Systematic Theology 1

Gunton identifies the Gospel accounts as filling “in the narrative details underlying [Philippians 2:5-11]” (Gunton, 81). Gunton seems to line up with the belief that the Gospels all have a certain theological perspective, but they all depict what life was like for Jesus as human. To Williams, he seems to take the same approach as Gunton in saying that each of the Gospels describes Jesus in a unique way. He appears to combine each of the Gospels when talking about Jesus because, “the Jesus we meet in the Gospels is someone who prays, who speaks of putting his will and his decisions at the service of his Father” (Williams, 65). Each of the evangelists do have their own voice, but each voice is joined together to make up the character and life of Jesus Christ. Both seem to also steer away from going with the idea of a strictly “historical Jesus.” They tend to bring out what each of the evangelists said. Yet, even what the evangelists say as written in the creeds, Gunton says, is where “the problem for the modern world lies…in the very concept and nature of dogma” (91). I think they both read the Gospels rightly because they take into account other possible explanations for why the Gospels bring out certain characteristics of Jesus. Through each of these accounts, Williams says, one knows that “Jesus is a human being in whom God’s action is at work without interruption or impediment” (Williams, 65). Each of the Gospels tells one about Jesus and all speak with one voice. 260

Gunton correctly asserts that there is no single uniformity but that tension is beneficial depending on the uniformity that would be sought. He claims that, “the relation of God to the world, though that of one God (in this case in Jesus), is realized in a rich variety of acts and forms” (84). He also recognizes that it is the whole story, and not any single part of it as depicted by any author by which the Father’s saving action is affected. He does not attempt to combine the two, blending what is found in one to the others in which it is not found and vice versa. Rather, it appears he lets each evangelist have his own distinct sound that come together to play different pieces in the orchestra of Jesus’ life. On the other hand, Williams is slightly hard to pinpoint in his intent/interaction. He does acknowledge that “awkwardly and slowly and with muchcomplication and even apparent contradiction, the New Testament (writers) moves towards the extraordinary notion that the Creator of the universe is at work” (62), supporting (I suppose) the notion that the Gospels are to be read separately in their distinct messages to present the one Jesus. However, it seems that he does not attempt to get to a “historical Jesus,” instead discussing the 2nd person of the Trinitarian / Son of God nature of Jesus’ life. He acknowledges that one must look for the “historical” outside the creeds to the Gospels but just does not seem to do so himself. 255

Williams suggests that in order for us to understand Jesus, we must first look “at an area about which the creeds don’t have much to say – the actual work of Jesus in his lifetime as the four Gospels present it to us. (58)” Throughout this chapter, Williams refers to the gospel accounts and other books in the New Testament to illustrate the life of Christ, and His purpose in terms of the historical world. He portrays Christ as one who redefines what it meant to belong to God’s people and we should thereby read the Gospels with this in mind. However, Williams believes that the writers of the New Testament tend to use extravagant language in reference to Christ. He argues that there was much speculation regarding angelic powers during this time period – some of which is blatantly evident in the “Letter to Hebrews as well as in Paul’s letters and John’s Revelation. (62)” I don’t think that Williams necessarily harmonizes the Gospel accounts but instead uses each to get a full or complete understanding of Jesus. He constantly includes the writings of other New Testament authors in order to better inform his understanding. It seems that both Jenson and Williams treat the Gospel accounts with respect. Even still, there is a sense in which it seems that aren’t entirely convinced that what the Gospel writers had to say about Jesus was entirely relevant, without contradiction and exaggeration.

Gunton and Williams are both keenly aware of the need to read Scripture—the Gospels included—creedally. Gunton states this explicitly; Williams structures his entire introduction to the Christian belied around the creedal confessions, and therefore implicates this same idea fairly strongly in his own right. This week’s assigned reading in Williams’ Tokens presents specific points of harmony within the Gospels, but not in such a way that Williams is presenting a need to find an overarching harmony; that is, Williams isn’t attempting to in any way indicate that the three synoptics may as well be one, with John as an esoteric other. Rather, as further reading in Williams’ text indicates (125), Williams holds that the Gospel accounts present us with what God wants us to know in order for us to be “inspired” by the Spirit of God, while in the presence and guidance of the Church, to have the person of Christ at the center of our minds and hearts: “It is still true that contradictions of detail between different Gospels are not the end of the world; they tell us what God wants us (the Church Body) to know.”
Gunton likewise does not find the Gospel incongruities as troubling. He writes of the Gospels as giving narrative substance backing the creedal confessions. They are providing narratives giving, in specific contexts for specific purposes, the outworking of the Church’s developing understanding of who Jesus the Christ is and what the significance of his career is. Resultantly, when Gunton refers to the evangelists, whether in pairs or group or individual, it is not out of need for an unwieldy cohesive whole; rather, each is to be taken respectively, which sometimes matches more prettily than others.

