time uncertain. There were many Simeons or Simons (for the two names are identical) who were just, as, for instance, Simeon the high priest, the son of Oniah, called “the Just,” and spoken of with praise at some length in Ecclus. 50:1. Besides, the successors and disciples of Hillel, the Scribes and Pharisees, were in the highest degree hostile to Christ.
[2] Devout. In Greek εὐλαβής—religious, God-fearing. Waiting for the consolation of Israel—the coming of the Messiah, who was to console Israel, that is, the faithful people, and set them free from the oppression of Satan, of Herod, the Romans, and the Scribes and Pharisees. For, eager for the common weal, “he sought,” says S. Ambrose, “the good of his people rather than his own.” By the transferring of the sceptre from Judah to Herod, according to the prophecy of Jacob (Gen. 49:10), by the completion of the seventy weeks of Dan. 9, and by other prophecies, Simeon knew that the coming of Christ was at hand, to deliver Israel—that is, the faithful—from all evil, as well from their sins as from all miseries, partly in this life, partly in the life to come. Christ, then, is the consolation of the faithful, for except in Him there is no hope of salvation, but only despair and desolation. Hence Isaiah, ch. 40:1, promising the coming of Christ, says, “Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God: speak unto the heart of Jerusalem.” And in ch. 51:3, “The Lord shall comfort Sion;” and again in 61:1, “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me … to comfort all them that mourn.” And in 2 Cor. 1:5, S. Paul says, “As the sufferings of Christ abound in us, so our consolation also aboundeth by Christ.” In the time of Christ the condition, as well of the State as of the Church of Israel, was one of the deepest affliction. Their body politic, while it lacked its own chiefs, was under the yoke of Herod and the Pagan Romans, and their Church, on the other hand, was under bondage to impious priests, to Scribes and Pharisees; and in S. Matt. 23:5, Christ tells us what manner of men these were—how they oppressed the people, and into what errors and vices they led them.
[3] And the Holy Ghost was upon him, both sanctifying him and conferring on him the gift of prophecy. Observe that in Holy Scripture the Holy Ghost is said to come to, or be in, any one not only by the grace which makes that person acceptable, but also by any grace, “gratis data” i.e., conferred not necessarily in consideration of the merit of the recipient, and not for his own benefit, but for that of others, e.g., the grace of prophecy, as here in the case of Simeon. So in ch. 1:35, the Holy Ghost is spoken of as about to come upon the Blessed Virgin, that she may conceive a Son, and become the Mother of God; this is a grace, “gratis data.” And again in ver. 41 of the same chapter Elizabeth is spoken of as full of the Holy Spirit when she began to prophecy.
Upon him. In the Greek ἐπʼ αὐτόν, the Holy Ghost, coming down upon him, took possession of his soul, so that he seemed not so much a man of this earth as a celestial and divine being, and this on purpose that his testimony as to Christ might be irrefragable and beyond dispute.
Celsus (De Incredulitate Judæorum apud Vigilium)—to be found among the works of Cyprian) gives a tradition to the effect that Simeon was blind, and recovered his sight when he touched Christ; but S. Luke would not have been silent about so great a miracle, and which would so clearly have been in place here.
[26] Et responsum acceperat a Spiritu Sancto, non visurum se mortem, nisi prius videret Christum Domini.
And he had received an answer from the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Christ of the Lord.
And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord’s Christ. “It was revealed” by a divine oracle and promise—the Greek expression is χρηματίζειν. “The Lord’s Christ”—the Messiah, anointed with the unction of the Holy Spirit and the plentitude of grace. (Isa. 11:2.)
In this Simeon was privileged far beyond Abraham, Isaac, and all the patriarchs and prophets, who, as the apostle says, Heb. 11:13, “died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and embraced them.” Hence it is plain that Simeon was a man of singular holiness, and full of holy aspirations and zeal.
[27] Et venit in spiritu in templum. Et cum inducerent puerum Jesum parentes ejus, ut facerent secundum consuetudinem legis pro eo,
And he came by the Spirit into the temple. And when his parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him according to the custom of the law,
And he came by the Spirit into the Temple. By the impulse of the Holy Spirit, moved and incited by the Holy Spirit, say Euthymius and Theophylact. And the same Spirit who urged him thither gave him the sign by which he should know Christ among so many infants that were then being offered in the Temple, or, rather, showed Him to him, inwardly prompting him and saying, Behold, this is Christ, whom I promised thee that thou shouldst see before thy death.
