The story of the kingdom

Recently I've been devotionally using Terry Johnson's helpful book, The Parables of Jesus.

One of the things that I've been taught as I've studied these parables is to be careful to look at the context into which they are spoken. They were never spoken into a vacuum. Sometimes the immediate context is given; other times, one needs to work it out.

This has made me think about the context into which Jesus speaks the parables of Matthew 13 (and their equivalents in Mark 4 and Luke 8). I'd never really thought about the context of these parables. But now I think they are addressing false ideas of the Messiah and the kingdom that were about in the 1st Century.

The disciples expected the kingdom to come through a military victory; Jesus says that the kingdom comes through responding rightly to the word of God. The disciples expected the kingdom to inaugurate a radical new era; Jesus says that the kingdom really has come but will coexist with evil until judgement comes. The disciples expected the kingdom to be irrepressible; Jesus says that the kingdom will be opposed but will grow anyway. The disciples expected the kingdom to arrive with fanfare and victory; Jesus says that the kingdom has tiny beginnings and is established, miraclously but normally through gradual growth. The disciples expected to experience immediate victory in the kingdom; Jesus says that it will require sacrifice - but that it is worth infinitely more than the cost of discipleship. Indeed, entering the kingdom is worth it - whatever the cost.

These lessons of the kingdom were instructive not only for the disciples, but also for us. I've been particularly encouraged by the way in which Jesus says that the kingdom grows. It's true that the kingdom sometimes grows spectacularly - but more often it grows slowly and gradually as individuals accept Jesus' Lordship over their lives.

Jesus and the Law (2)

On several occasions, Jesus seems to imply that the keeping of individual laws is unimportant. However, I think that a closer look at these texts actually suggests that Jesus is making a greater point: that the desire to keep the Law in obedient response to God’s goodness and grace is more important than legalistically keeping individual laws. See, for example:

• Matthew 7:12. As Jesus starts to close the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus ‘sums up’ the Law and the Prophets by saying, ‘do to others what you would have them do to you.’ This interpretation of the essence of the Law robs it of its legalism without completely belittling it.
• Matthew 9:13. In the context of responding to the charge that he ate with sinners, Jesus quotes Hosea 6:6 in telling the Pharisees: "Go and learn the meaning of this: 'I desire mercy, not sacrifice'" (see also Matthew 12:7). He seems to be saying that the place sacrifice is itself pointless if it is not accompanied by a commitment to obediently keeping God’s Law. This will show itself in showing mercy to others.
• Matthew 23:23-24. In accordance with the Law, Pharisees tithed one tenth of their produce as the first tithe, which was to be given to the Levites, who then were to tithe to the priests (see Leviticus 27:30-31 and Numbers 18:21-32). In accordance with their understanding of the Law (I believe in accordance with the oral Torah), Pharisees separated a second tithe, intended for consumption in Jerusalem during the festivals (cf Deuteronomy 14:22-29). In Matthew 23, Jesus criticizes the Pharisees for observing the tithing laws with such exactness that they tithe even garden herbs, but neglect "the more important matters of the Law – justice, mercy and faith." Note that Jesus does not counsel the Pharisees to give up tithing; however, but they must not to miss the ‘more important’ issues of the Law – those of loving their neighbours as themselves. They should not 'strain out the gnat but swallow the camel', presumably by which Jesus means to be so concerned with less important commandments that one neglects obedience to the whole thrust of the Law.
• Mark 12:28-34. In this episode, with Jesus is asked what the greatest commandments in the Law are. Jesus replies, quoting from Deuteronomy 6:4-5 and Leviticus 19:18: “Love the Lord your God” and “love your neighbour as yourself.” Any Jew would probably agree up to this point. However, some would presumably have been surprised by the fact that Jesus then endorses the statement that obedience to these two commandments ‘are more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.’ Jesus’ implication is this: love for God and for other people will express itself in the commitment to sacrifice; not to treat sacrifice as an end in itself.

Jesus seems to make a distinction between legalistic Law-keeping and obedience to the Law as a whole. The whole Law is to be obeyed, but an attitude of commitment is more important than obedience of individual laws. Above all, Jesus stresses purity of heart, out of which naturally flows obedience to the individual laws. When the heart is pure, therefore, little else is necessary.

