Lectionary Sermon for Christmas 1 (29 December 2019) on Matthew 2:13-23

No flight of Fancy
You have to hand it to Matthew in the way he follows a sense of wonder for the coming of Jesus with the grimmer bits. First we had the angels, a Virgin Birth and even the wise men and a guiding star…a good story, filled with awe and wonder and even with a touch of magic. Now in today’s reading suddenly Matthew switches the mood of his story from pure wonder to pure horror. Herod is furious. Learning that he has been tricked by the wise men, who, despite their previous promise, evidently have no intention of coming back with information about a potential king being born in the area, Herod now in effect throws his toys. He flies into a rage and sends his soldiers to kill all young male infants in the neighbourhood. Joseph and Mary are warned and flee with the baby Jesus to Egypt.

Many modern scholars happen to claim that this story seems unlikely as literal history. In the first place it seems at odds with the parallel story in Luke which has no flight to Egypt, and in the second place, none of the detailed contemporary histories of Herod record such an event. On the other hand, even if Matthew was recounting this story almost as if it were a parable about Jesus, it offers more than a typical “midrash” or pious legend. If the world was all sweetness and light after Jesus arrived on looking back ,we might have side-lined the bad bits, yet the grimmer bits are inescapable and even today the real world is not transformed, even at Christmas.

Matthew’s version of Christmas is important because first it matches what historians describe the time into which Jesus was born. The misfortunes which befell many of that time created more than enough refugees to have the commentators on the Bible passages find parallels with previous ages. I suspect there were so many incidents where ruthless rulers and invading forces exacted terrible punishment on the population that I am by no means certain that a small scale massacre of infants (some suggest maybe 20 or 30 for the then size of Bethlehem) would have made it into the histories of the day.

Even if Matthew was only intending his story as parable, it is still plausible for the age. The Romans’ occupation and the dark moods of King Herod can but only have exacerbated the vast number of refugees almost constantly on the move. The Jews in particular seemed to be singled out as easy targets and historians point to the large population of Jews scattered to the cities of neighbouring countries. For example Alexandria in Egypt was claimed to be host to something like a million Jews at the time of Christ.

No matter what we decide about Matthew’s story of Herod, we have plenty of evidence to confirm to us that Herod was a dangerous neighbour. He may not be independently confirmed to have ordered the murder of the infants of Bethlehem but child murder was very much part of his character. For example he had three of his own children murdered on the grounds that they may have been plotting against him, and for good measure had one of his ten wives executed for adultery.

The Emperor Augustus is said to have remarked about Herod that it would be safer to be Herod’s pig that to be one of his sons. As an aside we might note that since the Greek word for pig (hys) sounds very close to the Greek work for son (hyos) we might assume that this was intended as a pun to entertain the Roman nobility who spoke fluent Greek at the time.
The second reason why Matthew may have wanted to stress the flight to Egypt was because some of the prophecies that Matthew quoted drew a parallel between Jesus and Moses.

So Moses took his wife and his sons and set them on an ass, and
went back to the land of Egypt. – Exodus 4.20

This is very close to Matthew’s rephrasing for Joseph and his family flight to Egypt

And he (Joseph) rose and took the child and his mother, and went
to the land of Egypt.

For Matthew’s readers, the image of Jesus as a new Moses returning to lead his people out of their bondage would be readily understood symbolism. After all here we had the infant Moses saved from almost certain death, and brought up in Egypt so that he might rescue his people…. and now in Matthew’s parallel story Jesus saved from almost certain death to be brought up in Egypt that he might rescue his people.

For Matthew’s readers listening to the words of this gospel at a time when once again the refugees were fleeing Israel this time from the wrath of the Romans after yet another Jewish rebellion had failed, there must have been those wondering if God had not only abandoned them but had deliberately set about destroying them. The modern parallel of God deliberately destroying is revisited by the religiously credulous time after time in the aftermath of each new major disaster. Yet Matthew pulls back from this conclusion.

What Matthew appears to be trying to teach as an alternative is that when disaster threatens, for some who take wise action there may be a way through.

Although other accounts may fail to highlight Joseph and Mary and the baby Jesus as refugees, to fail to notice refugees is hardly a new phenomenon in the Bible lands. This is why Matthew’s account is a challenge for us today. Christmas with its tinsel, carols all add to the Christmas shopping mall experience, not to mention piles of presents under the Christmas tree.

