Over the past few days I have been digging into the Christology of Matthew’s birth narratives: who is this Jesus who is born? What does he do? What do we learn from the story of his advent? (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3)
Today we move to Luke, looking at Jesus the Davidic King and then tomorrow we’ll talk about what the virgin birth might mean for Luke’s story. And here, at last, Mary comes into her own, taking center stage in a way that we don’t see in Matthew’s Joseph-centered narrative.
There are a couple of interesting echoes of Matthew’s narrative (we all know that Luke used Matthew, and that’s how they come to share so much “sayings” material). One of these is the spin on “Emmanuel.” The prophecy is not cited here that the baby will be called 
Emmanuel, God with us, but when the angel Gabriel meets Mary he says, “Greetings, favored one, the Lord is with you.”
The narrative is an indication of God visiting his people by means of this coming Christ: God has not forsaken his people, but is about to act, is in the midst of acting, for their salvation.
The annunciation to Mary states repeatedly that the coming one is the culmination of Israel’s hopes for a Davidic King. This one is going to be called “son of God” (cf. Psalm 2); God will give him the throne of his father David, he will reign as king over the house of Jacob forever; of his kingdom there shall be no end.
Here we have anticipations, all, of Jesus’ resurrection-enthronement. Read in conjunction with Peter’s sermon in Acts 2, we see here that the throne of David is going to be established, literally, at the right hand of God, with not merely an eternal dynasty and eternal kingdom, but one undying king. Luke’s birth narrative
throws us to the other side of the cross–to our own time, where we confess “Jesus is Lord,” while awaiting his second Advent.
And yet, as we talk about Acts, there’s a huge question mark as well. The disciples ask Jesus in Acts 1, “Is now the time you’re going to restore the kingdom to Israel?” The people on the way to Emmaus mourned Jesus’ death, hoping that he had been the one who was going to redeem Israel. We often chide them for cherishing geo-political hopes.
But should they be so chided?
Look at Mary’s song: God is baring his mighty arm to scatter the lofty, to throw tyrants off of their thrones, to send the rich away empty, all in favor of Israel (as promised) (Luke 1:51-55).
Luke’s picture is, perhaps surprisingly to us, a very political picture of a coming Davidic king. Yes, his reign is going to be exercised on high, but judgment will come from that throne, beginning with Jerusalem. So this Jesus comes to save. This Jesus is the fulfillment of the promise. A…no… the Davidic king has come.
But as he comes, it is as though there is an initial blast of salvation, followed by a shock wave of judgment. The coming of a victorious king is great news–so long as one is not part of the camp of the defeated enemy. This is the message of Luke’s Christmas gospel: the salvation of God is come–to bring salvation to the people of Israel first, and then to the nations.
And, this is the reason we need such good news–because the judgment of God is coming–upon Jerusalem and Israel first, and then upon the nations.
And this is the Christmas invitation: not merely to acknowledge that good news, but to act as a citizen of that king’s kingdom. If our king is the kind who fills the poor with good things, well… what are you waiting for?
Professor, thanks for sharing your thoughts here. It’s been a few years since I was in seminary, but I’m a little surprised by your parenthetical comment that “we all know that Luke used Matthew, and that’s how they come to share so much “sayings” material.” I though most Gospel scholars held to a two- or four-document theory whereby Luke did not use Matthew. Has the pendulum swung back toward Augustine or Griesbach over the past decade or two?
I wouldn’t say the pendulum has swung, but there is considerable opposition to the idea of a Q source in NT scholarship, especially among people who have come through Duke, where Mark Goodacre, E. P. Sanders before him, and Richard Hays are all dubious as to its existence.
Well, glad to hear it. I never was comfortable with what seemed like a herd mentality for a couple of theories that really didn’t cover all the bases. Thanks for your reply.