Nativity
Preaching
A BUCKET FULL OF MIRACLES
Preaching The Miracles Of Jesus
Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah took place in this way. When his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit. Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly. But just when he has resolved to do this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet: "Look, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Em--manuel" which means "God is with us." When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife, but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus.
This first miracle of the year is one which is fraught with dangers for a preacher.
First, there is the day when it appears in the calendar - the Fourth Sunday Of Advent. The entire Advent season is difficult at best. Precisely what the entire season is about is not always easy to hold in mind. If it is a time to prepare for the coming of Christmas, this lesson seems to represent a serious instance of "Christmas creep."
The lessons for the first three Sundays of this year are all eschatological in nature, even the middle two which encapsulate the story of John the Baptizer. These earlier lessons remind us of the historical theme of Advent as a season focusing on the end of things, not the beginning. But this lesson is different.
Second, if the season presents difficulties, the lesson itself is, for all its familiarity, potentially difficult as well. The text preceding this is problematic for us, as well as almost invisible. This text contains difficulties in both the attitude of Joseph, the translation and use of Isaiah's prophecy, and the fulfillment of the prophecy which concludes the lesson.
Finally, this Sunday has often become a day in the contemporary church for a shortened or omitted sermon in light of the annual Christmas pageant or the special music which is traditionally offered this day. And, of course, Christmas carols are often added to the worship on this day with the excuse that this allows the singing of the old favorites without the time constraints of a very brief Christmas season.
Remarkably, in the face of all these difficulties, the Matthean account of the birth of Jesus does present a fertile source of preaching possibilities. It is well worth struggling with the difficulties to bring forth the message of this lesson.
About The Text
For many people the New Testament begins with a boring thud. The first sixteen verses of the volume, after all, are long lists of people who are mostly unknown, with names difficult, if not impossible to pronounce. Then there is a summary of what has just been detailed.
Only after this less than scintillating beginning, do we finally get to something like the story of Jesus. Matthew's genealogy, a text only rarely considered as suitable for reading during worship, much less as a basis for a sermon, is certainly a poorly regarded opening for the larger story. Luke also has a genealogy, but he at least hides it further into the gospel. This Matthean opening is an almost invisible portion of the gospel. Obviously it was important to Matthew, especially since it is the first thing he mentions, but it has little meaning for most people today.
Our lesson begins by connecting to verse 16 and verse 17. In the first few words Matthew repeats both the idea of the birth of Jesus from 16 and establishes the identity of Jesus as the Messiah (from v. 17). Clearly Matthew has begun with a magisterial list establishing Jesus' Davidic lineage, and is now shifting to the more specific focus on the life of Jesus which will inform the remainder of what he writes.
Words
Jesus the Messiah - Verse 1:18 begins with a textual difficulty, one which is difficult for even those who are experts in textual criticism. The problem is easily seen in comparing the text of the NRSV, which is used here, and that of the RSV, which read "Jesus Christ." To make things even more difficult, some ancient manuscripts also read either "Jesus" or "Christ," but don't include both terms. The result is a series of questions that calls all the readings into a certain amount of doubt.
Jesus, by itself, is certainly appropriate here, but is it more of a reflection of the command of the angel in verse 21 than an original reading? The mere presence of the name is sometimes open to question, largely because of the presence of the definite article in the Greek.
Christ (either as a stand alone term, or as "the Christ," more a title than a name) appears quite appropriate and logically presents the most original sounding reading, but is the use actually an echo of the previous verse?
Jesus the Christ (or Messiah) is the reading found in the largest number of manuscripts, but as an expression which is extremely rare among New Testament manuscripts, is it a reading that would be used here virtually in isolation? Not only is the relative position of the elements ("Jesus" and "Christ") reversed in some manuscripts, the presence of the definite article, which is clearly found in the Greek, is a significant problem to a precise, unimpeachable understanding here.
Jesus Christ is the reading that seems to reflect the usage of the early church, but is it actually the earliest text?
And then we have the problem of translation. There are many people who firmly seem to believe that "Christ" is the family name of Jesus. The NRSV translation, at the least, works to correct this misunderstanding, while also preserving the connections between this phrase and verses 16, 17, and 21. In this place, it is likely that the title "Christ" is best understood by its translation, "the Messiah."
took place in this way - This lesson treads very carefully between the physical specifics of the situation and more general considerations, and this is the first phrase which treads the line. Clearly, the details of the process of birth are not the subject of these verses. In fact, Mary, and her participation in the events here is not a subject Matthew finds particularly attractive for exposition. The phrase is rather a way to introduce the broader context in which these events took place in a general, non--biological way.
she was found to be with child - In Greek the verb translated here is a passive form. Some translations make the action more active, with Mary discovering she is pregnant. The Greek form allows for less participation by Mary, since she is only found to be pregnant.
In reality, for Matthew this is a very impersonal discovery, with no indication of who found out, or how the details came to light. While it might be attractive to imagine a busybody, a gossip in the town, and all the attendant details, none of them are either stated or implied by the text.
Joseph, a righteous man - The word used to describe Joseph is another word that can cause problems in an interpretation of this text. "Righteous" is a term that can be understood in at least two ways. As a legal concept, it would refer to someone who was law--abiding, just, honest, and obedient. As a description of character, it would refer to someone who is good, compassionate, and kind.
The term is a favorite word of Matthew's, appearing more in this gospel than in the other three combined (nineteen times here, versus twice in Mark, eleven times in Luke, and three times in John). Usually Matthew seems to use the term to describe a person's character. But here, largely because of the reference to the legal term divorce, it is most often assumed to be used in a legal sense.
To some extent, it is Joseph's personality and the marriage customs of the time which are in question here. If we take Joseph as a kind, compassionate man, he can be seen as someone who had no desire to cause any more problems than he had to for Mary. Marriage customs of the day involved a process that took a period of time. Unlike the traditional customs most familiar today, it seems that the state of being married actually commenced (at least legally) before the couple began to cohabit. The relationship of Joseph and Mary had reached a point where they were considered to be married, even if neither physically intimate or cohabitating. Even without physical intimacy, it is probable that Joseph had a developing sense of affection for Mary, and his actions can easily be understood as a kindly attempt to end the relationship which he was no longer willing to share.
On the face of it, when Mary was found to be pregnant, the only explanation was that she was an adulteress. As such she was liable for the Old Testament punishment of stoning, although lesser punishments were likely more often available. Joseph, as a legalist, decides to terminate the marriage without demanding Mary's death. He feels, legally, that he is absolved of any responsibility for Mary since the child is obviously not his and he has a legal right to the expectation that his betrothed will be a virgin.
