Matthew 1 - THE GOSPEL'S OVERTURE

SERMON

7:00pm

I've got a confession to make. I love classical music. I've got to say I love music generally – I listen to almost anything from 12th Century to Tchaikovsky to Trent Reznor and back again. I don't do country. Or Western. Or Jimmy Barnes. But... I love classical.
Overtures, for those who don't listen to classical music, are pieces of music at the start of a long opera or a symphony. They're designed to prepare the listeners for the music that is coming. An overture proclaims the content. Ludwig van Beethoven was a genius with the overture. He took the idea to another level completely. Instead of a summary of the music, he would set up simple themes, but those themes were so rich in themselves that it would take an entire symphony to tease them out fully.

All of the Gospel writers knew the idea well, and their opening chapters are all like excellent Beethoven overtures. They all have introductions that tell us, clearly, what their great themes will be. Luke writes “an orderly account for you, the most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught”. Mark wants his readers to know, before anything else, that this is the Gospel (literally, the euagge;lion, the good message) about Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God. John wants us to see, even before we see Jesus the man, that he is the Word, and was with God at the beginning of everything – and that “through him, all things were made”.

Matthew, meanwhile, begins... strangely. It's such an odd beginning that we often skip it – we miss it out completely. We take little bits of it for Christmas cards – the three Wise Men and their equally-scriptural camels – but we overlook a lot of the way that Matthew opens his Gospel. Which is a shame, because one of the very important characters in the Gospel narratives is found here. Here's the story of Joseph, the son of Jacob, the husband of Mary, the father of Jesus the Son of God.

Father of Jesus the Son of God. That sounds a little odd, doesn't it? We'll come back to this in a second.

The story begins eighteen verses previously. Matthew really begins with a roll-call of forty-nine names covering forty-two generations. And I think that's one of the reasons why we ignore the beginning of this book. Who wants to read out a roll-call?

I suspect people who set out to read the Bible from cover to cover glaze over when it comes to the big genealogies. If you don't believe me, here's a good one – read the first nine chapters of 1 Chronicles. In one sitting. With no coffee. Aloud, so you don't skip a verse...

But... the genealogy at the beginning of Matthew's book is part of his overture, part of his great theme, and part of how he wants us to see this man Jesus. What does Matthew want us to know about Jesus?

Verse 1 - “a record of the genealogy of Jesus, Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham”. Three titles. Here is one of Matthew's themes; Jesus is the Anointed One, Meshiach in the Hebrew, Christos in the Greek, “Christ” in the English. Jesus is also the Son of David, and the Son of Abraham. A Son of David can trace his roots all the way back to David, the second King of Israel. A son of Abraham can trace his lineage all the way back to Abraham, who was the grandfather of a man named Isra'el. This is important for Matthew, because Matthew is writing with an audience in mind – a Jewish audience, people who knew themselves as the children of Israel.

So the first eighteen verses – as boring as we find them – are the first credentials that Matthew offers. And they're gold-plated credentials, too. The lineage covers some major characters in the history of the Jewish people, from the man who first entered into a covenant agreement with God, to great men of power and influence, through men like Boaz who were pretty ordinary but had an influence on the future direction of Israel.

To a First Century Jew, these credentials were very important. Lineage was very important – not for “good breeding” or for “class” but because they recognized authority that came through family lines. Anointed authority could be hereditary (the Levites, for instance). God had entered into covenant with King David, that he would establish David's kingdom forever through his offspring. Matthew has put in this enormous family-tree to establish Jesus' credentials to be known, the right to be known, as “the Son of David”.

Matthew now turns the spotlight on the birth of Jesus, at least according to the heading in my Bible here. I'm not sure if that's totally fair, though. Truth be told, calling this a Christmas story is a bit of a myth. Almost all of it happens a good nine months out from Christmas. It might be the story of the origins of Jesus, but it's really Joseph's story. Matthew, as we have seen, has successfully linked Joseph to David, and to Abraham. What Matthew now sets out to do is to link Joseph to Jesus.