It is also worth noting that Jesus seems to object to any idea of what it means to obey the Law that might possibly lead to hypocrisy. In Matthew 23:5-7, for instance, Jesus objects to the Pharisees who appear to be righteous, but are not. Because they wear religious clothing (in the light of Numbers 15:38-39 and Deuteronomy 22:12), people assume wrongly that the Pharisees are obedient to God in every other respect. In fact, Jesus says the Pharisees obey the Law primarily in order to receive public acclaim. Jesus’ words on giving, prayer and fasting (Matthew 6:1-18) may also fit in here. These things in themselves are good disciplines – but not if they are done self-righteously.

Wedding sermon: Greg & Alex Tedford

Here is the sermon I preached at the recent wedding of Alex and Greg Tedford, minus the introduction. I was really happy to be asked to preach evangelistically at their wedding, and they gave me the passage: Matthew 7:24-29.

I’d like to introduce you to two men. They are called Eric and Ernie: Eric Fool and Ernie Wise. Ernie wanted to build a new house. He had just floated his Internet Company on the stock market and made millions. He was a happy man. So he built a huge house with a swimming pool, helipad and nine-hole golf course. He was living in the lap of luxury. Eric had also had a lucky break. He’d just won the National Lottery. Eric’s house was just as glamorous as Ernie’s down the road – it also included a swimming pool, a helipad and nine-hole golf course. In fact, Ernie and Eric were pretty much identical. They had the same lifestyle and built the same houses in the same location.

But then one night a huge storm broke out. It was the most ferocious in living memory – much greater than anything we’ve seen in Britain this summer – and it caused a torrent of water to wash down the valley and hit both houses full on. But when the storm had eased and morning broke, the two houses could not have been more different. Ernie Wise’s house was still intact. Sure, there was a bit of flood damage on the walls, and the golf course would have to be redone, but apart from that the house was fine. Next door, however, was nowhere to be seen. Eric Fool’s house had completely disappeared. All that was left was the remnants of the tennis court and a couple of bottles of Pinot Grigio floating down the stream. And the reason? Ernie Wise had asked a surveyor for advice. The surveyor had told him to dig deep foundations since that area was sometimes liable to flooding. Ernie’s house was built on a solid foundation. Eric didn’t bother. He’d heard the surveyor’s advice, but thought that it was a bit extreme. He thought that the storm and flood would never come. But they did. And his house came down with a crash.

What I’ve just done is retell a story that Jesus of Nazareth told on a mountain in Galilee nearly two thousand years ago. It’s a famous story – in fact, if we’re to be technical, it’s a famous parable: a story with a point. So what’s the big point of Jesus’ story? It’s not so much architectural advice that Jesus is giving here as making a more profound point: a house is only as strong and as good as its foundations. A house is only as good as its foundations. And I guess that seems like good advice. We’re all aware of things which have looked strong, but have proved to be built on a flimsy basis. But Jesus’ application of this principle is, perhaps, surprising. Listen to how our reading started: ‘Everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man.’

And so, here’s the shock: Jesus says that a wise person makes sure that they have got good foundations – but secondly, that he is one whose teaching provides just that sort of firm foundation for the wise person. In other words, Jesus is saying that his words are, when put into practice, a solid foundation that will last when the storms come. But he’s also saying that it’s possible to miss out, to be foolish – to hear his words and ignore them. Like the foolish man in the story, the advice goes in one ear and out of the other. And so Jesus says: you are wise if you listen to my words and put them into practice. They provide a foundation for life.

Well, we’d certainly have to admit that Jesus’ words caused ripples of effect when the original audience heard them. When the crowd hear this teaching, they are amazed because, as our text says, Jesus ‘taught as one who had authority, and not as the teachers of the law’. We can perhaps miss the significance of this phrase. The context is this. In Jesus’ day – and ever since then – Jewish teachers have taught by starting with pieces of the Old Testament and discussing what great teachers have made of them. Teaching becomes a matter of laying out what other people have said, rather than any individual teacher offering their own new line of interpretation. The teachers hid behind the great rabbis of the past and claimed no authority of their own. But Jesus didn’t teach like that. He never hid behind anybody else’s authority. He claimed authority of his own. He didn’t speak about the great heroes of Israel’s past. Read any of Jesus’ teaching and you’ll see that he is shockingly blunt: this, he says, is what I say to you. Never mind what you’ve heard elsewhere. What I have to say trumps all of that. I speak the truth. Or, as we read in our passage, if you listen to my words and put them into practice, you are wise. If you do not, then you are foolish.

We’d certainly have to say that Jesus’ words rattle our 21st Century cages. We’re perhaps not used to people speaking as plainly about the truth as Jesus does. We’ve grown used to the idea that each of us only has a slice of perspective on reality and so we’ve grown wary of telling people how to live.

