Sunday, Dec. 23 -- The Nativity

Passages: Matthew 1:18-25, Romans 1:1-7, Psalm 80:1-7, 17-19, Isaiah 7:10-16.

Above: The familiar Nativity set
Below: Nativity scene based on Luke alone

If you look at the two pictures above, you will notice some striking dissimilarities (other than artistic quality). The top is the familiar Nativity set that is displayed in millions of homes and churches. It has everything you'd expect: Shepherds, Angels, Wise Men, animals, Mary, Joseph and, of course, the baby Jesus asleep in a manger. Many sets even have a star that hangs from the top of the stable. The painting below it is based on Luke, and is missing the three magi and the angels. But the wise men and the star of Bethlehem only appear in Matthew, not Luke. There are no Nativity paintings based solely on Matthew, because although the Gospel of Matthew delivers a birth narrative, there is no manger, shepherds, animals or even a minor description of where the birth took place (other than Bethlehem). The familiar Nativity scene crams the two accounts together, which is okay.

The disparity between Matthew's and Luke's choices for witnesses to Jesus' birth (wise men and shepherds, respectively), tell us a lot about their focuses. Luke goes to great lengths to show that Jesus, although divine and conceived through the Holy Spirit, came to us humble and poor. Jesus was born in a stable and placed in a manger. There was no special star for Jesus, no powerful rulers coming to pay homage, and no expensive gifts. The witnesses to this miracle were mere shepherds. Since shepherding required long hours outside, but was not rocket science, often the youngest son of a family was burdened with the task. Notice how young the two shepherds in the painting are. They are just kids! Luke is interested in exalting Jesus by showing how he came to the world humbly and in poverty.

Matthew isn't as interested in that. He doesn't depict Christ as born into privilege, but he doesn't stress it like Luke. Jesus' birth, in Matthew, changes the order of the cosmos. Astrologers from the East see the star and visit Christ and pay homage with expensive gifts. Jesus, instead of being an anonymous birth in a stable, is seen as a political threat to King Herod, who orders a massacre of infants to quell any challenge to his power. Like Moses, Jesus escapes a decree to kill infants from a paranoid tyrant and is taken to Egypt (of all places).

There is another significant disparity in the two birth narratives, one that involves today's lectionary. In the Matthew lection (1.18-25), we are given the account of an angel appearing to Joseph in a dream, exhorting him not to break his engagement with Mary. The passage is not in Luke. In Luke's account, Joseph never has to be convinced to stay with Mary. Furthermore, in Luke the angel's commandment to name the child Jesus is given to Mary, not Joseph. Joseph is actually a relatively minor character in the birth narrative, as Luke devotes quite a bit of time to Mary.

Luke does something unique in devoting so much detail and thought to the women in the story. It is very much in tune with his emphasis on the marginalized, on those with a lower status. In fact, the person with the highest status in Luke's account -- Zechariah, the husband of Elizabeth and a priest -- is struck mute. He regains his voice after the birth of his son, John the Baptist. In yet another reversal of power, relatives wanted to name John Zechariah after his father, but Elizabeth insisted upon the name John. Women are given a special power and attention in Luke's narrative, and it is important to note that.

Matthew tends to focus on the males in the story: Joseph, the wise men, and Herod. Angels appear to Joseph in his dreams three separate times: 1) to foretell Jesus' birth 2) to warn Joseph to flee to Egypt and 3) to tell Joseph it was safe to return to Israel. The commonplace details present in Luke are absent in Matthew. However, the bigger issues absent in Luke are stressed in Matthew. The Gospel of Luke makes no mention of the massacre of the infants or the escape to Egypt.

The two accounts are not incompatible -- as the familiar Nativity scene above demonstrates, it is easy two cram the accounts together and add some harmless details (there is no mention of how many wise men came to visit Jesus). But when reconcile the two birth narratives, we should not forget the differences and details that make them unique. We have four Gospels for a reason: one perspective wasn't nearly enough.

Sunday, Dec. 16 -- the Voice in the Desert

Passages: Isaiah 35:1-10, Psalm 146:5-10, James 5:7-10, and Matthew 11:2-11.

This picture reminds me of Sunday School. John the Baptist -- the Voice in the Desert.

What's in a question?:

Have you ever wondered why Jesus seldom answers a question directly? People will come to him, ask him something relatively straight-forward like “Should we pay taxes?” (Mt. 22.17), but never get a simple answer (“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” Mt. 22.21). In today’s Matthew lection, we get another example of a somewhat simple question: “Are you the one who was to come, or should we expect someone else” (Mt. 11.3)?

Jesus answers: “Go back and report to John what you hear and see: The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised and the good news is preached to the poor” (Mt. 11.4-5). Instead of saying, “Yes I am,” which – to me – is the implied answer, Jesus compares his works to works found in various places in Isaiah (26.19;29.18; 42.7, 18; 61.1), including today’s Isaiah lection (32.5-6). Today’s Isaiah lection reads, “Then will the eyes of the blind be opened and the ears of the deaf unstopped. Then will the lame leap like a deer, and the mute tongue shout for joy.”

Why does he do this? I think it is because he wants to teach people about the scriptures and let them make the connections for themselves. Jesus did not come to dictate faith to people – he was a teacher. Jesus spoke in parables, not only so it would be easy to retell and pass on the stories, but so each person can find meaning in the narrative. Jesus was here for more than just answers – he had a message that was more profound than do and don’t; yes and no.

My roommate in undergrad used to ask me a lot of questions about philosophy, religion and politics (I was a philosophy major and opinion columnist for the university paper, and we were both people concerned with spiritual questions). Often, he would tease me about frequently answering questions, “yes and no…” and then immediately proceed into an explanation. Even though he joked about it, he also appreciated it. My answers revealed not only the answer, but how I arrived there. It also sparked a discussion. After all, he didn’t walk into my room and ask “Do you believe you can petition the Lord with prayer?” for a simple yes or no. He had his own ideas, and he wanted to know mine.

Jesus is so inspiring because, when people ask Jesus questions, he sees what is behind the question, what is on their minds. John’s disciples wanted to know if Jesus was the one John preached would come, if Jesus fulfilled Scripture. But they didn’t come just to see if Jesus was legit, but also if their teacher was correct in his prophecies. It is not a coincidence that Jesus assures the crowd that John is “the one about who is written: I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you” (Mt. 11.10) as John’s disciples are leaving. In just a few verses after the lection ends, Jesus claims John is Elijah: “and if you are willing to accept it, he is Elijah who is to come. Let anyone with ears listen” (Mt. 11.14)! Without directly answering John’s disciples, he gives them what they long to hear, and they learn for themselves.

I am thankful that Jesus not only had answers, but was willing to teach them.