Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Immanuel: God With Us - Part 4 - Gospels


Immanuel

"God with Us"
in the Old and New Testaments
A College Church Foundations Course
Autumn 2008
Week Four

"Theological Treatment of the Unique Incarnation in the Gospels"



Immanuel as our Theme

The theme of this course is "Immanuel: God with Us in the OT and NT". To follow all the back and future lessons online in blog form, click on this word.
When we define each of the three components of the title Immanuel, there is specificity in the first—"God" is not just any god, but the God of Creation and the God of Israel, Yahweh. But with the second and third components there is a certain ambiguity that in a way is quite helpful. For it fits the various ways in which we see this happening in both testaments. In the OT the "us" is Israel, God's covenant people, and God showed himself to be "with" Israel:
  1. through promises to Abraham partially fulfilled in the exodus and the founding of the nation Israel,
  2. through the exodus itself as liberation from Egyptian bondage,
  3. through the giving of the law at Mt. Sinai,
  4. through the conquest of the Promised Land under Joshua, and
  5. through the institution of Davidic kingship and the Dynastic Covenant given to David in 2 Samuel 7.
But we saw last week that God still promised a much deeper realization of the "God with us" commitment in the future, in connection with Isaiah's prediction (7:14 ) of the virginal conception of a "son" whose symbolic "name" would be Immanuel, "God with us." This virgin-born Immanuel would be "with" an "us" that was first of all Israel ("he will save his people from their sins" [Matthew 1:21]; "to the Jew first" [Romans 1:16; 2:9-10]) and subsequently all peoples ("make disciples of all nations" [Matthew 28:19]).
Now that we have arrived at the lesson dealing with the unique incarnation of God—the unique and true action of God literally taking on flesh in Jesus—we need to guard against a premature collapsing of the idea of "God with us" in Jesus to the birth event itself, as marvelous as that was. Only Matthew and Luke give birth narratives. John gives a powerful prologue in which the pre-existence of the Son is described and a very clear statement is made of this member of the triune godhead "becoming flesh" (John 1:14). Although Mark undoubtedly also believed in the birth miracle, he chooses to say nothing about it. For him, and probably also for the other three gospel writers, Jesus being Yahweh incarnate showed itself in many ways other than in the events surrounding his birth, ways that should not be overshadowed by the birth narratives.
What were some of these other ways in which gospel writers conveyed the truth that in Jesus God took on flesh? Does Mark—and for that matter, also Matthew, Luke and John—convey this truth in more indirect ways? Do the very actions of Jesus reveal that he is the God-Man? And—also of great importance—how is the Deity portrayed in ways that he could be recognized as the same God who made Israel his firstborn son and cared for this people like a father throughout the Old Testament.
A claim made indirectly through allusions to the familiar content of the OT was every bit as clear and emphatic to Jesus' listeners as a prosaic statement "I am God." And a conclusion that you draw as a hearer—a puzzle that you solve on your own from reading scripture—makes a much deeper impression on you than if you were simply told "the answer." ("Aha! So what you're saying is that you're the messiah!") This was why Jesus so often taught with questions instead of statements. He wanted his hearers to come up with the correct answer themselves through reflection.
You may have noticed that I did not title this week's class "The Unique Incarnation in the Gospels," but "The Theological Treatment of the Unique Incarnation in the Gospels". We aren't just interested in the assertion that God took human form in Jesus, but what significance of that fact we are supposed to draw from the gospels. Why was the incarnation necessary? And how did it manifest itself to achieve God's ends in the life and ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth?
In other words, we are not just interested in what the Twelve saw and heard from Jesus, but the significance of those actions and words that the Holy Spirit conveyed to them after the resurrection. In fact, John tells us that this is precisely what happened (John 2:18-22):
Then the Jews demanded of him, "What miraculous sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?" Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days." The Jews replied, "It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?" But the temple he had spoken of was his body. After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the Scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken."

