Matthew's Pageant (Matthew 1:18-25)

There are many, many ways of telling the Christmas story.  We see this every year through the variety of pageants and nativity scenes we encounter; every one is different!  Last year, here at Bixby Knolls Christian Church, we had a Star Wars clone as an angel in our Christmas pageant! 

It seems that every time the story is told, it’s different.  I suppose there are some who don’t like this; some who would argue that there was no Star Wars clone at Jesus’s birth, that having a Star Wars clone isn’t historically accurate, that it wasn’t what “actually happened.”

Well, come on.  “What actually happened” is a mystery.  Matthew and Luke didn’t write about “what actually happened.”  If they did, their stories would be the same.  But they’re not the same.  They’re two different stories, or at least, two very different versions of the same story.  They each made changes and even fabricated details (just like we did with our Star Wars clone angel), all to help bring out the story’s meaning for contemporary audiences.

So, since we’re talking pageants, imagine that Matthew’s nativity story is his version of a Christmas pageant.  And like any good pageant, he adapts what he heard and adds in a few new details of his own, a little flair. 

In fact, what Matthew does with his version is he decides to tell it as if it were actually an old, old story repeating itself in history.  Matthew’s pageant presents the story of the nativity as a new and improved Exodus.

It’s sort of like how West Side Story is a re-telling of the story of Romeo and Juliet.  It’s a whole new story, and yet at the same time it’s really the same old story.  The story of Jesus’s birth is a whole new story, and yet – as Matthew tells it – it’s really the same old story of the Exodus.

And, Matthew’s nativity story is really just the overture to the gospel as a whole.  It highlights the themes that will appear later on.  This is something that Marcus Borg and Jon Dominic Crossan point out in their book, The First Christmas.

For example, later on in Matthew’s new version of the Exodus story, you will see Moses ascend the mountain to receive God’s law, except this time it will be a mount upon which the new Moses will preach a sermon with a new interpretation of God’s law, what would become known as the Sermon on the Mount.

This whole idea of Jesus-as-Moses is present in Matthew’s version of the nativity story.

So to tell his story – to present his pageant – Matthew takes characters from the first century and places them in the roles of characters from the Exodus.  Herod is given the role of Pharaoh, for example.  And Jesus is the new Moses.

And everyone else gets to be cast as shepherds and sheep.  Oh, wait a second: there are no shepherds or sheep in Matthew’s Christmas story.  In fact, there’s no census, no journey to Bethlehem, and no inn.  There isn’t even a manger!  Those things are all a part of Luke’s Christmas pageant.

In fact, having shepherds and a manger and a star and wise men all in the same story would be like having our Star Wars clone take off on the U.S.S. Enterprise.  They’re two different stories, people!  You’ve got to be very careful if you try to combine them into one story.  They come from two different universes. 

The star and the wise men are from Matthew’s story, and the shepherds and the manger are from Luke’s story.  And the star that Matthew describes shone down on a house.  Not on a stable with a manger.

The wise men in Matthew’s story go to Pharaoh –  I mean, Herod – and ask where is the king of the Jews?  And Herod gets all frightened, because isn’t he the king?  “King Herod.”  “Herod the Great.”  Yes, he is the king. 

But apparently there is this other king.  A threat.  A threat that must be eliminated. 

And so Herod orders the killing of all the first born Hebrew male children. 

Just like Pharaoh. 

And Jesus… In Matthew’s pageant, Jesus is the new Moses, the new deliverer, who comes to set his people free.  The one who, despite all efforts to kill him, survives to bring hope and salvation to the people, because he is the one chosen by God.  In this case, he survives when his parents take him and flee to Egypt, the very land Moses escaped from.

Matthew knew the Exodus story well.  Matthew knew the stories and legends that developed around the Exodus story… additional tales that weren’t part of the Biblical text, but were taught alongside the Biblical text.

For example, the book of Exodus describes how Pharaoh ordered the killing of all the first born sons.  In Matthew, Herod does the same.

But other stories existed, outside of the book of Exodus, that attempted to fill in the gaps.

According to these other stories, Moses’s parents –Amram and Jochebed – decided to get a divorce rather than bear any children that might be doomed to death by Pharaoh.  Better to part ways than to cause any child to suffer at Pharaoh’s hand.

Matthew decided that, since the planned divorce of Amram and Jochebed was a well-known part of the exodus story, then he needed to include a similar divorce scene in his “new” exodus story.  The parents of Jesus needed to get a divorce, for the stories to match.  But why?  What possible reason could Matthew include to explain this?

The reason Jesus’s parents prepare to get a divorce is that Joseph mistakenly assumes that his wife-to-be has been unfaithful.  Divorce is an appropriate response to adultery, so Joseph’s integrity is maintained.  And yet, because Joseph’s assumption is mistaken, Mary’s integrity is maintained as well.

That’s how Matthew incorporates the intention of Moses’s parents to get a divorce into the story of Jesus.

Now, in both stories… in the story about Moses’s parents, and the story about Jesus’s parents, there is a divine intervention instructing the parents not to get a divorce, because the child that will be born to them is the child that is predestined by God to save the people.

So the couples reunite, and they have their child, who is miraculously protected from the king who wants to kill him.

Matthew has now included in his new story the same opening scene with the same three parts: divorce, divine intervention, and a resumption of the marriage.  He’s well on his way to writing the story of a new Moses.

And then after that, we have the scene with Herod and the wise men, which I’ve already mentioned.  Imagine if this were a real pageant that Matthew was directing, with Herod cast in the role of the new, modern Pharaoh.  It is a role Herod just can’t stand to play!  To stand there and have people ask about the king of the Jews, when he himself is the king! 

