Christmas in Jewish Context, Part 3

Eschatological Elements in the Christmas Story According to Luke

(avg. read time: 16–32 mins.)

While Luke’s first two chapters do not involve fulfillment formulae like Matthew, there are many allusions to the language of eschatological promises throughout Luke’s stage-setting for Jesus’s life and work in the world. The first relevant instance actually comes in reference to John the Baptist in describing his preparatory work for Jesus in 1:16–17. The statement that he will turn many of the Israelites to the Lord is a standard feature of prophetic calls with the Hebrew word שׁוב having the connotation of “repentance” in such cases. It is possible that such a notion also has in mind the remnant who will receive the eschatological blessings (Isa 10:20–22; 11:10–16; Jer 23:3–8; 31:7–40; Mic 2:12–13; 4:1–7; 5:7–9; 7:18–20; Zeph 3:11–13; Zech 8:11–23; 13:8–9). Verse 17 evokes a more specific eschatological vision in its near-quotation of Mal 4:5–6 by saying that he will be a man with the spirit and power of Elijah who prepares the way for the Lord. Other passages, which do not specifically reference Elijah, also describe a messenger coming on behalf of the Lord, with one passage explicitly using the language of preparation, though the notion is implied in the description itself (Isa 40:3–5; 52:7; Mal 3:1). In a sense of combining all of these expectations of a messenger preparing the way, John the Baptist’s ministry will consist of good news with a strong note of judgment as he prepares the way for the coming of the Lord as no other prophet before him has done simply because the Lord has not come in this manner before this time.

Luke’s next piece of Christmas eschatology is in the annunciation of Jesus’s birth (1:31–35). Though in Luke’s annunciation, there is not a definition given to Jesus’s name (as is common in the Hebrew accounts with which Matthew is in greater conformity), clearly the same echoing background of Jesus as Savior is in place. Indeed, it is an undertone in every note in this annunciation. As noted earlier, the declaration that Jesus is the Son of God—or Son of the Most High in the earlier verse—speaks on several levels to Israel (Exod 4:22; 2 Sam 7:14; Pss 2:7; 89:27; Jer 3:19; 31:9, 20; Hos 11:1; Wis 2:13, 16–18; 5:5; 9:7; 18:13; Sir 4:10; 4 Ezra 5:28; Jub. 1:25–28; Pss. Sol. 13:9; 18:4). In this context it is not yet loaded with the significance that “God the Son” would have in more developed Trinitarian thought, but it still does communicate important and unique information about Jesus. In some of these texts, the son is Israel as a whole (or some part of Israel). In others, the king of Israel in particular—as the chief representative of Israel—is the focus of the “son” appellation. In others still, the righteous ones—who embody the proper function of Israel—are considered sons of God. In other texts still, there is not an explicit reference to son(s), but there are references to God as Father (Deut 32:6; Isa 63:16; 64:8; Jer 3:4; Mal 1:6; 2:10; Tob 13:4; Wis 11:10; 14:3; Sir 23:1, 4; 51:10). There is thus a multivalence of meaning in this term. It signifies that Jesus is the proper representative of Israel, being truly righteous and leading others in the way of righteousness in the shape of his life to others and ultimately demonstrates the righteousness of God to Israel. In this way, he functions as the one who renews Israel and defines once more (though, as the Gospel later shows, around himself) what it means to be Israel, and what it means to be the people of God. As indicated in the messianic analysis above, Jesus is also Son in the sense of being its true king, which is itself loaded with salvific expectations at this time. This dimension, in particular, is reinforced with the statement that he will receive the throne of David (more on this below). While on a metaphysical level Jesus is different from all other children of God, he nevertheless shows what it means to be a child of God. Also, the declaration of Jesus as Son implies God as Father and calls to mind such texts as the ones cited above, which relate God as Father to God’s creative and salvific work known in the past of his people, prayed for in the present, or expected in the future. As the unique Son, Jesus communicates this action in his life. Also as the unique Son, he is the climax of the story that has come before, the presence of the kingdom of God in the present (with the entailment of the reconstitution of the true people of God, among other things), and the one through whom the consummation of that kingdom will come in the future. As Son, he is able to be all of these things—in a way that the ones bearing the appellation before him have not been able to be—because he uniquely bears the authority, honor, and other such attributes of the Father.