It is possible to insist that Joseph must be either a legalist or a compassionate man, but it is likely that he could have both feelings at the same time. Many other languages have less trouble expressing these two perspectives than English does. This is frequently accomplished by using a word signifying "correctness of action," which incorporates both compassion and legal correctness.
and - The Greek word here is kai, the most common word in the Greek text of the New Testament. It is also a word many people remember from a long--ago Greek class, because it most often is translated as "and." Ironically, the word is often not translated, particularly when it begins a sentence and serves more as a sort of punctuation than as a word conveying significant meaning.
The question here is how to translate the word. It might mean "but," quite as easily as "and" in this context. The resolution of this question depends on the way "righteous man" is understood. If it is taken in a legal sense, then a contrast would seem to be required here - the translation should be "but." If it is taken to signify a compassionate reaction to the situation - the translation need not indicate a contrast and should be "and."
Thus, the translation of this simple, common little word is the indicator of how "righteous man" is understood by the translator.
do not be afraid - This phrase seems to occur rather consistently when people in the New Testament are confronted with angels. Contrary to the modern view of angels as warm, comforting beings, in the Bible the initial reaction to their appearance, even in a dream, is an immediate, almost overwhelming fear. And this phrase, or some variation of it, seems to be the formula by which the angels begin to announce their messages.
Here the phrase seems to apply both to Joseph's reaction to the angel and his reaction to discovering that Mary is pregnant. In one case, it is a natural introduction to the action Joseph should be taking. In the other, it is a way to dispel Joseph's reluctance to proceed with his marriage plans.
to take Mary as your wife - Marriage customs at the time involved very little regard for "romantic love" as a reason for marriage. Rather, the steps involved in a marriage had implications beyond mere romantic attachment.
Many, if not most, marriages were arranged, often for purposes such as maintaining a family line (for example, a priestly family would, of necessity, marry another priestly descendant), establishing (or strengthening) a relationship between two families, or to conserve an inheritance (by marrying a relation). The actual marriage seems to have taken place in two stages, both of which were likely accompanied by negotiations. The negotiations were likely more intense and drawn out in the first stage.
As a result of the first stage, not only did the husband and wife formally exchange consent before witnesses but the marriage contract was also agreed to. The marriage contract typically established the financial details about the upcoming marriage. It established both the marriage portion, the goods and money that remained the property of the wife, but which the husband controlled; and the dowery, the goods and money that became the property of the husband at the time of the marriage. Also possible was "marriage money" which the prospective husband paid to the bride's father to "purchase" the woman. If it seems that the woman had much in common with slaves, it should be noted that in the Midrash a query asking for any differences between acquiring a slave and acquiring a wife is answered in the negative.
After this first stage was completed, the couple were, in legal fact, married, even if they did not cohabit until the second stage. The husband had some rights over the person and property of his wife, and any sexual activity on the part of the wife could be construed as adultery. Further, a woman in this stage could be widowed or divorced, and there were cases of each. During this stage, the wife remained resident in her father's (or guardian's) house.
This first stage usually took place around the time the woman reached the age of twelve or twelve and a half. Until she was twelve, nothing a woman did (at least in relation to marriage) was considered valid, and could be dissolved at the father's whim. After twelve and a half, the woman was allowed to refuse to marry if she chose.
Approximately a year after the formal agreements were entered into, the second and final stage began. The most notable action here was the movement of the woman into the man's home, and the man's assumption of all responsibility for the woman's upkeep. Most often, this was also the point at which sexual relations would begin, although there is some evidence that certain areas allowed for rather limited contact during the first stage. Matthew's text makes it clear that such contacts were not part of his experience.
The angel is here telling Joseph to take Mary as his wife, that is, to enter into the second stage of the marriage procedure with her. Rather than divorcing Mary quietly, which was Joseph's first intention, the angel instructs Joseph to proceed with the second stage. It should be clear that Matthew seems to accept the idea that Joseph and Mary were already "married" in virtually every way but physically at this point.
to fulfill - This is the first use of the formula which is distinctive in this gospel. Matthew uses the formula for fulfilling the Old Testament prophecies at least ten times, possibly as often as fourteen times. In comparison, Mark's uses of a similar formula (four instances) are considered somewhat dubious as examples of a formulaic construction; while Luke has only one citation which is clearly a formula, and as many as five which was doubtful.
Matthew uses this formula to introduce citations from the Septuagint, but none of the citations are exact quotations. It might be that Matthew did not have the texts in front of him as he wrote, perhaps he had a defective set of citations, or perhaps he was quoting from memory. It is also possible that he made what he regarded as mild editorial corrections to the text to make the prophecies he is citing more applicable to Jesus and his situation. We simply do not know why the quotations are not exact. The fact that they are not exact seems to say something very important about Matthew's view of the unimportance of a verbal inerrancy of the text he was citing.
The quotation here is from Isaiah 7:14, where the most controversial word in the lesson - virgin - is the Hebrew generally taken to mean "young woman." Matthew, and the Greek word he uses clearly means a young woman who has not had sexual relations - a virgin. Matthew is making the events of Jesus' birth quite unique.
Emmanuel - The name to be applied to the child in Isaiah is Emmanuel. Thus, it is somewhat ironic that two verses later the child is actually named Jesus not Emmanuel. While the name Jesus is the name commanded by the angel, it is not the name to be expected as the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy. While this point is often ignored, it is actually a prophecy which is fulfilled in this gospel.
In the last verse of the gospel (Matthew 28:20b) Jesus says, "And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age." While the point is not particularly clear in translation, in the original Greek, the fulfillment becomes obvious. The answer given Moses, when he asked the burning bush for the name of God, is, in the Septuagint, "I am," or Ego emi. This phrase is often taken as a technical term for the name of God, as that is what appears in the text of Exodus 3:14, which established the name of God in response to Moses' inquiry.
The words of Jesus at the conclusion of the gospel are "Ego with you emi." More than merely a presence alongside, the Greek construction places the "with you" inside the name of God. Not merely is God with us, but we are enfolded within the Divine. This, finally, is the fulfillment of the promise of Emmanuel.
no marital relations with - When he concluded the second stage of the marriage process, Joseph had a legal right to sexual intercourse with his wife. In fact, there were customs and rules stipulating the expected frequency of such actions, which depended on the husband's occupation and the wife's condition (not pregnant, not menstruating, healthy, and so on). Joseph refrained from exercising his rights, apparently to ensure there would be no question of the parentage of the child, namely the son of Mary and the Holy Spirit.
This detail is, like many others in this lesson, seemingly a reflection of the physical contact, or lack thereof, involved in the process. Matthew, however, presents these details for a theological reason, to emphasize the unique nature of the birth of Jesus, not to satisfy any prurient interest or to titillate his readers. Most of the references are not precisely stated, and probably best avoided from the pulpit, even though they are certainly interesting and possibly suitable for a Bible study session.
