Matthew 1:18-25 is the story of Immanuel, as Joseph adopts Jesus as his son. The question dealt with is the “how” of the identity of Jesus, in that Joseph, a descendent of David, will accept him. Matthew has conditioned this entire passage by his sense that Isaiah 7:14 finds its fulfillment here.[1] His references to the fulfillment of prophecy are not so much apologetic passages as they are didactic, informing his Christian readers and giving support to their faith. Throughout the first two chapters he will attach intricate details of the life of Jesus to scripture, as if to emphasize that every detail of the life of Jesus was part of the foreordained plan of God.[2] He is portraying Joseph in a way like that of Moses. Joseph followed the general pattern of contemporary Jewish piety. Josephus records a man with a pregnant wife offering prayer for mercy, and God standing by him in his sleep and granting his request. Pseudopilo records that God came to Miriam in a dream the kind of child she would have, and she was to tell her parents. They did not believe here.[3]
Among the questions scholars pursue is whether Matthew had a pre-Matthew source in constructing the birth narrative. I will refer to these as we come to them. Raymond Brown suggests that the dream in verses 20-21 and 24-25 are from a pre-Matthew source.[4] The pre-Matthew content might read like this:
His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, … an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife ... She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins." … When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife.[5]
18 Now the birth of Jesus the Messiah took place in this way. Matthew 1:18-25 is an “enlarged footnote to the crucial point in the genealogy.”[6] Matthew has just established Jesus’ messianic eligibility as a Jewish descendant of David, but he has still to explain the last step in the family tree — the legitimacy of Jesus’ birth. The purpose of Matthew is to show that Jesus is the promised Jewish Messiah. Matthew makes a direct link to the previous genealogical table. It is important to Matthew that Jesus is a descendent of David, which became reality through the legal parentage of Joseph. That is more important than the virgin birth. Jesus, legal son of Joseph, is now in the Davidic lineage even though not a direct descendant of Joseph. This double claim did not trouble Matthew's theology: Jesus, Son of Abraham, Son of David; and Jesus, Son of God.
When his mother Mary had been engaged to Joseph, but before they lived together, she was found to be with (ἐν γαστρὶ ἔχουσα) child from the Holy Spirit, stressing that the Spirit is the creative, life-giving force of this birth. The Holy Spirit is the creative movement of God toward creation. Jewish betrothal was such that people already called the fiancé “husband.” The man could release himself from the bond only by repudiation, as in v. 19. The penalty for fornication was death for both guilty parties. A betrothal, while less than a full marriage, was certainly more than any modern notion of an "engagement." Out-of-wedlock pregnancies were a far more grave issue than in our culture, and the formal nature of Joseph and Mary's betrothal raised the event of this untimely pregnancy to a new degree of seriousness. While a legal marriage did not exist until the husband had taken his wife into his home and consummated their union, a betrothed couple was, nevertheless, a legal entity and already bound by the strict Hebraic codes of conduct. Just as Jewish practice considered a woman whose betrothed husband died a widow, it also considered a betrothed woman who had sexual relations with another man an adulterer. When Mary became pregnant, she faced the full measure of the adultery laws found in Deuteronomy 22:23-24. 19 Her husband Joseph, being a righteous man and unwilling to expose her to public disgrace, planned to dismiss her quietly. The effect of the conception is embarrassment to Joseph. Maybe because Joseph is upright he does not want to give his name to a child whose father is unknown. Throughout the Gospel of Matthew, we learn that the followers of Jesus are to have a righteousness that exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees. Joseph is the first example of such righteousness. The righteous man is the merciful man, the loving man. In the eyes of Matthew, he was righteous precisely because he refused to hold up Mary to public ridicule and to the legal punishment for adultery.[7]The divorce would happen secretly, before chosen witnesses, to avoid public scandal. Joseph did this out of obedience to the law. He must put the evil away, so he divorces the adulterer. In this case, "secretly" refers to not making public charges that could have led to Mary's death. In Matthew's account, there is a moment when God's plan rested in the simple hands of the man, Joseph. If he had followed through on his plan to dismiss her, he would have been without the validity of a Davidic heritage. He is righteous as well as compassionate. Joseph was "a righteous man," a moral state that both forced his hand and yet allowed him to act with mercy. Joseph's response to the announcement of Jesus' birth highlights the ambiguity, the threat that this strange birth posed for righteous people like Joseph. Righteousness in Matthew is fraught with ambiguity. As one whom was 'righteous," Joseph's obedience to the law insisted that he have nothing more to do with Mary. Joseph could choose one of two ways to disintegrate their betrothal contract. He could bring public charges of adultery against Mary and let the law take its full course. Alternatively, Joseph could simply take two witnesses with him as he formally confronted Mary with charges of adultery. In the presence of just those two witnesses, Joseph could divorce his betrothed. In verses 20-21, we have the conclusion of the pre-Matthew source as identified by Bultmann and the beginning of that source by Raymond Brown. [8] 20 But just when he had resolved to do this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream. In verses 20-21, 24-25, we find the first of three divinely inspired dreams Joseph will have. The angelic messenger's formal address to Joseph emphasizes the important reason for Joseph to marry Mary legally and thus claim her child as his own. This dream tells Joseph to take a quite different course of action than the one he had been considering. And the angel said, “Joseph, son of David, (the only time the New Testament refers to anyone other than Jesus in this way) do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife, for the child conceived (γεννηθὲν, suggesting the conception is through the agency of the Holy Spirit is also the becoming of the Son of God.