Theme 1: Part 2

Theme 1: Part 2

1. , can the accounts of Mathew and Luke be harmonised?

   • Or are these so many differences that they appear to be different stories entirely?. They are certainly different, eg Mathew focuses on Joseph and has the visit of the wise men. Luke focuses on Mary and has the visit of the shepherds. Luke extra stories to do with the Birth of John the Baptist and taking the baby Jesus to the Temple all tie in with Mary’s storyline.
     • However, none of this seems to be a problem, if we agree the view that Mathew was getting his information from Josephs side of the family ( a very Jewish thing to do. Ie. Talk to the male side), whilst Luke (a Gentile) got his information from Mary’s side. If this is the case, then it points to writers concerned to gather accurate information, committed to truth and avoiding myth. Besides, whilst there are differences in their accounts, they are just that, differences rather than outright clashes. Of course, one major difference is the different visitors in each account, but closer study of te actual text gives an answer to this. Our nativity story and Christmas card upbringing leads us to assume these two visits were on the same night, so why did both writers include both groups. Detailed reading of Mathew reveals that the wise men probably came up to two years later
       • Conclusion: Of course, there are supernatural elements in the stories. We shouldn’t be surprised; it is, after all, a story about God and him intervening in human history. So if one simply cannot accept these supernatural elements, then the story cannot be accepted in its entirety. One might accept basic core about Jesus birth; but would want to strip away the supernatural/mythical elements to find the core of historical fact. This is the demythologising process that Bultmann suggested. If, however, one is able to accept the supernatural elements, then we have two accounts that can be argued to have strong measures of compatibility and historical credibility. And as for the supernatural bits; If Mathew’s main theme is correct, and this is the Incarnation/God in the flesh, then the things happening around such as event are not surprising.

2. What theological points are Mathew and luke making ?

   • If we accept Redaction Criticism, its main point is that the Gosepls are theology more than history. So what theological points is at the ehart of the Birth narratives? Both Mathew and Luke are, in this part of their Gospels, establishing jesus’ indentity. All that follows will hinge on just who Jesus is. There are lots of references to Jesus being this or that; the son of David, the Messiah/ the Christ Saviour, Immanuel. And the three gifts of the wise men each spoke of a specific identity or role he would fulfil. Of course, the Jews already had an idea of the Messiah; the prophescies that Mathew quoted are testimony to that. But the gospels show how jesus not only fulfilled their expectation, but surpassed it. There was a dimension to his identity that was unexpected, but crucial for the purpose for which we had come.
     • Above all else is the doctrine of the incarnation, ie Jesus was the incarnation of God, he was God “in the flesh”, God become man. He had a dual nature; he was both man, by birth to a human mother, but also God by his conception by the power of the Holy Spirit

3. What does it mean that he was both divine and human?

   • The early Christian Creeds (Nicea in 325 AD and Chalcedon in 451 AD- official statements of Christian faith), asserted this doctrine that Jesus was the incarnation of God, ie God himself, come amongst us in human flesh. The Nicene Creed says “We believe… in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Farther(the only begotten, that is, of the essence of the Farther), God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten not made, being one substance with the Farther.. who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate and was made man.”
     • This is trying everyway it can, to empthsis, in case anyone doesn’t get it; he begotten, not created; he’s not another God, he’s not a lesser being; he is fully God (God of God, Very God of Very God, of one substance with the farther. He is fully God- and yet fully Man as well. So Jesus was God incarnate/ God in the flesh; two natures, human and divine, united in the one person of Jesus. This is known as the ‘hypostatic union’. This has led to some difficulties and arguments. How could omniscient God ecome a baby, not know when the world was to end, and how could Jesus, if he was God, be tempted ? Judaism and Islam reject such an idea as violating the oneness of God; certain Christian groups down through the ages have rejected it, saying that it undermines the transcendence and immutability (unchanging) of God. Indeatd they see Jesus as the Son, but a lesser being.
       • He was not half man and half God, he was fully human and fully God. There is no hierarchy here. To explain how this dual nature incarnation works, Christian theologian have drawn on St Pau’s statement in his letter to the Philippians 2:7- Jesus, “though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. Rescuing of humanity, being constrained in a human form and be a slave. Understanding the incarnation in this light is known as the kenotic model. Kenosis is the Greek verb, ‘to empty’. So what did Paul mean when he presented Jesus is this way? It couldn’t mean that he emptied himself of his divinity and ceased to be God; the substantial presence of God was maintained, but his divine attributes were hidden.
         • ‘Emptying’ himself meant that: prior to the incarnation , he voluntarily accepted self-limitation, “taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness’. So he accepted full humanity, whilst maintaining substantial presence as fully divine. The self-emptying of his own will as a human being, submitting entirely to the will of God. By the kenotic model we can see how Jesus, God in the flesh, can actually sacrifice himself for mankind on the cross. He made himself capable of death and suffering.