Timothy, a priest of Jerusalem, in his Oratio de Simeone, thinks that he must have seen the Virgin surrounded with light in the midst of the other women, and by this mark understood her to be the Mother of the Messiah. The Carthusian (Denis), too, says, “Perhaps he saw some divine splendour in the countenance of the child.”
Hence we may learn how God guides the mind and the paths of His saints that they may fall in with the good predestined for them by Him. Wherefore we must pray diligently, especially when about to undertake a journey, for this direction, that we may be preserved from evil, and blessed with good issues; saying with the Psalmist, “O Lord, show me Thy ways and teach me Thy paths,” Ps. 25:4 “Make me to go in the path of Thy commandments,” Ps. 119:35.
We read, in the life of S. Ephrem, that, when he was entering a certain city, he prayed to God that he might fall in with something that should edify him. A harlot met him, and stared so hard at him, that he asked with great severity why she acted so immodestly; and he received this answer, “Let woman look upon man, for from him was she made, but let man fix his gaze upon the earth, of which he was formed.” The man of God felt that the rebuke was just, and, being deeply touched by it, gave thanks to God because he had received from a harlot a lesson so salutary.
And when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for Him after the custom of the law. In the Greek καὶ ἐν τῶ εἰσαγαγεῖν—when they had brought. This sentence is dependent on the next verse.
 |
| Nunc dimittis. J-J Tissot |
He also took him into his arms, and blessed God, and said:
Then took he Him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said. Martial says of the dying swan—
“Sweet cadences the swan with voice that fails in death
Uttereth; his own dirge shaped of his own dying breath.”
And so the last utterances of the wise are the sweetest, their powers maturing with years. Again Cicero tells us in the first Tusculan Disputation, “Not without reason are swans dedicated to Apollo, since they seem to have from him a gift of prophecy, by virtue of which, foreseeing the good that there is in death, they die with joy and in the act of singing.” And Simeon here foresees in this way the joy that through Christ is to come to him after his death, which must soon take place.
[29] Nunc dimittis servum tuum Domine, secundum verbum tuum in pace :
Now thou dost dismiss thy servant, O Lord, according to thy word in peace;
Lord, now lettest thou Thy servant depart in peace, according to Thy word. Lettest thou—in Greek ἀπολύεις, loosen, as it were, from the prison-chains of this body, that I may go to the liberty, peace, and rest which the fathers in limbo enjoy. In peace, so Tobias, ch. 3:6; and Abraham, Gen. 15:15, desired to die in peace. Euthymius here understands by peace—
1. The calming of his feelings, which had fluctuated between hope and fear with reference to his seeing Christ.
2. The peace of an intrepid soul that did not fear death.
3. His joy.
4. Peace may be taken to mean that security from the dangers of the world which death brings. S. Cyprian (Tract, de Mortalitate, c. i.) says, “Joyful at his approaching death, sure that it must soon come, he took the Child in his hands, and, blessing the Lord, lifted up his voice and said, Now Thou dost dismiss, &c., … thus proving and bearing witness that then is there peace for the servants of God, then an easy and tranquil mind when, delivered from out the whirlpools of the world, we make for the haven of our eternal habitation and our peace.”
Thy word. Thy promise, says Theophylact, when Thou didst promise to prolong my life until I should see Christ; now have I seen Him, therefore let me depart and die.
Symbolically, S. Augustine (Serm. 20 de Tempore) says, “Now, Lord, let me depart in peace, because I see thy peace—Christ, Who shall make peace between heaven and earth—between God and angels and men—between men and themselves.”
And Simeon obtained his wish from God, for soon after he went to his rest. S. Epiphanius (De Prophetarum vita, c. xxiv.) puts S. Simeon among the prophets. “Simon,” he says, “departed this life full of years and utterly worn out; yet did he not obtain at the hands of the priests the last honours of burial.” He gives no reason, however, why this should have been so, but it is thought that, in openly announcing the advent of Christ, he brought upon himself the envy and hatred of the other priests.