Other eschatological aspects here do not require as extensive an explication, but they do need to be pointed out. The promise that the Lord God will give the throne of David from which he will reign over the house of Jacob in an everlasting kingdom evokes the Davidic promises already referenced. In particular, v. 33 seems most evocative of the texts from Jer 33 and Ezek 37, both of which are about return (from exile and YHWH’s own “return” to his temple), reign, and renewal of the divine covenant, all key elements of Jewish eschatology. This return, reign, and renewal are coming to fruition in this Son; it is this Jesus who is the proper king over Israel, and he will be so forever. References to the everlasting kingdom are mostly eschatological (2 Sam 7:12–16; Ps 145:11–13; Isa 9:7; Ezek 37:24–28; Dan 2:44; 4:3, 34; 7:18, 27) and it is clearly so in this context with its resonances with the climax of Israel’s history, its redemption, and the fulfillment of its hopes (namely, for return, reign, and renewal).

Another element of eschatology at work here is the presence of the Holy Spirit (Isa 11:2; 32:15–20; 34:16; 42:1; 44:3; 48:16; 59:21; 61:1; Jer 31:33–34; Ezek 36:26–27; 37:14; 39:29; 43:1–7; Joel 2:28–32; cf. Isa 63:14). As shown in these texts, the outpouring of God’s Spirit on a particular person or on Israel as a whole is one of the signals of the constellation of hopes labeled “kingdom of God” (βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ). The Holy Spirit is also the one who exercises the creative and salvific power of God in these passages for purposes of deliverance from evil, healing, covenant renewal (by renewal of covenant keepers) with the making of a new covenant, reconstitution of the people of Israel, and the double return noted above. The closeness of association between Jesus and the Spirit here—identifying Jesus as the unique Son—continues throughout Luke’s two-volume work (Luke 1:15–17, 35, 41, 67–79; 2:25–38; 3:16–17, 22; 4:1, 14, 18; 5:17; 6:19; 9:1; 10:21; 11:13; 24:49; Acts 1:2, 5, 8; 2:1–4, 14–38; 3:21–22; 4:8, 31; 5:3, 9, 32; 6:3, 5, 10; 7:51, 55; 8:15–17, 29, 39; 9:17, 31; 10:19, 38, 44–47; 11:24, 28; 13:2, 4, 9, 52; 15:8, 28; 16:6; 19:6, 21; 20:22–23, 28; 21:4, 11; 28:25). The presence of the same Holy Spirit in Jesus’s disciples who was in Jesus during his life on earth establishes the deepest level of continuity between Jesus and his disciples, ensuring a sense of continuing Jesus’s mission after his ascension. To backtrack, the Holy Spirit coming upon Mary puts her (and thus Jesus) in continuity with the prophets and charismatic leaders of Israel’s history who had the Spirit of God come upon them to do great things for God and his people (Judg 3:10; 6:34; 11:29; 14:6, 19; 15:14; 1 Sam 10:6, 10; 11:6; 16:13; 19:20, 23; 1 Chr 12:18 [19 LXX]; 2 Chr 15:1; 20:14; 24:20; Ezek 2:2; 3:14, 24; 11:5; 37:1; cf. Neh 9:30; Mic 3:8; Hag 1:14; Zech 7:12). Furthermore, in the now/not-yet eschatology of the NT, the primary identifying marker of the presence of the kingdom in the present is the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit in believers, thereby entailing the presence of the way of life characterizing the kingdom. There is perhaps also an eschatological sense in the Spirit’s work in Jesus being continuous and discontinuous with the prior work of the Spirit in the history of Israel. The continuity manifests in the resemblances between this story and other annunciation stories (whether or not those stories mentioned the Spirit, which some did) and in the anointing of the Spirit which is supposed to occur on the kings of Israel. One should also note that fact that the word translated “overshadows” (ἐπισκιάζω) in v. 35 is the word in the LXX for the Shekinah overshadowing the tent of meeting (Exod 40:35). This continuity shows that the climaxing story is Israel’s. The discontinuity manifests in the fact that the Spirit is doing a new work here in anointing Mary with power so as to bear the infant Jesus despite being a virgin (several other annunciations concerned barren women). The newness of this work is appropriate in light of the significance of this chapter in Israel’s history and signals the beginning of something new.

