Grace Presbyterian Church
December 25, 2016, Christmas 1A
Matthew 1:1-25
God-With-Us
It is both an
amusing and enlightening exercise to compare the four gospels and note how
differently each one begins, how each gospel chooses to introduce its central
character, Jesus, or to provide what in modern superhero comic books or movies
would be called his “origin story” – the account of “where Jesus came from”.
Mark, the earliest
gospel, doesn’t provide an “origin story” – that gospel jumps in directly to
the account of Jesus’s baptism. Luke provides an “origin story” that almost
overshadows the entire rest of the gospel, with its elaborate account of the
events leading up to not only the birth of Jesus, but also of his forerunner,
John the Baptizer. The gospel of John, on the other hand, goes cosmic; its
poetic and mystical prologue explores the eternal significance of the one who “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was God.”
From there it can
then seem deflating to turn to the Gospel of Matthew and find that it begins
with a family tree. A genealogy, as it typically called in more formal
scholarly terms; or in more informal lingo, “the begats.” You know, so-and-so
“begat” so-and-so as it was translated in the King James Version. It’s not a word
we really use anymore, and the NRSV’s choice of “was the father of” is much
more communicative and understandable for a modern reader. But…yeah, “the
begats.”
So, why the family tree? For one thing Matthew
wants you to see the three fourteens in the genealogy (not only is three a big
deal in this tradition, but so is seven, and three double-sevens has to mean
something. For anohter, a geneaolgy (interestingly, the word here translated as
‘genealogy’ could also be translated ‘genesis’) was not uncommon in those times
as a way of establishing the royal lineage of a new king – showing that the
king had ‘good bloodlines,’ so to speak. You can see why Matthew would find it
worthwhile to include such a genealogy if the whole point here were to portray
Christ as King.
But this is a strange genealogy, though. For one
thing, while some of the figures included in this geneaolgy were regarded as
among the great heroes of the Hebrew faith – Abraham for certain, and also
David – there are some serious bad apples in this genealogy. Manasseh, for
example? A bad king. A horrible king. If anybody its making a list of all-time
worst kings in history, Manasseh is a contender.
Additionally, though, some of the extra details
that Matthew includes would, according to the usual usage of these genealogies,
diminish rather than enhance the ‘new
king.’ Tamar, for example, was Judah’s daughter-in-law; that story is in
Genesis 38, and it’s ugly. Rahab was the prostitute in Jericho who hid Joshua’s
spies, aiding the Hebrew people’s conquest of that city. Ruth was a Moabite – another
foreigner. And ‘the wife of Uriah’ was none other than Bathsheba, the woman who
David took by force (that is, raped) despite her being married to one of
Israel’s front-line soldiers who was off in battle.
These don’t look good in a royal bloodline, to say
the least.
Yet Matthew presents it to us, ugly stories and
all, as evidence of nothing less than God’s hand in the birth of this child to
be called Jesus – what else could it be? It also works well as preparation for
the messiness of the story as it relates to the man named Joseph, who Matthew
calls ‘the husband of Mary’, the one
charged with being the human father of the Son of God.
Joseph is called a ‘righteous’ man, though we might initially be more inclined to call
him ‘upright.’ When he finds out that his contracted wife, Mary, was pregnant
without any involvement from him, his first thought was not to have her put to
death – acceptable under the law at that time – but to ‘dismiss her quietly,’ which was certainly less fatal but would
nonetheless have condemned Mary to a lifetime of humiliation and likely
inescapable poverty as well. Fortunately, the Lord was in the business of
sending angels at that time, and one of those invaded one of Joseph’s dreams to
set him straight on the origin of Mary’s child ‘conceived in her of the Holy Spirit.’ Once he was set straight
Joseph turned out to be a good guy after all, capable of empathy and even compassion, being a father and
husband in a situation where many lesser men fail, and listening for the
guidance of God to keep this family safe (but more on that next week).