But the difference with Jesus is his perspective: he claimed to be God in human form, and the earliest Christians believed Jesus to be telling the truth in this claim. The church was founded on this premise. And so as God in human form, Jesus claimed to speak with unique authority. He speaks as though he alone has a God’s eye view of the universe. I guess I could stand here and give advice on how to make your marriage work, but I've only been married 12 weeks - I've not yet got much experience! I guess we could turn to people here that have been married for thirty, forty or even fifty years. But even their insight falls short of that of Jesus. As God, he uniquely is best placed to tell us how to live. That’s how Jesus could say that a person is a fool if they ignore what he has to say, and wise if he puts it into practice. And even those of us here today who aren’t Christians would surely agree that, if Jesus is God in human form, then he’s got to be worth listening to.

Well, what would it mean for us to listen to Jesus? Well, firstly to Alex and Greg, the people of the moment, I’d like to say this: I hope that there are three in your marriage. Not in the Princess Diana kind of way (!); rather, I hope that you’ll work hard to include Jesus in your marriage. The Bible’s teaching is that marriage is not merely a human institution made up by people, but is something invented by God. Just as things work best when we follow the manufacturers’ instructions, so marriage works best when we follow God’s instructions and put them into place. And so Jesus, the God-man, had plenty to say on marriage and how people should treat each other.

Alex and Greg – I hope that you’ll spend time in your married life soaking up Jesus’ teaching. You’ll read of how marriage functions best when you put each others’ needs before your own; you’ll read of how important it is to forgive each other quickly when you’ve been wronged; you’ll read of the husband’s responsibility to love and honour his wife, and the wife’s responsibility to submit to her husband’s leadership of the marriage. And I hope you won’t just listen to Jesus on this, but that you’ll put what he says into practice. If you do so, then your marriage will have strong foundations.

But there’s a second application here to all of us. It’s true that Jesus’ words provide a foundation for life. The storms are certainly those things which happen to us during everyday life. We can get through them trusting in Jesus. But more importantly, and this is to what Jesus alludes to here: putting Jesus’ words into practice sees us through the ultimate storm of death. If we have taken Jesus seriously and followed him then God’s judgement on our lives is nothing to fear. See Jesus wasn’t just a spin-doctor. He didn’t just come to talk. Read on in one of the gospel accounts of Jesus’ life in the Bible and you’ll find that Jesus didn’t just come to meet with his friends, but to die for his enemies. Through his death upon the cross, Jesus the God-man, took the punishment that we deserve for rebelling against God, so that we might be forgiven and reconciled to God. And Jesus promises that this forgiveness is open to everyone, regardless of what you are live and what you have done. All that you must do is agree with the diagnosis that Jesus makes of your life – that you need God forgiveness, made possible through his death on the cross – and turn to him. That’s what both Greg and Alex have done. They’ve listened to Jesus’ diagnosis and they have realised that only his death provides a cure.

So how will you respond? Will you give Jesus a fair hearing? Build on his words and you build for eternity. Ignore them, and you ignore Jesus at your peril. Realise that whilst you consider Jesus’ diagnosis a bit extreme that you are in peril. And so I know that the best wedding present that you could give Greg and Alex today is to commit to giving Jesus a fair try. It’s why they asked me to speak of this passage today. It’s the forgiveness that Jesus offers that both Greg and Alex have found, and is set to be the bedrock and foundation of their married life.

A puzzle

I'm currently putting together in my head a more substantial posting about Jesus and the kingdom, but here's a puzzle I've come across as I've been working through Matthew's Gospel - why the long section and great detail about the execution of John the Baptist (in 14:1-12)? How does this emphasis help Matthew's agenda in writing his gospel?

The question perhaps becomes more pointed when we bring Mark's account into play. In the 'tabloid gospel', where it seems space is rarely dedicated to details that are unimportant to the theological account of Jesus' life, death and resurrection, a relatively vast section is dedicated to the beheading of John the Baptist (6:14-29).

Here are a few thoughts that I've had, but I'm still puzzled and would like to hear what others think.

My first reflection was that (in Matthew's Gospel at least, and it's on this Gospel I'll focus), the account of John's beheading follows Jesus' rejection in Nazareth (see 13:53-58). Jesus is the 'prophet without honour in his home town'. John is another prophet who is rejected. I'd wondered whether this was an allusion drawn upon in parable of the tenants in 21:33-46. However I now think this can be ruled out because John's beheading is clearly by Gentiles, whereas the parable focuses on Jewish rejection.