Tropologically, the Church sings this hymn of Simeon every evening in the Office of Compline, for two reasons:—(1) First, to admonish the faithful, and especially ecclesiastics, to think upon death, and so live as though they were to die in the evening; and, (2) again, that they may acquire that yearning which Simeon felt to pass away from the vanities and troubles of this life to the true and blessed life in heaven, begging of God to be permitted to depart, and saying with Paul, “I desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ.” “Behold how the just man,” says S. Ambrose, “as though shut in within the gross prison-house of the body, wishes to be loosed, that he may begin to be with Christ. But he that will be set free, let him come to the Temple, let him come to Jerusalem, let him wait for the Lord, let him embrace Him with good work as with the arms of faith. Then shall he be set free, that he may not see death, because he has looked upon life.''
[30] quia viderunt oculi mei salutare tuum,
Because my eyes have seen thy salvation,
For mine eyes have seen thy salvation. “Salvation,” in Greek σωτήριον, the word used by the Septuagint as a rendering of the Hebrew ישוּצח, iescua, safety. “Safety” is used by metonomy for “Saviour.” By “salvation,” then, we are to understand the Saviour Christ, whom the ancient fathers desired to see, but Simeon alone saw, touched, and embraced.
[31] quod parasti ante faciem omnium populorum :Which thou hast prepared before the face of all peoples:
Which Thou hast prepared before the face of all people. That all the nations of the Gentiles may draw salvation from Christ the Saviour. God has not hidden Christ in a corner of Judæa, but has set Him forth before all men, and soon will announce Him throughout the world by His Apostles, that all who will embrace His faith and law may be saved by Him.
[32] lumen ad revelationem gentium, et gloriam plebis tuae Israel.
A light to the revelation of the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel.
A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of Thy people Israel. Thou hast given Christ the Saviour that He may be a light for the enlightenment of the Gentiles, enlightening with His faith and worship the Gentiles who know not the true God, and also to be the glory and honour of the Jewish people. The Arabic has, “the light that hath appeared to the nations.” In the same way we have in Ps. 118:18, “Open Thou” (that is, illumine) “mine eyes.” The allusion here is to the prophecy of Isaiah, made seven hundred years before, in ch. 42:6, “I will give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles, to open the blind eyes, to bring out the prisoners from the prison, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison-house;” and in 49:6, “I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth.” In the Mass, and particularly on the Feast of the Purification, we bless candles, light them, and carry them about, thereby (1) symbolising our belief in Christ as the light of the nations; and (2) praying that He will grant us in this life the light of His grace, and in the other life the light of His gladness and His glory. And it is for this reason that these lighted candles are put into the hands of the dying. See Amalarius, Durandus, and others, who have written on the Offices of the Church.
And the glory of Thy people Israel. 1. Because Christ, promised to their forefathers by God, took upon Himself the flesh of their race, and was a Jew,
2. Because He lived and died in Judæa, His life being made glorious by His teaching, His holiness, and His miracles.
3. Because He first founded His Church in Judæa, the first believers having been Jews, who afterwards gathered the Gentiles to themselves.
4. It was in Judæa that He rose from the dead and gloriously ascended into heaven, sending down thence the Holy Ghost with the gift of tongues.
The allusion is to Isaiah 46:13, “I will place salvation in Zion for Israel, my glory;” and 40:1, “The glory of the Lord is risen upon thee;” and ibid. 2, “His glory shall be seen upon thee.”
[33] Et erat pater ejus et mater mirantes super his quae dicebantur de illo.
And his father and mother were wondering at those things which were spoken concerning him.
And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of Him. Joseph, who is called the father of Christ, not only because he was His foster-father, and was commonly supposed to be His natural father, but also because Christ had been born to him lawfully in wedlock, and of his wife Mary; and this marriage of Joseph with the Blessed Virgin was made and ordained by God for the sake of this progeny. So say S. Augustine (De Cons. Evang. c. 1), Bede, Jansenius, and others.
Marvelled. For, though they knew that Christ was to be the Saviour of Israel, yet they did not know all that the Holy Ghost was here prophesying about Him by Simeon and Anna—that He was to be a light enlightening all nations, that He should be “for the ruin and for the resurrection of many in Israel,” that a sword should pierce the soul of the Virgin, &c. Besides, even had they known these things, they would have wondered at their being proclaimed aloud with such enthusiasm and ardour.
