Friends with a nose > > Home

Why Only Two Christmas Stories?

Redaction Critiscm and Bethlehem

Posted Tuesday, January 09, 2007 by Charlie Trimm
Categories: Gospels  
Have you ever wondered why Mark and John do not tell the Christmas story? Or why the story has so many differences between Matthew and Luke? The reason does not have to do with the writers not knowing the story, or Matthew chaning the shepherds into magi (as Gundry claims). Instead, the reason has to do with the grand scheme of each gospel.

Trying to nail down the exact reason for writing for each of the gospels is difficult, but I am going to turn to the overly-simplified scheme of how Jesus is presented in each of the gospels. While this is is far too simplistic, it is a useful place to start (good heuristic model, if you want the big word).

Matthew presents Jesus as king. If you are going to be a king, you have to have the correct genealogy, and this is what Matthew provides at the very beginning. He goes back to David and Abraham, emphasizing the link of Jesus to both the Davidic and the Abrahamic Covenants. Then the wise men come and the Micah passage is quote, in which the Messiah is viewed as a ruler. The wise men go to Bethlehem and worship him, giving him gifts (Queen of Sheba, anyone?). Then Jesus goes to Egypt, emphasizing once again the connection with Israel.

Mark, on the other hand, presents Jesus as a servant. This is not as clear as the king in Matthew and is probably not the major theme in Mark, but it is present. No one cares where a servant comes from, so Mark does not give the Christmas story. The only thing anyone cares about in regards to a slave is whether they do their job, and Mark is full of Jesus doing lots of things, without much talking. 

Luke presents Jesus as a man. I am actually not really convinced on this one when the gospel as a whole is considered, but it works for the Christmas story. The relatives of Jesus are given extensive space, showing that he has connections with other humans. He is born like other babies. He is circumcised, obeying the law like any other kid. There are no  foreign dignitaries coming to visit him, only scummy shepherds. The shepherds do not worship him, but praise God when they see him. He grows in stature and wisdom. He is a true man.

Finally, John presents Jesus as God. God was not born, so no attention is paid to the Christmas story. Instead, we begin back in Genesis 1 all over again, with Jesus being the one who created all things. He is truly God.

As we look at the Gospels, we should not merely squish them together and wish that only one had been written. We should examine each individually and see what the author was trying to communicate. As we find that message, then we are enriched and can be encouraged in our own personal walk with God and be thankful that we have four perspectives on Jesus.  

Friday, January 12, 2007 2:40 PM

Charlie wrote: Another wrong answer

I was reading another person's view on the birth narratives and thought I would pass it along. This liberal view stated that Mark, the original gospel (at least according to the two-source theory) viewed Jesus as adopted by God at the Baptism. Hence, no birth. Then Matthew and Luke push the identity with God back from the baptism to his brith, so they bring in the birth narratives. Then John, the last to write, pushes it back even farther into eternity past and makes Jesus to be God, a new step in theology.

Clearly, evangelicals will not follow this line of reasoning. However, the differences are worth noting, and we as evangelicals need to account for them in some way, which is what I have tried to do.  

Login to add comments