Rev Peter Buss wrote the inspiring article The Two Stories of Christmas (click to see the full article). He said that there are two stories about the birth of the Lord. They are quite different, although Luke almost surely knew of the Matthew account when he wrote his gospel. It was in the Divine providence of the Lord that two such varied accounts should be written, which should harmonize so well, yet deal quite differently with the moment on which history turned. Without one, the story of Christmas would be woefully incomplete; together, they fill our need to know of His birth, and those who came to worship Him.
His analysis is that Matthew tells
the story from Joseph's point of view. Joseph it is who "called His name
Jesus." Luke tells the story through Mary. He seems to have talked with
her or one of her close associates. Hence his reference to those who were
"eye-witnesses from the beginning." Remember also that Zacharias and
Elisabeth were of Mary's family.
There
are other differences which are insightful.
In the gospel of Luke, the angel was seen by Zacharias, by Mary, seen with a
host of heaven by the shepherds. In
Matthew, Joseph saw the angel only in a dream. It happened four times:
Joseph was told to marry Mary, for the Child was of the Holy Spirit; he was
warned to flee to Egypt; he was told to come back; and he was warned not to
return to Judea but to go to Nazareth. The
wise men too were warned in a dream not to return to Herod. None of them
saw an angel while awake.
Herod,
in the gospel of Matthew, was troubled by the wise men, sought to kill the
Lord, and when his attempt to trick the wise men failed, he wrought a terrible
carnage on the babies of Bethlehem. None
of this is told in Luke. Herod is simply mentioned at the beginning:
"There was in the days of Herod the king a certain priest named
Zacharias." No flight into Egypt, no danger, just the happy tale of His
birth and upbringing.
There
is another feature which we easily overlook. In Matthew, Joseph and the wise men were given commands.
"Don't be afraid to take unto you Mary your wife." "Thou shalt
call His name Jesus." "Flee into Egypt." "Arise, and take
the young child and His mother, and go into the land of Israel; for they are
dead who sought the young child's life." "...being warned of God in a
dream that they should not return to Herod..."
The angels didn't give any orders in Luke. Gabriel told of an event which would happen to Zacharias. He didn't tell Zacharias to do anything, but the old priest went home and hoped that his prayer was indeed answered, and sought to have a child.
Mary wasn't told to do anything,
merely informed that she was to be blessed with the infant Lord. Without a command, she consented:
"Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word."
And the angel didn't ask the shepherds
to go to Bethlehem; he simply told them the good tidings of great joy, and
his friends filled their hearts with the song of heaven. Of course they went;
with haste, and in freedom they went.
Even
the tone of the two stories is different. Luke tells of His birth, the quiet
peace of that night, and the newborn Babe. By contrast, Matthew told that the
wise men came some time afterwards, when He was in a house, and is called a
"young child." They brought Him precious gifts. The story deals in
events - a journey, a wicked king, a flight: it touches the understanding a
little more than Luke does.
Why two stories? Why such differences?
Because they appeal to the different
parts of us which are receptive to the Lord's birth, and the internal sense tells of how Jesus
Christ is born into our wills and into our understandings. Joseph seems to represent the human understanding, and Mary that
affection of truth which is the basis of our regenerated will. So the story in
Matthew tells how the Lord is born into the understanding, and Luke tells how He touches our hearts.
Let's
look at a few of the differences in the stories with this in mind. First, the
angel appears in Luke, but is seen in a dream in Matthew. The angel who announced the birth represents an insight about truth
from within. Such an insight is much more clouded when the understanding is
dominant; when it touches the heart,
it is much more clearly seen.
Why
was Joseph given commands, but Mary, Zacharias, and the shepherds merely told
things, which in freedom they accepted? Truth
that enters the understanding appears as a directive - do this, don't do
that. The more it enters the will,
however, the more the Lord is able to lead us in freedom. He speaks, tells
us about the happiness of a good life, and we respond to the implied
invitation. Note the implied invitation to the shepherds: "For unto you is
born this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord .... Ye
shall find the Babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger." But
they made the choice. "Let us now go, even unto Bethlehem."
Herod
had a lot to do with the story in Matthew, almost nothing in Luke. The understanding has the responsibility to
see evil, and reject it. We ought to think about our selfishness, and our
pride, and realize how they could kill what is from the Lord in us - the loves
which are growing up in us. We need to
be warned by insights from the Word, and try to understand the dangers that
threaten the Lord in us, and escape to safety. The human understanding can
know the danger of Herod - the love of self.
My Reflection
Swedenborg is very vocal about free will and rationality as the basic character of the human mind. Rationality relates to understanding as free will to the will. Rev. Buss’ analysis reminds me that we need to receive the Birth of Jesus by both faculties. Indeed, our conception would be limited if we confine ourselves only to our rationality or our will. The eventful narrative of Matthew provides us with the historic setting corresponding to our body. On the other hand, Luke provides us with a more passionate and spiritual narrative corresponding to our soul. In this respect, a man without a soul is much like a robot and who without the body a ghost. Thus, the union of body and soul is essential and necessary for a living human.
Swedenborg ascertains that God is the union of Love and Truth. To humans in the physical world, God as Spirit remains abstract and is hard to access. Therefore, Jesus as God incarnate is a solid gateway and bridge to a comprehensive understanding and relationship for us. It is so true that (John 14:6) Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Him. Yes, the Birth of Jesus is a wonderful manifestation of God on earth which is essential and necessary for our understanding and our will regarding our relationship and union with God the Father.
In terms of today’s science and technology, some may reasonably ask, “How can I know that Jesus is God?” I must say that I am unable to offer you a scientific proof of who Jesus is. However, it is almost certain that we will be frustrated if we only dig within the material world and such physical evidence as to proving or disproving the existence of God. The basic reason is that God (if He exists) must be transcendent of space, time and matter. Furthermore, God is infinite while human beings and even all the physical creation is finite. The only way to know and find God is through faith which is endowed by Him.
On this Christmas day, let us meditate over the following Bible teaching (Philippians2:6-11): who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. … that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
I wish you a Merry and Blessed Christmas!
可擊入看中文版
