Oh tidings of comfort and joy, comfort and joy
Oh, tidings of comfort and joy.
Says the old carol- the angels bring glad tidings of comfort and joy.
And yet, nothing about this week's scriptures makes me comfortable. I’ve been wrestling with them for the whole week, and while I know we’re supposed to find some nostalgic comfort in the birth narrative in Matthew, I am instead discomforted by it. There are a lot of things Matthew expects us to just take at face value here, and I’m not entirely sure it’s all a good idea. Here are my major issues with the way this goes down.
Mary is “Found to be width child from the holy spirit” before she is married to Joseph.
The focus of the text is almost entirely ON Joseph
Matthew uses Isaiah in a really irresponsible way.
And when I focus on these issues I come away with more questions than answers.
Now I’m not going to debate the whole “literal virgin birth” issue here, but I will say only Matthew discusses it this way. In Luke, we get the visitation from the Angel and we get the Magnificat- Mary gives consent and declares her understanding of what is happening to her. We get a full story of how she came to be “with child.” But that’s not how Matthew handles it. In Matthew’s version, Mary is “found to be with child”- see how passive that is? This doesn’t give Mary any agency or power in the story. She hasn’t gotten to say yes, and she hasn’t been shown processing the news. Her pregnancy is something that happened TO her, not with her involved. I feel like this is a pretty important nuance.
No, instead of all that beautiful language about Mary and Elizabeth or the words of the Magnificat, we get a detailed lineage. We get ancient ancestry.com and a detailed family tree of Jesus’ lineage. And, in a story where the focus is almost entirely on Joseph? We’re given Mary’s lineage. Why? Well, a couple of reasons. The first is, that in Judaism, the faith is passed down through the mother, so the mother’s family tree matters a great deal. But the second reason is that through Mary, Jesus’ lineage can be traced all the way back to Abraham, and therefore Jesus is directly a recipient of God’s promises to Abraham. This is Matthew’s way of establishing Jesus as very important.
But as important as matrilineal descent is, Matthew’s focus on Mary stops there. The rest of the story is about Joseph. And this also makes me uncomfortable. At no point in this scripture do we hear directly from Mary. She is just a vehicle in the story- she is quite literally just a womb here. She is the means for the fulfillment, not an active participant in the process. This really bugs me. She’s the one who has been “found pregnant” and has to carry the child, deal with the stares, and ultimately give birth in a time period where giving birth was a very dangerous proposition. She doesn’t even get to SPEAK in this passage. She doesn’t get to tell Joseph what had happened. She doesn’t get to tell anyone. Instead, she has to rely on an angel to do that work for her and convince Joseph that she’s carrying God’s child. WHY?
The easy answer, unfortunately, is because is the man. And because Matthew was written by a man in a society that preferenced men, of course, the focus was going to be on the man in the story. Matthew was not the radical that Luke was, so he wasn’t going to be concerned with the marginalized. He’s concerned with the powers that be: the religious elites. And the religious elites? They are men. So of course Matthew’s version centers the Man and his righteousness and how wonderful he is for not turning Mary away. To be clear, I don’t begrudge Joseph his moment or his story. I don’t doubt that finding out your fiance is pregnant, and not by you, is traumatic and awful. In fact, one of my favorite songs “Wasn’t his child” explores that. But that’s not my issue. My issue is that Joseph’s comfort is prioritized over that of the woman who is literally bearing all of the responsibility. His story cannot and should not be more important than hers, especially considering the lengths Matthew goes to establish HER as the lynchpin in Jesus’ genetic history.
But my biggest source of discomfort with this text is the way Matthew uses Isaiah. There are several issues here, the least of which is that he used the Septuagint translation of Isaiah which uses the word parthenos, which can be translated, and often is, as “virgin” as opposed to the Hebrew version which uses the word ‘almah which means young woman. These are two very different understandings of WHO will be bearing a child. Further, as we have discussed before, prophecy in the first testament is NOT ABOUT predicting the future, so the words in Isaiah cannot be about some far-off-in-the-future birth.
