Sermon Tone Analysis

Matthew 1:18-25

It amuses me when modern commentators on the Bible refer to the culture of Jesus’ day as being an honor-shame culture as though this isn’t the case today.

But we have all kinds of shaming today.

For example, there is fat shaming.

In fact, shaming and the bullying that goes with it has driven many to suicide.

This seems to happen often on social media all too often.

Despite our hubris as having advanced from ancient culture, we are all to much like them.

People have never wanted to be put down, and honor is as important as ever.

The Sensei in Karate Kid could not answer “honor garbage” were it not for the fact that honor is still highly valued.

We have some who even try to steal this honor.

Politicians have faked military service or have greatly exaggerated their military exploits in order to gain status.

Others fake their resumes and education.

These all point to the appearance of honor, and when they are confronted and deny, they are all to much advertising that shame is alive and well in the world today.

So what has all this to do with the Christmas story?

A casual glance at the accounts would seem that there isn’t much of a connection.

But the connection is actually quite strong.

Let us look into the Christmas account according to St. Matthew.

Matthew’s account could be described as the Christmas story according to St.

Joseph in comparison to Luke which is written from Mary’s point of view.

Joseph gets comparatively less attention than Mary, and perhaps this is right.

Even this is a reversal of the norm of the day where men were honored, and women were pushed into the periphery.

We know from the genealogy that Joseph was a descendant of King David.

We don’t know whether Matthew’s genealogy is the literal genealogy of Jesus or the right of kings genealogy which can be described as the next in line to be the King of Israel.

I tend to thing the latter.

The right of king genealogy recognizes that a particular line might die out and that a new line be traced from the closest possible kin in the ancestry.

We know that the line of kings through Solomon died out at Zedekiah whose children were killed.

The next in line to be king would have to be traced from another ancestor of David.

So we know there is a break in the line of physical descent.

Luke probably traces the actual genetic descent from David, and there the line traces through David’s son Nathan.

If this reckoning is correct, then Joseph was first in line to be King of Israel.

This indeed is a position of honor, except the kingship was in the hands of Herod the Great, an usurper, who wasn’t even Jewish but a Edomite.

Joseph and Mary appeared poor enough to offer only two turtledoves at Jesus’ dedication.

The Hasmonean kings which ruled over Israel’s brief independence weren’t properly next in line, but as they say around here, branch kin.

So Joseph is an honorable man with an honorable pedigree who was held in relative obscurity and even contempt.

The story tells us that Joseph was engaged to Mary.

An engagement held the same validity as marriage and could only be dissolved by divorce.

In the most conservative interpretation of the day, divorce was only allowed if the woman was found not to be a virgin.

The engagement was usually made in the bride’s village between the father of the groom and the father of the bride.

But they were not allowed to come together and consummate to marriage.

It was the groom’s responsibility to return to his home village and add a room on to his father’s house.

Only when that room was finished and all the supplies needed for a week long feast stored up could the groom return with the best man to the bride’s village to call the bride and her kin (the entire village) to the feast.

The consummation would happen during this feast.

It would be the greatest of shame for protocol not to be followed.

Joseph was in the middle of preparing when word got to him that Mary was pregnant.

Joseph was an honorable man and had been faithful to his vows.

We can only imagine what he thought about this report other than it disturbed him.

He pondered over his action.

As the Romans alone held the power of the death penalty, he probably could not have her stoned.

But he could publicly shame her in the presence of the village.

She and the child she bore would be permanently shamed.

The child would be called the son of his mother rather than his father which said that he was illegitimate.

Joseph was obviously grieved, but decided to quietly divorce her.

But she would still be shamed and so would the child.

But Joseph, the son of Jacob had a dream.

Like his namesake, God spoke to him through dreams.

He was not to be ashamed to take Mary as his wife, because this birth was the sole exception to what everyone would ordinarily think.

She was with child by the Holy Ghost.

So Joseph obeyed and went and took Mary to be his wife.

The room had not been finished.

The supplies had not been stored for the feast.

There would not have been the great festivity which accompanied weddings, provided a moment of joy in a very difficult world.

When Joseph takes her, he is taking responsibility for being the father of the child.

This may very well have caused Joseph to have been shamed and shunned by his own family in order to remove the shame from Mary and the son she was carrying.

There is some evidence for the view.

First of all, Nazareth was Mary’s home village.

As Nazareth was too small for two family groups to have lived in, Joseph probably came from another village.

And to where does Joseph go when he takes Mary, to her village!

As Mary’s parents would have carefully seclude her from all male contact during the engagement, they had no choice but to believe her when she got pregnant.

Mother guarded the door to the inner room.

She would notice anyone who came in the normal way.

Gabriel must have just appeared.

At any rate, she was believed.

The next clue comes when the notice from Caesar’s taxmen came and ordered everyone to go to their original tribal village and be enrolled in a census for the purpose of taxation.

Joseph went to Bethlehem with his wife being great with child.

It was a long and difficult trip.

Mary and Joseph must have been utterly exhausted.

They came to the inn, but there were no rooms available.

If you were in a snowstorm on the Interstate and found a room in the only hotel in a small town, being relieved that you had found a warm bed on a cold night, if confronted by a poor exhausted and in labor with her concerned husband, not give up your room for her, even though the couple was complete strangers?

But no one gave room, but these were Joseph’s kinfolk!

What else, other than shunning could explain this!

Joseph and Mary were being shamed!

So Joseph and Mary found lodging in a sheepcote.

But despite the intention of the decree of Augustus and the lack of hospitality offered to Joseph and Mary, the prophet Micah said the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem.

What better place for the God’s Lamb to be born than in a sheepcote!

The Virgin Mary, she was still a virgin as Joseph did not know her until after she delivered, gave birth to a son.

Joseph claimed fatherhood by naming the child Jesus.

All generations have rightly called Mary “blessed,” but how blessed is Joseph also.

He was willing to accept shame where he deserved no shame.

A man of honor was seen as a disgrace.

What an example he sets for men today!

What an example he set for the son he claimed fathership of.

And what of the Son that was born that night in Bethlehem?

He had left His glory above to be born in shameful conditions on the earth He had Himself created.

He who did not think it robbery to claim equality with God humbled Himself utterly.

He who was the most Honorable of all would suffer the ultimate shame of dying on a cross.

Why would He do such a thing?

It is we who are most contemptible and shameful of all, who deserve no honor in the sight of God who deserve to be shamed.

But what has this man done?

Nothing at all, not the least shameworthy thing.

Yet He bore our shame.