The text makes it clear that Matthew is only interested in relations between Mary and Joseph prior to the birth of Jesus. There is no scriptural evidence here for the tradition of a stroke, or any other disability to Joseph immediately after the birth of Jesus, as is sometimes posited by traditions. In other words, sexual relations between Joseph and Mary are, without evidence to the contrary, quite likely as the normal course of events in a marriage after the birth of Jesus and the ritual cleansing of Mary.
Brothers of Jesus are mentioned in Mark 3:31 (and the parallels in Matthew 12:46 and Luke 8:19), 6:3 (and the parallel in Matthew 1:53--54, both of which also mention unnamed sisters), John 2:12 and 7:1--9. A variety of explanations have been offered for these relatives, such as the suggestion that the siblings were really step--siblings, or in some other way not the biological children of Mary. Such efforts depend entirely on extra--biblical material, traditions, suppositions, and often on theological desires. The entire question dates from a period after the New Testament was composed, and is not reflected in it at any point.
Parallels
The impact of the Christmas season notwithstanding, the biblical evidence concerning the birth of Jesus is actually quite slim. John has a philosophical prologue, which speaks of the birth only in John 1:14, that wonderfully carnal comment that "the Word became flesh and lived among us." But John offers no details about either the events or the process that brought this event to pass.
Mark is even less forthcoming. His Gospel begins with the commencement of the public ministry of an adult Jesus. He seems content to assume that the birth happened in the manner which might be expected for anyone.
The only other account we have of the birth of Jesus is in Luke. Comparing the accounts in Matthew and Luke leads to either confusion or a strong desire to conflate the two accounts. There are some basic agreements, with Matthew's agreement centered largely in these verses. When listed, these agreements seem to confirm some basic points of the stories, but they also leave large areas of disagreement and differing actions.
Joseph and Mary, the infant's parents, are legally engaged but not living together when the story begins. Joseph, who is of Davidic descent, is the subject of the angelic announcement of the coming birth (Mary is the subject in Luke's version). The conception is a result of the action of the Holy Spirit, not Joseph. The angel indicates the child will be the savior, and that his name should be Jesus. After the parents have begun living together, the child is born in Bethlehem, during the reign of Herod the Great, but is reared in Nazareth.
These are the points of agreement between the accounts of Matthew and Luke. Taken apart from any other details, they present a rather bland picture, hardly the full story found in either Matthew or Luke we are used to hearing at Christmas. But once we stray from these basic agreements, the disparities become quite large. Even in the listing of the points of agreement include a difference between the accounts, namely the individual who is the subject of the angelic visitation. In Matthew, the angel comes to Joseph in a dream. In Luke, we have the scene of the Annunciation to Mary. The differing focus of the two accounts leads to an introduction to the people of the story.
The People
As Individuals
As is often the case with incidents from the Bible, there is only one character in the story that is really presented in any depth. Ironically, in this lesson this individual is Joseph, and the text is the clearest picture we find of the man in the New Testament. There is not much detail here, and beyond this there are only a few passing references to the man.
Joseph is often presented as a carpenter, but the word in Greek often has a more general meaning of "one who builds or constructs, a craftsman." It has been pointed out that the term could be applied more specifically to makers of plows, or plows and yokes. The word appears only twice in the New Testament, in Mark 6:3, where it is applied to Jesus, and the parallel in Matthew 13:55, where it applies to Joseph.
It is possible that the fact of the same word being applied to the two men in a very similar context is a reflection of the tendency for occupations to be passed from father to son. It could be merely an editorial change made by Matthew.
The reference in Matthew 13 is also significant for establishing the fact that Joseph seems to have been alive when Jesus began his public ministry. It seems likely that Joseph had died prior to the crucifixion, in light of Jesus' directions to the Beloved Disciple from the cross to care for Mary as her son (John 19:25b--27).
This is, to some extent, in conflict with the later traditions regarding Joseph's age. In the second century the idea that Joseph was an old man when these events took place was suggested by a pseudepigraphal gospel. In the fifth century it was first written that Joseph was 89 when he was widowed (and Jesus' step--siblings were all the result of this marriage), and 91 when Mary became his ward. But this chronology would mean Joseph would be over 120 when Jesus began his public ministry, a rather dubious claim.
While it was not uncommon for a husband to be older than his wife at that time (and throughout much of history, for that matter, down to the present day), there is no biblical evidence for an extreme age on the part of Joseph.
What we do have in this lesson is a picture of a man who finds himself in a difficult situation. His wife, at least in name, is pregnant and he is not the father since he has never known her sexually. If he divorces her publicly, she might be liable for the extreme punishment of stoning. It seems likely that during the months of negotiation to arrange the marriage, and during the first stage of the marriage, before cohabitation began, Joseph found he had some warm feelings for Mary. Even though he could not convince himself to go through with the second stage of the marriage in light of the clear evidence of Mary's misbehavior, he felt sympathetic enough toward her to be willing to handle things quietly. Certainly Mary was not the only instance of such a problem, and ways to dissolve a marriage contract informally had certainly grown up in the villages.
Perhaps there was a segment of the population that held stricter views of things than Joseph, and he feared that Mary might be attacked if the situation became known. There were certainly Essenes at the time, and they held a very strict interpretation of the Law. Or there might have been other groups who held similarly strict views. It is possible that in Joseph's hometown such a group had gotten large enough to be a force in civic life.
Having reached a decision to resolve the situation in a discreet manner, Joseph had a dream. An angel in his dream told him to change his decision and continue with the marriage agreement. When the child was born, that Joseph was to name him Jesus. Joseph woke up with a resolve to follow the instruction of the angel, which he did. The picture that emerges here is of a man who was doing his best to follow the Law, but who was willing to temper the strictest tenets of the Law with a compassionate interpretation.
Of course, there is also the less attractive side of Joseph's character. He did, after all, decide to discard Mary for her apparent indiscretion. His kindness and compassion did not extend to consideration of the eventual results when Mary's actions would become known, as they certainly would. Even a quiet divorce required the husband to read the decree of divorce before two witnesses. And eventually, it would become known that Mary, an unmarried woman, had given birth to an illegitimate child. It is certainly possible to understand the account as presenting Joseph's compassion as originating in his own selfishness and desire for convenience.
As Images And Signs
Joseph is commemorated on March nineteenth as "the Guardian of our Lord," and this is the role for which he is most known. Both Matthew and Luke are careful, in their genealogies, to ensure Joseph is not thought of as the biological father of Jesus, but only as his father in a legal sense, or as the guardian of Jesus. Luke allows for the usage of calling Mary and Joseph "his parents" in the only story of Jesus between the infancy narratives and the beginning of his public ministry (Luke 2:41--51). Matthew is more restrained in his use of terms, consistently using the term "the child and his mother" to refer to Jesus and Mary.