[34] Et benedixit illis Simeon, et dixit ad Mariam matrem ejus : Ecce positus est hic in ruinam, et in resurrectionem multorum in Israel, et in signum cui contradicetur :
And Simeon blessed them, and said to Mary his mother: Behold this child is set for the fall, and for the resurrection of many in Israel, and for a sign which shall be contradicted;
And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary His mother, Behold, this child is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against. The form for the sacerdotal blessing is prescribed in Num. 6:24, “The Lord bless thee, and keep thee,” &c.
Blessed them. That is, Joseph and Mary, not the Child Christ, say Maldonatus, Francis Lucas, and others; for the Child, as his Saviour and his God, he venerated and adored, desiring to be blessed by Him, and not presuming to bless Him. Jansenius, however, thinks that the word “them” includes Christ.
And said unto Mary His mother, rather than to Joseph, both because she was the true and natural mother of Jesus, while Joseph was only nominally His father, and also because Joseph seems to have died before the thirtieth year of Christ, when the things here foreshadowed were accomplished, so that the Blessed Mary alone experienced them in herself. To her alone, then, did Simeon here foretell both the happiness and the adversity which are to befall Christ and her, that in happiness she might not be lifted up too much, nor be cast down in her adversity.
Set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel. For fall the Greek has πτῶσιν, and so the Arabic. The allusion is to Isa. 8:14, “And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel” (that is), “for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem;” and in 28:16, “Behold, I lay in Sion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner-stone, a sure foundation;” the latter text is quoted against the unbelieving Jews by S. Paul, Rom. 9:33, by S. Peter, 1 Pet. 2:6, and Acts 4:11, and by Christ Himself, Matt. 21:42. Christ was laid and placed in the new, that is the Christian Church as a foundation and a corner-stone, that upon Him He might build all those that believed in Him, and of them build up the spiritual edifice of the Church, as He had promised to Adam, Abraham, Moses, and the other patriarchs and prophets. God did this directly with the intention of drawing all the Israelites to the faith of Christ, that He might so bring them into His Church and save them; but He foresaw that a great part of them would, by reason of their wickedness, speak against Christ when He came, and would strike against Him as on a stone of offence, and that so they would be broken, and fall into ruin both temporal and eternal. Yet He would not change His resolve of sending Christ, but would permit this rebellion and speaking against Him on the part of the Jews in order that it might be the occasion for S. Paul and the Apostles to transfer the preaching of the Gospel from them who resisted it to the Gentiles; and that so, instead of a few Jews, numberless nations might believe in Christ, be built in to Him in the Church, and be saved, as S. Paul shows at length in Rom. 11. Such was the design of God by which He set Christ as the corner-stone of the Church, to be indirectly “for the fall,” but directly “for the rising again of many in Israel.” By fall is meant the destruction of the Jews who rebelled against Christ; by rising again, the salvation of those who believe in Him: for they that rebelled against Christ fell from faith into faithlessness, from the hope of salvation into despair and reprobation, from heaven into hell; but they who believe in Him have risen by his grace from the sins in which they lay prostrate to a new life of virtue and grace, looking for the hope of glory. Such is the interpretation of S. Augustine, Bede, Theophylact, Euthymius, Toletus, and many others; indeed, so Christ Himself, S. Peter, and S. Paul interpret in the places quoted above. S. Gregory of Nyssa also interprets “ruin” as the devastation of Judæa and Jerusalem by Titus; for this calamity came upon them because they set at nought and crucified Christ.
Symbolically, Theophylact says that Christ was set “for the ruin and the resurrection of Israel,” that is, of the penitent soul that sanctifies itself by the grace of Christ, because this grace brings it to pass that pride, gluttony, and lust fall in the soul, while humility, abstinence, and chastity rise up in it.
And for a sign which shall be spoken against. In Greek εἲς σημεῖον ἀντιλεγόμενον, a sign of contradiction or of contention, as the Syriac and Arabic render it. Tertullian (de Carne Christi, c. xxiii.) renders it “for a contradictory sign.”
The question arises, What is this sign?
1. Maldonatus and Francis Lucas say that Christ was set as an archer’s target at which the unbelieving Jews and Scribes hurled not only evil words with the tongue, but also maleficent weapons with the hand. This target was one of contradiction, because the Scribes strove together and contradicted one another about striking and piercing it. So that Simeon alludes to Lam. 3:12, “He hath set me as a mark for the arrow, he hath caused the arrows of his quiver to enter into my reins.”
