By Mathew Thankachen O. Praem. –
The Gospel is the replica of the twin dimension of Jesus Christ as God and man. “Love of God and love of neighbor”, “Divinity and Humanity”, “transcendence and immanence,” emphasized in the gospels of Mathew and Mark on the one hand, and the Gospel of Luke on the other, respectively blend and converge in the Gospel of John as a “mystical synthesis of Divinity and Humanity.” Thereby, giving rise to the three-fold spirituality of the gospel tradition which in turn has great impetus in the missiological dimension.
The Divinity of Christ from the very inception of the Gospel of Mathew, beginning from the Infantile narrative down to the Glorious Resurrection has a corresponding “Royal Christ” and “Royal Priesthood” with its “cultic dimension”, “a priesthood set apart” (Heb) as if “the Mission was limited only among the lost sheep of Israel” (Mt).
The luminous Christ of Mathew from his birth searched and found by the “Wise men/magi”, guided by the “extraordinary Star” is “more of a master and teacher (Mt. 4, 23; 5, 1ff; 7, 28; Mk. 2, 13) than a “healer with human touch” in the midst of ordinary shepherds and lepers as in Luke. He “sat down” and began to “teach” many things (Mt). He is a “Baptizer with “fire and Holy Spirit” (3,11; (Mt); Mk. 1,8; Acts 1,5; He is the man of wisdom (Mt. 13, 54) and Authority (Mt.) 9, 8; v6; 8,27; 10, 1; 28, 18).
In Mathew, Jesus is the ultimate fulfillment for the Jews as “promised Messiah“ – “Son of God” (Mt. 3,17; Mk. 1,1; v28; m k5,7) and his mission is primarily limited to the Proclamation of God’s Kingdom. (Mt, 13, 1ff; v24ff; v31ff; v33ff; vv44-). As far as Mark is concerned, it is an ‘Emergency Gospel”, having no time to waste to narrate the infantile story, rather to “proclaim the Resurrected Christ” assumes greater significance. “The beginning of Jesus Christ, the SON OF GOD…”. (Mk.1,1)
The Gospel of Mathew, having considered, the first one handed down by the tradition as ‘proto Mathew’ had a tremendous influence in congruence with the ‘Bhrahminical priesthood of India’ of the Hinduism and no wonder, the first Brahmin converts, if ever historically tenable, by the Apostle St. Thomas, had no difficulty in integrating with the religious rituals of Syrian Christians.
The blend of Divinity of the Gospel of Mathew made the Priesthood the replica of Christ as “Divine” in contrast to the ordinary mortals who were “mere human”. This rendered the Syrian priesthood ‘exclusive’ and ‘elitist’, diverting attention from missionary activities in India until the end of 18th century.
“A Royal priesthood, a holy nation and a people set apart”.
In the meantime, the European counterpart struggled to do away with such ‘Aristocratic and Royal Priesthood’ from the 12th century initiated by both the saints of the Church and through the popular revolutions. Thus, an overemphasized ‘Divinity of Christ’ first Christianized Europe in the first millennium and later ‘de Christianized’ Europe’ from the middle of the second millennium.
Whereas in India, the ‘caste system’ (Brahminical priesthood) sneaking into the ‘dominating Christian priesthood’ coupled with ‘political domination of the Western colonizers’, brought about animosity against Christianity by the majority Hindus. What matters was not the stress of Mathew on the ‘Divinity of Christ’, but the misappropriation of religious hegemony in the hierarchical priesthood in line with the Roman emperors with its jargons of “Lordship and Holiness”.
Until the arrival of the foreign missionaries in the 12th century, education was denied to the common man and only Brahmins were entitled for learning. Thus, “Gold, incenses and Myrrh” of the Gospel of Mathew became a stumbling block in the missionary activities in India. This made the Hindu Intellectual liberals like Gandhiji and Upadyaya to appreciate Christ and Bible while depreciating Christians.
Those imbibed the spirituality of the “Divinity of Christ” is “spiritually empowered” to be the “masters” and “Gurus”. In its extreme form, renunciation and simplicity marked their life style. Detached from the world, they lived in “isolation” even in a community. Rather than reaching out, the people came in for spiritual direction to the master. They lived a life of contemplation and mysticism. They were unaffected by passions and emotions, although may be well aware of the problems of the world. Their life style was parallel to monks or ashram style of India. The poor didn’t find much relevance for this system of religious life as they were in dire need of daily bread.