Joseph is a symbol of parents and guardians who provide a loving, protective environment for the children entrusted to their care. The image he evokes is that of a faithful person who does the best he can to fulfill his duty. It is perhaps significant that much of what can be reconstructed of his life story must be done on the basis of inferences and suppositions. Often the people who devote themselves to the care and nurture of children are ignored in the larger picture of events. Mother's Day and Father's Day hardly begin to compensate for the historical lack of recognition. The image of Joseph as the guardian of Jesus is a strong reminder of the faithful service provided by those who follow in his path.
The Action
In The Story
In the account of the infancy of Jesus in Matthew, the will of God is made known through four dreams. Three of the dreams are Joseph's and are recounted in detail, one is reported without details as occurring to the Wise Men. All four dreams direct the actions of the participants in accordance with the divine plan and there is no demur to anything mentioned in a dream. The three dreams of Joseph all command actions leading to the fulfillment of prophecies.
Somehow, it is not difficult to accept people in the Bible who respond to commands given them by figures in dreams. They are accepted as one way God communicates with the people in the Bible. In the case of Matthew, at least in the stories he tells related to the birth and early years of the life of Jesus, dreams are a favored way for God to communicate with people. Even here, it is not God speaking directly, as is the case with Peter hearing a voice in a vision in Acts 10 and 11. In Matthew, the directions are given by angels. It shouldn't be forgotten that angels are messengers for God. They do not speak on their own, but only to convey God's commands to those who hear them.
One further aspect of Joseph's description as a "righteous man" is his obedience to the commands delivered to him by the angels of his dreams. Obedience to God's commands is an important aspect of righteousness, one which is sometimes overlooked. Acting as a righteous person is not simply a matter of following particular rules established long ago. Jesus later makes this quite clear in this gospel, for example in Matthew 23. It involves both a matter of the heart (and the new rules written on the heart as described in Jeremiah 31.31--34) and obedience to specific directions given by such means as angels in dreams.
In The Hearers
To those who heard this story when Matthew's Gospel was assembled, it is likely that Joseph's behavior caused some comment. First, since Joseph is described as a righteous man, his behavior in actually marrying a woman who was obviously (seemingly) a sinner would be one source of surprise. Alternatively, a righteous man who was planning to act in an unrighteous manner by divorcing Mary, actually by not completing the marriage contract he had entered into, could also be a cause of surprise. The biggest surprise might be that it was a person of such obvious human frailty who was selected to be the guardian of Jesus.
Today, when we hear this story, it is easy to accept people who base their actions on dreams since those people are found in the Bible. When someone today says they are basing their actions on instructions they receive in dreams, many (if not most) people have serious doubts about the judgment, not to mention the sanity, of the person and the value of the actions based on the dreams.
Consider the scripts which sometimes appear in situation comedies. One of the people has a dream involving some reprehensible conduct by another character (the wife dreams that the husband leered at another woman, for example; or the husband dreams the wife went on a date with another man), and upon awakening, accuses the other character of wanting to behave in such a manner. While the scripts are often not the strongest of the season, they do point out the modern attitude. People who think dreams are real are funny, and when they act on the basis of dreams, they are even funnier.
This brings up another issue related to this story. Prophecies, and actions taken to fulfill prophecies, are acceptable in speaking of the past, but when people in the present speak of prophecies being fulfilled today, things are much more problematic. The first issue is the source of the prophecies, and then the attendant problem of prophetic understanding and interpretation. All too often, modern prophetic understandings seem entirely too close to fortune telling and quite removed from the tendency of the biblical prophets to level critiques against the society of their day for social injustices and unfaithful conditions among the people.
The Sermon
Illustrations
How can we understand the awe and mystery of the miracle of the incarnation?
A young boy asked his mother, "Is it true Jesus is everywhere?"
"Yes," mother answered, "Jesus is everywhere."
The boy then returned to staring out the window of the house. After a time looking out the window, he asked, without turning away, "Even in our backyard?"
Christmas preparations include finding just the right gifts.
A department store Santa was checking on a young man's Christmas spirit. "Have you gotten your sister a Christmas present, yet?"
"No," came the answer, "not yet."
"Are you going to get her something special? Even better than you got her last year?"
"That's going to be hard. Last year I gave her the measles."
Finding gifts can be a daunting experience for both the sales people and customers.
A frazzled salesman was trying to ring up a purchase for a customer, but the clamor of a busy season was distracting both of them. When the salesman asked if the customer wanted the purchase delivered, the customer seemed very relieved and agreed to the service. Then the salesman asked for the address. As he was entering the address in the proper place on the sales receipt, he commented, "It's a madhouse, isn't it?"
"No," replied the customer in an aggrieved tone, "it's a private residence."
A customer in a toy store asked a clerk about a toy. He responded, "That, ma'am, is an educational toy of the first magnitude. It prepares any child for adult life. No matter how the child puts it together, it's wrong."
Approaches To Preaching
To approach this as a pure miracle story would mean to emphasize the miracle of the incarnation. It is ironic that a lesson which avoids most discussion of the physical details of the story, even while it seems to discuss them quite frankly, tells of a miracle being described which is so completely physical. The very name of the miracle is a description of how physical it is. Incarnation comes from the Latin word caro, a noun meaning flesh. While the simple understanding is "in the flesh," it is easy to forget that Christianity, particularly at this point in the year, has a very physical emphasis. The Greek behind the Latin is sarks, a word defined as "material covering human or animal skeleton, flesh."
The miracle of the incarnation is one which places an emphasis on the actual, physical nature of the human body inhabited by Jesus. While it might be preferable to conceive of the body of Jesus as some sort of a special thing, not really afflicted by the same things that happen to everybody, it is a view that is contrary to the very word used to describe the miracle. Understanding and explicating the courage of a loving God embracing such limitations in order to accomplish the justification of his people is a fitting climax for the Advent season, as well as a suitable transition to the Christmas season.
Another sermonic possibility is to place the emphasis on the conclusion of the Advent season. From this perspective, the birth of Jesus can be seen as the fulfillment of the eschatological prophecies which have constituted the lessons for the last three weeks. From this perspective, the important part of the lesson is a focus on the Advent prophecies and the ways in which they are fulfilled. Of particular importance is the manner in which the prophecy about "Emmanuel" is actually fulfilled at the conclusion of this gospel.
Alternatively, it is possible to focus on Joseph as the subject of a sermon. Joseph is an interesting figure, a righteous man who can be thought of as law--abiding (the Jewish Law), or kind and compassionate, or perhaps selfish and proud, unwilling to be embarrassed by an unfaithful wife and unwilling to have an unfaithful woman as his wife (in a striking contrast to the prophet Hosea). Joseph also works quite well as a sample or prototype of most of us. We like to think of ourselves as kind and compassionate, but when we are faced with a situation that challenges us, we find it convenient to fall back to a "law--abiding" position that masks a basically selfish course of action.