Mary’s Magnificat offers some subdued elements of eschatology. I mean by “subdued” that the language here is not especially suggestive of eschatology in itself. Rather, the language communicates notions that would be assumed bases for eschatology in ancient Jewish and Christian frameworks. For example, the language often echoes the Song of Hannah in 1 Sam 2:1–10, which is not eschatological, but does give the bases for eschatological hope. They share in common the following bases: these acts extend from who God is as Savior and Life-Giver (cf. Ps 25:5–6; Isa 12:2; Mic 7:7), God is the one who gives victory to his faithful ones, God is the one who gives strength, God vindicates the faithful (identified as the poor) and condemns the vicious (i.e., God exalts the humble and humbles the exalted), and—implied in the above—God is faithful to his promises and covenants. Similar bases are present here otherwise and it is helpful to see how each of them connect to eschatology.

Mary identifies God as the Mighty One who does great acts (v. 49; Deut 10:21; 34:11; Pss 44:4–8; 89:8–10; 111:2, 9; Zeph 3:17) and has shown strength with his arm (v. 51; Exod 6:6; 15:16; Deut 4:34; 5:15; 7:19; 9:29; 11:2; 26:8; Pss 44:3; 77:15; 89:10, 13, 21; 98:1; 136:12; Isa 30:30, 32; 33:2; 40:10–11; 48:14; 51:5, 9; 52:10; 53:1; 59:16; 62:8; 63:5, 12; Jer 21:5; 27:5; 32:17, 21; Ezek 20:33–34; Sir 36:7; Wis 5:16; 11:21; 16:16; 1 Bar 2:11; 2 Esd 15:11). Many of these references to the arm of the Lord and to God as the doer of great things are to the exodus and the events surrounding it. Other times, they refer to God’s outpouring of wrath in the defeat of Israel’s enemies or of Israel itself. Still other times, the reference is a hoped-for future context in which God will redeem Israel from whatever the affliction in question is. In any case, these references to the arm as the power of God in effect also connect with the foundational view of God as the Divine Warrior, which in turn ultimately comes from the exodus narrative (Exod 15; Deut 32:1–43; 33:26–27; Josh 23–24; Judg 5; 2 Sam 22//Ps 18; Pss 24:7–10; 29; 77:16–20; 89:10–11; 96:10–13; 97; Isa 24–27; 34–35; 51:9–11; Jer 17:5–8; Hab 3; Zeph 3:9–20; Hag 2; Zech 9; 14). In that story, the giving of the law at Sinai, the conquest of Canaan, the various battles the Israelites fought over the years, and the countless acts of deliverance, Israel saw the action of God, who revealed himself as a deliverer, fighting the forces of evil, chaos, and death on behalf of his chosen people. God was ever faithful in defeating whatever stood in the way of fulfilling God’s covenantal promises, even when the obstacle was Israel herself. When God acted as Divine Warrior, the ultimate result was to create a semblance of shalom, a state of wholeness in accord with God’s purposes. For Israel, this state of affairs most often obtained when God turned defeat into victory and celebration. The reference to the arm of the Lord does not referentially mean these things, but it does recall them in light of the other contexts in which similar terminology appears in the OT. In light of how the song progresses, it seems safe to say that the echoes created by this language involve all of the aforementioned levels. It evokes the expectation of the new exodus, the basis on which God built the covenant with Israel and the means through which God would ultimately redeem Israel and climactically confirm his covenantal faithfulness. It evokes one of the primary ways Jews expected God to do so in pouring out his climactic wrath on false Israel and on the more powerful enemies of Israel. And it evokes other elements of the climax of hope, all of which embody God’s delivering love for Israel and for creation as a whole (the former of which God would work through for the benefit of the latter).