2. S. Basil, Bede, and Theophylact understand the sign of the cross, making it refer to Isa. 11:10, “In that day there shall be a root of Jesse which shall stand for an ensign for the people.” The Hebrew word translated “sign” is נס, nes, a standard, rendered by the Septuagint σημειον, which is the word here used by Luke. Christ, when lifted up on the Cross, is to be a standard-bearer, and shall raise the banner of the Cross, to which He will draw all the faithful as His soldiers to fight against Jews, Mohammedans, Pagans, and other impious soldiers of the devil, who contradict the Cross of Christ and fight hard against it. So Toletus interprets.
3. The most obvious interpretation is that Simeon is alluding to Isa. 8:18, “Behold I and the children whom the Lord hath given me are for signs and for wonders in Israel.” The wondrous, strange, and hitherto unheard of birth of Christ from a virgin is here called a “sign” or “wonder,” and His Divine teaching, life, death, resurrection, and miracles, by which He clearly showed Himself to be the Messiah, the Saviour of the world. Against this “sign” of Christ not only do Jews and heathens speak with the tongue, but bad Christians also by their wicked lives. So Origen and Jansenius. S. Basil, commenting on “Behold a virgin shall conceive” (Isa. 7), favours this view. Tertullian also (De Carne Christi) makes the allusion to Isa. 7, “Therefore, the Lord himself shall give you a sign: Behold a virgin shall conceive, and shall bear a son.'' We recognise, then, the contradictory sign, the conception and child-bearing of the Virgin Mary, of which these academicians say she bore a child and bore no child, she was a virgin and no virgin.” And these cavillers he answers, “She bore a child in that she did so of her own flesh; and she did not bear, in that she bore not of the seed of man. And she was a virgin for man, not a virgin for childbirth.”
Symbolically, Cajetan says, “Christ was the sign of the reconciliation of the human race with God.” And Dionysius, “The sign of the covenant between God and man, that the flood was no more to be brought upon the earth.” Others take “sign” as that with which God’s sheep are marked: Christians are to be marked with the faith of Christ, His baptism, and His character as a sign, that they may be distinguished from infidels. Baradius thinks that the allusion is to the brazen serpent which Moses set up, for a sign, that those who looked at it might be cured of the serpent’s bite, Num. 21.
[35] et tuam ipsius animam pertransibit gladius ut revelentur ex multis cordibus cogitationes.
And thy own soul a sword shall pierce, that, out of many hearts, thoughts may be revealed.
Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also, that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed. “Sword,” in the Arabic version, lance; the Greek ῥομφαία means both sword and lance or dart.
What is this sword?
1. Some understand doubt in her faith; that the Blessed Virgin, when she saw Christ suffering so fearfully from the violence of the Jews, and dying on the Cross, doubted as to whether He would rise again, as He had foretold. In this sense speak Origen (Hom. xvii.), Titus, Theophylact, and others. This, however, is an error, for such a feeling were unworthy the Deipara, and that she experienced it is counter to the common sense of the Church. For so the Blessed Virgin would have sinned by unbelief. Indeed, the authors cited are sometimes explained as meaning by “doubt,” admiration, mental perturbation, and inward questionings.
2. S. Eucherius of Lyons (Hom. in Dominicam), understands the sword of the Spirit—the word of God, i.e., the spirit of prophecy, as who should say, The sword of the prophetic spirit shall pass through thy soul, O Mary, to reveal to thee the secrets of Holy Scripture and the hidden thoughts of men, as in Cana of Galilee when thou shalt say, “Whatsoever He telleth you, do it,” knowing that Christ will command them to draw the water which He is to turn into wine. So it is that the Apostle says in Heb. 4:12, “The word of the Lord is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” And S. Ambrose understands it of the prudence of the Virgin, who was not without knowledge of heavenly secrets.
3. It has been supposed by some, as Amphilochius (Hom. De Occurs. Dom.) bears witness, that the Blessed Virgin really received the crown of martyrdom by the sword, but this is contrary to all belief in history.