This first miracle of the year is one which is fraught with dangers for a preacher.
First, there is the day when it appears in the calendar - the Fourth Sunday Of Advent. The entire Advent season is difficult at best. Precisely what the entire season is about is not always easy to hold in mind. If it is a time to prepare for the coming of Christmas, this lesson seems to represent a serious instance of "Christmas creep."
The lessons for the first three Sundays of this year are all eschatological in nature, even the middle two which encapsulate the story of John the Baptizer. These earlier lessons remind us of the historical theme of Advent as a season focusing on the end of things, not the beginning. But this lesson is different.
Second, if the season presents difficulties, the lesson itself is, for all its familiarity, potentially difficult as well. The text preceding this is problematic for us, as well as almost invisible. This text contains difficulties in both the attitude of Joseph, the translation and use of Isaiah's prophecy, and the fulfillment of the prophecy which concludes the lesson.
Finally, this Sunday has often become a day in the contemporary church for a shortened or omitted sermon in light of the annual Christmas pageant or the special music which is traditionally offered this day. And, of course, Christmas carols are often added to the worship on this day with the excuse that this allows the singing of the old favorites without the time constraints of a very brief Christmas season.
Remarkably, in the face of all these difficulties, the Matthean account of the birth of Jesus does present a fertile source of preaching possibilities. It is well worth struggling with the difficulties to bring forth the message of this lesson.
About The Text
For many people the New Testament begins with a boring thud. The first sixteen verses of the volume, after all, are long lists of people who are mostly unknown, with names difficult, if not impossible to pronounce. Then there is a summary of what has just been detailed.
Only after this less than scintillating beginning, do we finally get to something like the story of Jesus. Matthew's genealogy, a text only rarely considered as suitable for reading during worship, much less as a basis for a sermon, is certainly a poorly regarded opening for the larger story. Luke also has a genealogy, but he at least hides it further into the gospel. This Matthean opening is an almost invisible portion of the gospel. Obviously it was important to Matthew, especially since it is the first thing he mentions, but it has little meaning for most people today.
Our lesson begins by connecting to verse 16 and verse 17. In the first few words Matthew repeats both the idea of the birth of Jesus from 16 and establishes the identity of Jesus as the Messiah (from v. 17). Clearly Matthew has begun with a magisterial list establishing Jesus' Davidic lineage, and is now shifting to the more specific focus on the life of Jesus which will inform the remainder of what he writes.
Words
Jesus the Messiah - Verse 1:18 begins with a textual difficulty, one which is difficult for even those who are experts in textual criticism. The problem is easily seen in comparing the text of the NRSV, which is used here, and that of the RSV, which read "Jesus Christ." To make things even more difficult, some ancient manuscripts also read either "Jesus" or "Christ," but don't include both terms. The result is a series of questions that calls all the readings into a certain amount of doubt.
Jesus, by itself, is certainly appropriate here, but is it more of a reflection of the command of the angel in verse 21 than an original reading? The mere presence of the name is sometimes open to question, largely because of the presence of the definite article in the Greek.
Christ (either as a stand alone term, or as "the Christ," more a title than a name) appears quite appropriate and logically presents the most original sounding reading, but is the use actually an echo of the previous verse?
Jesus the Christ (or Messiah) is the reading found in the largest number of manuscripts, but as an expression which is extremely rare among New Testament manuscripts, is it a reading that would be used here virtually in isolation? Not only is the relative position of the elements ("Jesus" and "Christ") reversed in some manuscripts, the presence of the definite article, which is clearly found in the Greek, is a significant problem to a precise, unimpeachable understanding here.
Jesus Christ is the reading that seems to reflect the usage of the early church, but is it actually the earliest text?
And then we have the problem of translation. There are many people who firmly seem to believe that "Christ" is the family name of Jesus. The NRSV translation, at the least, works to correct this misunderstanding, while also preserving the connections between this phrase and verses 16, 17, and 21. In this place, it is likely that the title "Christ" is best understood by its translation, "the Messiah."
took place in this way - This lesson treads very carefully between the physical specifics of the situation and more general considerations, and this is the first phrase which treads the line. Clearly, the details of the process of birth are not the subject of these verses. In fact, Mary, and her participation in the events here is not a subject Matthew finds particularly attractive for exposition. The phrase is rather a way to introduce the broader context in which these events took place in a general, non--biological way.
she was found to be with child - In Greek the verb translated here is a passive form. Some translations make the action more active, with Mary discovering she is pregnant. The Greek form allows for less participation by Mary, since she is only found to be pregnant.
In reality, for Matthew this is a very impersonal discovery, with no indication of who found out, or how the details came to light. While it might be attractive to imagine a busybody, a gossip in the town, and all the attendant details, none of them are either stated or implied by the text.
Joseph, a righteous man - The word used to describe Joseph is another word that can cause problems in an interpretation of this text. "Righteous" is a term that can be understood in at least two ways. As a legal concept, it would refer to someone who was law--abiding, just, honest, and obedient. As a description of character, it would refer to someone who is good, compassionate, and kind.
The term is a favorite word of Matthew's, appearing more in this gospel than in the other three combined (nineteen times here, versus twice in Mark, eleven times in Luke, and three times in John). Usually Matthew seems to use the term to describe a person's character. But here, largely because of the reference to the legal term divorce, it is most often assumed to be used in a legal sense.
To some extent, it is Joseph's personality and the marriage customs of the time which are in question here. If we take Joseph as a kind, compassionate man, he can be seen as someone who had no desire to cause any more problems than he had to for Mary. Marriage customs of the day involved a process that took a period of time. Unlike the traditional customs most familiar today, it seems that the state of being married actually commenced (at least legally) before the couple began to cohabit. The relationship of Joseph and Mary had reached a point where they were considered to be married, even if neither physically intimate or cohabitating. Even without physical intimacy, it is probable that Joseph had a developing sense of affection for Mary, and his actions can easily be understood as a kindly attempt to end the relationship which he was no longer willing to share.
On the face of it, when Mary was found to be pregnant, the only explanation was that she was an adulteress. As such she was liable for the Old Testament punishment of stoning, although lesser punishments were likely more often available. Joseph, as a legalist, decides to terminate the marriage without demanding Mary's death. He feels, legally, that he is absolved of any responsibility for Mary since the child is obviously not his and he has a legal right to the expectation that his betrothed will be a virgin.
It is possible to insist that Joseph must be either a legalist or a compassionate man, but it is likely that he could have both feelings at the same time. Many other languages have less trouble expressing these two perspectives than English does. This is frequently accomplished by using a word signifying "correctness of action," which incorporates both compassion and legal correctness.
and - The Greek word here is kai, the most common word in the Greek text of the New Testament. It is also a word many people remember from a long--ago Greek class, because it most often is translated as "and." Ironically, the word is often not translated, particularly when it begins a sentence and serves more as a sort of punctuation than as a word conveying significant meaning.