I then wondered if this section links together the preceding chapters, which focus on the nature of the kingdom (especially chapter 13) in the face of increasing Jewish hostility to Jesus, and a section which perhaps focuses more on the effect of Jesus' mission on the Gentiles. The faith of the Canaanite woman (15:21-28) in the face of the Pharisees' legalistic emphasis on righteousness is noticeable and it's probable that the feeding of the four thousand (15:29-39) was in Gentile territory. Peter's confession of Jesus as Christ and Son of God is certainly in a Gentile town dedicated to Caesar, Caesarea Philippi. I still think that this idea still might have some merit.

My most recent thought is that the ministries of John the Baptist and Jesus are tightly linked in Matthew's Gospel. Clearly, Jesus is greater than John, but they have the same message - 'Repent for the kingdom of God is near' - in 3:2 and 4:17. Both are opposed by the Pharisees and the Sadducees. Now could it be that the pattern continuing? Is John's unjust execution at the hands of the Gentiles prefiguring Jesus' own similar death (20:19)? After all, whilst John had perhaps expected the Messianic kingdom to immediately be established, Jesus reminds him that although the kingdom is advancing, it will never come without opposition (see 11:11-13). Is this why Jesus' reaction to the news of John's execution is to withdraw by boat to a private place, where he can process this more and pray upon it as he reflects on his own future suffering and death?

As I say, this remains something of a puzzle, and I'd love to hear other thoughts, as I'm keen to understand more of Matthew's mind and to discover more about the Christ I worship and follow.

More on the Transfiguration

Since jotting down a few thoughts on Jesus' Transfiguration, I've come across some articles written by Stephen Williams and published in Themelios in 2002 in two parts, available online here and here.

I'd commend them to read, but my favourite part of the two articles is a quote from A. Michael Ramsay. Beautifully, he said that the Transfiguration '... stands as a gateway to the saving events of the gospel, and is a mirror in which the Christian mystery is seen in its unity. Here we perceive that the living and the dead are one in Christ, that the old covenant and the new are inseparable, that the Cross and the glory are of one, that the age to come is already here, that our human nature has a destiny of glory, that in Christ the final word is uttered and in him alone the Father is well pleased. Here the diverse elements in the theology of the New Testament meet.'

"This is my Son...."

The UCCF North West team had a really stimulating team day at the beginning of the week with Simon Austen from St John's and St Peter's Church in Carlisle. He spoke on the importance of proclamation in evangelism, and most of his time was spent showing how the proclamation of the gospel is a fulfilment of Jesus' ministry in Luke 24 and Acts 1.

However, Simon also spent time unpacking the core of the gospel from Romans 1:1-6. I was particularly fascinated by his treatment of verse 4: '... and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God, by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.'

The idea that Jesus was the Son of God, of course, was not something that was alien to him before his death and resurrection. Time and again throughout the gospels we see Jesus recognised to be the 'Christ' - 'the Anointed One', the 'Son of David' or the 'Son of God' (terms which, within Jewish thinking are fairly interchangeable - coming as they do from the OT expectations of Psalm 2 and 2 Samuel 7, amongst other places). As I've been reading through Matthew's Gospel I've been struck by the way in which those who do the recognising are perhaps those we'd least expect to make the connection - including a Gentile centurion (8:8-9), two blind men (9:27) and a Canaanite woman (15:22, amazing within the context of Judges 1:30-33). Meanwhile, those who we'd most expect to recognise the Christ - the religious teachers who spend their lives with the noses in the very Scriptures that testify about Jesus - reject him: the Pharisees (9:3, 11, 34; 12:14, 24), the teachers of the law (15:1-2, 12) and the Saduccees (16:1). Even John the Baptist, the great prophet, has a wobble (11:2).

Within this context then, it's interesting to note the points at which God declares Jesus to be his Son, the Messiah. They are in chapter 3, as Jesus begins his public ministry, and at the Transfiguration (in chapter 17). It's surely no coincidence that it's at the Transfiguration that God the Father reiterates his declaration of Jesus' Sonship and the imperative, 'Listen to him!' In Jesus' ministry, Jesus has just spoken of how he will be a suffering Messiah (16:20-21) - an idea abhorrent to Jewish ears (16:22). How the disciples needed to hear the words of God the Father's endorsement of his Son, 'This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him!' (17:5).