In practice much of what we do seems designed to take us far from the challenges of the real world where many will miss out. For many Christmas is a time of joy – it is true – but don’t forget the joy is supposed to be about one come with a message that can make a difference to the problems of the real world. We emerge from the Christmas celebrations where we rejoice at Jesus coming to address the problems – yet over the next few weeks we are reminded from his teaching that this addressing of problems is through the actions of his followers. We are hardly true to the message if we pretend that the problems are not there. Matthew does not shy away from that part of Christmas. Perhaps we might learn to do likewise.

What have we seen this Christmas? There was no miraculous intervention to free the multitudes in the refugee camps. The mass prisons in China, the riots in Iraq, in Hong Kong, in Iran, the steady stream of frightened and dispirited refugees from the Middle East and some of the Central and South American countries, grossly unfair trade practices, the widening gap between the rich and the poor , the fires in Australia, the deforestation of the Amazon … none of these is automatically set aside by the arrival of Jesus.

Yes Jesus may well have come as Messiah two thousand years ago but the joy at his coming should be interpreted as forced and artificial if a good proportion of His followers see no urgency to make any difference to those who suffer today. But here is the point. If we claim Jesus came to transform lives, whose fault is it if we measure Christianity by the numbers claiming to be members of his Church?

Face it, if many continue to suffer, there is not much point in blaming Jesus if at the same time we as his followers are not doing our best to be his eyes and his hands in a world where pain continues to be part of the Christmas season.

This of course should not be taken a judgement on all Christians today. In reality there are a good number who work tirelessly on behalf of those who suffer. On the other hand accepting responsibilities for doing something in response to the situations we encounter is individual in nature and just because someone in our immediate circle is doing something in response should not provide the excuse for total inaction on our behalf. We cannot be followers of the Christ child by proxy.

If we go back now to Matthew’s account of today’s gospel we might notice a strange twist at the end. We can certainly understand that the family of Jesus would have been reluctant to return to Bethlehem despite the death of Herod. By all accounts Herod’s son was every bit as ruthless as his father and it made perfect sense to settle further away in the little hillside town of Nazareth. The problem comes when Matthew, ever ready to find parallels for Jesus in the prophecies inserts the words: 23There he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, “He will be called a Nazorean.” (or in a number of translations “Nazarene”)

The truth of the matter, as William Barclay points out is that there is actually no such prophecy – or at least not in the part of the scriptures often referred to as the Old Testament.

As an aside, as Barclay reminds us, the ancient writers often used puns and plays on words. Accordingly Barclay suggests that here Matthew may be intentionally playing on the words of Isaiah in Isaiah 11:1 : “There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots.” The Hebrew word for branch is Nezer which in turn looks and sounds virtually identical to the Hebrew word for the word Nazarene which seems to have been Netser and which presumably means Matthew is saying for the scholars in his audience that at one and the same time that Jesus was from Nazareth (the Netser) while in another sense he was being Isaiah’s promised Branch or nezer from the stock of Jesse, the descendant of David, or if you like, the promised Anointed King of God.

It is an interesting metaphor which implies a question. If Jesus was indeed a branch from the stump of Jesse, how might we who wish to be part of his mission, become grafted into that same stump? Now that is a challenge for reflecting back on the Christmas season.

This entry was posted in Christmas, Progressive Sermons, Sermons and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Lectionary Sermon for Christmas 1 (29 December 2019) on Matthew 2:13-23

  1. Thank you Bill. I’m a retired minister doing an extended supply in a church where the minister is ill and I was struggling. I like it. Hope you don’t mind it being lifted.

  2. peddiebill says:

    I never object to ideas being lifted. In some ways it has the advantage of sharing the ideas further afield. However make sure you put your own ideas in as well and don’t be afraid to criticise when you disagree. I am sure much of my thinking is half-baked because I only have limited time for writing and the Sunday dead-line is always a challenge at the end of a busy week.

    • Oh don’t worry I will change it to suit my own style, but the basic structure is good. Btw there is a typo you have put Israel when you meant Egypt in the Moses/ Jesus comparison. Do you think the Christmas donkey comes from the Exodus Moses one?

  3. peddiebill says:

    Well spotted for the typo. I had missed it ….which come to think of it is not a new phenomenon!
    The donkey would certainly make sense in terms of the prophecy and needed for the trip but perhaps we probably shouldn’t even be certain that Matthew wrote this part (even as a parable) since I have been told earlier versions of the gospel didn’t carry his name for the first 200 years, during which there were some “improvements!!” Don’t quote me on that because I am not a specialist.

    • I only noticed the Typo as I was changing the quotes into NIV>
      According to Green in his New Clarendon Bible commentary St Ingatius of Antioch +115 knew about it. However Papias 130-150 has Matthew writing a logia in Hebrew but people then translating it as they were able.
      Thanks for the sermon

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.