Jesus as the God-Man in the Gospels

We all know that such reflections on the significance of Jesus being the God-Man exist in the rest of the New Testament (the preaching in Acts, the argument of Paul's letters and the Book of Hebrews come to mind). We will focus on those in the next two weeks.
But we don't usually think of the gospel narratives as being interested in anything more than simply telling us what happened. Nothing could be further from the truth. The gospels were composed after Paul wrote his letters and by men who were just as interested in theology and able to think in theological terms as Paul was.
Of course, they faithfully record what historically Jesus said and did. I do not agree with those liberals who believe the early church and the gospel writers distorted or added anything extraneous to what Jesus actually said or did. But it is clear, even if we limit the consideration to the sequence in which a particular gospel-writer places events in Jesus' life, that he has an interpretation in mind that the Holy Spirit gave to him.
So we will find in the four gospels not only the assertion that Jesus was God as well as Man, but an exploration of the ramifications of this fact. What did he do, say or experience differently because he was both God and Man, not just a God-empowered or God-inspired man? What in his life showed that both his deity was real? I am not convinced, as some are, that the gospels are already engaged in countering the view of later Gnostics and Docetists that Jesus was true God but his humanity was only illusory. So we will leave that issue aside.

Jesus as Yahweh Incarnate

A second question we are interested in is what in his behavior, his words, his actions not only showed he possessed unique divine power—but also the very same concerns that Yahweh, the God of Israel, regularly showed in the Old Testament? Concerns that go beyond what ordinary prophets and holy men reflected.
For the point of the gospel writers, as well as the point of Jesus' own claims about himself, was not just that he was "God" in a generic sense, not even "the one God and Creator," but that he was Israel's God, Yahweh, in indissoluble union with a human man born from a Jewish woman in the line of David. For we saw last week that in addition to his title Immanuel, which contains ʾel the more generic Hebrew word for "god", the messiah also had the title "Yahweh ṣidqēnu "Yahweh, our Righteousness" (Jeremiah 23:6; 33:16). The messiah was to be the incarnation of Yahweh, the God of the entire Old Testament scriptures: the God of creation, of the Flood, of the patriarchs, of the exodus, of the conquest of the land, of the Davidic kings and of the prophets of Israel.
Where shall we begin? How about at the beginnings of the four gospels? Authors often tip their hands in the opening words of their texts as to what they want to show and how. I asked you this week:

1. How do the openings of three gospels (Mat. 1:1; Mk. 1:1; Jn 1:1-5, 9-14, 17-18) differ in what they claim concerning Jesus? AND 2. Why do you think Luke makes no claim concerning Jesus in the opening verses of his gospel? How do we know that Luke presents Jesus as God in the flesh (see Lk 1:30-37 ; 4:12, 34, 41; 5:21; 12:8; 18:19; 22:69-70)?