Another basis for eschatology arises with the reference to mercy for those who fear God from generation to generation and that God has helped Israel in remembrance of his mercy (vv. 50, 54). The description of God’s mercy and of God as merciful echo some of the most common theological descriptors of Jewish faith (Gen 19:16; [mercy seat: Exod 25:17–22; 26:34; 30:6; 31:7; 35:12; 37:6–9; 39:35; 40:20; Lev 16:2, 13–15; Num 7:89; 1 Chr 28:11] Exod 33:19; 34:6; Deut 4:31; 2 Sam 24:14//1 Chr 21:13; 2 Chr 30:9; Neh 9:17–19, 27–28, 31; Job 9:15; Pss 23:6; 25:6; 36:5; 40:11; 44:3; 51:1; 57:1; 68:1; 69:16; 86:15; 89:10, 13; 103:4, 8; 106:1; 107:9; 111:4; 112:4; 116:5; 118:15; 119:77, 156; 123:2–3; 145:8; 146:7; 147:6; Isa 14:1; 30:18; 55:7; 60:10; 63:7; Jer 3:12; 31:20; 33:26; 42:12; Lam 3:22; Ezek 39:25; Dan 9:9, 18; Hos 2:19; 14:3; Joel 2:13; Jon 4:2; Hab 3:2; Tob 3:2, 11; 6:18; 7:11; 8:4, 7, 16–17; 11:15, 17; 13:2, 5–6, 9; 14:5; Jdt 7:30; 13:14; 16:15; [Greek Esther Addition C]; Wis 3:9; 4:15; 9:1; 11:9, 23; 12:22; 15:1; 16:10; Sir 2:7–11, 18; 5:6; 16:11–12; 17:29; 18:5, 11; 25:25–26; 36:1, 17; 47:22; 48:20; 50:19, 22, 24; 51:3, 8, 29; 1 Bar 2:19; 3:2; 4:22; 5:9; Pr Azar 12, 15, 19, 67-68; 1 Macc 3:44; 4:24; 13:46; 2 Macc 1:24; 2:7, 18; 6:16; 7:23, 29, 37; 8:2–5, 27–29; 11:9–10; 13:12; 1 Esd 8:53, 78; Pr Man 6–7, 14; 3 Macc 2:19–20; 5:7–8, 51; 6:2, 4, 9, 12, 39; 2 Esd 2:31–32; 4:24; 7:115, 132; 8:11, 31–32, 36, 45; 10:24; 11:46; 12:34, 48; 14:34; 4 Macc 6:28; 8:14; 9:24; 12:17). These texts are most, but not all, of the references to God as merciful in the OT and Apocrypha—often parallel with “gracious”—using a variety of words (such as חנן, חמלה, חסד, רחם, and רחום in the Hebrew and ἐλεάω, ἐλεέω, ἐλεήμων, and ἐλεός in Greek). Like the references to the arm of the Lord, these references have similar contexts with the exodus, God’s wrath against Israel’s enemies, and forgiveness for Israel’s sins with accompanying restoration and redemption. What this particular terminology adds to the picture is the emphases on delivering love and covenantal faithfulness. The two connotations do not always go together in every reference to mercy, but it makes sense for them to do so often—as they do here—because deliverance is the key characteristic of the love God shows in covenant with Israel (as shown in the event at the foundation of the covenant) and thus the preeminent way in which God demonstrates faithfulness to Israel (see below for more). Another feature that is common to many of these texts that makes the portrayal of God’s mercy even more vivid and stark is that God’s merciful faithfulness is set in contrast to Israel’s unfaithfulness, and thus the prayers for mercy often come in the form of not dealing with Israel according to deeds, but according to God’s own mercy. As such, God’s mercy represents a firm foundation for the hope of final redemption, covenant renewal, and conquest of Israel’s enemies, and all other expectations among early Jewish views of eschatology.

Similarly, the expectation that God vindicates and exalts the lowly who are faithful—namely, righteous Israel—formed the expectations of God’s faithfulness to Israel (vv. 52–53). Because of their presumed humility (in terms of their disposition to God in covenantal relationship, the size of the nation, their frequent position relative to other nations, their awareness of their origins, and so on), righteous Israel took the position of the lowly and hungry (Pss 9:11–14, 17–20; 10:1–4; 12:1–5; 14:6; 18:25–29; 22:26; 25:9, 16–18; 37:14; 69:30–33; 140:12; 147:6; 149:4; Isa 11:4; 29:19; 61:1; Zeph 2:3). Indeed, this expectation of the exaltation of the humble and the humbling of the exalted played a prominent part in Israelite faith—not least because of the exodus in which God exalted a nation of slaves into the chosen people saved from the most powerful nation on earth at the time—and would come to play a prominent part in Israelite hope whenever another nation was dominant over Israel and/or if it seemed most of Israel had gone astray (see Isa 40–55; Ezekiel 36–37; Joel 2–3; Amos 9; Mic 5–7; Hab passim; Zeph 2–3; Zech 9–14; Mal 3–4). In other words, humility was tied closely to deliverance via exaltation and vindication. Thus, the contours of Israel’s story and the covenantal mold formed eschatological expectations and notions of how Israel should act in expectation of the eschaton (though, of course, many groups had differing interpretations of what it meant to be Israel). This theme is one of worldly reversal and of turning the world right-side-up, setting it all aright, which is the essence of justice.

