Sermon Tone Analysis

“Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place in this way.

When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Holy Spirit.

And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.

But as he considered these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, ‘Joseph, son of David, do not fear to take Mary as your wife, for that which is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.

She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.’

All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet:

‘Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a son,

and they shall call his name Immanuel’

(which means, God with us).”[1]

I confess that I am of two minds concerning the Advent Season.

Certainly, this is a joyous time of the year—filled with parties and good cheer as people seem to be on their best behaviour.

However, it is also a time of intense pressures.

Unrealistic expectations drive many people to excess.

The incident of suicides is increased during this season, the incident of drunkenness with all its attendant problems increases throughout the Christmas season and marital strife resulting from excessive debt incurred during the season is exaggerated.

Nevertheless, Christmas presents a great opportunity to provide teaching about the doctrine of Christ the Saviour—teaching that is woefully neglected by far too many pulpits.

The doctrines that are essential, though essentially ignored, are doctrines that address such necessary truths as prophetic fulfilment, the virginal conception, the humanity of the Master, the deity of the Saviour, and God’s salvation and the faithfulness of God.

To be certain, addressing these doctrines from the pulpit provides opportunity to teach God’s people in great and wonderful truths.

Considered in this light, I welcome the Advent Season.

On the other hand, because these wonderful doctrines are interwoven with the cultural phenomenon of Christmas, many people attend church out of duty during this season, failing to hear what is said.

Others dismiss what is said, refusing to connect the dots, as it were.

Worse yet are the vast numbers of professed Christians who imagine that they know all about the story of Christ’s advent, and tune out what is being taught.

We are not really so very different from the people who were living in Judea during the days when the Master was born.

Many fell into one of those same categories: knowing all about God’s promise, but consumed with their own interests so that they ignored what they knew; dutifully listening to what was said during the days of worship required in the Temple, though tuning out the message that was delivered; or, deliberately dismissing what God had said.

God had promised from the fall of our first parents that He would send a Deliverer.

All peoples familiar with the promise of God should have been living in anticipation.

That they were not eagerly waiting indicates that the promise of His Advent was a promise forgotten in time.

*The Virgin Birth in Context* — Perhaps it is more accurate for us to speak of the virginal conception than it is to speak of the virgin birth.

My reason for making such a statement is that the Bible tells us little about the actual birth of the Messiah; but the account of the Saviour’s conception receives significant attention.

Nevertheless, most people understand that whenever we speak of “The Virgin Birth,” we are speaking of the fact that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived through the work of the Holy Spirit.

It is important to point out that Matthew takes care to stress that Mary and Joseph did not enjoy marital relationship until after the birth of the Master.

Having been informed by the angel that Mary was not promiscuous, Joseph did assume responsibility as her husband, and, as the text states, he “knew her not until she had given birth to a son” [*verse 25*].

Before continuing our consideration of prophesies pointing to the virgin birth of the Messiah, there are several issues surrounding the account of Joseph’s character that I want to address.

Joseph is the focus of Matthew’s account of the conception of the Master.

Whereas Luke’s account focuses on Mary and her reaction to the divine announcement and activity, Matthew focuses on Joseph.

To be certain, Mary’s pregnancy underlies the discussion, but the issue central to Matthew’s presentation is Joseph’s dilemma presented by Mary’s pregnancy.

In Jewish culture, betrothal was somewhat like engagement in our culture, but it imposed a more rigorous set of requirements on those who were betrothed.

If an engagement is broken in our culture, there is no lasting shame attached to either party.

However, betrothal in the Jewish system was tantamount to marriage.

It conferred a legal status on the two individuals such that they were actually considered to be husband and wife.

This is evident from the text when we note that Joseph is identified as Mary’s husband [*verse 19*].

This is not the first time he is identified as the husband of Mary before the marriage ceremony proper [see *Matthew 1:16*].

Parents might pledge their children to marriage at quite a young age, even during infancy.

Of course, the parents would be careful to raise their children to anticipate marriage in that case, preparing them for the responsibilities of marriage.

At a point in time—somewhere between twelve and fourteen for a young woman, and between fourteen and nineteen for a young man—betrothal would occur.

Betrothal lasted for a year, during which time the couple was considered to be legally married, though no sexual activity would be permitted during the betrothal.

The bride’s parents would present the dowry to the husband and the groom’s parents would present the bride price to the parents of the young woman.

During betrothal, the couple would not see one another, often not even being permitted a glimpse of each other.

After a year, the marriage would be finalised as the couple would have a formal ceremony.

The husband would escort his wife to the marriage chamber where the marriage would be consummated.

The bride’s parents would eagerly await the morning to grab the sheets to demonstrate that their daughter was a virgin should a challenge ever arise to her purity.

We do not know at what point during the betrothal Mary was approached by Gabriel.