Of course, it wasn't quite that easy-peasy. As a matter of fact, it looks, at one point, very unlikely to happen. Let's look at Joseph's story. It's not an easy story – if anything, it's an uneasy story. He is betrothed to a young lady named Mary. Betrothed is a little bit more serious than an engagement today – it implied that one was, legally, married to the other, but not yet living together or enjoying the full riches of married life. It was a done deal – literally. It would have involved a contract.

Mary becomes pregnant. And while the narrative tells us that “she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit”, I think it would be safe to assume that the only one who really knew this at the time was Mary. I have no idea how the conversation would have played-out between Joseph and Mary, but I cannot imagine that it went that well. Because his next decision is to divorce her quietly.

That's an unusually decent move. The options, under Israel's laws, that Joseph had available to him ranged from quietly annulling the contract to having this obviously promiscuous woman stoned to death. Joseph's choice tells us a lot about the man. "Because Joseph was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly." This is a man of mercy and compassion, even when something as sacred as their sexual integrity is in question... and would remain in question for a long time to come – for the next two thousand years, in fact.

How painful would it be to Joseph? In all that pain, he chooses the gentlest possible option. Mercy, compassion, righteousness. He had in mind to divorce her quietly. The connection between the unborn Jesus and Joseph rests on the edge of a knife.

But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream. The effect of the dream is pretty immediate. And it's probably safe to say that it was more than an ordinary dream. Dreams can be very strong every now and again. I've had a dream more than once where I've done something that went terribly wrong. I crashed a car in a dream, and when I woke up, the dream was so strong that as I was showering and getting changed, I was trying to re-plan my day by public transport. But at some point, I was able to realise that it was... just a dream.

This dream is very different. Joseph acts immediately and obediently after his dream. And to a point, I'm not surprised – he was visited by an angel of the Lord.

Ditch the normal mental picture of pretty wings and halos and wearing white pillow-cases. These angels are supernaturally powerful, immortal beings who work as the personal servants of God. The first one we see is in Genesis, and he was effectively the bouncer at the gates of Eden. Through the Old and New Testaments, the first things angels often need to say to people is “do not be afraid.” Samson's parents wanted to sacrifice to an angel, so powerful and god-like was his appearance. The shepherds in Luke's nativity passage are “filled with fear.”
These things are powerful, and they are terrifyingly real. And they speak with authority, because they carry messages directly from the Lord God Almighty himself. Verse 20 An angel of the LORD appeared to him in a dream, and said, “Joseph, son of David [notice that the angel greets Joseph in exactly the way the genealogy defines him] Joseph, Son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus.”

You are to give him the name Jesus. This is massively significant on two counts. The name of this child is more than just a name – it is a signifier of what parents wanted and wished their child could be. You are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins. Jesus. The English translation of the Greek Iesous. The Greek is a transliteration of the Hebrew Yeshua. And this means, literally, the Lord saves. You are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins. Matthew shows us the value of names as he quotes the Isaiah prophecy that is being fulfilled – Immanuel, which means God with us. It's pretty rare for people these days to call Jesus Immanuel, although quite a few 19th Century writers do – often. Anyone who does Spurgeon's Morning And Evening will be pretty familiar with it. In this case, the truth of the man gives the name – not the other way 'round. God with us.
Verse 22
All this took place to fulfil what the Lord had spoken by the prophet;
Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,
And they shall call his name Immanuel (which means, God with us).

We've got a problem. It's not hard to spot the glaring error in Matthew's logic. The skeptics of the world could (and do) pick a great big hole in this one. And here's one of the places why some people think that the Gospels can't be trusted. This is one of those areas where many smart and well-spoken people will nod mournfully and say that the Bible is inconsistent. The problem's big enough to drive a boat through. Matthew insists on a Virgin Birth. He is insistent –verse 25, he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. Mary is not related to Joseph; if there was a connection, it would have been mentioned in his careful genealogy.

And even granting a Virgin Birth, how can this child claim descent from David and Abraham? Matthew has used those credentials to establish Jesus' temporal authority. That's one great strain in the overture. He uses the Virgin Birth to establish Jesus' heavenly authority – the other great theme. Lord of Heaven and Earth... here's one of the things Matthew wants his readers to understand. But logically, how can he have it both ways? He has to have it both ways, because if you only have one without the other, you've significantly reduced the authority that Matthew is trying to claim for this man Jesus. How on earth can the great strand from Joseph meet with the great strand from Mary if Joseph had no biological part to play?