4. The true interpretation of “sword” here is with reference to the sufferings inflicted on Christ, or rather contradiction spoken of a little before; for the contradiction of the tongue is spoken of in Scripture as a sword, as in Ps. 57:4, “The sons of men, whose teeth are spears and arrows, and their tongue a sharp sword;” and Ps. 64:3, “Who whet their tongues like a sword;” and Ps. 105:18, “The sword hath passed through His soul” (Vulg.) This sword, then, is twofold. (1.) The sword of the tongue. For the Blessed Virgin, hearing the insults, calumnies, and blasphemies with which Christ was assailed by the Jews, even when He was crucified, suffered intense tortures, just as though a sword had been struck through her soul. (2.) The sword of iron—the nails and other torments which not only pierced the body and soul of Christ, but also pierced the soul of the Virgin. Just as when a man stabs with a sword at two persons who are next each other so as to kill the one and pierce and wound the other. Such is the interpretation of S. Augustine (Ep. 59, ad Paulinum), Sophronius (Hom. de Assumptione), Francis Lucas, Jansenius, Toletus, Barradius, and others.
How great was the torture inflicted by this sword we may gather, with Toletus, (1) First, from the fact that it was her Son Who suffered, whom the Mother of God loved more than herself, so that she would far rather have suffered and been crucified herself. Love is the measure of sorrow. (2) Secondly, from the severity of Christ’s torments and the wideness of their extent; for He suffered the most fearful agonies in all His senses and all His members, and all this the Blessed Virgin endured also by her sympathy with Him. (3) Thirdly, the dignity of the Personage who suffered; for the Blessed Virgin pondered deeply the fact that this was the True God, the Messiah, and Saviour of the World. (4) Fourthly, the long duration of His sufferings; for Christ suffered all His life long, until He breathed forth His Soul on the Cross. (5) Fifthly, His loneliness; for He suffered alone, deserted by His Apostles and all His friends, by the angels, and by God Himself, so that He cried aloud, “My God! why hast Thou forsaken Me?” For, though the Blessed Virgin stood by Him and suffered with Him, yet did the Mother’s anguish but add a new pang to the Son’s torments, and this grief again had its echo in the Mother’s soul.
So it is that S. John of Damascus (de Fide, lib. iv. cap. xv.) remarks, “The pains she had escaped in childbirth she bore at the time of His Passion, so that she felt her bosom torn asunder by reason of the depth of her maternal love.” It is for this reason that the doctors teach that the Blessed Virgin was a martyr, and more than a martyr. As Christ, in His Passion, was tormented more than all the martyrs, so too was the Blessed Virgin by her sympathy with Him; and by this torment she would have been overcome and would have died had not God preserved her life by His special support. As, therefore, S. John the evangelist, who was put into the vessel of boiling oil, is a martyr, because this suffering would, in the natural course, have resulted in his death, if God had not preserved his life by a miracle, so also is the Blessed Virgin.
It may be objected to this that the Jews did not wish to torture or kill the Blessed Virgin, but only Christ. But, in torturing Christ, they tortured His Virgin Mother, just as he who tortures the body tortures the soul, for she was more closely joined to Christ in feeling than the body to the soul. Besides, the Jews persecuted all the relatives of Christ, as they did His apostles and disciples, out of hatred of Him. S. Bridget (Serm. Angelic. cc. xvii., xviii.) gives a pathetic account of the strength of this sword of the Virgin’s sorrow.
Symbolically, S. Bernard (Serm. xxix.) interprets this sword or dart as love: for where there is sorrow there too is love; in love there is no living without sorrow, nor in sorrow without love. “The chosen arrow,” he says, “is the love of Christ, which not only pierced, but pierced through and through, the soul of Mary, so that it left in her virginal breast not the smallest part void of love, but with all her heart, and all her soul, and all her strength, she loved. And truly, again, it penetrated through her to come to us, that of that fulness we might all receive, and she might be the Mother of that love whose father is the love of God.… And in her whole self did she receive the vast sweet wound of love. Happy shall I think myself if sometimes I may feel pricked with but the very tip of that sword’s point, that my soul too may say, I am wounded with love.”
That the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed. An obscure sentence, and difficult of interpretation.
1. S. Hilary, who by “sword” understands the Day of Judgment, easily settles the difficulty. The sword, he interprets, shall dissect and lay open the hearts of men—even of the Blessed Virgin. This is the force of the words of the Apocalypse about Christ, “And from His mouth there went forth a sharp two-edged sword” (c. 1. v. 16).