And so then, back in Romans 1, why does Paul say that it's only through his resurrection that Jesus is declared with power to be Son of God? Simon's helpful pointer was that it's through Christ's resurrection that he's shown with power to the Son of God. In other words, it's not only that he's declared to be Son of God, but also shown to be Lord - something of which the disciples got only a taster at the Transfiguration. It's through his resurrection and ascension to the Father's right hand that Jesus is shown to be the Lord of the Universe, God's appointed Ruler and Judge. And so Paul's summary of the gospel is seen in a new depth: Jesus Christ our Lord - Jesus is both Christ - Messiah - and also risen Lord and heir of the Universe (a formula also used by Peter in the climax of his sermon at Pentecost - see Acts 2:38).

What a reminder of the core of the gospel that those four words - 'Jesus Christ our Lord' form! What a reminder that the gospel is foremostly not about seeing needs met or about humans at all, but about the one worthy of praise, honour and worship as Christ and Lord! How amazing that this very same, God-given message is also the salvation for everyone who believes!

Love: the fountainhead, spring and ocean

I have carried on my study through Matthew's Gospel in recent weeks. It has been wonderful and I've been struck again by the tenderness of Jesus as he comes to rescue sinners. It's been thrilling to hear him proclaim and model the coming of the Kingdom.

Alongside this, I took John Piper's recent book What Jesus Demands from the World with me on honeymoon. Piper has collected together all of the commands and imperatives of Jesus' teachings from throughout the four gospels and assembled them together. What I love about this book is the way in which Jesus' heartbeat for his ministry, for his Father's glory and for the lost thumps through loud and clear, as does his hatred for hypocrisy and external legalism.

I was particularly moved by the chapters on love. Piper homes in on one of Jesus' most famous commands: 'Love your neighbour as yourself'. Each of the parts of this short sentence are then considered: 'love', 'your neighbour' and 'as yourself'. By the end of the chapter on 'as yourself' I think I saw in a new way the radical love that Jesus calls those in the Kingdom to show. What an incredible reminder for someone who had been married just a few days!

Perhaps the one thing that I'll remember above all is the way in which Piper draws attention to the similarities and differences between Matthew 7:12 ('So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets') and Matthew 22:37-40 (where Jesus speaks of the greatest commandments - loving God and loving your neighbour - and where he adds, 'On these two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets'). Piper explains the difference in this way:

'[In Matthew 7:12] Jesus said that the Law and the Prophets lead to and find expression in love. But here in Matthew 22:40 Jesus is saying the reverse: love leads to and finds expression in the Law and the Prophets. The Law and the Prophets are hanging on - depending on - something before them, namely, God's passion that this world, this history of humankind, be a world of love to God and radical, other-oriented love to each other.'

I find this amazing! In other words, the purpose of the Old Testament - the Law and the Prophets - is fulfilled when people love their neighbour as they love themselves: love is the anticipated response to God's Old Testament word. Matthew 7:12 makes that clear. However, the whole Old Testament was giving - it hangs upon - God's very desire that his people love him with all their heart, soul and mind and because he longs for people to love their neighbours as themselves! Piper puts it this way:

'I believe that it would not be too much to say that all of creation and all the work of redemption, including the work of Christ as our suffering, dying, and rising Redeemer, and all of history, hang on these two great purposes: that humans love God with all their heart, and that from the overflow of that love we love each other. Which means that love is the origin (Matthew 22:40) and the goal (Matthew 7:12) of the Law and the Prophets. It is the beginning and the end of why God inspired the Bible. It's the fountainhead and spring at the one end and the shoreless ocean at the other end of the river of redemptive history - remembered and promised in the Word of God.'

As I say, what a well-timed wake-up call to one entering into marriage - what a brilliant reminder of Jesus' demand for sacrificial love as I get used to putting my wife before me in everything. But also what a reminder for those of us who would describe ourselves as Evangelicals, as those who have a high view of Scripture. Evangelical Christians are so often caricatured as bigoted and graceless - in my view often wrongly, but sometimes with an element of truth. Piper's exposition of these verses in Matthew remind us that a high view of Scripture is not a replacement or a substitute for the sacrificial love embodied and exemplified for us in Christ. Indeed, a high view of Scripture should, as Piper shows, drive us with a new seriousness and commitment (with the Spirit's help of course) to a deep sacrificial giving of ourselves for our neighbours in whatever way we can. I, for one, pray that God will take away my all-too-selfish nature and help me to do so.

... all this took place to fulfil what the Lord had said through the prophet ...

What did Matthew understand by Jesus fulfilling Old Testament prophecy about the Messiah?

He certainly believed that Jesus fulfilled the prophetic words of the Old Testament, a quick look at Matthew chapters 1-2 alone confirms that. But what has struck me this week is the varied ways in which Matthew seems to apply Old Testament prophecies to Christ. Below are some examples of how Matthew saw that the early part of Jesus' life was the fulfilment of OT prophecy.