Finally, as has been traced throughout this analysis, what appears at the end/climax of the song ties the themes and the eschatological undertones together with each other and with the larger story of Israel in which they have all subsisted (v. 55). Though the defining event of Israel’s story and theology was the exodus, they considered the roots to go back, in many ways, to the promises of Abraham and other ancestors (Pss 105–106; Isa 41:8–9; 42:1–2, 21; 45:4; 48:20; 49:3; 51; Jer 33). This intractable faithfulness of God to the covenant made with Israel—and all that is thereby involved such as God’s love, mercy, salvific action, shalom-making, creatorship, and so on—is the ultimate basis for the fulfillment all eschatological expectation because covenant encapsulates the relationship between God and his people. All of the verb in vv. 51–55 are in the aorist tense despite being concerned with future events precisely because of the confidence Mary has that they will come to pass, particularly in light of Israel’s past story. Jesus is the climax of this story and this faithfulness and the one through whom the expectations come to fruition. The fulfillment of promises—the center of the covenantal relationship around which the human acts revolve and accrete—comes through Jesus. Judgment and justice come through Jesus. Mercy, as well as the deliverance and faithfulness implied therein, come through Jesus. The power of God to save, to judge, and to effect what he has promised are embodied in Jesus. Naturally, Luke is aware that all of these theological features were not completely fulfilled in the First Coming of Jesus, and he has an awareness of the Second Coming. As such, the way in which this song anticipates the Christmas event and—in the minds of Luke’s readers—points forward to the consummation of all things at his Second Coming perfectly fits the ambiance of Advent. Mary rejoices that she has already received a taste of these fulfillments before Christmas has even arrived. The aorist tense verbs also fit in this context given the confidence in future expectations based on past performance (a point that still rings true in the Advent season). It is a proper reflection of how Christians should react to these promises and Jesus’s fulfillment of them in the Advent season and outside of it since eschatology properly colors all of Christian theology.

The next text is similar, except it is more explicitly eschatological: Zechariah’s Benedictus (Luke 1:68–79). The comments here will be less extensive given that this analysis has covered many of the themes already. His reference to God as the Lord God of Israel (v. 68) recalls the whole story of Israel, the covenant, and the knowledge of God derived from action in the history of Israel. In that history, the exodus stood tall in the ways the Israelites told their story and influenced how they hoped for God’s climactic redemption and every intermediate one. The language of redemption has contexts in consecration/sanctification (Exod 13:13, 15; 34:20; Lev 27:28, 33; Num 3:46, 48–49, 51; 18:17), sacrifice (Exod 13:13, 15; Num 3:46, 48–49, 51; 18:15–16), payment of ransom (perhaps an underlying theme throughout, but especially note Exod 21:8, 30), restoring/reconciling relationships or possessions (Lev 25:24–26, 29–33, 48–49, 51–52, 54; 27:13, 15, 19–20, 27, 31; Ruth 4:4, 6–7; Prov 23:11; Isa 35:9; 44:22), and, of course, the exodus in which God delivered his people by liberating them from their enemies and slavery as well as transforming them into his covenantal people (Exod 6:6; 13:13, 15; 15:13; Deut 7:8; 9:26; 13:5; 15:15; 21:8; 24:18; 2 Sam 7:23//1 Chr 17:21; Neh 1:10; Pss 74:2; 77:15; 78:35, 42; 107:2; 111:9; Isa 43:1, 14; 44:6 [new]; 51:10; Jer 31:11 [new]; Mic 6:4; Zech 10:8 [new]; cf. Greek Esther 5:1–2 addition C; Hebrew ending of Sirach; 1 Macc 4:11). (Outside of the exodus context, note Gen 48:16; 2 Sam 4:9; Job 5:20; Pss 19:14; 25:22; 26:11; 31:5; 34:22; 44:26; 55:18; 69:18; 72:14; 103:4; 119:134, 154; 130:7–8; Isa 41:14; 44:22–24; 47:4; 48:17, 20; 49:7, 26; 52:3, 9; 54:5, 8; 59:20; 60:16; 62:12; 63:4, 9; Jer 15:21; 32:7–8; 50:34; Lam 3:58; Hos 13:14; Mic 4:10.) God’s work of redemption indicates his dedication to and care-full investment in his people. This work also identifies his people and thus places his mark of ownership on the redeemed. As indicated above in some of the cites, redemption was part of the hope of Israel’s future precisely because it was essential to Israel’s past in the exodus and the foundation of the covenant. They looked for God to act as he had acted in the past to declare who his people are by showing them that he is their God. The verb for “making/accomplishing redemption” is in the aorist tense, which may have at least two overlapping senses of significance. One, the assurance of redemption has come in what has already happened, namely the annunciation of Jesus and the birth of John. Two, even though redemption has not been effected in full, the future is as settled as the past (i.e., the futuristic/proleptic aorist) because the means of redemption are already at work (or already on the way, since Jesus has yet to be born). That there is a proleptic sense to the aorist here is confirmed by the future focus of vv. 76–79. From Luke’s own perspective, the aorist takes on a more prominent perfective sense in which what has already happened continues to have an effect on the present.

