Sermon:
December 9, 2001
Morning Services

Scripture:
Matthew 1:1-25

Every man should have a wife who is as easy to please as mine. When I asked her what she wanted for her birthday, she said: "You don’t have to buy me anything. All I want is a day of your time. I want to drive to Springfield, Ohio, spend a few hours in the genealogical library of the New Clark County Heritage Museum, and then you can buy me dinner at Mancy’s Steakhouse in Toledo on the way home." "Can do," I said. "What about Wednesday?" she said. So I drafted Rod to lead the Wednesday morning men’s group and, on the day before Thanksgiving, we set off for Springfield. It was a good day….especially the steakhouse part. And while Kris didn’t hit the mother lode (genealogically speaking), it was far from a wasted effort.

My wife is good at this kind of research. For which I am often the beneficiary….given the number of "my people" she has found, and how far back she has been able to find them. No blue bloods, Revolutionary War vets or super patriots among my kin. Just a slew of lapsed Catholics and an occasional German Lutheran. What’s amazing is how many of my people were "coopers." Which wasn’t their name, but their occupation….meaning they made barrels for a living.

Ah, but her family has bragging rights. Partway down one line, she qualifies for the DAR. Further down another line, her great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather was the first man (ever) to map the Potomac. In fact, so instrumental were her kin in early colonial history that one day she emerged from the bowels of some library to announce: "Guess what? I just learned that we own the state of Virginia." If that’s true, I’ll see you around. For I am sure she will need help in moving the capitol from Richmond to Williamsburg. But that’s not all. Kris also found a 1704 diary of a female ancestor who announced to her husband that, because Virginia was no place to buy dresses, she was going back to London to shop. Somehow, I just knew it was genetic.

Today’s text begins with Matthew’s version of Jesus’ genealogy. Which may not be your cup of tea….genealogy, as Ernie Bergan tells me, being a relative thing. But with a couple of weeks to kill before labor and delivery, why not do what Matthew did and go out behind the church and rummage around in Jesus’ family graveyard?

Most people don’t, you know. Even serious students of the Bible skip the genealogies. Just a bunch of names, they say….boring to read….hard to pronounce. Dwight Eisenhower said that in his family they had to read the Bible, cover to cover, every so many years. But they were given permission to skip the genealogies. Not so with us. Which is why I suggest that we put on our coats and head off to the graveyard.

But before you start taking notes, I need to warn you that Matthew wasn’t a very good genealogist….if you equate "good" with words like "precise" or "accurate." Everybody agrees that Luke’s genealogy, while not perfect, is better. Counting forward from David to the Messiah, Luke has 42 names while Matthew has but 27.

The fact that Matthew’s list is allegedly divisible into three groupings of 14 names would seem to suggest that Matthew liked pattern more than he liked precision. But a careful count shows that even Matthew’s calculations are off by one, given that the last grouping of 14 has but 13 names. And if Jehoiakim (an obvious omission) be restored, then the second grouping will have 15 names, further messing with Matthew’s math.

Matthew’s list is chronologically organized so as to get from Abraham to David in 14 generations….from David to the Exile in 14 generations….and from the Exile to Joseph in 14 generations. Interesting that Matthew should get to Jesus through Joseph, given that (in the space of a few short verses) Matthew will tell us that Joseph is not Jesus’ father ….if by "father" you mean "progenitor." But there is a Jewish tradition in the Mishnah that if a man "acknowledges" his son’s paternity, there is no reason to question it. So, for just a little while, we will leave things be.

I don’t want to jump to Joseph too quickly, given that there are a lot of other interesting headstones in Matthew’s graveyard. We might start with that big one over there….by the entrance, I mean. You know, of course, that that would be Abraham’s. Given that the weather has had its way with the marker, you probably can’t read the inscription. So I’ll read it for you. Underneath Abraham’s name are the words "A Man of Faith." That’s because Abraham was told (by God) to get up and go….and (by God) he got up and went. He didn’t know where he was headed when he started. Neither was he exactly sure where he had reached when he finished. But his willingness to go, that was the thing. Or perhaps it was his willingness to go after he had been retired….maybe that was the thing.