[9]) in her is from the Holy Spirit, stressing again that the Spirit is the life-giving origin of this birth. Matthew seems to think here of a supernatural procreation.[10] The angel tells Joseph to go ahead with the marriage because the adultery accusation is not true. He should not make Mary subject to the law because her pregnancy came about through the activity of the Holy Spirit - divine activity conceived the child she bears, not human disobedience. The angelic announcement follows a tradition of birth announcements of Ishmael in Genesis 16:7-12 and Isaac in Genesis 17:1-19. John the Baptist also receives this angelic announcement in Luke 1:11-20. The focus of attention is verses 18 and 20, both of which state that the child is “from the Holy Spirit.” We need to grasp the theological significance of such an affirmation. To fail to do so is to obscure the basic connection between Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Jesus is not a man whom God subsequently gifted and impelled by the Spirit like others, like prophets, apostles, or even us. Jesus has the Spirit at first hand and from the very first.[11]Matthew defends the idea of divine Sonship and the activity of the Spirit of God against obvious objections by reporting a special revelation to Joseph about the origin of the pregnancy of Mary. Thus, Matthew refutes the suspicion of the opponents by refuting the suspicion of Joseph. Further, the primary interest of Matthew is in the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecy in Jesus.[12]
Our culture approaches unwed pregnancy so differently today, it might be difficult for us to relate.
Carlo Carretto (Blessed are you who Believed) tells of visiting a village among the Arab people. It was not long until he became acquainted with the Tuaregs, who lived in tents along a rocky basin where water surfaced. A girl in the camp where he stayed was betrothed to a boy in another camp. She had not gone to live with him because he was too young. Joseph, he remembered, was betrothed to Mary, but they were not living together. Two years later he came back to the camp. During conversation around the campfire, he asked if the marriage had taken place yet. There was awkward silence. He did not pursue the subject. Later, he asked a friend from the camp what the silence meant. He looked cautiously around. Because he trusted Carlo Carretto as a man of God, he made a sign, passing his hand under his chin. It meant that she had her throat cut. The reason? Before, the wedding it was discovered that the girl was pregnant. In what sociologists call an honor and shame culture, she betrayed her family. It required her sacrifice. For Carlo Carretto, a shiver went through him as he thought of a girl being killed because she had not been faithful to her future husband.
I want to emphasize the theological connection Matthew will make between Jesus and the Spirit by discussing the difference Pannenberg has with Barth at this point. Pannenberg says the various discussions by Barth of these verses “strangely” provoke only a discussion of the relationship between the Spirit and the Son, but no discussion of the distinction between them. From the standpoint of Trinitarian theology, such distinctions are important to make. Yet, what Barth says about the relationship is significant and something we need to explore.[13] Barth points out that these passages do not say that the man Jesus is the son of the Holy Spirit or that the Holy Spirit is his Father. Rather, they suggest that this conception in the womb, is miracle as far as this man has no physical father, and that in the event of his conception God deals with the mother as creator to the exclusion of male volition and action. The relationship of this man to the Holy Spirit is so close and special that he owes his existence to the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is this creative movement of God toward creation.[14] Earlier, Barth speculates that he might have to accept a relationship of origin between the Spirit and Son that is neither begetting nor breathing, but a third thing. One might have to add that the circle of mutual relations in which God is one in three modes of being is only then closed and complete, and that already for this reason one should postulate an origin of the Son from both the Father and the Spirit. However, Barth rejects this move in general. As he continues his exposition, he says that the virgin birth story and the baptism story are parallel, for both suggest that the man Jesus of Nazareth becomes the Son of God by the descent of the Spirit. In specific reference to this passage, the incarnation of the Word of God from Mary cannot consist in the fact that here and now the Son of God comes into being for the first time. It consists in the fact that here and now the Son of God takes to Himself that other which already exists in Mary, namely, flesh, humanity, human nature, being as a person. Furthermore, the dogma of the Virgin Birth does not imply in any sense that the Holy Spirit is the father of the man Jesus and thus becomes, in the incarnation of the Son, the Father of the Son as well. It tells us that the man Jesus has no father, just as he has no mother as the Son. What is ascribed to the Holy Spirit in the birth of Christ is the assumption of human existence in the Virgin Mary into unity with God in the mode of being of the Logos. That this is possible, that this other, this being as a person, this flesh, is therefore God, for fellowship and even unity with God, that flesh can be the Word when the Word becomes flesh, is the work of the Holy Spirit in the birth of Christ.[15] Later, Barth still wants to insist that it is not a statement about the one who was and is and will be the Son of God as to how, but rather, the way, in which the Son became a human being. For him, the New Testament and responsible theology avoids myth at this point. The Holy Spirit is not the divine Father of the man Jesus. The Son becomes a human being in this way. God could have acted in other ways but chose this way. The virgin birth is the sign that accompanies the mystery of the Incarnation. God stands at the beginning of this man, Jesus. God gives to Mary the capacity to be the mother of this Son. God makes the divine Son the Son of Mary. God gives to her what she could not procure for herself.[16]