Even till today, a vast number of clerics misuse the concept of ‘Divinity of Christ’ for ‘royalty’ of lifestyle unquestioned as they are chosen by the Lord, responsible only to the hierarchy. Thus, a theocratic mode of functions blindfolds them to see the truth. Herein comes the significance of Vatican Second that blends theocracy and democracy, hierarchy and faithful.
Impact of II Vatican Council
The Vatican Second was a set back to the ‘royal, aristocratic, ritualistic‘ priesthood in the universal Church. It made an attempt to bridge the gap between the heaven and the earth, the laity and the hierarchy, the Church and the world. Thus, Vatican Second was an attempt and hermeneutic of Incarnational Theology. Under the spell of Liberation Theology, the theocratic priesthood gave in for Diaconic Priesthood. The role model of Christ of the Gospel of Mathew evolved from ‘Master to Servant’. The significance of ‘monastic aura’ and ‘Royal Priesthood’ got diminished. In the 18th and 19th century, vocations flourished from the middle class agrarian families.
The overemphasis of the Gospel of Luke on ‘Humanity of Jesus’ became predominant. The Church stressed on ‘charity, structural change and social work’. Education and healthcare became the very identity and manifestation of the presence of the Church. The emphasis of “individual over community” and the development of ‘school of psychology’ as an autonomous branch of knowledge coincided with the ‘welfare schemes of the Church’.
In Mathew, while Christ “went up to the mountains and hills”, in Luke, he went “down to the valleys and lonely places”. Jesus had no time to take rest as much as the priests and religious became the ‘workaholics’, finding no time “to climb the up hills’. Contemplation and Divinity of Mathew gave in for “activities “in Luke. Martha was preferred to Mary.
Church as an Institution
Thus, the ‘movement of the early Church’ became an ‘Institution ‘in the modern society in which the priests were more professionals and experts, spending more time in studies than service. The priests and religious were termed “Bosses” and the Institutions “money minters” as alleged by some. Thus, the spirituality embedded in the Gospel of Luke became as insipid as the Gospel of Mathew. Thus, the Antiochian School (Divinity of Christ)/ Gospels of Mathew & Mark and the Alexandrian School (Humanity of Jesus) / Gospel of Luke, renders a spirituality that ultimately lead to counter values.
I admit compartmentalizing is not fair and just, whereas Pope John Paul ll lived the Gospel of Luke viz a man of heart, Pope, Benedict lived the Gospel of Mathew viz. a man of head, Divine illumination. The attempt of Pope Francis seems to “integrate heart and head, material and spiritual, law and compassion, ideal and real as envisaged in the Gospel of John. Recently, Pope Francis said, “The act of charity is as mystic and contemplative as act of prayer ”.
In the Gospel of John, one perceives how Jesus gradually evolves from “Voice to Word”, from “Word to Flesh” and from “Heaven to Earth”. The high sounding, lofty, mystic, theological language of the prologue as “Word” (Logos) in John finds a pure human realization of “divine fullness” both “in spirit and truth” and in “soul and body, in fact Christ Jesus viz “Word became Flesh”. “I am the Light of the World”, and “I and the Father are one” – a hypostatic, mystic experience of union made him an “embodiment of Love and Service” expounded in the Holy Eucharist, the Holy Communion viz. his command to “love one another” and “do likewise” in washing the feet of one another.
The deep realization of “Divine within” in the midst of increasing struggles and oppositions from the Jewish authority only made him more and more into “self-kenosis” that effected in “Divine filling” to the extent he could “cry out, Abba, Father”. Thus, the “heavenly feast of pass over and of Heavenly Manna” of the gospel of Mathew and Luke is replaced in John with the ‘multiplication of Bread coupled with Teaching” (Jn 6) and “Washing of the Feet” as two sides of the same coin.
To conclude, any lopsided emphasize of Humanity or Divinity of Jesus as envisaged in the gospels will have its parallel missiological and attitudinal changes in the life of the Church and history of the Nations. The best maxim could be to follow the very life of Jesus viz. at days he worked and at night he prayed. The Gospel of John unifies Divinity and Humanity of Synoptic gospels, the Antochian and Alexandrian schools. “I and the Father are one” and “those who have seen me, have seen the Father (Jn), the “mixta vita” of “action and contemplation” as exhorted by St. Norbert to his followers, the Canon Regular of Premontre, popularly known as Norbertine.