The question here is how to translate the word. It might mean "but," quite as easily as "and" in this context. The resolution of this question depends on the way "righteous man" is understood. If it is taken in a legal sense, then a contrast would seem to be required here - the translation should be "but." If it is taken to signify a compassionate reaction to the situation - the translation need not indicate a contrast and should be "and."
Thus, the translation of this simple, common little word is the indicator of how "righteous man" is understood by the translator.
do not be afraid - This phrase seems to occur rather consistently when people in the New Testament are confronted with angels. Contrary to the modern view of angels as warm, comforting beings, in the Bible the initial reaction to their appearance, even in a dream, is an immediate, almost overwhelming fear. And this phrase, or some variation of it, seems to be the formula by which the angels begin to announce their messages.
Here the phrase seems to apply both to Joseph's reaction to the angel and his reaction to discovering that Mary is pregnant. In one case, it is a natural introduction to the action Joseph should be taking. In the other, it is a way to dispel Joseph's reluctance to proceed with his marriage plans.
to take Mary as your wife - Marriage customs at the time involved very little regard for "romantic love" as a reason for marriage. Rather, the steps involved in a marriage had implications beyond mere romantic attachment.
Many, if not most, marriages were arranged, often for purposes such as maintaining a family line (for example, a priestly family would, of necessity, marry another priestly descendant), establishing (or strengthening) a relationship between two families, or to conserve an inheritance (by marrying a relation). The actual marriage seems to have taken place in two stages, both of which were likely accompanied by negotiations. The negotiations were likely more intense and drawn out in the first stage.
As a result of the first stage, not only did the husband and wife formally exchange consent before witnesses but the marriage contract was also agreed to. The marriage contract typically established the financial details about the upcoming marriage. It established both the marriage portion, the goods and money that remained the property of the wife, but which the husband controlled; and the dowery, the goods and money that became the property of the husband at the time of the marriage. Also possible was "marriage money" which the prospective husband paid to the bride's father to "purchase" the woman. If it seems that the woman had much in common with slaves, it should be noted that in the Midrash a query asking for any differences between acquiring a slave and acquiring a wife is answered in the negative.
After this first stage was completed, the couple were, in legal fact, married, even if they did not cohabit until the second stage. The husband had some rights over the person and property of his wife, and any sexual activity on the part of the wife could be construed as adultery. Further, a woman in this stage could be widowed or divorced, and there were cases of each. During this stage, the wife remained resident in her father's (or guardian's) house.
This first stage usually took place around the time the woman reached the age of twelve or twelve and a half. Until she was twelve, nothing a woman did (at least in relation to marriage) was considered valid, and could be dissolved at the father's whim. After twelve and a half, the woman was allowed to refuse to marry if she chose.
Approximately a year after the formal agreements were entered into, the second and final stage began. The most notable action here was the movement of the woman into the man's home, and the man's assumption of all responsibility for the woman's upkeep. Most often, this was also the point at which sexual relations would begin, although there is some evidence that certain areas allowed for rather limited contact during the first stage. Matthew's text makes it clear that such contacts were not part of his experience.
The angel is here telling Joseph to take Mary as his wife, that is, to enter into the second stage of the marriage procedure with her. Rather than divorcing Mary quietly, which was Joseph's first intention, the angel instructs Joseph to proceed with the second stage. It should be clear that Matthew seems to accept the idea that Joseph and Mary were already "married" in virtually every way but physically at this point.
to fulfill - This is the first use of the formula which is distinctive in this gospel. Matthew uses the formula for fulfilling the Old Testament prophecies at least ten times, possibly as often as fourteen times. In comparison, Mark's uses of a similar formula (four instances) are considered somewhat dubious as examples of a formulaic construction; while Luke has only one citation which is clearly a formula, and as many as five which was doubtful.
Matthew uses this formula to introduce citations from the Septuagint, but none of the citations are exact quotations. It might be that Matthew did not have the texts in front of him as he wrote, perhaps he had a defective set of citations, or perhaps he was quoting from memory. It is also possible that he made what he regarded as mild editorial corrections to the text to make the prophecies he is citing more applicable to Jesus and his situation. We simply do not know why the quotations are not exact. The fact that they are not exact seems to say something very important about Matthew's view of the unimportance of a verbal inerrancy of the text he was citing.
The quotation here is from Isaiah 7:14, where the most controversial word in the lesson - virgin - is the Hebrew generally taken to mean "young woman." Matthew, and the Greek word he uses clearly means a young woman who has not had sexual relations - a virgin. Matthew is making the events of Jesus' birth quite unique.
Emmanuel - The name to be applied to the child in Isaiah is Emmanuel. Thus, it is somewhat ironic that two verses later the child is actually named Jesus not Emmanuel. While the name Jesus is the name commanded by the angel, it is not the name to be expected as the fulfillment of Isaiah's prophecy. While this point is often ignored, it is actually a prophecy which is fulfilled in this gospel.
In the last verse of the gospel (Matthew 28:20b) Jesus says, "And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age." While the point is not particularly clear in translation, in the original Greek, the fulfillment becomes obvious. The answer given Moses, when he asked the burning bush for the name of God, is, in the Septuagint, "I am," or Ego emi. This phrase is often taken as a technical term for the name of God, as that is what appears in the text of Exodus 3:14, which established the name of God in response to Moses' inquiry.
The words of Jesus at the conclusion of the gospel are "Ego with you emi." More than merely a presence alongside, the Greek construction places the "with you" inside the name of God. Not merely is God with us, but we are enfolded within the Divine. This, finally, is the fulfillment of the promise of Emmanuel.
no marital relations with - When he concluded the second stage of the marriage process, Joseph had a legal right to sexual intercourse with his wife. In fact, there were customs and rules stipulating the expected frequency of such actions, which depended on the husband's occupation and the wife's condition (not pregnant, not menstruating, healthy, and so on). Joseph refrained from exercising his rights, apparently to ensure there would be no question of the parentage of the child, namely the son of Mary and the Holy Spirit.
This detail is, like many others in this lesson, seemingly a reflection of the physical contact, or lack thereof, involved in the process. Matthew, however, presents these details for a theological reason, to emphasize the unique nature of the birth of Jesus, not to satisfy any prurient interest or to titillate his readers. Most of the references are not precisely stated, and probably best avoided from the pulpit, even though they are certainly interesting and possibly suitable for a Bible study session.
