If the Nativity stories are intended to tell us about Jesus, what do they say? Let’s remind ourselves of the “plot” first: In Matthew we begin apparently in Bethlehem. The angel appears in a dream to Joseph. Jesus is born. The visitors from the east follow a star. The flight to Egypt. The slaughter of the innocents. Joseph moves his family to Nazareth.In Luke we begin in Nazareth. The angel comes to Mary. (There’s a sub-plot concerning the birth of John). The imperial census and journey to Bethlehem. Laid in a manger - no room at the inn. Shepherds. Heavenly host. Circumcision and presentation at the Temple. Simeon and Anna rejoice.Both writers have genealogies of Jesus, but they’re different.
Most often we read these accounts as though they’re giving different details of the same story. Whilst that’s just about possible, I think doing misses important truths because it erases the distinctive emphases of the two gospel writers. And it also throws up some interesting surprises.
Matthew, it is often said, is the most Jewish gospel. In it, Jesus is presented as the successor to Moses. He gives a new law from the mountain and renews the Covenant relationship with God. It is not surprising, then, that the infancy of Jesus parallels the infancy of Moses though where Egypt was a place of slavery it becomes a haven. The genealogy of Jesus places him very firmly in the history of Israel, beginning with Abraham. The Church is the new Israel, with Christ at its head. But here’s the big surprise: in this most Jewish story the first visitors are foreigners and followers of another faith. Jesus is a Jewish Messiah for all the world.
By contrast, Luke is a gentile gospel written in a style much like that of his contemporary biographers and historians. His genealogy of Jesus places him in the history of the world, tracing his ancestry back to Adam. It is not Isael which is being renewed, but humanity itself. Jesus is the second Adam. Just as the rest of his gospel is filled with stories of the outcast and powerless, so in the nativity story the main actors are of little account - a barren woman, a pregnant teenager, shepherds, the elderly Simeon and Anna. This is to be the Messiah who announces good news to the poor, the year of the Lord’s favour. But even though this might be thought of as a gentile story, Luke is careful over the fulfillment of the rituals of the Jewish law. This is a Saviour for the whole world, but there is a continuity between the traditions of Israel and the ministry of Jesus.
Matthew and Luke are not merely recorders of events. They are at least as much theologians as they are historians, much more so in my view. They shape their material to give the best account they can of the truth about Jesus. What concerns them is not principally his birth story, but his significance as “the Son of the Most High”. That’s what needs to concern us today.
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
dh 12.22.05 at 8:36 pm
Man, Richard this is the type of writing I appreciate and that those in “my camp” have never went against. How about this conclusion Matthew and Luke were equally stating historical events AND opperating with different personalities as well. These two in my opinion don’t contradict each other and while you say “Whilst that’s just about possible”, I say “that is what it is. That is why I don’t feel Matthew and Luke contradict each other. In fact in past posts to other post I think I might have mentioned this (the analogy of four people looking at the same particular London McD’s) one focuses on the employees, another the arches, the other the building and the other the food. All are looking at the same McD’s but different aspects of the same McD’s with no contradictions for they are looking at the same exact thing.
dh 12.22.05 at 8:37 pm
Just because Matthew “focuses on the food” and Luke “focuses on the arches” doen’t mean they contradict each other when in fact they are looking at the same particular London McD’s.
Kim 12.22.05 at 8:44 pm
To fatten up the great gospel goose you’ve just served us -
On Matthew, you might have added Joseph’s dreams as an OT link with his namesake in Egypt, as well as Pharaoh’s infanticide as the prototype of Herod’s massacre of the innocents.
On Luke, you might have added the setting of the story in Roman history as a hint of its global significance, as well as the proclamatory praise of the angels as a sign of its cosmic significance.
Thanks, Richard.
dh 12.22.05 at 10:13 pm
Kim, just like Canadian geese have “long necks”. I think it is a “stretch and that you are putting your “neck out” on this one beyond what the True meaning of Christmas is. Have a wonderful Christmas, Kim
Kim 12.22.05 at 11:07 pm
Can anyone help me as to what on earth dh is talking about?
Richard 12.22.05 at 11:59 pm
Kim - as to your comments: thanks. When I write something similar another time I’ll be sure to put those things in. Can’t think why I didn’t think of them myself…
As to your question - I’m sure there will be someone who can help you, but it isn’t me!
dh 12.26.05 at 7:59 pm
Just a parody of “To fatten up the great GOSPEL GOOSE you’ve just served us” My response was to show in a humorous way my disagreement with the analysis.
chad 08.15.06 at 10:27 pm
wondering what your thoughts of the upcoming movie are, and once you watched it, your impression of it