In verses 21-23, Matthew highlights two names for Jesus. In the naming of the child, Joseph takes full responsibility for him. The first name is that of Jesus, a name commanded by the angel. 21 She will bear a son, and you are to name him Jesus (Yesua or Joshua, “Yahweh saves” or Yahweh is salvation,” comprehensible only in Hebrew rather than the Hellenized form), for he will save his people (Jews) from their sins.” Although a common Jewish name, the name has more stress than the birth itself. What was unique was the emphasis on salvation from sin. On the negative side, salvation means deliverance from the sin that holds us in bondage. The translation in verse 21 of the name of Jesus suggests to Bultmann that an originally Semitic report is the basis of the story. However, this could not have included the unheard-of conception within Jewish circles of a virgin birth. He agrees with Klostermann, who said that the idea of divine generation from a virgin is quite impossible to the Old Testament. For him, then, the notion of the virgin birth occurs in the transformation to Hellenism, where the idea of the generation of a king or hero from a virgin by the gods was widespread. The old story had simply told how an angel promised Joseph that his son would be Messiah. This is supported by the fact that Joseph is expressly addressed as “Son of David,” and that in verse 21 we may well read with the Syriac, “She will bear thee a son.” Similarly, the antenatal naming of the child, with the associated prophecy, is a traditional motive of the Old Testament and Jewish literature. For these reasons, Bultmann thinks verses 18-21 are in the pre-Matthew source, with Matthew inserting verses 22-23. [17]
We then have an account of the second name. That name for the child is the real puzzler in this story. Having recounted the angel’s words to Joseph, the evangelist asserts 22 All this took place to fulfill what had been spoken by the Lord through the prophet Isaiah in 7:14: 23 “Look, the virgin ('almah or young woman in Hebrew, but translated παρθένος in Septuagint and used by Matthew to emphasize her innocence and divine origin of Jesus). A question worth pondering is the theological reason Matthew had for composing this passage the way he did. As early as the second century, we have documented evidence of non-Christians questioning the legitimacy of Jesus’ lineage. Several sources report that opponents of Christianity slandered as “Jesus son of Pantera,” which was a pun on the Greek word for virgin, present here in 1:23 (parthenos/parthena). In addition, Pantera was a plausible name for a Roman man and was popular among soldiers. It is possible that rumors like this were circulating already at the time of Matthew’s composition, especially given the low profile given to Joseph in New Testament texts. Furthermore, Matthew has demonstrated elsewhere that he is sensitive to rumors and wants to quell them with his gospel (see Matthew 28:11-15). Thus, he may have had some familiarity with Jewish insinuations about Mary. The virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,” (not occurring elsewhere in this gospel, but also occurring in Luke 1:31, suggesting the name predates Matthew) which means, “God is with us.” Once again, it is not the “virgin” giving birth that presents the challenge in the story (because the evangelist can simply point to the text of the Greek translation he’s using); rather, it’s the issue of the name. How can it be that the angel’s instruction and even Joseph’s subsequent obedience in naming Mary’s son “Jesus” (Matthew 1:25) was “to fulfill” a prophetic declaration about naming a child “Emmanuel”? Sure, the names’ meanings are not mutually exclusive — “Jesus” meaning something such as “God saves” and “Emmanuel,” as the evangelist makes explicit, meaning “God is with us.” But clearly, these are not the same names. This child’s birth was the “sign,” the proof, that God was with Joseph and the readers amid the crises they each faced. On the positive side, salvation is not only from sin, but also consists of God being with us. God intends salvation for the people of God. God never abandons humanity. Some scholars suggest that the Septuagint's choice of the term parthenos shows a desire to depict Israel's role as the virgin awaiting God's activity. It is the virgin Israel, in this rendition, not any individual, that will give birth to the Messiah in the redemptive future. Yet Matthew's use of this text and his emphasis on Mary's innocence seem to define Mary as the representative of the virgin Israel. God intends salvation for the people of God. God never abandons humanity. For Barth, the reference here is to a single, final, and exclusive act of the God of Israel as the goal and recapitulation of all the divine acts. However, this act, the birth and naming of Jesus, is like the events in the days of King Ahaz in that once again we have come to a change in the relationship between God and the people of God. For Matthew, what took place before this was a prelude. The Immanuel sign has it in common with the name of Jesus that the latter, too, although this time in the reverse direction, is a sign of both judgment and blessing. Yes, “God is with us,” but also, “God helps (saves).[18] The problem of naming all but disappears, however, if we consider what it could mean “to fulfill” a prophetic declaration in some approaches to interpreting Scripture in the first century. The idea of fulfillment was not that the prophet had, centuries in advance, exactly predicted events that would happen only in his future. Rather, prophecies were also fulfilled when the prophet’s words later provided insight for God’s people into their circumstances, just as they had for the prophet’s own contemporaries. Isaiah certainly was not suggesting to Ahaz that he should wait more than 700 years for the birth of a child who would be the “sign,” the proof, that God was with him and Judah during their time of crisis (see all of Isaiah 7). The clincher comes from noticing that the evangelist, master storyteller that he is, ends the gospel sounding the same note with which he began, when Jesus speaks its very final words: “And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (28:20b). The gospel proclaims a hopeful vision for humanity even as it realistically recognizes the sin that strips us of our genuine humanity. In the birth of the child Jesus, we encounter not only the one who will save us from our sins but the fulfillment of the promise, “God is with us.”