And at points like this, at points where there are difficulties, at points where belief is hard, we are actively encouraged by the world to put our faith in these things aside. God wouldn't really do that, would he? The Virgin Birth is a legend – a myth. The resurrection isn't really believable... the authors of these books are hardly credible historians, are they? Christianity is an inclusive religion. There must be a misunderstanding when Jesus said that No-one can come to the Father without him. You Christians don't do your religion any favours by reading all of your Bibles... much less believing it...

Which is harder to believe? That Joseph was related to everyone in that genealogy? Or that “before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit”? In an age where more and more theologians and bishops are encouraging Christians to not worry about believing in the hard things, this is a vital question that we MUST be prepared to wrestle with. Because at stake, right now, at the start of Matthew's book – at the start of the New Testament, in fact – is the truth of what Jesus says about himself in this Gospel. The most dangerous myth surrounding the Virgin Birth is that “it doesn't matter.”
Matthew records Jesus saying “Anyone who receives you receives me, and anyone who receives me receives the One who sent me”. Matthew records Jesus saying “All things have been committed to me by my Father, and no-one knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal Him”. And, crucially, when Peter declares to Jesus “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”, Matthew records Jesus saying “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man but by my Father in Heaven”.

What are we to make of these claims that Jesus makes if, as more and more people are content to believe, he was just the son of two normal humans? There are so many of Jesus' sayings and parables that he certainly deserves titles like “a great teacher” and “the most influential philosopher” and “a wise man.” And, to be sure, most people today are more than happy to accord Jesus that honour. But can he still be called a great teacher as he makes these claims of himself? Can a teacher be half-wise and half-delusional? If he is a liar, can we trust any of his wisdom?

But that's not all of it. Jesus isn't the only one claiming this. Matthew makes an outrageously strange claim. Verse 18 – Before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. Luke makes a similar claim. There we find an angel telling Mary the same things that were revealed to Joseph in his dream; “He will be great and called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David.” Mary's response was simple - “How can this be since I am a virgin?”

How can this be? Can a Virgin Birth be proven? Can I give you scientific, rock-solid, absolutely irrefutable evidence that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit instead of by normal human agency?

No. In an age of science and reason, where scientists declare that if it can't be proven it cannot be believable, I have to say... no. There is no scientific, rock-solid, absolutely irrefutable evidence that I can provide for you. I can't be Grissom from CSI and say - “Here's the evidence.”

What I can do is point to... this. The Scriptures. And there are one or two things that should be considered here. Even the harshest secular literary scholars agree on one thing. If these writings about Mary and Joseph and Jesus' miraculous birth were an invented myth, devised by the early Church... they shouldn't look like this.

It's not myth. This was written for a Jewish audience, and any hint of a mythological writing-style would render this document as blasphemy – unreadable. The idea that the Holy Spirit would simply make it happen is so unprecedented that if it was a literary invention, there would be far more explanations attached, and a far-larger back-story. The thought that it was a First-Century addition actually creates more problems... why would you add such a strange, outrageous, unproveable, unbelievable teaching...without explaining something about the process?

One of the greatest arguments in favour of the truth of these Gospel accounts is, quite simply, that they are so simple. Matthew and Luke simply state what was.
There certainly were many myths concerning Greek and Roman gods who used all sorts of tricks to sleep with humans – and often in these stories a child happened afterwards, and in these mythological stories, the resultant unwanted child would wreak vengeance upon the father as he grew up. But they were very elaborate tales; they were stylised legends.

There is, in the whole of mythology, nothing like this. A God, through a woman, sending His Son to earth. The Son working in perfect obedience and harmony with the will of the Father. The old 1662 Book of Common Prayer puts it just as simply. Being of one substance with the Father – who, for us men and for our salvation came down from Heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man. There is simply nothing remotely like this anywhere else. Matthew and Luke don't give any stylised details of how this might have happened. It was enough to note that it occurred. The how is utterly irrelevant to them. The why becomes apparent as you read the Gospels – only the Son of God has the authority to forgive sins. Only the Son of God can take every sin and place it upon himself. Only the Son of God can save me.

