How do you grasp the Incarnation?

 In our Koinonia group we are studying one of the "Great Courses" about the literary evidence for the divinity of Jesus, as interpreted by Bart Ehrman, Professor of Religious Studies at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. I would describe Ehrman as a lapsed Christian, although I am sure he would say he was an enlightened former Christian.

Without going into all the details of these 24 lectures I wanted to comment on his theory that the divinity of Jesus evolved as many legends tend to, by progressive exaggeration.  I want to consider an interpretation of the Gospels as a sequential and developing story and suggest a different way to understand them.

The author of Luke gives me a good understanding of how the Gospels were written:

Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I, too, decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed. (1:1-4)

Some have suggested that Theophilus was a hypothetical "lover of God," as his name suggests, but others assume he was a real person.  I actually prefer to think of him as a hypothetical, because I think Luke was trying to set the record straight for many believers, not just a friend named Theo. But it doesn't  matter which.

Several ideas emerge that help us understand the Gospels. First, there were many versions told by eyewitnesses, not necessarily the disciples themselves (Matthew and John), but by literate observers.

Second, Luke may not have been an eyewitness, but a compiler of the stories of eyewitnesses. I like this interpretation, because i think of Luke as trying to reconcile the stories of Jesus, as they must have had to be reconciled as one narrative. He echoes much of Mark and Matthew, but adds, for example a great library of parables, some, like "The Good Samaritan" and "The Prodigal Son," not reported elsewhere.

Third, that Luke was more of a scholar of history than his fellow Gospel writers, because he pledges to "write an orderly account. . . so that you may know the truth."   We may partially judge his credentials by the detail of this Gospel and the "The Acts of the Apostles," which is the sequel attributed to him.

I agree with Professor Ehrman that the gospels appear to build on their ideas of Jesus over time, but I disagree that they were merely legends that tended to grow in significance as they were passed on.  Rather I would claim that understanding of who Jesus was grew over time because of the incomprehensibility of God becoming man.  They all agreed that Jesus was divine, but they expressed it with a growing understanding of what that meant.

First, there are plenty of indications of Jesus being divine before John wrote persuasively about it. The Synoptic Gospels merely reported incidents that made his divinity visible. For example, all three Gospels report:

1.  The calming of the storms miracle - Matt 4:27; Mk. 4:41; Luke8:25-- “Who, then is this, that he commands even the winds and the water, and they obey him?”
2. The Transfiguration - Matt 17:5;Mk 9:2-10;  Luke 9:28-36 – “This is my Son, My chosen. Listen to him”
3. The Parable of the Wicked Tenants in which the owner of the vineyard is supposed to be God, who says, Matt 21:33-44;Mk 12:1-12; Luke 20:19 “I will send my beloved son . . .”  We can infer Jesus was the beloved Son in the parable.
4. The Argument that the Messiah is not son of David -Matt 22:41-45;Mk 12:35-37; Luke 20:41  “How can they say that the Messiah is David’s son? . . . David calls him Lord; so how can he be his son?”  Not a conclusive argument, but why did Jesus want to argue that the Messiah was not David's son?

We don't see Jesus declaring himself Son of God, as we see in John, but these are stories that support that identity. What else are we to make of the Transfiguration story, which places Jesus right between Moses (the Law ) and Elijah (the prophets)? The voice from heaven says "This is my beloved Son . . ."

Luke and Matthew add the story of Jesus' temptation, in which the Devil begins by saying, Matt 4:1; Luke 4:3 “If [since] you are the Son of God. . . “  You can see that the notion of Jesus as Son of God is growing in the drama of the Temptation. Jesus faces off with the pure evil of the subtle Satan.

Luke and Matthew also add the confession of Peter in response to Jesus' question, "Who do you say that I am?" Matt 16:13; Luke 9:20. Peter's response: “the Messiah of God.” Remember that in all three Synoptics Jesus argues that the Messiah is not David's son.  So we see the argument that Jesus is not merely human is growing.

Luke was ultimate investigator of these stories, so he uncovers more than both Matthew and Mark. He reports that Jesus revealed the significance of his life after his resurrection.  The recapitulation is described in Luke 24:36-52 “the Messiah is to suffer and to rise from the dead on the third day ; . . . “ And see, I am sending upon you what my Father promised; so stay here in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”

Luke certainly had a notion that Jesus was the Son of God, even if he did not argue, like John, that Jesus existed with God from the beginning.  John added the idea of pre-existence of Jesus as God, because the whole idea of incarnation could not be grasped in a single writing.  He was not adding to a legend of Jesus, he was grasping the ultimate significance of God becoming man. A mind-blowing revelation.

In short, I believe the Gospel writers did build on each other's accounts only because the true identity of Jesus nearly defied comprehension. Even today the doctrine of the Trinity creates doubt and stress in Christian minds.  We are like Luke, sorting through these amazing stories and wondering what this man was like.

I think Paul (whom Ehrman misinterprets) comes closest to getting it, even though his epistles seem to be the oldest documents about Jesus. Maybe Luke, himself, read these words we have from Paul. They are believed to have even preceded Paul as a hymn. That Jesus,

Who, being in very nature[a] God,
did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;
⁷ rather, he made himself nothing
by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
⁸ And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
by becoming obedient to death—
even death on a cross!   (Philippians 2:6-8)

This is what I think of when I try to grasp the Incarnation.