Williams suggests that each Gospel presents us with a portrait of Christ as the Gospel writers intended them to be. Like williams, Gunton believed that each gospel stressed similar topics concerning the Kingdom of God being ever present and how Christ emphasized that to be in the Kingdom of God (eschatological and present) you must live in the company of Jesus and trust what He said of God. Jews in Jesus’ day were concerned with who truly was a member of God’s people when God’s rule was fully established. They believed that you had to accomplish certain demands or obey the law to detail in order to be counted among this class. Christ, through what is presented in the Gospels, redefines what it means to be God’s people. To be counted is to accept Christ’s promise and invitation of salvation. Williams defines the historical Jesus through the relationship’s He had with people and the message He brought. This message would be violent against the ears of those around Him. His claim to speak on behalf of God and His desire to create a new people of God was nothing short of daring. Furthermore, Williams states that the Gospel writers include comments from the people around Him such as “Who is this that even the winds and seas obey Him?” The Gospel writers, although using deferent themes, set up a story in which a seemingly ordinary man is in actuality the life which changes our views of who God is, how He works and what He thinks about us.

Both Gunton and Williams seek to utilize the accounts of the individual Evangelists in order to reveal the truest picture of Jesus – however, not without the reality of conflict in the details. Though the interpretations may not seamlessly fit together, Gunton implores that we avoid at all cost the mistake of reflecting our own agendas in our desire to gain clarity concerning the personhood of Jesus. Continuing, he explores the creedal and narrative aspects of the life of Jesus; which can only be expected from the work of a God whose reality is wholly other than that which He works to make right the disruption of sin through His son in ours – with its characteristics of time and space. Gunton also stresses the importance of the whole “career” of Jesus; beginning with His “birth to Mary, ministry, passion, resurrection, ascension, and return in glory.” (84) Interestingly, both authors seek not only to avoid the blunder of cutting and pasting Scripture to avail the “real” Jesus – in fact both express as well as expose the conflict. Gunton speaks of the gospels, “each has its own theological perspective and stress, but all depict the human life of Jesus as divine action for the salvation of the world.” (82) If nothing else, from these two accounts we may proclaim that “Christian teaching is not static; it’s always trying to learn from the last set of mistakes” in order to reveal more clearly the “two sorts of life, one of them unconditionally powerful, one utterly vulnerable, but lived inseparably in one person.” (Williams 72) As per my current position in my journey with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, I would have to say this is by the far the best manner by which it seems we may pursue the reality of Jesus; that each Evangelist intentionally and purposefully has their own voice by which we must seek the wisdom of the Father from prayerfully in order that the Truth may be revealed. (329)

Both Gunton and Williams view the gospels with a theological mindset rather than a historical mindset. Gunton and Williams see that each of the gospels use a theological understanding of who Jesus, the human, was; instead of trying to match up each of the events historically, though both these scholars do not disregard the historical importance of the events. However, the difference between understanding the gospels as theological with some historical events instead of viewing the gospels as historical with theological meaning is that one does not try to harmonize the gospels with one another, which the authors of the gospels had no intent on doing in the first place. Gunton and Williams believe that it takes all of the gospels to theologically understand Jesus as a human and each gospel brings out a unique theological understanding of Jesus without trying to harmonize the gospels.
I believe this is the correct way to view the gospels because when one tries to read the gospels historically they will end up creating problems that ought not to be there. This isn’t to say that these events in the gospels are false, because I believe that they did indeed happen. It is my opinion however, that it was not the goal of the authors to create a time line of Jesus’ life, but rather to help readers understand who Jesus was as a person. The events that are recorded in the gospels are to help show the fulfilling of the prophecies, and to help act out the type of character that Jesus had as a human. (263)