2. Eucherius, taking “sword” as the spirit of prophecy, interprets that this sword was given to the Blessed Virgin that she might know the secret thoughts of men.
3. Euthymius—Many, seeing the miracles and the wisdom of Jesus, thought within themselves that He had descended from Heaven, and was not the son of Mary; but, when they saw her at the cross of Christ, mourning and in such tribulation, they abandoned this idea, believing that she who felt His sorrows so deeply must be His mother indeed.
4. S. Augustine (Ep. 59, near the end)—“By the Lord’s Passion both the plots of the Jews and the infirmity of the disciples were made manifest,” for they forsook Christ and fled. This is apposite with respect to the Jews, but not so applicable as to the disciples, for the latter did not meditate flight beforehand.
5. Toletus interprets concisely—The sword that shall pierce thy soul, O Virgin, shall be the occasion of revealing the thoughts of many hearts that before lay hidden. For, long before Christ was slain, the leaders of the Jews had the intention of slaying Him, but dared make no attempt against Him, for fear of the people. But then the Jews had already before the Passion made manifest their thoughts about Christ, by cavilling at His words and works, although they concealed their desire to slay Him.
6. The fullest and most obvious explanation is that which makes the “that” expressive both of the purpose and its attainment, and refers it both to the sword and the words of the preceding verse, “This child is set for the fall,” &c. That is to say, that the Scribes and Pharisees, who, like the heretics of to-day, appeared to be the upholders of justice and truth, may show the world how antagonistic they are to the true Messiah and to justice, and what evil designs they cherish against Him. For, before the advent of Christ, they were in hopes that He would come with pomp and with wealth, even as Solomon, so that they might be raised by Him in honour and riches; but when they saw Him in His humility and poverty opposing Himself to their ambition and avarice, and publicly rebuking them for it, they set Him at nought and opposed Him, secretly scheming to bring upon Him the destruction which they at length actually compassed. Then was it revealed who in Israel were just, for these loved Christ sincerely and with constancy; and who unjust, for these persecuted and slew Him. So S. Augustine (Ep. 59), Bede, Jansenius, Maldonatus, Francis Lucas, and others. The explanation of Toletus also tallies with this to some extent.
 |
| Anna, a prophetess. J-J Tissot |
And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser; she was far advanced in years, and had lived with her husband seven years from her virginity.
And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity. She was an old woman, so that she was prompted by no youthful fervour, but bore testimony to Christ in a mature and grave manner. “Anna” in Hebrew signifies grace—of which Anna was full. The name “Grace” is still often borne by women, and was the name of her who at Firando, in Japan, generously met a glorious death, together with her four children and her whole household, for the faith of Christ.
A prophetess—that is, a teacher, says Francis Lucas—one who instructed the young women in the law of God and in piety; for at this time the Jews had no prophets who foretold future events. But that Anna foretold the hidden things of the future is clear from v. 38, where she prophesied about Christ. For, though the Jews had no prophets until the time of Christ, yet God raised up prophets at that time, such as John, Zachary, Elizabeth, and Simeon. Hence S. Ambrose says, “The birth of the Lord received testimony not only from the angels, from the shepherds, and from His parents, but also from the aged and good; every age, and both sexes, and the wondrous nature of events, build up our faith. A virgin conceives—the barren brings forth—the dumb speaks—Elizabeth prophesies,—the wise man adores—he that is shut up in the womb exults—the widow confesses—the just man is waiting for His coming.”
The daughter of Phanuel. Phanuel was a well-known man at that time. “Phanuel” in Hebrew signifies “the face of God”—his daughter is “Anna”—grace; for grace proceeds from the face and from the mouth of God, and is breathed into the faithful. The place where Jacob saw God face to face, was called by him Peniel or “Phanuel,” Gen. 32:30,
She was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity—that is, from the time when she became of marriageable age; for infants, who have not yet reached this age, are not properly virgins. Again, from the time of her marriage which she contracted as a virgin. They were wont to marry soon after attaining puberty—in their fifteenth year, the age at which the Blessed Virgin was married to Joseph. Hence we gather (1) that Anna was married once, and that in the first years of her puberty; (2) that, before her marriage, she lived chastely; (3) that, when, after seven years of her married life, her husband died, becoming a widow at the early age of twenty-two, she, with remarkable continency, in the flower of her life remained a widow until the age of eighty-four, or, as S. Ambrose interprets, until the eighty-fourth year of her widowhood. If this last interpretation be correct, she must, when she met Christ, have been one hundred and six years old. It seems that God prolonged the life of Anna to this great age with the special design that she might see and bear testimony to Christ, even as He prolonged that of Simeon.