If this were a staged pageant that Matthew were directing, a new version of the old Exodus story, at this point Herod would storm off the stage in protest.

Let me say again that Matthew’s Christmas pageant is an overture in which all the themes that play out in the rest of the gospel are present.  Jon Dominic Crossan and Marcus Borg even refer to Matthew’s Christmas story as a parable, because it is a story that challenges how people see the world. 

Like the gospel as a whole, Matthew’s Christmas story says:  “You see the world one way?  Here’s a whole different way of looking at it. 

“You think Herod is the king who deserves your loyalty and devotion?  No, that’s Jesus, the new Moses, the one who rescues God’s people from oppressive authority. 

“You think Herod has all the power?  Let me present to you a story that shows just the opposite, that Herod is a fool, really, and that real power belongs to God.  Because even though the powers of oppression try to kill Jesus when he’s a baby and again when he’s an adult, he will never die.  What he stands for will live forever.  He will live forever, because he has the power of God.”

Matthew’s Christmas story presents a challenge to people who might otherwise be content to follow the Herods and Pharaohs of the world, people who might be content to play it safe just in order to keep things quiet and pleasant.  Matthew’s Christmas story is a challenge to folks afraid of rocking the boat.

Just before Thanksgiving I had a little free time so I watched the movie Pleasantville on Netflix.  Have you seen it?  A brother and sister get trapped in a 1950s sitcom world, where everything is black-and-white, and where every day is the same.  And, like a 1950s TV show, everything is pleasant. 

Everything is also bland and boring.

But soon, the people of Pleasantville begin to realize that they have dreams.  They realize that there is more to life than just following the script that had been handed to them.  There is more to life than the same day-to-day routine.

A few people begin to act on their dreams.  It’s scary. They break away from what’s expected of them.  They challenge the society norms that make Pleasantville what it is. 

And a little color begins to appear in the midst of their black-and-white world.

A few of them are so frightened by this, that even though they begin to see color in the world and in themselves, they try to cover it up.  It takes a while for them to learn to embrace how beautiful a colored world is.

But then they begin to boldly explore their dreams, their life purpose, because to not do so would be to remain trapped in their 1950s TV world in which they really have no freedom and no life.

And as they do so, more color begins creeping into their black-and-white world.  And things begin to change in the town where nothing ever changes. 

Some people can’t handle the changes.  They like the stability, the safety, of a black-and-white world where every day is … pleasant.  And thus the conflict is set between those who are willing to take bold, daring steps and see the world in color, and those who prefer the safety and familiarity of a black-and-white world.

In C.S. Lewis’s Chronicles of Narnia, someone asks if Aslan, the lion, is safe.  Is he safe?  No, he’s not safe.  But he’s good.

Is it safe to see color in a black and white world?  No, it’s not safe.  But it’s good.

Is it safe to look to Jesus as king instead of Herod?  No, it’s not safe.  But it’s good.

Matthew’s Christmas story is bold and daring.  It is a challenge to everything people assume about this world, just as the Exodus story challenges everything about Pharaoh’s Egypt. 

Remember how some of the Hebrews, after their escape from Egypt, longed to go back?  Remember how they kept complaining, “Oh, if only we had stayed in Egypt?”

They weren’t free in Egypt.  They had no life of their own.  Their lives belonged to Pharaoh. 

But they were safe.  Pharaoh did provide for them food.  Not great food, but enough to keep them alive.  As long as they lived in Pharaoh’s world – and as long as they allowed Pharaoh’s world to live in them – they were safe.

But once you cross the sea and venture into the wilderness, you leave safety behind.  Life becomes challenging.  The road to the promised land is not easy.  It’s not safe. 

But it is good.

And once you choose to follow Jesus, the new Moses, you leave safety behind.  The path of following Jesus is not easy.  It’s not safe.

But it is good.

This is the path that we are on.  We have chosen to follow the path of Jesus.  We have chosen to live in a world that is filled with color.  We have chosen to live in a world of freedom and love.

It’s not safe.  But it is good.

Let me tell you what I mean.

In 1982, this congregation opened up positions of leadership to women.  It sounds crazy to us today, but back then, women in leadership was a radical idea.  People left churches because of it.  But when Mary Tucker and Doris Smith were elected as this congregation’s first women elders, we chose to see the world in color.

A few years after that, this congregation declared itself a “shalom congregation.”  Now this was during the time of Ronald Reagan’s Star Wars program, when peace through strength was a prominent slogan among people in this country.  But this congregation recognized the Biblical model of peace through justice, and committed itself to working for peace in the world.

Once again, we chose what was good over what was safe.

Many times throughout this congregation’s history, we have made that choice.  We have left the comforts of Egypt behind and ventured into the wilderness.

We did this just two months ago when we made it official that we are an Open and Affirming congregation.  The overwhelmingly positive vote on that was not the safe thing for us to do. 

But it was the right thing to do.  It was good.

And now, like the characters in Pleasantville who risked everything in order to see the world in color rather than in black-and-white, it’s up to us to commit ourselves to the task at hand, to help others see the color, to help others find the love, to help others realize what they were created for and what their purpose is.

It’s up to us to commit ourselves to seeing this congregation through the difficult wilderness wandering.  Let me be blunt:  there are financial challenges.  There are leadership challenges.  There are the challenges of a world that doesn’t look at religion the same way it once did. 

And we have to ask ourselves: do we choose what is safe?  Or what is good?

Ponder that question.  When it comes to the church, are you choosing what is safe?  Or what is good?

We’re still living the Exodus story today.  No one ever said our journey through the wilderness would be safe.  But it is good.  And we’re headed to the promised land.