We do have a truncated timeline informing us that her relative (perhaps her cousin) Elizabeth was in her sixth month of pregnancy with John, who would be called “The Baptist” [*Luke 1:26, 36*].

Upon her return to her hometown, it was evident that Mary was pregnant.

Her condition could not be hidden, and undoubtedly the gossip began.

Eventually, word reached Joseph that his wife to whom he was betrothed, was pregnant.

Perhaps during her absence from her parents she had a dalliance with someone and had been impregnated.

In our day, affairs seem rather commonplace and we are no longer shocked at such a casual attitude toward sex.

However, her condition and the possibility of immorality would have been shocking to Mary’s neighbours.

Joseph’s reaction to Mary’s condition demonstrates the accuracy of Matthew’s assessment that he was “a just man” [*verse 19*].

Technically, Mary was guilty of adultery.

However, by the time of the account before us, stoning of adulterous women was unheard of.

Any woman guilty of adultery would be publicly shamed—disowned by her family and disgraced before her peers, she would likely never marry.

In that culture, it would be a very serious sentence as there would be little chance of her providing for herself.

Should she have an illegitimate child to feed, her situation would be more desperate still.

Joseph had the option of openly distancing himself from her.

He would keep the dowry that his family had received and Mary’s parents would be compelled to return the bride price.

Through such action, Joseph would publicly disclaim responsibility for impregnating Mary and be exonerated of violating social expectations and be absolved of all responsibility either for Mary or for the child she was carrying.

Alternatively, he could ask two or three elders to hear his statement of divorce, in which case he would be formally absolved of all responsibility, and Mary would be spared the trauma and humiliation of public denunciation.

She would be free to grapple with the fallout from her pregnancy as she saw fit, and Joseph would be free of responsibility for her care.

This was Joseph’s dilemma.

He is called a “just man” because of his concern for Mary.

Wishing to spare her public humiliation, he weighed a quiet divorce.

In fact, the text indicates that he had settled on this latter action when we read that he “resolved to divorce her quietly” [*verse 19*].

This is an exceptionally mature attitude by such a young man who was disgraced by the betrayal of the woman betrothed to him.

Despite trying to keep matters quiet, people would know that the marriage did not take place.

They would know about Mary’s condition.

They would be able to put two and two together.

As Joseph was weighing this momentous decision, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream.

It is possible, perhaps even probable, that this was Gabriel, the same angel that had appeared to Mary to announce that she would bear God’s Anointed One [*Luke 1:26*], and who had also appeared to Zechariah to announce the birth of John [*Luke 1:19*].

Since Gabriel had been the messenger dispatched to speak of these miraculous births, it is reasonable to suggest that he also appeared to Joseph.

What is important to note is that the angel assuaged Joseph’s fears, telling him that the child Mary was carrying was not an ordinary child, but one conceived by the Spirit of God.

In fact, Joseph was to name the child “Jesus,” a somewhat common name for Jewish children meaning “Yahweh Saves,” or “Salvation of Yahweh.”

Whether the angel continued speaking, or whether Matthew added a commentary, is uncertain.

In any case, God presents this as fulfilment of a prophecy that had been given through Isaiah concerning a child born of a virgin who would be called “Immanuel” [*verses 22, 23*].

There is a final issue that will assist in providing context for what we read.

We are focused on the evidence of Joseph’s maturity, which is striking.

In particular, note three aspects of his obedience to the angelic message which reveal what can only be said to be exceptional maturity—maturity that outstrips that of many mature men within our own ken.

Remember, Joseph was probably no older than sixteen to eighteen years of age, and Mary was possibly as young as twelve years of age and certainly no more than fourteen.

Joseph was willing to accept the disgrace that would attend marrying this young woman; he was willing to exercise restraint, withholding himself from sexual intimacy with her until after the birth of the child she was carrying; and he was willing to assume responsibility to raise this exceptional child.

Any of these three situations would cause strong men to quail, and would certainly give pause to most men, especially when the child was not the result of their own immorality!

Marrying the young mother, Joseph would be identified as the father of the child she was carrying.

He would be subject to innuendo and gossip—the butt of jokes for the rest of his life.

Knowing this, he nevertheless accepted the burden of marrying the young girl.

Few men would willingly accept the responsibility of marrying a woman whom they did not sleep with.

Of those willing to do such a thing, it would be difficult not to throw the situation in her face each time there was a family blow-up, which comes to all families occasionally.

Having married her, formally accepting before witnesses the responsibility of a husband and of a father, he had no intimate relations with her.

He had not been sexually active for the period preceding this event, and now we know that he had no marital relations with her until after the birth of the child.

This is exceptional in light of the lax morality that characterises this present day.

It used to be that girls agonised over whether to kiss on the first date; today, they obsess over when they should sleep with the guy on the first date.

And men appear to anticipate that a date will conclude with a romp in bed.