In verses 24-25, Joseph's obedience to the angelic messenger's command is complete. Raymond Brown suggests these verses are part of the pre-Matthew source. 24 When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the angel of the Lord commanded him; he took her as his wife, 25 but had no marital relations with her until she had borne a son; and he named him Jesus. Without hesitation, he takes Mary for his wife. As further evidence of his righteousness, he refrains from having sexual relations with her. She remains the embodiment of the virgin Israel.
The account by Matthew contains much simplicity and restraint. Matthew's description of Jesus' conception and birth focuses on Joseph. It is concerned with technicalities and issues of precise legality. Joseph's name and reputation are on the line here. God gives Joseph explicit foreknowledge that the child Mary bears is none other than the Messiah, the one who will bring about the reality of God's saving forgiveness for all Israel. The story of the virgin birth means God gave this Jewish man, who is also the Son of God, to the world. Even the theatrical, thrilling appearance of the angel to Joseph does not distract from the Matthew's major thrust: God's only Son has arrived on planet Earth. That Matthew can construct such a lean narrative with such profound theology is only one of many marvels at Matthew's genius as a theologian.
All of this leaves open the question of the virgin birth itself. It is quite unbelievable, of course. In our experience, births simply do not happen this way. I invite you step back from the specific texts and consider the rest of the New Testament.
Luke and Matthew have differing accounts that one best leaves to themselves, rather than to seek their harmonization. One example is that to Matthew, Jesus was born before 4 BC., while to Luke, the first census was AD6/7 and Quirinius was governor in AD 6.
Some scholars will read other parts of the New Testament as having no knowledge of the story of the virgin birth, or at least de-emphasizing its importance. Mark 3:21 gives no hint of Mary having had a previous angelic announcement, for when his family heard of what Jesus said, they restrained him, for people were saying he is going out of his mind. John 6:42 simply refers to Jesus as the son of Joseph, whose mother and father they know, so how can Jesus say he has come from heaven? Paul gives no awareness of the uniqueness of the birth of Jesus when he says when he said God sent the Son, born of a woman and under the law (Galatians 4:4). Even Matthew will not come back to it.
The Christian reader today needs to have awareness that virgin birth stories were not part of the Jewish tradition. Rather, they were part of Greek history and religion. This means the entire legend of the virgin birth (his words) arose in the Hellenistic community.[19] Thus, Plutarch thought that Alexander the Great descended from Hercules but that his father Philip through miraculous intervention did not have intercourse with Olympias. [20] Philostratus says the mother of miracle worker Apollonius had an apparition of the great poet Proteus declaring that it was the father of the child within her.[21] Diogenes Laertius, after detailing the lineage of Plato, says a vision from Apollo kept the husband of his mother from his mother.[22] Understood in this intellectual climate, similarity rather than uniqueness is the point. Jesus of Nazareth is similar to and in the company of other great men of Hellenistic culture. Thus, one way to approach the virgin birth story is as a first century literary technique designed to make clear to readers, from the beginning, the significance of the hero of the story. Early Christians appear to have added the story of the virgin birth with the transformation to Hellenism, where the idea of the generation of a king or hero by the godhead was widespread.
If we think the main point of this story is about the virgin birth, we are missing the main point. Good storytellers begin by setting the stage. Only more gradually do they reveal their deeper purposes and meanings. That is to say, the virginal conception of Jesus is known to be the reason for the problem Joseph confronts, not the mystery that, when revealed, resolves the conflict for him. As Luz (Matthew 1-7 [Hermeneia], 94-95) points out in reminding us of early-church debates about this passage, it’s possible that even Joseph already knew this and that the dilemma he confronted was how he should relate to someone who stood in such special relationship with God as Mary. Thus, when the angel tells Joseph, “the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit” (v. 20c), that’s old news — certainly to us as readers (v. 18) but possibly also to him. The news for Joseph (and first-time readers) is elsewhere in the annunciation: “[D]o not be afraid to take Mary as your wife” (v. 20b), and, even more importantly, “[Y]ou are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins” (v. 21).