We are still left with the two great themes. From the line of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, King David and Joseph will come the Son of David. From the Holy Spirit and Mary will come the Son of God. The two strands still haven't met. Yet.


I said earlier that Joseph naming the child “Jesus” was massively significant in two ways. Here's the second way. Back to verse 21 – YOU are to give him the name Jesus... If Joseph does this, Joseph will be claiming this baby as his own. A child becomes a man's son not so much because of blood and straight genetics, but from the acknowledgment on the part of the man. Matthew's Jewish audience would understand this more quickly than we do. I may have to explain this further.

My have a name. My father's name is part of that - a big part. He, also, carries a man's name. Now something unusual happened when my dad was a young lad – my grandmother separated from her husband and re-married. Dad was given the option – retain his old surname, or take up the new name. He chose the latter. It's an irrefutable fact that there is not a drop of his new father's blood in my dad's veins. There is absolutely no biological or genetic connection between my grandfather and I.

And yet...

He was always Grandpa to me. And I remain with my name. My wife changed her name nine years and one week ago. And this morning, Bishop Reg Piper held my youngest daughter in his arms and asked me to name this child; I publicly named my little daughter. With my family's name.

There is more to life than genetics. Blood might be thicker than water, but love beats blood any day. I know several people who have been adopted, and I know the people who adopted them, and there is no doubt in my mind that they are family.

Joseph was a merciful, compassionate, righteous man. There was nothing easy in this story for him. I cannot begin to comprehend what he must have thought as he dealt with the news that his wife-to-be was pregnant. To be ordered in a dream to not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife. To accept a child that is not, technically, his. To name this child and claim the child as his own. His world must have turned completely upside down. Joseph is one of the Bible's least-praised heroes. He doesn't swing a sword, he smites no enemies, but he's a giant.

For those with long memories, the genealogy began with Abraham. At nearly a hundred years old and childless, Abraham was promised by Yahweh that he would be the father of nations. And, says the writer of Genesis, Abraham believed the Lord, and God credited it to him as righteousness. Throughout the Psalms we see David desiring, chasing, aiming at righteousness – and mourning when he missed. We see righteousness in Joseph. And because Joseph is a compassionate, merciful, obedient and righteous man, he gave him the name... Jesus.
“To us a child is born. To us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and of peace there will be no end. He will reign on David's throne, and over his Kingdom, establishing it and holding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the Lord Almighty will accomplish this.”
These were the words of the prophet Isaiah, hundreds of years before. And as these two great strains meet, the son of Joseph, the son of David, the son of Abraham, the son of God... is born.

And Joseph gave him the name... Jesus.

Matthew has closed off the overture. It's time for the first movement. What happens next? You're going to have to wait until next week.

Can we bust all the myths? It'd be good, wouldn't it? I'd love to say we can. But the truth is, there are things in this book that will, from time to time, give us all difficulties. The Bible will throw up all sorts of things that challenge our perception of reality, our perception of God, our ethics, our actions, our morals, our identities, ourselves. And we will come to meet other people who are finding difficult things in here. This is really important to know... there's nothing wrong with that. It is not an easy book. It will, when we dig away, force us to ask all sorts of questions. And that's okay. God has given us questioning, curious, intelligent minds.

Having said that, I urge you to never give up looking for the right answer. Just because we find a few different ideas that don't seem to align, it doesn't necessarily follow that the Bible is inconsistent. It might just be that our vision's faulty. Never give up. Never give up reading the hard bits. And never give up trusting it. The Word of God is something we can trust, even when we don't understand it all. I doubt Abraham understood God's purposes when the Lord promised him that he would be the father of nations. But Abraham believed the words of the Lord, and it was credited it to him as righteousness. Joseph had no rational reason to stay by his betrothed-but-pregnant Mary; but Joseph was a righteous man, heard the words of the Lord that were announced by an angel in his dream...

and... he gave him the name Jesus.

Photograph of Herbert von Karajan from the official 100th birthday site, available at http://www.karajan.org/jart/prj3/karajan/main.jart?rel=en&reserve-mode=active&content-id=1190897372625&foto_kat_id=1192273236199&fotos_id=1190