If you look beside Abraham, you will see markers for Isaac (his son) and Jacob (his grandson). What you will not see are markers for Sarah (his wife), Rebekah (his daughter-in-law) or Rachel (his granddaughter-in-law). Which is too bad, don’t you know. But back in those days, women were just sort of the "also people." Which, sadly, didn’t change much over time. For some of you will remember that when the Bible describes the crowd that Jesus fed by the lakeshore (over 1800 years later), it says that there were 5,000 men present, not counting the women and the children.

But there are women mentioned in Matthew’s genealogy. There is Tamar who seduced Judah, and Rahab who was militarily useful to the Jews, but who the Bible unabashedly records as a prostitute. Ruth is also mentioned, she whose devotion we love to sing at weddings ("Thy people shall be my people and thy God, my God"), even if Ruth’s devotion was expressed to her mother-in-law rather than her husband….which always makes me wonder why we sing it at weddings. And then there’s mention of Bathsheba (although Matthew doesn’t cite her by name but simply calls her "Uriah’s wife"). Everybody knows that Bathsheba got in a family way with David while she still had a husband (who wasn’t David). But David solved that little problem by ordering Bathsheba’s husband to the front lines where he was conveniently killed as a hero.

Those are the women Matthew names….a less than tidy quartet. But they do make the list gender-inclusive (therefore, politically correct). Could it be that Matthew was hinting at a day when the male-female distinction will not matter so much….at least not in churches?

The other interesting thing about these four women is that none of them were Jews. Tamar was an Arab. Bathsheba, a Palestinian. Ruth was from Moab, meaning that you and I would consider her a Jordanian. Could it be that Matthew was also looking down the road to a day when, in the name of Jesus, nationality wouldn’t matter either….just as gender wouldn’t matter? Who knows? Maybe someday.

Out in the center of the graveyard is David’s monument. Wouldn’t you know that David would be in the middle? As if everything before him flowed to him, while everything after him flowed from him. That’s because if the Messiah was ever going to amount to anything, he had better have David’s mantle resting on him, and it wouldn’t hurt to have a little of David’s blood flowing through him. Ask yourself sometime: "Why was Jesus born in a nowhere burg like Bethlehem?" Because that "nowhere burg" was David’s town, that’s why.

Following David, Matthew gives us a long line of kings. Some of them aren’t even worth mentioning. We probably ought to pause by Uzziah’s marker. He was the teenage king, barely 16 years old when he took over. Which didn’t do him much good. He died a leper. And we shouldn’t overlook Manasseh. He ruled for 55 years. But he was pretty much abhorred by everybody….including God. Yes, I know he’s got quite a monument there. But two bits says he paid for it himself. I can’t imagine anybody contributing to it voluntarily.

Now Josiah, there was a king who deserved a monument. Good king, Josiah….although he should have been a preacher, what with all the scripture he knew, coupled with all the reforms he brought to the Temple. Wonderful, godly man, Josiah. Truth be told, Josiah is probably the best guy in the Bible you never heard of. Why is it that even here (in the Holy Book), scoundrels sometimes get more ink than the good guys? Does that surprise you? It surprises me. But since we’ll not settle that here, let’s move on to this other marker starting with "J"….this marker dedicated to Joseph (the last name on Matthew’s list).

Does this mean that Joseph is the father of Jesus? Well, no….yes….no. I know you hate it when preachers do that. So why don’t we just go back to the text, letting it be what it is, letting it say what it says. It all begins with Joseph engaged to a woman named Mary who, though she may have been very young, was of an engageable age. And you know, of course, that engagement (then) was a much bigger deal than it is now. Engagement was a legal thing, breakable only by going to court. If an engaged man died during the period of "betrothal," his fianceé was referred to as "a virgin who is a widow." That’s how serious engagement was, don’t you see. The engaged couple was as close as close could be….without being too close (if you get my drift).

But now it appears….you knew it was going to "appear," didn’t you….I mean, it had to "appear"….that this young engaged woman is pregnant. What is Joseph to do? Or perhaps there is a prior question. Where is Joseph going to get advice (of a kind that will help him decide what to do)?