Professor of religious studies Russell Fuller says that the names of individuals in the Bible are always full of meaning, expressing “their personality and status or nature.”[23] In the Bible, a name is always more than just a word. We see this most clearly when a person’s name is changed in recognition of a change in their nature, personality, or status. For example, Jacob’s name is changed to Israel after his successful wrestling match with a divine being. Abram’s name is changed to Abraham after the creation of the covenant with God. Saul becomes Paul after he becomes a follower of Christ. The names of newborn children, says Fuller, are “carefully chosen to reflect the circumstances of their birth as well as to indicate something of their personality or status.”
The name Moses means “to draw out,” reflecting Moses’ rescue as an infant from the waters of the Nile.
The name Miriam means “drop of the sea, bitter, or beloved.” It later evolved into the name Mary.
The name Elijah means “the LORD is God.”
The name Jesus means “the LORD saves.”
And the name Immanuel means “God with us.”
In the Bible, a name is always more than just a word. It expresses personality, status and nature. So, what does it mean to say that the Son of God is both Jesus and Immanuel? Both names embody who Jesus is: Savior and God-with-us. Both invite us to respond — not just with the cheers of a sports fan, but with deep faith and commitment.
Jesus, the first name, means “the LORD saves,” and that Jesus will save his people from their sins (v. 21). Jesus has been sent to earth to be the One to save us from all the sins and shortcomings that fracture our relationships with God and the people around us. We make such a mess of our lives, as individuals and as communities, that we need a Savior to rescue us. Jesus does this by offering us forgiveness for our past failings, and guidance for the path that lies ahead. We might sing about his saving work at Christmas, using the words of the carol, “O Little Town of Bethlehem”:
O holy child of Bethlehem, descend to us we pray;
Cast out our sin and enter in; be born in us today.
Cast out our sin — that’s the work of Jesus, the Savior. The letter to the Hebrews tells us that Jesus came to “remove sin by the sacrifice of himself” on the cross (Hebrews 9:26). Jesus casts out our sins, once and for all, in an act that never needs to be repeated. He lays down his life for us in an act of loving sacrifice, one that brings us forgiveness and new life. We need Jesus to save us. He does for us what we can never do for ourselves, no matter how hard we try. Each of us is like an addict who discovers that recovery requires turning to a higher power — a power greater than ourselves. When we put our faith in Jesus the Savior, we find that forgiveness and change are possible.
Immanuel, the second name, communicates that God is with us (v. 23). Turning to a higher power also helps us discover that we are not alone. With Immanuel in our lives, we are never alone. Using the words of “O Little Town of Bethlehem” again:
We hear the Christmas angels the great glad tidings tell;
O come to us; abide with us, our Lord Emmanuel.
Jesus came to abide with us, to live with us, to stay with us forever. That is the work of Immanuel, God with us. We need this now, more than ever. Loneliness is a problem this time of year, which is why many churches are offering “Services of the Longest Night” on December 21. This is the day of the winter solstice, when the sun sets at its earliest point all year, creating the longest of nights. Christians who gather for Longest Night services focus their prayers on dark times — the death of a loved one, the loss of a job, living with cancer, or adjusting to a separation or divorce. Churches have discovered that the Christmas season is not a bright and happy time for every member of the congregation, and such services give people opportunities to acknowledge their pain and pray for healing and help. Since the days become longer and longer after the winter solstice, there is reason to believe that light can return and darkness can be overcome. People also find hope in the support of the community, and the chance to draw closer to the One who is our Lord Immanuel, God with us.
Let us step back and reflect upon one way to understand this story. We see a story in which embarrassment is a theme. We also see a story that unveils the second disciple in the gospel story of Jesus, presuming that Mary to be the first.
I begin with a story. Dad worked with his son carefully in many sports. The son grew to especially like football. He played catch, he attended the games all the way through to High School. Finally, the boy became good enough to receive a scholarship from a large university. In one game, the boy received the ball and with good blocking, skillful movement and lightning speed, dashed by opposing players to score his first touchdown. Cheers came from fans and congratulations from teammates. Out of breath, he goes to the sidelines and sat on the bench. The television cameras focus a close-up shot of the hard-breathing hero. He looked directly into the camera, aware of being the center of attention for millions of television watchers and raised his hand. "Hi, mom!"[24] Once again, mom is the center of attention. Dad is in the background, almost forgotten.
As the Christmas drama unfolds, I see some of the same dynamics. Dad does not get the attention. Peter Gomes tells of a rather despondent little boy who wanted to be in the Christmas pageant the church always presented. However, he wanted to be a major part. He said, in a despondent way, that he was Joseph. “I do not have anything to do,” he said.