The situation in Isaiah is about what was happening right then. Robert Cornwall explains it this way, “In Isaiah 7, the prophet is focused on the situation at hand, where the king (Ahaz) faces a dilemma. The Assyrians are on the march. His neighbors want to force him to join their alliance against the Assyrians. Ahaz is considering aligning himself with the Assyrians, hoping that becoming a vassal state will save his throne (that’s what he ultimately does choose). Isaiah, however, wants Ahaz to go in a completely different direction, and that is to trust not his neighbors or the Assyrians, but trust the God of the covenant promise. To support this vision, Isaiah offers a sign—a child will be born to a “young woman” (Heb. ‘almah) and before he is weaned his neighbors will no longer be a problem (they’ll be destroyed). So, put your trust in God (Is. 7:10-17).”
This prophecy had nothing to do with anything far in the future. I’ll never forget hearing a midrash on this scripture from Isaiah when I was in seminary. My professor, Dr. Lisa Davison (who I have often brought up in my sermons) portrayed the young woman about whom Isaiah was speaking. She depicted a woman who was pregnant and struggled with being pointed out by the prophet as some sort of example. And it is this version of Isaiah that I picture when that scripture is read, so it causes me discomfort and quite a bit of cognative dissonance to see Matthew use it as a way of proving that Jesus is the Messiah. That wasn’t Isaiah's intent!
So I get really uncomfortable with Matthew’s constant “proof-texting” of the prophets because I understand how prophecy worked- and this is NOT it. To be clear, divorcing Jesus’ birth from these prophecies doesn’t make Jesus LESS of a messiah or less important. In fact, I’d argue that not relying on proof-texting makes Jesus as a person MORE intriguing and more believable because we’re not getting caught up in the nuance of prophecy and instead focusing on his work in the world. But that’s neither here nor there.
The point is that Matthew’s telling of the story is uncomfortable because it doesn’t center on what is important. It focuses on the past and on the patriarchy rather than focusing on the future and God’s work in the world. It’s almost defensive in its posture- as if defending Jesus as the Messiah is more important than telling Jesus’s story. So does that negate what happens next?
Jesus is named in a way that means Emmanuel- or God With Us. Now, Matthew again sets this up as proof of what happened in Isaiah, but if we separate these two scriptures, naming Jesus– JESUS still matters. But Jesus doesn’t mean “God Is with us” it is a transliteration of the name Yeshua- Joshua which means “God is our salvation.” That’s important but it’s not the same thing as God is with us. But that’s where this connection with Isaiah comes in again because THAT child was to be called “God is with us” so, calling Jesus “Emmanuel” matters because that calls the Isaiah prophecy to mind. But it’s MORE Important because calling Jesus “God with us” is a powerful reminder that God IS with us in many ways, and in this particular way- in this particular person who was born to Mary. Again, Robert Cornwall notes, “This child’s birth will be a sign that God is with the people, so they can put their trust in God’s continued presence even in a moment of crisis. While Mary’s son will be named Jesus, he fulfills the promise of Emmanuel.”
So what if instead of looking at Jesus as a fulfillment of prophecy, we look at him as a fulfillment of a promise? See, this isn’t about God fulfilling a prophecy that Isaiah made in a specific situation. Rather, Jesus birth is about God fulfilling a promise to be with us and to bring us light and hope. When we separate Matthew and Isaiah, Jesus’ story gets stronger, not weaker. We can see his work as separate from any prophecy. We can appreciate him for His work in the world and for the mark he made in his 33 years on the planet. We don’t need to misuse a hebrew scripture to make Jesus’ life meaningful JESUS made his life meaningful. And in so doing, he fulfilled God’s promise of Immanuel- God with us. It’s a different way of thinking about it, but it’s a more honest picture of who Jesus was and what his life meant.When we think about it that way, perhaps we can find more comfort than discomfort!
Amen.
Cornwall, Robert. “The Everlasting Light Shineth—Lectionary Reflection for Advent 4A (Matthew 1).” Accessed December 15, 2022. https://www.bobcornwall.com/2022/12/the-everlasting-light-shinethlectionary.html.
Davison, Lisa W. “Immanuel: Isaiah7:10-16,” n.d.