[37] Et haec vidua usque ad annos octoginta quatuor : quae non discedebat de templo, jejuniis, et obsecrationibus serviens nocte ac die.
And she was a widow until fourscore and four years; who departed not from the temple, by fastings and prayers serving night and day.
And she was a widow of about fourscore and four years (of age, or, according to S. Ambrose, of her widowhood), which departed not from the Temple. Not that she lived in the Temple, but she frequented it, and spent much time in it. So think Toletus, Jansenius, and Maldonatus. Others, however, think that she actually dwelt in the Temple; for hard by the Temple there were houses of religious women who served God “night and day”—as there afterwards were of deaconesses in the Christian Church, and still are of nuns. This appears from Exod. 38:8; 2 Maccabees 3:20; and 1 Sam. 2:22. These religious women were some virgins, and some widows, of which latter it seems that Anna was one, as Canisius (Marialis, lib. i. xii.) argues.
But served God with fastings and prayers night and day—that is, serving God, as the Arabic renders it. The Greek λατρεύουσα, worshipping with “latria”—latria being due to God only. Hence is plain the falsehood of the teaching of the heretics, that fasting is only a mortification of the body, and no worship of God, except in so far as it is understood to mean prayer; for S. Luke here says that Anna served God both with fastings and prayers. By means of her fastings and prayers she served God “night and day.” S. Chrysostom (Hom. 42, ad pop.) eloquently commends prayer made by night: “Behold,” he says, “the company of the stars, the deep silence, the great calm, and admire the dispensation of thy Lord. For then is the mind purer, lighter, and more subtle, more sublime and agile. The darkness itself and the great silence have the power of inducing compunction. And if thou lookest upon the sky, dotted with numberless stars as with eyes … bend thy knees, groan, pray thy Lord to be propitious to thee. He is the more appeased by prayers made in the night, when thou makest the time of rest the time of thy struggles. Remember the King, what words he said: “I am weary of my groaning, every night wash I my bed, and water my couch with my tears.” So Christ used to give the day to preaching, the night to prayer, Luke 6:12. So too S. Paul, Acts 16:25, and 2 Tim. 1:3. So S. Anthony, S. Hilarion, and the other anchorites; nay, the Church also, as is plain from the “Nocturns” which monks still chant by night.
[38] Et haec, ipsa hora superveniens, confitebatur Domino : et loquebatur de illo omnibus, qui exspectabant redemptionem Israel.
Now she, at the same hour, coming in, confessed to the Lord; and spoke of him to all that looked for the redemption of Israel.
And she coming in that instant gave thanks likewise unto the Lord. In Greek ἀνθωμολογεῖτο, confessed to God in her turn, as though singing in answer to Simeon from the choir set apart for the other sex, praised the Lord, and gave Him thanks for the gift of Christ and His birth.
And spake of Him—of the Lord Christ, whom she had there present. Not only did Anna praise God, but she began to discourse to others of Jesus, asserting Him to be the Christ, and exhorting all to believe in Him.
To all them that looked for redemption in Jerusalem. The Redeemer Christ, who redeems from sin, death, Satan, and Hell, Israel, that is, the people of the faithful who believe in Him.
Allegorically, Christ, when born, appeared to three groups of persons in three ways—(1) to the shepherds, at the indication of an angel; (2) to the magi, under the guidance of a star; (3) to Simeon and Anna, guided by the Holy Ghost. Again, the shepherds saw Christ, the Magi adored Him, but Simeon and Anna embraced Him. So we first recognise Christ, then adore Him, and then, when we are no longer children in virtue, but old men, embrace Him with arms of love. So Jansenius teaches.
Totus tuus ego sum
Et omnia mea tua sunt;
Tecum tutus semper sum:
Ad Jesum per Mariam
No comments:
Post a Comment