Is there any role in the Christmas play less inspiring than Joseph? Mary has an interesting role. She gets to act as the adoring mother of the child, Jesus. The shepherds and the wise men and the angels all have dramatic impact. Even the animals have an active role. But what about Joseph? He just sits there, next to Mary, doing little. He is in the background. Sometimes, one hardly notices him.
Throughout the history of Christian art, we do not find Joseph pictured with the child Jesus in his arms. There have been a few pictures of Joseph with the older boy Jesus, but they have not been many. Normally, if there is a picture of the child Jesus, it is with Mary.
God has a plan for Joseph. In fact, in this story, the plan of God for the salvation of humanity and the redemption of creation rests in the hands of the simple, righteous man, Joseph. His concerns are those of the good, decent people of the world. He is concerned what other people think. This can seem trivial. Yet, most of us have that worry at one time or another. In this case, it was serious. Mary, the one who was to be his wife, was already pregnant. The most respectful thing to do in that society would have been to release her from the marriage. Yet, in a dream while he slept, he received different instructions which he believed to be from God. Matthew then says about him, "When Joseph awoke from sleep, he did as the Angel of the Lord commanded him.” Though concerned about what people think, his primary concern was that he wanted to do precisely what God wanted him to do. In many ways, he is in the background throughout the life of Jesus. He does the simple things which dads will often do. Contrary to the little boy who played Joseph in his church play, Joseph had a key role to play in the plan of God. Joseph did not simply disappear after the angels went away. He carried out his responsibilities until he died. He practiced the gift of hospitality, opening his heart and home to Mary, even though the child was not fully his own. He married Mary. He gave Jesus a family heritage, being a descendant of David. He took his place at her side, and he took whatever came his way. We see him at his most heroic when in another angelic chat he learns of the dangers threatening his new family. Herod is about to slaughter all the babies. And so, like his lucky ancestor of the same name, he leads his family on a holy flight into Egypt, for out of Egypt will come all of those who save Israel: Moses, Joseph, and now Jesus. And we discover him yet in another glorious dream where he learns that all is well, that Herod is dead, and that they can now return. And so he returns with his family, but not to the same place for a wicked ruler was in place there. And he goes to another place so that the prophecy can be fulfilled that Jesus shall be called a Nazarene. We believe he gave Jesus the career of being a carpenter in the town of Nazareth.
Robert Fulghum tells the story of the barber in his hometown. He had been his barber for sixteen years. In those years, they talked about many issues of the world. However, they did not carry on that friendship outside the shop. The only time they saw each other was when it was time for a haircut. One day, he went for his appointment and discovered that his barber had forsaken being a barber and went into building maintenance. He took it personally. He could not believe his barber had done this to him! He went on to say that "Without realizing it, we fill important places in each other's lives." It is that way with the local pastor, the mechanic, the teacher, the neighbor, the co-worker. These are often good people who are always there. They teach us, bless us, encourage us, support us, and we never tell them what they mean to our lives. These people play the supporting actors in our own lives. Yet, we fill that role ourselves. There are people who depend upon us to be there, to teach, to be an example. We are the supporting actors in the lives of others all around us. We dare not sell ourselves short. We may never have proof of our importance. However, we are more important than we think.[25]
[1] Raymond Brown (Birth of the Messiah, 1977, 153)
[2] Raymond Brown (The Birth of the Messiah [New York: Doubleday, 1993], 97-98):
[3] A man whose name was Amram, one of the nobler sort of the Hebrews, was afraid for his whole nation, lest it should fail, by the want of young men to be brought up hereafter, and was very uneasy at it, his wife being then with child, and he knew not what to do. Hereupon he betook himself to prayer to God; and entreated him to have compassion on those men who had nowise transgressed the laws of his worship, and to afford them deliverance from the miseries they at that time endured, and to render abortive their enemies' hopes of the destruction of their nation. Accordingly God had mercy on him, and was moved by his supplication. He stood by him in his sleep, and exhorted him not to despair of his future favors. He said further, that he did not forget their piety towards him, and would always reward them for it, as he had formerly granted his favor to their forefathers, and made them increase from a few to so great a multitude. (Josephus, Ant. ii. 212, 16)
And the spirit of God came upon Miriam one night, and she saw a dream and told it to her parents in the morning, saying I have seen this night, and behold a man in a linen garment stood and said to me, Go and say to your parents; Behold he who will be born from you will be cast forth into the water, likewise through him the water will be dried up. And I will work signs through him and save my people, and he will exercise leadership always. And when Miriam told of her dream, her parents did not believe her. (Pseudophilo, Ant. ix. 10.)
[4] (Birth of the Messiah, 1977, 110)
[5] (Birth of the Messiah, 1977, 153)
[6] Krister Stendal
[7] Rudolph Schnackenburg
[8] (Birth of the Messiah, 1977, 110)
[9] Raymon Brown Birth of the Messiah, 1977, 140)
[10] Pannenberg (Jesus God and Man, 120)
[11] Barth (Church Dogmatics, IV.2 [64.4], 324)
[12] Pannenberg (Jesus God and Man, 143) Dibelius, “Here the opponents' suspicion is refuted by refuting Joseph's suspicion.”