Matthew 1:20-23

20But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."

22All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23"The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"—which means, "God with us."

Bishop Tom Wright suggests that there is no evidence that anyone before Matthew saw Isaiah 7:14, which he quotes here, as being something that would be fulfilled by the coming Messiah. Isaiah's prophecy certainly originally referred to events that took place some 800 years before Christ, with the birth of Mahershalalhashbaz, Isaiah's son. Matthew evidently saw in the name 'Immanuel' and in the theme of a special child (in Isaiah 7-12) the foreshadowing of a greater fulfilment in Christ.

Matthew 2:3-6

3When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. 4When he had called together all the people's chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Christ was to be born. 5"In Bethlehem in Judea," they replied, "for this is what the prophet has written:

6" 'But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah,
are by no means least among the rulers of Judah;
for out of you will come a ruler
who will be the shepherd of my people Israel.'"

A fairly standard use of prophecy - a specific prediction about the future from Micah 5:2 about where the Messiah was to be born. However, it is worth noticing that Matthew also weaves in 2 Samuel 5:2, on which Micah's prophecy was seemingly based. Again, Matthew is drawing attention to the kingship of Christ.

Matthew 2:13-15

13When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. "Get up," he said, "take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him." 14So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, 15where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son."

A curious prophecy, as it seems Matthew has taken Hosea out of context! Hosea 11:1, which is cited here, looks back to the exodus where God's 'son' (see Exodus 4:23), Israel, was called out of Egypt. It seems that Matthew is using the return of Jesus from exile in Egypt to point to part of Jesus' future role and vocation as the true Israel, who succeeded in being a 'son' where the people of Israel failed (see especially Matthew 4:1-11).

Matthew 2:16-18

16When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. 17Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled:
18"A voice is heard in Ramah,
weeping and great mourning,
Rachel weeping for her children
and refusing to be comforted,
because they are no more."

This next quotation provides a prophetic backdrop to Herod's slaughter of the baby boys in Bethlehem, and is taken from Jeremiah 31:15. Chapter 31 is one of the chapters in Jeremiah's prophecy about the renewal of the covenant, whereby Israel is finally brought back from exile. Rachel was the mother of Joseph, who in turn was the father of Ephraim and Manasseh. Ephraim and Manasseh were the northern tribes that had gone into exile in Assyria. In Jeremiah's prophecy, Rachel's weeping stands for the grief of Israel. In Jeremiah 31, this weeping is answered by the Lord's prophecy of restoration.

How does this apply to the slaughter in Bethlehem? The best explanation I have found that Rachel was buried near Bethlehem (Genesis 35:19) - she weeps again for her people. However, Matthew's citation Jeremiah 31 gives the hint that there is more to come: rescue is on the way, and there will be deliverance even when things seem bleak and hopeless.

Matthew 2:21-23

21So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. 22But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, 23and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene."

This prophetic fulfilment is perhaps the most curious of all, since 'He will be called a Nazarene' is not a line in the Old Testament at all. Consulting the commentaries, it seems that several explanations have been put forward to attempt to explain this. However, for me, the key to understanding this verse is that fact that Matthew says that this was the word of the prophets (i.e. plural). Given what we know about first Century Jewish contempt for those from Nazareth (see John 1:46, for instance), could it be that Matthew is saying that Jesus' Nazarene upbringing is a fulfilment of Scripture that prophesied that the Messiah would be despised and rejected (see, for instance, Isaiah 53?).

What I find really interesting about all of this is that Matthew saw that Christ fulfilled the Old Testament at a whole series of levels. He saw that Christ fulfilled specific prophecies, but he also saw that Christ fulfilled the whole story of the Old Testament, a story of the nation of Israel and its history. He also saw that Christ fulfilled more of the ideas about the Messiah that are sketched but not drawn into specific prophecies. He saw Christ as a greater rescuer than the rescues that God had performed for his people in the Old Testament. This is instructive for us: we impoverish ourselves if we see Christ's coming as only a fulfilment of the more famous predictions of the OT: the whole thing points forward to Christ and his fulfilment (see Matthew 5:17-20).

Matthew 1:1-17: Jesus' Genealogy

I have spent most of the last couple of days ill with a headache, fever and stomach ache (and I don't think it's just 'man-flu'!) It's been pretty miserable, but in my more lucid moments I've enjoyed continuing to work my way again through Matthew's Gospel.