Since most NT scholars today think Mark was written first, let's start with him. How does he begin his gospel? First, he calls his composition a "gospel." None of the other three use this term in their opening lines. Literally, the word means "good news", but it has theological freight, even in Jesus' days. In the pagan Roman world, there were compositions recording the birth of Roman emperors, that were called "good news." So even though Mark has no birth narrative, his use of this term may imply his view that Jesus was born to be king of Israel.
Secondly, it is "good news" about Jesus (Hebrew Y'shua), who was the messiah ("anointed one", Greek khristos). So although Mark doesn't cite fulfilled prophecy as much as Matthew does, he clearly states his belief at the outset that Jesus was the Jewish messiah.
Finally, some of the earliest manuscripts include "the Son of God," which can be taken several ways. It could emphasize the deity of Jesus, or it could be another way of saying he was the messiah promised to David in 2 Samuel 7, whom God said "will be to me a son, and I will be to him as a father." Most Christians would affirm both ideas here. There is nothing in any of the four gospels to suggest that their writers did not believe in the full deity of Jesus.
How about Matthew?  Like Mark, he calls Jesus khristos "the anointed one," the messiah, who has dual sonship: son of David, son of Abraham. Matthew's opening words may describe only the material in the first chapter, depending on how you understand the words "the book (biblos) of the genealogy." Does Matthew consider the genealogy that follows to be a "book" in itself? Or is he characterizing his entire composition by the opening genealogy? That is, the royal descent of Jesus colors and sets the theme of all that follows? I am inclined to the second view. And if so, then the placing of this genealogy at the very start is intended to guide how we read all that follows. As the genealogy is a royal one, going back to David and beyond that to Abraham, the preeminent ancestor of Israel, Jesus is to be seen in what follows as the ultimate Israelite (the true Abraham) and as Israel's preeminent ruler (the true David).
3. Where in the four gospels do we find the clearest statement of God becoming flesh in Jesus? (Clue: It’s in the assigned readings above!) How is it implicit in what some of the other gospels say?
John's "opening" (John 1:1-5, 9-14, 17-18 ) is the longest of all, comprising a virtual hymn to the preexistent "Word" (the Logos), which is his term for the Second Person of the Trinity. Only once in this hymn does he use the word "son" to describe Jesus, but not to relate him to David or Abraham, but as "the special son (Greek monogenēs) from the Father" (v. 14). John's presentation of the implications of Jesus' identity with Yahweh, the God of Israel, is not as subtle as in the other three gospels. The lyricism of his writing makes it hard to follow his train of thought in this long hymn. But it is crystal clear that he affirms preexistence for the divine side of Jesus. He uses the language of the opening verse in the Bible, Genesis 1:1—"in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth— to show the eternity of the Word and his identity with Yahweh, the God of Israel and the Creator of all that exists. What he says about the activities of the preexistent Word he will also say about the activities of Jesus later in his narratives.
Luke gives his statement about the nature of the Jesus, not in an opening verse, but in the annunciation and birth narratives in his first two chapters. There it is declared by Gabriel independently to Joseph and Mary, by Spirit-ispired songs of Mary and Elisabeth and Simeon, and by the angel chorus from the skies over Bethlehem.
When it comes to the details of the Gospel-writers' claims about Jesus as the Coming Promised One, they tend to compare him with the same three OT characters that we have used in the past three weeks: Adam, Moses and David.

Jesus as the Second Adam

4. The gospel writers do not use Paul’s term “the Second Adam” of Jesus. But in what ways do you see them comparing him to Adam (not explicitly, but implicitly)? Use your memory of the content of any of the gospels. For example, in the temptation scene of Mark 1:12-13 (very concise) and Matthew 4:1-11 and Luke 4:1-13 (both much fuller). Or in Luke's genealogy of Jesus (Luke 3:23-38).
Let's take the Luke 3:38 passage first, as it is the simplest—at least on the surface. In Luke's genealogy of Jesus the chain stretches all the way back to Adam, who is called "the son of God." This may seem to you rather meaningless, since each one of us can assume that our ancestral lines go through Noah back to Adam! But there is more afoot here than meets the eye.Notice how the end of Luke's genealogy of Jesus, which ends with the word "Adam, the son of God" leads directly into his narrative of Jesus' temptation by Satan in chapter 4.
Luke's point can only be understood against the backdrop of Paul's "Second Adam" motif, which he probably knew from having been Paul's traveling companion. Jesus is no different from me in being physically a son of Adam, but he is unique in being the fulfillment of that status of "son of God" that had originally been conferred on Adam. The First Adam failed to fulfill it, but the Second Adam succeeded. That is why Luke writes in this genealogy what otherwise would be not only self-evident, but trivial.
Now let's look at the temptation narrative. It is relevant, because the First Adam was tempted by Eve, as she was tempted by the serpent, and both succumbed. But Jesus as the Second Adam, the Messiah, was "tested in all points as we, yet without sinning," as the author to Hebrews (4:15 ) puts it.

But there is also the business that Mark adds, which also links this event to Adam. Mark says that during the 40-day period Jesus "was with the wild animals" (Mark 1:13). Again, this remark cannot be there just to paint a vivid picture of desert life. One recent commentator tried to use it to portray Jesus as the "green" friend of nature, a point utterly foreign to the mentality of the gospel writers. No —  we must see it as showing his ability—also promised to Adam—to "rule over the birds, fish, and wild animals" (Gen 1:26). The rule over the fish is also illustrated several times in the miraculous catches of fish on the Lake of Galilee (John 21:3-7). A preview of this ability of the Second Adam was given in the Book of Daniel, where Daniel is thrown into a den of hungry lions, but God causes them not to kill him (Daniel 6). Some even think that outside the garden of Eden, the pre-fall world was populated by wild animals that killed much as they do today, and that it was part of the mandate God gave to Adam to control and domesticate them.1 If so, then Christ's control of wild animals in Mark's version of the temptation in the desert would be part of his image as the successful Second Adam who overcomes temptation and then fulfills his Adamic mandate with regard to ruling over the wild animals. I tell you this only because it is interesting. For this theory faces serious objections which we cannot go into here.