[13] Pannenberg (Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, p. 5)
[14] Barth (Church Dogmatics, III.2 [46.1]
[15] Barth (I.1, [12.2]
[16] Barth (IV.1 [59.1])
[17] (History of the Synoptic Tradition, 1963, 291)
[18] (IV.1 [57.1], 6)
[19] Pannenberg (Jesus God and Man, 142)
[20] From Plutarch, Alexander, 2.1-3.5 (75 AD)
It is agreed on by all hands, that on the father's side, Alexander descended from Hercules by Caranus, and from Aeacus by Neoptolemus on the mother's side. His father Philip, being in Samothrace, when he was quite young, fell in love there with Olympias, in company with whom he was initiated in the religious ceremonies of the country, and her father and mother being both dead, soon after, with the consent of her brother, Arymbas, he married her. The night before the consummation of their marriage, she dreamed that a thunderbolt fell upon her body, which kindled a great fire, whose divided flames dispersed themselves all about, and then were extinguished. And Philip, some time after he was married, dreamt that he sealed up his wife's body with a seal, whose impression, as be fancied, was the figure of a lion. Some of the diviners interpreted this as a warning to Philip to look narrowly to his wife; but Aristander of Telmessus, considering how unusual it was to seal up anything that was empty, assured him the meaning of his dream was that the queen was with child of a boy, who would one day prove as stout and courageous as a lion. Once, moreover, a serpent was found lying by Olympias as she slept, which more than anything else, it is said, abated Philip's passion for her; and whether he feared her as an enchantress, or thought she had commerce with some god, and so looked on himself as excluded, he was ever after less fond of her conversation. Others say, that the women of this country having always been extremely addicted to the enthusiastic Orphic rites, and the wild worship of Bacchus (upon which account they were called Clodones, and Mimallones), imitated in many things the practices of the Edonian and Thracian women about Mount Haemus, from whom the word threskeuein seems to have been derived, as a special term for superfluous and over-curious forms of adoration; and that Olympias, zealously, affecting these fanatical and enthusiastic inspirations, to perform them with more barbaric dread, was wont in the dances proper to these ceremonies to have great tame serpents about her, which sometimes creeping out of the ivy in the mystic fans, sometimes winding themselves about the sacred spears, and the women's chaplets, made a spectacle which men could not look upon without terror.
Philip, after this vision, sent Chaeron of Megalopolis to consult the oracle of Apollo at Delphi, by which he was commanded to perform sacrifice, and henceforth pay particular honour, above all other gods, to Ammon; and was told he should one day lose that eye with which he presumed to peep through that chink of the door, when he saw the god, under the form of a serpent, in the company of his wife. Eratosthenes says that Olympias, when she attended Alexander on his way to the army in his first expedition, told him the secret of his birth, and bade him behave himself with courage suitable to his divine extraction. Others again affirm that she wholly disclaimed any pretensions of the kind, and was wont to say, "When will Alexander leave off slandering me to Juno?"
Alexander was born the sixth of Hecatombaeon, which month the Macedonians call Lous, the same day that the temple of Diana at Ephesus was burnt; which Hegesias of Magnesia makes the occasion of a conceit, frigid enough to have stopped the conflagration. The temple, he says, took fire and was burnt while its mistress was absent, assisting at the birth of Alexander. And all the Eastern soothsayers who happened to be then at Ephesus, looking upon the ruin of this temple to be the forerunner of some other calamity, ran about the town, beating their faces, and crying that this day had brought forth something that would prove fatal and destructive to all Asia.
Just after Philip had taken Potidaea, he received these three messages at one time, that Parmenio had overthrown the Illyrians in a great battle, that his race-horse had won the course at the Olympic games, and that his wife had given birth to Alexander; with which being naturally well pleased, as an addition to his satisfaction, he was assured by the diviners that a son, whose birth was accompanied with three such successes, could not fail of being invincible.
[21] From Philostratus(170-247 AD), Life of Apollonius of Tyana, 1st Century miracleworker.
[§4] Apollonius' home, then, was Tyana, a Greek city amidst a population of Cappadocians. His father was of the same name [i.e., Apollonius], and the family descended from the first settlers. It excelled in wealth the surrounding families, though the district is a rich one.
To his mother, just before he was born, there came an apparition of Proteus, who changes his form so much in Homer,[4] in the guise of an Egyptian demon. She was in no way frightened, but asked him what sort of child she would bear. And he answered: "Myself."
"And who are you?" she asked.
"Proteus," answered he, "the god of Egypt."
