Matt 1:18-25 for Sunday, December 23, 2007

Translation:
(18)This is how the birth of Jesus Christ happened: Mary, his mother, was engaged to Joseph. Before they were married she discovered she was with child from the Holy Spirit. (19)But Joseph, her husband, being righteous and not willing to disgrace her, planned to quietly send her away. (20)But as he was thinking, behold an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid. Take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. (21)She will bear a son and you will call him Jesus for he will save his people from their sins. " (22)And this all was so that that which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet would come true, saying (23)"Behold, a virgin will conceive and give birth to a son and they will call him Emmanuel." (which translated means 'God with us') (24)And Joseph arose from the sleep and he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took his wife. (25)And he had no marital relations with her until she gave birth to a son and she called him Jesus.

When we think about the story of Jesus' birth, we almost never think of this story from Matthew. We usually recal the same tale told in Charlie Brown's Christmas--the one with the shepherds and the angels and the manger--the one from Luke 2.

This story offers a different angle. Joseph is the featured character. We hear a different story, not at all like the one we hear in Luke. A good friend of mine recently offered some reflections on these two stories after leading a Bible study on the birth narratives from Luke and Matthew in his church. I want to offer his remarks to you below, not because I'm too tired or too busy to offer my own, but because I think he really nails the important differences between the stories. You can read his entire blog post at http://aunchaki.blogspot.com/

Matthew's account (chapters one and two) is a tale filled with images
and references to the Hebrew Bible. Every step in the story is a
re-telling of a familiar story, from the dreams that God sends to
Joseph (like the patriarch, Joseph, whose skill at dream
interpretation was renowned) , to the flight to Egypt (another Genesis
story) and the slaughter of the innocents (as Pharaoh ordered the
slaughter of the Hebrew babies in Exodus). First century Jewish
hearers of this story would be on very familiar ground, the story of
the birth of Jesus would appear to rise out of the history of God's
work in the Hebrew Bible.

What's more, the author of Matthew explicitly references the story to
Israel's past. Five times in the first two chapters we hear the phrase
"this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through
the prophet..." The idea of fulfillment is a key theme in the Matthean
story. The birth of Jesus is rooted in the stories of the Hebrew
Bible. Careful observers (like the wise men) would not be surprised by
the events. Rather, Israel's history seems to point to the coming of
this child. From the settings and actions of the characters to the
multiple citations from prophetic texts, the story is deeply rooted in
what has come before, and is an expected consequence of it. The way
the story is told shows the reader not only that the events were
expected, but that they were (in retrospect) obvious.

In Luke's Gospel, the account of the birth (chapters one and two) is
quite different. Central to the Lukan story are images of the
improbable and the unexpected. It opens with the story of Zechariah
and Elizabeth, and elderly, barren couple. This is a familiar image
from the Hebrew Bible, and like earlier accounts ends in the
miraculous and unexpected conception and birth of a child. When told
by the angel that he and Elizabeth would have a child, Zechariah's
first reaction is disbelief, "I am and old man, and my wife is getting
on in years" (Luke 2:18). We're reminded of Sarah, overhearing Abraham
and his (divine) visitors speaking of their future child, "I have
grown old, and my husband is old" (Gen 18:12). Neither, at first,
believes that it can happen.

The events of the Lukan birth narrative point to improbability and
unexpectedness. That the Son of God would be born in a stable, to an
unknown young girl, is shocking in itself. And who does the angel of
the Lord choose to tell of this miraculous event? Kings? Priests?
Prophets? No. The angel appears to the shepherds guarding their flocks
by night. Not to the highest, but to the most lowly. The reversal is
predicted in Mary's song, the Magnificat, "He has brought down the
powerful from their thrones, and lifted up the lowly" (Luke 1:52). At
every turn, the birth is presented as unexpected, just opposite of the
Matthean story.

What are we to make of these two stories and their differences?
Matthew's Gospel tells of the long-foretold coming of the Savior, with
attendant wise men and rich treasures. Luke's Gospel shows God working
at His most mysterious. The coming of the Savior is improbable and
unforeseen--so much so that he was born in a stable. No one came
looking for him in the cold stable except the shepherds to whom the
birth had been announced. What do these differences reveal about the
communities among whom these stories came to be told? Are they
self-portraits? Have they written themselves into the story of the
birth of Jesus?

Where do we put ourselves in these stories? Are we careful observers,
keen for clues to the coming of the Saviour? Or are we going to be
just as surprised as everyone by the Saviour's miraculous and
unexpected return? Which characters speak to us? Who are we most like
and unlike? Most importantly, are we capable of holding on to these
stories simultaneously, while resisting the impulse to squish them
together?

Matt 3:1-12 for Sunday, December 9, 2007

Translation:
(1)And in those days, John the Baptist came proclaiming in the desert of Judah (2)saying "Repent! For the kingdom of heaven has drawn near. (3)For this is the one who was spoken through Isaiah the prophet saying 'A voice cries in the desert, 'Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight!"' (4)And John's garments were from camel hair and a leather belt around his waist and his food was locusts and wild honey. (5)Then they went out to him, Jerusalem and all of Judah and all of the region around Jordan. (6)And they were baptized in the Jordan river by him, confessing their sins. (7)But seeing many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them "Brood of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath about to come? (8)Bear, then, fruit worthy of repentance (9)and do not presume, saying to yourselves, "We have father Abraham." For I say to you that God is able from these stones to raise up children of Abraham. (10)And already the ax is laid at the root of the trees. Then every tree not making good fruit is cut down and put into the fire. (11)I baptize you in water for repentance, but after me is coming [one] stronger than me, whose sandals I am not able to carry. He will baptize you in holy spirit and fire. (12)His winnowing fork is in his hand and he will clear out his threashing floor and he will gather his grain into the storehouse, but the chaff he will burn up in an unquenchable fire.

John the Baptist is an interesting character isn't he? Matthew sets up quite the image of him here. John was baptizing people from all over the region. His preaching was clearly quite popular, but judging from his dress and eating habits, he was probably not a popular part of upper class society. The word he was preaching about the coming kingdom would probably have appealed to lower class folks whose lives were very hard anyhow.

John was preaching that people should repent for the kingdom of heaven is coming! Those who repented were baptized. But wait. Baptism is a Christian thing, isn't it? Not necessarily. Ritual baths were used quite often in Judaism and it wouldn't be unusual to take a ritual bath to cleanse sin after repentance. Moreover, baptism may have actually been a conversion practice by this time.

When the Pharisees and Sadducees start coming, John clearly has a strong reaction. He calls them a "brood of vipers" as if they are the vermin scurrying from the danger of a burning building. John makes his stance clear. Baptism alone is not enough. If one hears about the coming kingdom and wishes not to be "thrown in the fire" then one must truly repent. Getting ready for the coming kingdom is important work and there is more to do than simply make sure the "bases are covered." One must be genuine in their anticipation of the kingdom in their lives.

The same is true for us as we prepare this Advent for the coming of the Christ child in our lives. The truth is that when Jesus was resurrected from the dead, a new era of history began to reign. Death would no longer have the final word. Even though things on earth do not seem that different, for those who believe, Jesus makes all the difference. As we prepare for Christ, we must repent (the Hebrew literally means "to turn" or to change directions and go another way). We must constantly be reorienting ourselves toward God so that we can always be ready for the final consummation of the kingdom to be ushered in.

Advent has always been about more than simply welcoming a cute baby. It is about preparing our hearts and minds to accept Christ as our Lord and Savior, and as the one who will reign in our hearts and in our lives.