The text makes it clear that Matthew is only interested in relations between Mary and Joseph prior to the birth of Jesus. There is no scriptural evidence here for the tradition of a stroke, or any other disability to Joseph immediately after the birth of Jesus, as is sometimes posited by traditions. In other words, sexual relations between Joseph and Mary are, without evidence to the contrary, quite likely as the normal course of events in a marriage after the birth of Jesus and the ritual cleansing of Mary.
Brothers of Jesus are mentioned in Mark 3:31 (and the parallels in Matthew 12:46 and Luke 8:19), 6:3 (and the parallel in Matthew 1:53--54, both of which also mention unnamed sisters), John 2:12 and 7:1--9. A variety of explanations have been offered for these relatives, such as the suggestion that the siblings were really step--siblings, or in some other way not the biological children of Mary. Such efforts depend entirely on extra--biblical material, traditions, suppositions, and often on theological desires. The entire question dates from a period after the New Testament was composed, and is not reflected in it at any point.
Parallels
The impact of the Christmas season notwithstanding, the biblical evidence concerning the birth of Jesus is actually quite slim. John has a philosophical prologue, which speaks of the birth only in John 1:14, that wonderfully carnal comment that "the Word became flesh and lived among us." But John offers no details about either the events or the process that brought this event to pass.
Mark is even less forthcoming. His Gospel begins with the commencement of the public ministry of an adult Jesus. He seems content to assume that the birth happened in the manner which might be expected for anyone.
The only other account we have of the birth of Jesus is in Luke. Comparing the accounts in Matthew and Luke leads to either confusion or a strong desire to conflate the two accounts. There are some basic agreements, with Matthew's agreement centered largely in these verses. When listed, these agreements seem to confirm some basic points of the stories, but they also leave large areas of disagreement and differing actions.
Joseph and Mary, the infant's parents, are legally engaged but not living together when the story begins. Joseph, who is of Davidic descent, is the subject of the angelic announcement of the coming birth (Mary is the subject in Luke's version). The conception is a result of the action of the Holy Spirit, not Joseph. The angel indicates the child will be the savior, and that his name should be Jesus. After the parents have begun living together, the child is born in Bethlehem, during the reign of Herod the Great, but is reared in Nazareth.
These are the points of agreement between the accounts of Matthew and Luke. Taken apart from any other details, they present a rather bland picture, hardly the full story found in either Matthew or Luke we are used to hearing at Christmas. But once we stray from these basic agreements, the disparities become quite large. Even in the listing of the points of agreement include a difference between the accounts, namely the individual who is the subject of the angelic visitation. In Matthew, the angel comes to Joseph in a dream. In Luke, we have the scene of the Annunciation to Mary. The differing focus of the two accounts leads to an introduction to the people of the story.
The People
As Individuals
As is often the case with incidents from the Bible, there is only one character in the story that is really presented in any depth. Ironically, in this lesson this individual is Joseph, and the text is the clearest picture we find of the man in the New Testament. There is not much detail here, and beyond this there are only a few passing references to the man.
Joseph is often presented as a carpenter, but the word in Greek often has a more general meaning of "one who builds or constructs, a craftsman." It has been pointed out that the term could be applied more specifically to makers of plows, or plows and yokes. The word appears only twice in the New Testament, in Mark 6:3, where it is applied to Jesus, and the parallel in Matthew 13:55, where it applies to Joseph.
It is possible that the fact of the same word being applied to the two men in a very similar context is a reflection of the tendency for occupations to be passed from father to son. It could be merely an editorial change made by Matthew.
The reference in Matthew 13 is also significant for establishing the fact that Joseph seems to have been alive when Jesus began his public ministry. It seems likely that Joseph had died prior to the crucifixion, in light of Jesus' directions to the Beloved Disciple from the cross to care for Mary as her son (John 19:25b--27).
This is, to some extent, in conflict with the later traditions regarding Joseph's age. In the second century the idea that Joseph was an old man when these events took place was suggested by a pseudepigraphal gospel. In the fifth century it was first written that Joseph was 89 when he was widowed (and Jesus' step--siblings were all the result of this marriage), and 91 when Mary became his ward. But this chronology would mean Joseph would be over 120 when Jesus began his public ministry, a rather dubious claim.
While it was not uncommon for a husband to be older than his wife at that time (and throughout much of history, for that matter, down to the present day), there is no biblical evidence for an extreme age on the part of Joseph.
What we do have in this lesson is a picture of a man who finds himself in a difficult situation. His wife, at least in name, is pregnant and he is not the father since he has never known her sexually. If he divorces her publicly, she might be liable for the extreme punishment of stoning. It seems likely that during the months of negotiation to arrange the marriage, and during the first stage of the marriage, before cohabitation began, Joseph found he had some warm feelings for Mary. Even though he could not convince himself to go through with the second stage of the marriage in light of the clear evidence of Mary's misbehavior, he felt sympathetic enough toward her to be willing to handle things quietly. Certainly Mary was not the only instance of such a problem, and ways to dissolve a marriage contract informally had certainly grown up in the villages.
Perhaps there was a segment of the population that held stricter views of things than Joseph, and he feared that Mary might be attacked if the situation became known. There were certainly Essenes at the time, and they held a very strict interpretation of the Law. Or there might have been other groups who held similarly strict views. It is possible that in Joseph's hometown such a group had gotten large enough to be a force in civic life.
Having reached a decision to resolve the situation in a discreet manner, Joseph had a dream. An angel in his dream told him to change his decision and continue with the marriage agreement. When the child was born, that Joseph was to name him Jesus. Joseph woke up with a resolve to follow the instruction of the angel, which he did. The picture that emerges here is of a man who was doing his best to follow the Law, but who was willing to temper the strictest tenets of the Law with a compassionate interpretation.
Of course, there is also the less attractive side of Joseph's character. He did, after all, decide to discard Mary for her apparent indiscretion. His kindness and compassion did not extend to consideration of the eventual results when Mary's actions would become known, as they certainly would. Even a quiet divorce required the husband to read the decree of divorce before two witnesses. And eventually, it would become known that Mary, an unmarried woman, had given birth to an illegitimate child. It is certainly possible to understand the account as presenting Joseph's compassion as originating in his own selfishness and desire for convenience.
As Images And Signs
Joseph is commemorated on March nineteenth as "the Guardian of our Lord," and this is the role for which he is most known. Both Matthew and Luke are careful, in their genealogies, to ensure Joseph is not thought of as the biological father of Jesus, but only as his father in a legal sense, or as the guardian of Jesus. Luke allows for the usage of calling Mary and Joseph "his parents" in the only story of Jesus between the infancy narratives and the beginning of his public ministry (Luke 2:41--51). Matthew is more restrained in his use of terms, consistently using the term "the child and his mother" to refer to Jesus and Mary.