Jesus as the Second Moses

In our second week—"Immanuel: God with Us in the Exodus and the Davidic Kingship"—we saw that a major advance in God's being "with" his people in the OT was in the deliverance from Egyptian slavery and the giving of the law on Mt. Sinai. It isn't surprising therefore that Jesus is presented in the gospels as a Second and Greater Moses.
Modern theologians have argued that the Moses image is expressed in numerous parts of the gospels. But it will suffice us today to focus on the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) as commentary on and enlargement of the laws of Sinai.
Jesus begins his commentary of God's law given at Mt. Sinai in Matt. 5:17-20 with these significant words:
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."
This shows that, despite the many occasions when his opponents accused him of breaking the Sabbath laws, Jesus was a staunch upholder of the laws God gave to Israel on Mt. Sinai. His program was not to break them, but fulfill them completely.
Yet, when we read further in Matthew 5 we see a repeated pattern of sayings that show Jesus considered himself authorized by God to give a definitive interpretation to these laws. The first way in which this impresses us is in the formula "you have heard that it has been said … but I say to you" (Matt. 5:21-22, 27-28, 33-34, 38-39, 43-44), where Jesus "raised the bar" on what it meant to obey the laws of God. Forbidden was not just murder but hatred, not only adultery but lust, not only breaking oaths but not taking them at all, not just loving the neighbor but also the enemy.

Some of the formulations in the "you have heard" category represent rabbinic interpretations and enlargements of the law of Sinai. They are analogous to other places in the ministry of Jesus where he explicitly corrected the rabbinic interpretations and abuses that arose from this. An example of that is the discourse about the Qorban laws (Mark 7:7-13)—Hebrew qorban means "something given to God." 
And he said to them: "You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! 10For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and, 'Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.' 11 But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: 'Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban' (that is, a gift devoted to God), 12 then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. 13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."
In other cases in Matthew 5 Jesus was not specifically correcting current rabbinic interpretations, but was merely showing the full God-intended force of the original commandments. In doing this he acted as the God-authorized interpreter of the laws of Sinai.
But it is also clear that Jesus showed that he was authorized to even modify the laws given at Sinai. The clearest examples concern the laws about clean and unclean foods:
“When he had left the crowd and entered the house, his disciples asked him about the parable. He said to them, “Then do you also fail to understand? Do you not see that whatever goes into a person from outside cannot defile, since it enters, not the heart but the stomach, and goes out into the sewer?” (Thus he declared all foods clean.) And he said, “It is what comes out of a person that defiles. For it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder, adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”” (Mark 7:17-23 NRSV).
Matthew tells us what the cumulative effect of this commentary on the law of Moses was upon the listeners:
“Now when Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were astounded at his teaching, for he taught them as one having authority, and not as their scribes” (Matthew 7:28-29 NRSV).