Well, I need hardly explain to readers of the poets the quality of Proteus and his reputation as regards wisdom; how versatile he was, and for ever changing his form, and defying capture, and how he had a reputation of knowing both past and future. And we must bear Proteus in mind all the more, when my advancing story shows its hero to have been more of a prophet than Proteus, and to have triumphed over many difficulties and dangers in the moment when they beset him most closely.
[§5] Now he is said to have been born in a meadow, hard by which there has been now erected a sumptuous temple to him; and let us not pass by the manner of his birth. For just as the hour of his birth was approaching, his mother was warned in a dream to walk out into the meadow and pluck the flowers; and in due course she came there and her maids attended to the flowers, scattering themselves over the meadow, while she fell asleep lying on the grass.
Thereupon the swans who fed in the meadow set up a dance around her as she slept, and lifting their wings, as they are wont to do, cried out aloud all at once, for there was somewhat of a breeze blowing in the meadow. She then leaped up at the sound of their song and bore her child, for any sudden fright is apt to bring on a premature delivery.
But the people of the country say that just at the moment of the birth, a thunderbolt seemed about to fall to earth and then rose up into the air and disappeared aloft; and the gods thereby indicated, I think, the great distinction to which the sage was to attain, and hinted in advance how he should transcend all things upon earth and approach the gods, and signified all the things that he would achieve.
[§6] Now there is near Tyana a well sacred to Zeus, the god of paths, so they say, and they call it the well of Asbama. Here a spring rises cold, but bubbles up like a boiling cauldron. This water is favorable and sweet to those who keep their paths, but to perjurers it brings hot-footed justice; for it attacks their eyes and hands and feet, and they fall the prey of dropsy and wasting disease; and they are not even able to go away, but are held on the spot and bemoan themselves at the edge of the spring, acknowledging their perjuries.
The people of the country, then, say that Apollonius was the son of this Zeus, but the sage called himself the son of Apollonius.
[22] From Diogenes Laertius (200-250 AD), Lives of Eminent Philosophers, 3.1-3, 30
I. PLATO was the son of Ariston and Perictione or Petone, and a citizen of Athens; and his mother traced her family back to Solon; for Solon had a brother named Diopidas, who had a son named Critias, who was the father of Calloeschrus, who was the father of that Critias who was one of the thirty tyrants, and also of Glaucon, who was the father of Charmides and Perictione. And she became the mother of Plato by her husband Ariston, Plato being the sixth in descent from Solon. And Solon traced his pedigree up to Neleus and Neptune. They say too that on the father's side, he was descended from Codrus, the son of Melanthus, and they too are said by Thrasylus to derive their origin from Neptune. And Speusippus, in his book which is entitled the Funeral Banquet of Plato, and Clearchus in his Panegyric on Plato, and Anaxilides in the second book of his History of Philosophers, say that the report at Athens was that Perictione was very beautiful, and that Ariston endeavoured to violate her and did not succeed; and that he, after he had desisted from his violence saw a vision of Apollo in a dream, in consequence of which he abstained from approaching his wife till after her confinement.
II. And Plato was born, as Apollodorus says in his Chronicles, in the eighty-eighth Olympiad, on the seventh day of the month Thargelion, on which day the people of Delos say that Apollo also was born. And he died as Hermippus says, at a marriage feast, in the first year of the hundred and eighth Olympiad, having lived eighty-one years. But Neanthes says that he was eighty-four years of age at his death. He is then younger than Isocrates by six years; for Isocrates was born in the archonship of Lysimachus, and Plato in that of Aminias, in which year Pericles died.
III. And he was of the borough of Colytus, as Antileon tells us in his second book on Dates. And he was born, according to some writers, in Aegina in the house of Phidiades the son of Thales, as Favorinus affirms in his Universal History, as his father had been sent thither with several others as a settler, and returned again to Athens when the settlers were driven out by the Lacedaemonians, who came to the assistance of the Aeginetans. And he served the office of choregus at Athens, when Dion was at the expense of the spectacle exhibited, as Theodorus relates in the eighth book of his Philosophical Conservations.
If fav'ring Phoebus had not Plato given
To Grecian lands, how would the learned God
Have e'er instructed mortal minds in learning?
But he did send him, that as Aesculapius
His son's the best physician of the body,
So Plato should be of the immortal soul.
Phoebus, to bless mankind, became the father
Of Aesculapius, and of god-like Plato;
That one to heal the body, this the mind.
Now, from a marriage feast he's gone to heaven.
To realize the happy city there,
Which he has planned fit for the realms of Jove.
[23] Fuller, Russell. “Names and Namegiving.” The Oxford Companion to the Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 545-546.
[24] (Woodie White, Conversations of the Heart, 115).
[25] (Robert Fulghum, All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten, 76-78).
I thought this was very good. Enjoyed it. I liked the mention of Joseph's righteous being more than the pharisees. In terms of Joseph's role, I was preached a sermon on the fact it is harder to be a good father than it is to rule a kingdom. Think of David, Solomon, Gideon, Eli. Jospeh stands in contrast to these "great" men.
ReplyDeleteWell said
ReplyDelete