I suppose he could go public with the problem. There are a lot of good people who would have volunteered opinions. Joseph could poll them, asking: "I suppose you can see what’s happened to Mary. What do you think I should do?" Joseph must have some friends. He must also have some folks. And there’s always the church….the coffee house….the club room….the chat room. Good counsel exists everywhere. How about Dr. Laura, Ann Landers, Sonya Freidman? Joseph can’t go wrong there. They’re all Jewish.

But Joseph chooses not to go that way. Why? Because Joseph does not want to expose her…. "further," the text should add (given that Mary’s condition was already exposing her). Joseph wants to keep the lid on. No publicity. No embarrassment. No shame. Therefore, no consultation. So where else could he turn for advice?

What about the Bible? After all, people always say: "Just do what the Bible says. You can’t go wrong if you do what the Bible says." Don’t people always say that? I mean, don’t some of you say that? Matthew says that Joseph is a "just man." At least that’s the way it reads in the older versions of the Bible ("Joseph, being a just man, was unwilling to put her to shame"). That’s exactly that it says. And what, in this context, does the word "just" mean? I’ll tell you what it means. It means one who knows and practices the Law. It means one who knows Torah (the first five books of our present Bible). But, for Joseph, Torah is the definitive Bible for his day.

And what does Joseph’s Bible tell him to do about Mary? I’ll tell you what it tells him to do about Mary. From Deuteronomy 22:13-24, it tells him that "she is to be taken out and stoned in front of the people." That’s what it tells him. Although latter-day Jewish practice moderated that a bit, allowing him to hand her a writ of divorce in the presence of two witnesses. "If you find something displeasing in your wife (or, by extension, in your fianceé, I suppose), just give her a certificate in front of a couple of guys from the shop." Then you can say: "Sayonara, sweetheart….so long, it’s been good to know ya." You think I’m being facetious? You can look it up. It’s in the book. I mean, the book. Even then, don’t you see, there were people who carried a 43-pound Bible around with them, saying: "Just do what the Book says." History is full of such people. Not the least (nor the last) being the Taliban who, beginning in 1993, slammed their 43-pound Book on Afghanistan with the words: "The Book says."

Well, we’ve got Joseph here. And Joseph is not only a good man, but (as Fred Craddock says) a man who rises in this crisis to a point that is absolutely remarkable for his day and time. Joseph knows his Bible. Joseph loves his Bible. But, assisted by something that comes to him (or arises within him)….sort of like an angel in a dream….he learns to read his Bible through a certain kind of lens. He learns to read his Bible through the lens of a God who is loving and kind. And then he marries Mary. Can you believe it? He actually marries her. And the only defense he has for those who tell him how stupid he is (parents, brothers, friends), is to say: "I can’t explain it. I just dreamed it."

One wants to ask: "Joseph, where in your Bible does it say that marrying Mary is the right thing to do?" I’ll tell you where it says it. It says it in the nature and character of God. Which makes Joseph the first person in the New Testament who learns how to read the Bible. I like that. And, even better, I like what Fred Craddock says as a follow-up to that:

If, in reading the Bible, you find justification for abusing, humiliating, disgracing, hurting or harming anyone….especially when you do so from a posture of superiority, or in order to make you feel better about yourself….you are absolutely wrong. The Bible is always to be read in the light of the goodness and grace of God.

There is so much to like in Advent about Joseph….a man who is better than his times….better than his circumstances….better than his friends… .better than his Book. You and I can rest easy. I think that Mary will be safe in his hands. I think that Mary’s baby will be safe in his hands. I think that God’s baby will be safe in his hands. I think that Joseph will change the baby….clothe the baby….feed the baby….care for the baby….provide for the baby….see to it that the baby goes to church….see to it that the baby learns a trade. Because, without all that, there won’t be much of a future for the baby. Maybe no future for the baby.

What are you going to call a man like that? Well, I could live with a lot of names. But "father" is the one I like best.

Note: I am once again indebted to Fred Craddock, who first mined Matthew’s genealogical territory a few years ago in a sermon entitled "God Is With Us."

As concerns biblical genealogies, most of them are less concerned with historical accuracy than with making a theological statement. Matthew begins his genealogy with Abraham, thereby rooting Jesus firmly in the Jewish tradition. Luke (3:23-38) works his genealogy backward to Adam, thereby rooting Jesus in the human condition.