Jesus as the Second David

We saw in the second and third weeks that the term "son of David" in the OT—and even the term "David" in predictions of the future kingdom of God—was equivalent to a "Second David," the ultimate fulfillment of what David was meant to be, but never actually succeeded in being. (Just as the Second Adam, and Second Moses realized what the first ones never did.) So we are not surprised to see the crowds of Jesus disciples hailing him as "son of David." This meant much more than just a recognition of his genealogy. It was a messianic title with a particular emphasis.
We saw when we studied the Dynastic Covenant with David in 2 Samuel 7, that the king was to be related to Yahweh-God as a son to his father; so that God would both love and protect and care for him as his son and never disown him—never cast him out of his family, but would discipline him as a father does a son (v. 12-16). This same Father-Son relationship of the Davidic king to God is reflected in Psalm 2:7, which was also a messianic psalm finding its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus (Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5; 5:5).
In its Old Testament context the term "Son of God" was not so much a title as a metaphor. We never read of its being used as an address to the Davidic king by his subjects. Nor did it have any overtones of deity, as it did in Egypt of the Pharaohs. Egyptian kings, as well as some Babylonian ones were considered divine even during their lifetimes. Hittite kings were considered to "become" divine only upon their deaths, in the sense that they became recipients of corporate worship and sacrifices. None of these things were true of Israelite kings.
But with Jesus, "Son of God" has become more than a metaphor, it is a title. This is the way Mark uses it in the opening words of his gospel (Mark 1:1), and Peter used it in his confession in Matthew 16.
"Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ [= the Messiah], the Son of the living God." 17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven." (ESV).
It is indicator of Jesus' status as God's king in the Davidic line. But it goes much deeper than that. In its reference to Jesus' identity "Son of God" clearly expresses a divine origin. Even without this title, Jesus and the NT writers clearly claimed his deity. As Larry Hurtado argues so persuasively in his book Lord Jesus Christ,2 it is not just what is said about Jesus that shows his claim to deity, but what he did—actions that only God could do. So let us turn to an examination of some of these things.

Jesus Acting as God

5. How was God's power exercised in Jesus' actions and words to benefit needy and suffering people? and to judge evil? Benefit:
When the men came to Jesus, they said, "John the Baptist sent us to you to ask, 'Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else?'" At that very time Jesus cured many who had diseases, sicknesses and evil spirits, and gave sight to many who were blind. So he replied to the messengers, "Go back and report to John what you have seen and heard: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor. Blessed is the man who does not fall away on account of me."
6. How was God's power over inanimate things active in Jesus' actions?
  • Turning water into wine (John 2:1-11)
  • multiplying loaves and fishes (Mark 6:35-43)
  • stilling the storm: "he awoke and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, 'Peace! Be still!' And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. He said to them, 'Why are you so afraid? Have you still no faith?' And they were filled with great fear and said to one another, 'Who then is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?'" (Mark 4:35-41)
7. How was God's power over Satan shown?
  • healings;
  • exorcisms: (for example, in the synagogue of Capernaum. There he began to teach. The people were amazed at his teaching. He taught them like one who had authority. He did not talk like the teachers of the law. Just then a man in their synagogue cried out. He was controlled by an evil spirit. He said,) "What do you want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have you come to destroy us? I know who you are. You are the Holy One of God!" Mark 1:23-27; 
  • driving the demon-possessed swine into Lake of Galilee: 
  • victory over the tempter;
8. How was God's power over life and death shown?
Do the actions of Jesus that required supernatural, divine power—i.e., his miracles—always serve the particular concerns of Yahweh, the God of Israel? Give examples: "I have come that they may have life, and have it to the full" John 10:10-11.

Summary and Conclusion

The four canonical gospels present the miracle of God becoming Man in a wide variety of ways. Some of these ways are shared by all four. All four acclaim Jesus as the "Son of God" and "the Christ [Messiah]". All four use his words of wisdom and authority to link him to Moses and to Solomon. And all four report his power over nature, over Satan, and over sickness and death as effects of the Fall to show him to be the God of Creation and of Israel. There can be no doubt that those who knew Jesus best were enabled by the Holy Spirit to understand clearly who he really was: God's Immanuel. We should celebrate this thrilling fact not just at Christmas time—although we should certainly do so then—but every day of our lives. The God of Creation and of ancient Israel has redeemed us and lives in us to do the same kind of miracles of guidance and deliverance that he did for Israel in the exodus and the desert wanderings, and the same kind of miracles of healing and teaching that he did when Jesus walked the roads of Galilee. This is our God, and he is with us. Hallelujah!

Endnotes
1 See 1. L. E. Wilkinson, 'Immanuel and the purpose of creation', Doing theology for the people of God : studies in honor of J.I. Packer (ed. D. M. Lewis, A. E. McGrath and J. I. Packer; Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1996) 245-61.
2 1. L. W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005).


Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)