Likewise, the language of “visit” (ἐπισκέπτομαι) has eschatological resonance. In the LXX the verbal term and its noun form have at least three connotations, all of which relate to or set precedent for eschatology. First, it is used in the context of a visitation of divine judgment (Exod 30:12; Ps 89:32; Isa 23:17; Sir 2:14). Second, it appears in perhaps even more liturgically significant contexts as a reference to the exodus (Exod 3:16; 4:31). Third, based directly or indirectly on the exodus, it appears in expressions of hope for divine deliverance for the vindication and exaltation of the people of God, which leads to the glorification of his name (Pss 80:14 [LXX: 79:15]; 106:4 [LXX 105:4]; Wis 3:7; also see Pss. Sol. 3:11; 10:4; 11:6; 15:12). Luke himself uses this language elsewhere in the narration of what people say concerning a climactic action of God (1:78; 7:16; 19:44; Acts 15:14; also see 1 Pet 2:12). In this context, visitation language fits well with the themes of God’s covenantal faithfulness, consistency with past action and promise (the remembrance that is the basis of hope), the coming of the hoped-for deliverance, judgment upon enemies, as well as the salvation of people when light shines in the darkness (see especially Wis 3:7 in this respect).

The image of the horn of salvation (v. 69), which by itself could be a basic symbol of power, is a symbol of God’s might to save and to exalt. It can show either divine empowerment to overcome opposition (Deut 33:17) or divine exaltation of his humble, faithful ones as opposed to others (1 Sam 2:10; Pss 89:17, 24; 132:17–18), sometimes expressly in terms of deliverance from enemies (2 Sam 22:3//Ps 18:2). The Fifteenth Benediction of the Shemoneh Esreh concludes with this same image: “May the Branch of David your servant flourish speedily and may you prosper and exalt in your salvation. For in your salvation do we hope all day. Blessed are you, Lord, who brings forth the horn of our salvation.” As in the aforementioned texts and in Luke, the horn of salvation is often associated with David. The hope for salvation tied to David and the Davidic line eventually gave rise to the royal messianic hope, which has been shown already to have a role in Israel’s eschatology.

Much of the material in the following verses has already received comment, including covenantal faithfulness in general (especially to Abrahamic and Davidic covenants), the faithfulness to the line of David, the climax of the story told through the prophets to the present day, the demonstration of these three aims through consistency with action in Israel’s past, deliverance from enemies, and covenantal mercy (on all of these themes, also see [in addition to texts already cited] Exod 2:24; Pss 89:28 105:8–9; 106:45; 130:7–8; Isa 54:7–8; Mic 7:8–10, 20). Though the fruition of these things remains in the future, it is noteworthy that most of the verbs in vv. 69–72 are once again in the aorist tense. But vv. 74-75 add another dimension to this eschatological picture that has been an implication up to this point. The completion of deliverance is to be a renewal of what should have happened with the Mosaic covenant. The proper response to God’s delivering action in the exodus was to be obedient and faithful to his commands given in the Law. In the same way, with this climactic deliverance, the proper end for the human recipients of that action is to take advantage of the lack of obstacles and thus to be holy and faithful in obedient service to God. As seen in passages such as Isa 11, Jer 31, and Ezek 36–37, this life of holiness and righteousness is the life of the kingdom of God, a life the covenant people can live only because of the renewing empowerment of the God whose life suffuses the kingdom.

Though the eschatological texts often associated with John the Baptist do not appear here, the language clearly evokes and anticipates the passages cited later. The description of his prophetic task echoes the herald persona of Isa 40 as John is to prepare the way for the coming king. He is to prepare by proclaiming the knowledge of salvation, which comes through God’s forgiveness of sins. Isaiah 40 is one of the passages already cited that indicate the eschatological significance of the covenantal restoration that is the forgiveness of sins. The forgiveness he proclaims comes purely from the mercy of God (i.e., his faithful love shown in deeds of deliverance, the deeds that are precisely the foundation of God’s covenant in the first place).