As it happens, Dave Bish has also been blogging on Jesus' genealogy. My most recent study in Matthew caused me to read through an old sermon I gave last summer. Matthew certainly believed that Jesus was the Christ, and both the son of Abraham and the son of David. I'd appreciate your comments....

‘Mr and Mrs Dursley, of number four, Privet Drive, were proud to say that they were perfectly normal, thank you very much.’

‘When Mr Bilbo Baggins of Bag End announced that he would shortly be celebrating his eleventy-first birthday with a party of special magnificence, there was much talk and excitement in Hobbiton.’

‘It is a truth universally acknowledged that a single man in possession of a good fortune must be in want of a wife …’

As you’ve probably worked out, these are the famous opening lines of three novels, one by JK Rowling, one by JRR Tolkien, and the other by Jane Austen. And all three demonstrate how important an arresting start is if you want to hook your readers. A BBC competition recently asked people to send in the opening line that they would have if they were to write a novel. The winner was this: ‘I cannot write, not even letters to friends, but I want to write my story as much for you to read it as for me to understand it.’

We know a riveting opening is important if we want our readers to read on. And then we come to the opening salvo from Matthew’s Gospel that we just read. It hardly seems like a gripping start! And we perhaps give Matthew half an excuse as he’s not writing a novel, but a historical account of Jesus’ life. But it’s only half an excuse, because his dusty introduction just seems to reinforce our suspicions about the Bible. We read something like this, and it just seems so old-fashioned and archaic, so out of date and out of touch, so odd. And we know that historical detail is sometimes appropriate for a biography but, we ask, what popular biography would begin this way, with a family tree? Couldn’t Matthew have just dived straight in with the account of Jesus’ birth, and tucked this away in the small print at the end, perhaps in an appendix?

But, what we’re going to see this morning is that Matthew’s genealogy would have been such an arresting start to his first-Century Jewish readership that it would have completely knocked the stuffing out of them.

In Jewish culture, like many cultures around the world today, genealogies played a more important role than they do in Western European culture. In British culture, the only time that your ‘family tree’ comes into play at all really is if you’ve traced yours, itself just is a popular and light hobby. Ancestors can sometimes be a bit embarrassing, but that’s all really. There’s a story about an American family who were keen to trace the story of their family tree, and they hired a genealogist to do the research. Unfortunately he uncovered the truth about Great Uncle Zachary. Zachary had been convicted of murder, held on Death Row, and in the end executed by electric chair. The family were a bit snooty and ‘over-respectable’. So they asked the genealogist to tweak that bit of the entry to conceal the truth. This is what he came up with: ‘Great Uncle Zachary worked for the department of justice for a number of years, after which he was given a chair in applied electronics at a well-known government institution. He became quite attached to it, held there by very strong ties until eventually he died. His death came as quite a shock.’

But in Jewish culture, genealogies were far more important than here; as your ancestors were thought to say something about where you had come from. And if you look, you can see that Matthew has carefully arranged Jesus’ genealogy, as we see in verse 17: ‘Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.’ It echoes verse 1, at the beginning of the genealogy: ‘A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham.’ So Matthew has arranged Jesus’ family tree carefully, and put it into three sections; a drama in three acts, if you like. And we’ll see that actually Matthew was right not to dive straight in with Jesus’ birth, as Jesus’ birth isn’t the beginning of the story, and his arrival didn’t come as a surprise. And as we begin to understand the point Matthew is making here, we’ll begin to understand why Matthew was so excited about Jesus.

Act 1: Jesus: The Son of Abraham

The first act covers verses 2-6, and corresponds to Jesus’ claims that Jesus is the ‘son of Abraham’, as we read in verse 1. Now if you were a 1st Century Jew, you’d know who Abraham was. Abraham was considered the founding father of Judaism. But here Matthew calls Jesus the ‘son of Abraham’ - drawing explicit attention to the fact that Jesus is a descendent of Abraham - as he reflects on one of the promises made by God to Abraham that we can read about in the Old Testament of the Bible.

Abraham lived some two thousand years before Jesus. In fact, as many of you will know, Abraham wasn’t always called Abraham. He was originally called ‘Abram’, which meant ‘exalted father’ – but had his name changed by God to ‘Abraham’ – which means ‘father of many people’. Do you remember the amazing promise that God made to him? God said this, ‘I will bless surely you and make your descendents as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendents will take possession of the cities of their enemies, and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.’

Did you notice the promises there? For a start, God told Abraham that he would have many descendents. That may not sound particularly amazing to you, but we read that when the promise was made, Abraham was 90 and his wife Sarah, couldn’t have children and was also a pensioner – far too old!