4. The Resurrection of Jesus- Resurrection- From the Latin, ‘to rise again’.

   • Christians believe that following his crucifixion and burial, Jesus rose again on the third day; then, over a period of 40 days he appeared to his followers/disciples. The Gospels all record Jesus telling his disciples that he must be arrested, killed and, one the third day rise. With nothing to compare it to, this last part wasn’t really picked p on. Where he was crucified they all fled into hiding- they apparently had no expectation of him rising from the dead. Yet, within a short time they had become convinced he was alive, they fearlessly preached that God had raised him, and that this one more proof that he was the Messiah, and that but accepting his messiahshIp they too could share in his resurrection. They embarked on a mission of spreading the Gospel of Jesus, their natural fear tempered by their new understanding of what Jesus had earlier told them, that they need not fear those who can “only kill the body” (MT 10:28)
     • Two Modern Interpretations of the Resurrection 1. Rudolf Bultmann0 only the teaching of Jesus that is important; get rid of the mythical element. 2. N.T Wright
       • 1. Rudolf Bultmann German theologian (d. 1976) argued that all that is necessary for Christians belief is that jesus lived, preached and died by crucifixtion. He said that the story needed to be demythologised for modern readers to understand it. I.e. the mythological elements removed. To Bultmann, myth meant anything that refered to superantual or superham powers at work. He regarded the virgin birth and resurrection as examples of these myths. Since the New Testaments uses the mythological terminology of its time, it cannot be believed by modern readers without discarding all modern intellect. Bultmann tries to interpret the NT in such a way to remove its mythical elements, but retain its meaning. For the resurrection, Bultmann saw is as a myth, not a historical event. It was a story designed to encourage faith. He accepted that the first disciples genuinely believed it, but you can’t expect sceintifcally-minded moderns to do so.
         • Bultmann’s position was 1. Jesus was not the Son of God in any literal sense, but that he spoke expressed God’s intentions. 2. Belief in Jesus bodily resurrection is unnecessary for Christian faith. If it were historical fact, he asks what would be the poijt of faith? It is not important whether Jesus actually rose, but that he is ‘ the Risen One” to you. 3. Modern Christians cannot accept the resurrection with integrity because it cannot be proved. 4. The cross is all-important. It is a victory, not a defeat; by Jesus giving his life over to death, the power of death is defeated. So the resurrection is actually part of the crucifixion, meaning that there is no need for a second, actual one. 5. Easter is not about the rising of Jesus, but the faith of the Early Church. 6. The resurrection takes place in believers when they hear God’s word preached and they experience faith rising within them.
       • 2. N.T-Wright An ex Bishop of Durham, in his book “The Resurrection of the Son of God” (2003) : he has a more tradtinal understanding and acceptance of Jesus’ Ressurection. He argues that it marks the beginning of a restoration of creation itself, that will ultimately be completed on his return. He points out that resurrection was new: - Greek thought had no concept of a bodily resssurection. Tradinal Greek beliefs from Homer, spoke of Hades, a shadowy abode of the dead. Later, Plato thought in terms of an afterlife for the soul only.
         • - In Judaism, there was a belief in resurrection of the body, but it had grown slowly through the centuries and was divided and unclear. The early Old Testaments spoke of Sheol ( A Hades-like abode of the dead). The Psalms talked hopefully of God’s love for us continuing beyond death. Prophets like Isaiah and Ezekiel talked of resurrection as a future hope for God’s people- a general resurrection in the end times. Unlike the Greek immorality of the soul, they thought in terms of bodily resurrection, their ideas were “vague and unfocussed”, but they were emerging in the pre-NT period. Therefore the resurrection idea refelected the Jewish thought, not the world and mythology of Hellenism. However, what was claimed about Jesus stepped well beyond this, and placed it in the “now”, as a return to this world, not a future rising at the end of time. Onto this scene stepped the first Christians, with the startling claim that Jesus was and is the Messiah and that the proof of this is that he ha
           • - Early Christian belief about life after death showed links to Jewish thought, not Greek; but also ad significant differences. Whereas Judaism was very divided on these matters, early Christianity showed a virtually unanimous hope in a future resurrection of the body. This will not be the simple reversal of death that some Jews thought of, a return to the same body. It would be a new creation, a new body with new properties. There will also be a renewed earth for these renewed bodies. Creation will be restored, even better than at the beginning and resurrection is part of that. St. Paul saw it in two stages. First, Christ then, at his coming, all people. In the meantime, those who have died are “asleep in Christ!” (waiting)
             • Why did the first Christian believe this? There had been others who had claimed to b the Messiah, before and after Jesus. They all failed, but the task of their followers is trying to continue their work was to find a new Messiah to follow. But the early Christians stuck with the one they already had, because he hadn’t stayed dead! Other Jewish leaders had died promising resurrection and their followers had believed them. But no followers claimed that they actually had seen, until now. Something happened after Jesus’ death that persuaded his frightened followers that he had risen and he was, therefore the Messiah. This was not just a way of expressing the belief that Jesus had gone to heaven when he died. Jesus wasn’t resurrected to heaven; he was resurrected to earth, to continue among us for 40 days. This would be what Wright has called “Life After life after death”.
               • The Gospel descriptions of Jesus after the resurrection are not of a spiritual presence, not a resuscitated corpse, but a body transformed, appearing and disappearing at will, yet inviting his disciples to touch him and his wounds, even eating with them.
                 • Conclusion: Did Jesus simply survive the crucifixion? No says Wright; Roman soldiers were expert executioners! The tomb was empty, no more. Wright says the disciples would have assumed the body had been stolen, not resurrection. Maybe the disciples stole it, buried it and lied about it. The disiplies had versions of Jesus. Wright says this is a common phenomenon, but doesn’t cause people to claim that their loved ones risen from the dead. And what, asks Wright about the women who first went to the tomb and were therefore the first witnesses of the resurrection? Women weren’t allowed to give evidence in a court of law and were seen as not good witnesses. Wright says the most plausible explanation is that the tomb really was empty, Jesus followers ecountered someone they were convinced really was Jesus, bodily alive, thought transformed. The disciples were cautious, some openly doubted. Other explanation are less convincing and don’t explain what the disciples went on to do.