The last two verses feature a conglomeration of images associated with God’s eschatological action. As noted already, the language of visitation appears here with the connotation of deliverance for the people of God. There are three other noteworthy images here as well. First, while ἀνατολή usually has the sense of “dawn,” (or, by implication, “east”) and that imagery does fit here with the presence of salvific light, there may be another underlying sense here. The noun and verb form appears in the LXX with meanings of “sprout” and “branch” (Isa 42:9; 43:19; 44:4, 26; 45:8; 60:1; 61:11; 66:14; Jer 23:5; 33:15 [not in the LXX]; Zech 3:8; 6:12). The majority of these references are either eschatological, provide foundations for eschatological beliefs, or would attain eschatological significance past their immediate contexts. Some of the references refer to the renewal of the covenant people, others to the new things God is bringing to pass, still others to the Branch of David (the hoped-for king; cf. Isa 11:1–10), and others to God’s “return” through the renewal and rebuilding of the temple. The Benedictus seems to have all of these shades of meaning in mind to various extents (the emphasis may be particularly on the Branch of David background). Second, the giving of salvific light (considering its effect for the ones who live in darkness) has a basic sense of the deliverance from the darkness of rebellion (Ps 107:10–15), but it also has an eschatological significance when the exile in particular revealed the depths of Israel’s darkness. Israel found itself among the nations in needing rescue from darkness. In fact, such language of the inclusion of the Gentiles in the eschatological deliverance of God may be a subtle hint towards the ways in which the Church—as a fellowship of Jews and Gentiles—is an extended fulfillment of Scripture through the work of Christ (Isa 9:2; 42:6–7). Third, the dawn and light arrive for the purpose of guiding to peace, the eschatological shalom (Isa 9:6–7; 11:6–9; 52:7–53:12; 54:10; 55:12; 65:17–25; 66:12–24; Jer 33:6, 9; Ezek 34:25; 37:26). This promised quality of God’s kingdom is not necessarily a separate characteristic from all that has been mentioned before; rather, it is the entirety of it coming together because shalom is communal wholeness, harmony, restoration, reconciliation, stability, security, and fulfillment under the reign of God. All of these aspects are part of the nexus of expectations that informs the Benedictus and thus shape how it expresses the ways in which Jesus (and his herald John) is the fulfillment of Israel’s story and the expectations about the goal that developed as part of the story.

The next text that shows Christmas’s eschatological context is in Luke 2:11. Though the text is a single verse, it is the center of the angelic proclamation to the shepherds and is thus the center of the good news the shepherds proclaimed to others as proto-evangelists of the proto-gospel. The central content of proclamation is concerned with the question of who is being proclaimed. That “who” is a Savior born in the city of David, the Messiah, and the Lord. The names and functions here are not the same as the ones in Isa 9:6–7—the larger context of which provides the source of resonance that this story with the shepherds has—but in light of all that this analysis has already observed, there is significant overlap of meaning. The notion of Messiahship has already been referenced with some brief consideration of its meaning (and in this context a royal, Davidic, salvific connotation seems to be the most direct reference). “Lord” (κύριος) is a title for authority figures, but it clearly has more significance to it in light of the eschatological context, how Luke uses the word, and how the LXX background uses it. At the least, it is an expansion in meaning of “Messiah,” like the honorifics of “Mighty God” and “Everlasting Father” from Isa 9:6. But these parallels already point to the larger significance in Luke and the LXX. In the LXX, it is the word used for translating the Hebrew Tetragrammaton, the special name for God (especially associated with the exodus). Luke uses it with similar divine meaning, and it is the most common honorific for Jesus throughout Luke-Acts, appearing around 210 times (out of the total of 717 in the NT). Prior to this text, Luke has already introduced the overlap in subject in referring to Jesus as Κύριος in 1:16–17, 43, 76–79. The eschatological connotation of this honorific is of course the sense that God is enacting his eschatological promises in Jesus, most basically in his coming that could evoke the promises of the Lord’s “return” to Israel, though in this context it is more likely that the connotations of salvation and restoration are in mind more so than judgment (Pss 50:3–4; 96:12–13; 98:8–9; Isa 4:2–5 [cloud and fire link to the exodus]; 24:21–23; 25:6–10; 31:4–5; 35:3–6, 10 [return of exiles in conjunction with return of YHWH]; 40:3–5, 9–11; 52:7–10; 59:15–21; 60:1–3, 19–20; 62:10–11; 63:1, 3, 5, 9; 64:1; 66:12, 14–16, 18–19; Ezek 43:1–7; Joel 3:16–21; Zeph 3:14–20; Hag 2:7, 9 [cf. 1:8]; Zech 1:16–17; 2:4–5, 10–12 [YHWH as a fire defending his people, much like during the exodus]; 8; 14:1–5, 9, 16, 20–21; Mal 3:1–4). The appellation of “Savior,” augments the salvific sense of the previous honorifics (its appearance in Pss. Sol. 17:32 in the context of the Davidic Messiah who brings the kingdom of God) and has God as the subject in several LXX texts (Deut 32:15; Pss 24:5; 25:5; Isa 12:2; 17:10; 45:15, 21). Thus, the good news the shepherds are to bear is an implied eschatological message that the hopes for the climactic, eschatological action of God are coming true in this person who enacts the eschatological promises (implied by his names).