All of this messiness and seeming lack of purity
of line and conception and delivery might be difficult for some to swallow.
Let’s face it, that’s not the impression you get from this lovely Nativity
scene up here. It is rather pristine. Let us be blunt; Mary there doesn’t look
like a woman who just gave birth. Joseph is awfully calm. The animals are
awfully clean, and the shepherds...oh, the shepherds. They’re not even in
Matthew’s gospel, of course; they are part of Luke’s more elaborate story.
Suffice to say they wouldn’t look this clean. The wise men are part of Matthew’s story, but technically they aren’t here yet.
If we were going to get the time line right, they wouldn’t show up until
Epiphany. And the child? I don’t care what the second vere of ‘Away in a
Manger’ says, a newborn infant is going to cry at some point.
The scene is lovely, but somehow lacks chaos. I wouldn’t
make a big deal of it except for the tendency we Christians have to act as if
our lives need to be as pristine and pure as this Nativity scene in order for
Jesus to be born in us, in order for the Christ child to grow up into the
Messiah who saves us. And that’s a real problem, and that hurts us.
First all we will never be that pure. We will
never be ‘good enough’ without the Christ for whom we’re trying to be ‘good
enough.’ When Matthew singles out Isaiah’s prophecy of a child called Emmanuel,
and points out that the name really does translate as ‘God-with-us,’ it’s not because Jesus was born into a pristine
family tree or because Joseph and Mary had been such spectacularly good people that they somehow earned the honor of becoming the Holy
Family. Remember, Joseph was ready to put Mary away; it took angelic
intervention to talk him down from that tree. And as we noted before, that
family tree was pretty messy and difficult.
Christ is not waiting for us to be good enough. We
never will be.
Second, we need Jesus if we are ever to move
towards that goodness. We don’t make ourselves good; to the degree we are ever
good it is God working in us, enabling us to live the life a disciple of Jesus
lives. Even the act of confession and repentance only comes from the Spirit’s
working in us because of Christ’s love for us. We don’t get there on our own.
Finally, even if we do manage to move towards that
goodness, we won’t be led to a blissful little paradise of sweetness and light,
and our lives won’t be as pure and pristine as this manger scene. This child in
the manger does grow up, after all, and that grown-up Jesus was anything but a
go-along, get-along guy. He made trouble. He challenged authorities, religious
authorities in particular. He wasn’t a family-values guy as we would define
him; later in Matthew’s gospel, when his family comes looking for him, his own
words were that ‘whoever does the will
of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother’ (Matthew 12).
He also says, in this gospel, ‘Do not
think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring
peace, but a sword’ (Matthew 10:34). If we really follow the Messiah that
this child grows up to be, our lives are only going to get messier and more
challenging, not less.
In short, while we celebrate the birth of this
child, nothing less than the Incarnation of God in human flesh, we need to
avoid getting distracted by the sweet music and pretty scenes. It’s in the
messiness and clutter, the chaos and the despair, the grief and sorrow that God
is with us. It’s in the struggle and confusion that God is with us. It’s in the
rejection and pain that God is with us. It’s in the loneliness and terror that
God is with us.
If Matthew’s troublesome ‘begats’ and messy
Nativity story have anything to offer us, it virtually has to be that
‘God-with-us’ is not a far-off fantasy achieved only by favored heroes. It is
the here and now, for all of us, no matter how much our lives don’t look
pretty. Even the most broken of us. Even the most sorrowful of us. Even the
most messed-up of us.
For ‘God-with-us,’ even us, Thanks be to God. Amen.
Hymns (from Glory to God: The Presbyterian Hymnal):
#132 Good
Christian Friends, Rejoice
#112 On
Christmas Night All Christians Sing
#125 Before
the Marvel of This Night
#127 Hark!
The Herald Angels Sing
#110 Love
Has Come
#136 Go,
Tell It On the Mountain
Credit: Cerezo Barredo, via workingpreacher.com