Joseph is a symbol of parents and guardians who provide a loving, protective environment for the children entrusted to their care. The image he evokes is that of a faithful person who does the best he can to fulfill his duty. It is perhaps significant that much of what can be reconstructed of his life story must be done on the basis of inferences and suppositions. Often the people who devote themselves to the care and nurture of children are ignored in the larger picture of events. Mother's Day and Father's Day hardly begin to compensate for the historical lack of recognition. The image of Joseph as the guardian of Jesus is a strong reminder of the faithful service provided by those who follow in his path.
The Action
In The Story
In the account of the infancy of Jesus in Matthew, the will of God is made known through four dreams. Three of the dreams are Joseph's and are recounted in detail, one is reported without details as occurring to the Wise Men. All four dreams direct the actions of the participants in accordance with the divine plan and there is no demur to anything mentioned in a dream. The three dreams of Joseph all command actions leading to the fulfillment of prophecies.
Somehow, it is not difficult to accept people in the Bible who respond to commands given them by figures in dreams. They are accepted as one way God communicates with the people in the Bible. In the case of Matthew, at least in the stories he tells related to the birth and early years of the life of Jesus, dreams are a favored way for God to communicate with people. Even here, it is not God speaking directly, as is the case with Peter hearing a voice in a vision in Acts 10 and 11. In Matthew, the directions are given by angels. It shouldn't be forgotten that angels are messengers for God. They do not speak on their own, but only to convey God's commands to those who hear them.
One further aspect of Joseph's description as a "righteous man" is his obedience to the commands delivered to him by the angels of his dreams. Obedience to God's commands is an important aspect of righteousness, one which is sometimes overlooked. Acting as a righteous person is not simply a matter of following particular rules established long ago. Jesus later makes this quite clear in this gospel, for example in Matthew 23. It involves both a matter of the heart (and the new rules written on the heart as described in Jeremiah 31.31--34) and obedience to specific directions given by such means as angels in dreams.
In The Hearers
To those who heard this story when Matthew's Gospel was assembled, it is likely that Joseph's behavior caused some comment. First, since Joseph is described as a righteous man, his behavior in actually marrying a woman who was obviously (seemingly) a sinner would be one source of surprise. Alternatively, a righteous man who was planning to act in an unrighteous manner by divorcing Mary, actually by not completing the marriage contract he had entered into, could also be a cause of surprise. The biggest surprise might be that it was a person of such obvious human frailty who was selected to be the guardian of Jesus.
Today, when we hear this story, it is easy to accept people who base their actions on dreams since those people are found in the Bible. When someone today says they are basing their actions on instructions they receive in dreams, many (if not most) people have serious doubts about the judgment, not to mention the sanity, of the person and the value of the actions based on the dreams.
Consider the scripts which sometimes appear in situation comedies. One of the people has a dream involving some reprehensible conduct by another character (the wife dreams that the husband leered at another woman, for example; or the husband dreams the wife went on a date with another man), and upon awakening, accuses the other character of wanting to behave in such a manner. While the scripts are often not the strongest of the season, they do point out the modern attitude. People who think dreams are real are funny, and when they act on the basis of dreams, they are even funnier.
This brings up another issue related to this story. Prophecies, and actions taken to fulfill prophecies, are acceptable in speaking of the past, but when people in the present speak of prophecies being fulfilled today, things are much more problematic. The first issue is the source of the prophecies, and then the attendant problem of prophetic understanding and interpretation. All too often, modern prophetic understandings seem entirely too close to fortune telling and quite removed from the tendency of the biblical prophets to level critiques against the society of their day for social injustices and unfaithful conditions among the people.
The Sermon
Illustrations
How can we understand the awe and mystery of the miracle of the incarnation?
A young boy asked his mother, "Is it true Jesus is everywhere?"
"Yes," mother answered, "Jesus is everywhere."
The boy then returned to staring out the window of the house. After a time looking out the window, he asked, without turning away, "Even in our backyard?"
Christmas preparations include finding just the right gifts.
A department store Santa was checking on a young man's Christmas spirit. "Have you gotten your sister a Christmas present, yet?"
"No," came the answer, "not yet."
"Are you going to get her something special? Even better than you got her last year?"
"That's going to be hard. Last year I gave her the measles."
Finding gifts can be a daunting experience for both the sales people and customers.
A frazzled salesman was trying to ring up a purchase for a customer, but the clamor of a busy season was distracting both of them. When the salesman asked if the customer wanted the purchase delivered, the customer seemed very relieved and agreed to the service. Then the salesman asked for the address. As he was entering the address in the proper place on the sales receipt, he commented, "It's a madhouse, isn't it?"
"No," replied the customer in an aggrieved tone, "it's a private residence."
A customer in a toy store asked a clerk about a toy. He responded, "That, ma'am, is an educational toy of the first magnitude. It prepares any child for adult life. No matter how the child puts it together, it's wrong."
Approaches To Preaching
To approach this as a pure miracle story would mean to emphasize the miracle of the incarnation. It is ironic that a lesson which avoids most discussion of the physical details of the story, even while it seems to discuss them quite frankly, tells of a miracle being described which is so completely physical. The very name of the miracle is a description of how physical it is. Incarnation comes from the Latin word caro, a noun meaning flesh. While the simple understanding is "in the flesh," it is easy to forget that Christianity, particularly at this point in the year, has a very physical emphasis. The Greek behind the Latin is sarks, a word defined as "material covering human or animal skeleton, flesh."
The miracle of the incarnation is one which places an emphasis on the actual, physical nature of the human body inhabited by Jesus. While it might be preferable to conceive of the body of Jesus as some sort of a special thing, not really afflicted by the same things that happen to everybody, it is a view that is contrary to the very word used to describe the miracle. Understanding and explicating the courage of a loving God embracing such limitations in order to accomplish the justification of his people is a fitting climax for the Advent season, as well as a suitable transition to the Christmas season.
Another sermonic possibility is to place the emphasis on the conclusion of the Advent season. From this perspective, the birth of Jesus can be seen as the fulfillment of the eschatological prophecies which have constituted the lessons for the last three weeks. From this perspective, the important part of the lesson is a focus on the Advent prophecies and the ways in which they are fulfilled. Of particular importance is the manner in which the prophecy about "Emmanuel" is actually fulfilled at the conclusion of this gospel.
Alternatively, it is possible to focus on Joseph as the subject of a sermon. Joseph is an interesting figure, a righteous man who can be thought of as law--abiding (the Jewish Law), or kind and compassionate, or perhaps selfish and proud, unwilling to be embarrassed by an unfaithful wife and unwilling to have an unfaithful woman as his wife (in a striking contrast to the prophet Hosea). Joseph also works quite well as a sample or prototype of most of us. We like to think of ourselves as kind and compassionate, but when we are faced with a situation that challenges us, we find it convenient to fall back to a "law--abiding" position that masks a basically selfish course of action.