The final text that manifests the eschatological context of Christmas is Luke 2:25–38. The setting of this text is actually forty days after Christmas (Lev 12), but it still shows the eschatological significance attached to Jesus’s birth. Two extra characters appear here, named Simeon and Anna. Simeon is a man looking forward to “the consolation of Israel” (v. 25). As proves typical of what Simeon says later in the text, this language is particularly Isaianic and is a way of describing the deliverance of Israel coinciding with the forgiveness of her sins (Isa 40:1–11; 49:13; 51:3–14; 57:18; 61:2; 66:11–13). His role in the story is as the witness who has been waiting his entire life to see the Messiah because he has received a promise that he would not die before seeing him. Such is another way of describing the eschatological event and hope he is looking forward to in that the Messiah is the Consoler who brings about the consolation of Israel. When he begins speaking (v. 29), he testifies that this eschatological hope that has defined the course of his life has come to fruition and that he now feels that he can be dismissed. After all, he has seen the means of salvation that God has prepared for his people (Isa 11:1–10; 25:9; 40:3, 5; 45:17; 46:13; 49:6, 8; 51:5–8; 52:7–10; 56:1; 59:16–17; 60:18; 61:10; 62:1, 11; 63:5), which is a light of revelation and glory to both Israel and the Gentiles (Isa 9:1–7; 11:1–10; 42:1–9, 16; 49:6; 51:4; 52:10; 56:1; 58:8–10; 60). In this baby he manages to see a glimpse of the inauguration of the kingdom of God because he is seeing the inaugurator. At the same time, he realizes that the coming of the king is a divisive event that will reveal the true people of God and the rebels who will seek to resist him at each turn. This imagery evokes the rejected stone that becomes the cornerstone or capstone, the stumbling stone over which the unfaithful will trip, and the foundation stone on which the faithful will find themselves well established, since it is the foundation of the kingdom of God (Ps 118:22 [Matt 21:42//Mark 12:10//Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11; 1 Pet 2:7]; Isa 8:14–15; 28:16 [Rom 9:33; 1 Pet 2:7–8]; Dan 2:34–35, 44–45). Such statements prove to be true of Jesus’s ministry and his own words about the division created by the coming of the kingdom and its king with as some rebel and some receive willingly.

The episode featuring the prophetess Anna strikes an eschatological note in the sense of her seeing her eschatological hope fulfilled after many years of waiting upon the Lord, a common theme of the OT that Simeon and the aforementioned songs also exemplify (Pss 25:1–5, 19–21; 27:13–14; 31:23–24; 37:5–9, 34; 38:15–16; 39:7–10; 40:1–5; 62:1–2, 5–8; 69:1–3; 130; Prov 20:22; Isa 8:17; 25:6–9; 26:7–15; 30:18; 33:2–6; 40:27–31; 49:22–23; 51:4–6; 60:8–16; 64:4; Lam 3:25–33; Hos 12:6; Mic 7:7; Zeph 3:8). The other more clearly eschatological element in this text is the phrase, “redemption of Jerusalem.” It is a parallel to the earlier phrase, “consolation of Israel,” and is in fact a synecdoche of it in light of the fact that the destiny of Jerusalem was a central aspect of Israel’s eschatological hopes, as can be seen especially in the passages about God’s “return” to Zion (see in particular Isa 40:1–11; 51; 52:8–10). Furthermore, the redemption language also has eschatological resonance, as this analysis has already shown.