But did you notice that there’s still more to God’s promise? ‘Through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed.’ Somehow, through Abraham’s offspring, God would bless the whole world. The one true God, the Creator, the God of the Universe, will bless the world through Abraham’s offspring. Every single person. I guess that Abraham wouldn’t have quite known how that promise would work out. After all, it’s no easy thing to do something of bless just one person, or one family, let alone the whole world! Think about it: if you wandered down to Southend sea-front and just wanted to bless all of the people there, you’d have to make a lot of effort. Let alone blessing the whole town, or the whole country. Yet God promises Abraham that somehow he will bless the whole world through his offspring.

Back in Matthew 1, verses 2-6 show how this promise to Abraham began to get worked out in Israelite history. As you’ll know, supernaturally, Abraham’s old wife Sarah gave birth in old age to a son called Isaac, and we read about him next in the genealogy: ‘Abraham was the father of Isaac’. And we can read on as Abraham’s descendents grew in number: ‘Abraham was the father of Isaac, Isaac the father of Jacob, Jacob the father of Judah and his brothers, Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar, Perez the father of Hezron, Hezron the father of Ram, Ram the father of Amminadab, Amminadab the father of Nahshon, Nahshon the father of Salmon, Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab, Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth, Obed the father of Jesse, and Jesse the father of King David.’

Several hundred years pass between the time that the promise is made to Abraham and the time that David is born. By this time, Abraham has thousands of descendents and they were all living together in a country, Israel. So far, God has kept his promises. But can we really say that the promise of blessing has occurred through Abraham’s offspring? We see hints of it in the genealogy – from nowhere Matthew includes Tamar, Rahab and Ruth; three women, none of whom were Jewish, they weren’t descended of Abraham – but there’s certainly no sign of Abraham’s offspring blessing the whole world.

As the Old Testament story progresses, we see this promise become sharper: it will be one of Abraham’s descendents – a particular person – who will benefit the world. And so when we read in Matthew’s account that Jesus Christ is the son of Abraham, we should begin to get a tinge of excitement, because Matthew is saying this: we’ve been waiting for this descendent of Abraham through whom God is going to bless the world – and guess what, he’s arrived!

Act 2: The Son of David

The second of our three acts is covered by the second half of verse 6 to verse 11. All of the people mentioned in this part of genealogy are kings. All of their reigns are recorded in the Old Testament. Of these the greatest King was a man named David. David ruled over the ‘Golden Age’ of Israel’s history: it was a period when the country was prosperous, there were military victories and the people generally lived in a way respectful that God was their ultimate ruler. David himself was a wise king, and a good king.

In 2 Samuel 7, of the key chapters in the Old Testament, which I’ve put down on your handout, God made a promise with his king, David. In some ways this promise is similar to the promise that God made with Abraham. However, this time the promise is seen to be even bigger and even better than before. Let’s read these verses together: ‘When your days are over and you rest with your fathers, I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, who will come from your own body, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for my Name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. I will be his father, and he will be my son. When he does wrong, I will punish him with the rod of men, with floggings inflicted by men. But my love will never be taken away from him, as I took it away from Saul, whom I removed from before you. Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever.’

Now there’s two levels of meaning to this here. On the one hand it’s referring to David’s son Solomon - he is the one going to build the temple [verse 13], and he is the one who will be punished when he messes up. But the promises also seem to point even beyond Solomon, don’t they? We see God promising that the kingdom he has established will be established forever. And this promise became associated with a particular person, a particular king. It was an incredible promise.

See, one of the problems with leaders is that they change so often. So often you have a good leader – but then they die or are voted out. British history, like the history of so many other countries in the world, is peppered with occasions when a good king reigns, only to be followed by a really bad one. So for instance, the relatively a good king, Richard I, Richard the Lionheart, was followed by a bad king, called King John.

And so it’s amazing, isn’t it, when God promises David that somehow there’s going to be this good King, whose kingdom will last forever. More than that, from elsewhere in the Old Testament, we read that this King’s reign will have positive consequences for all of the people in his kingdom. And God promises that this special king will win a victory that will bring peace. I don’t know, but I guess that none of us has ever lived in a war-zone – it must be terrifying. We see the horror of war on our television screens all too often. But this king will bring peace, once and for all. Peace in the world seems impossible to us. We’ve seen this week that top diplomats and the United Nations can’t seem to bring peace across the world, not even in the Middle East alone. But God promises that there will be one King who will reign perfectly, and who will have a fantastic victory that will bring peace.

The closest that Israel got to this King was David, but the genealogy records that even David slipped up. Back in Matthew 1, we read in verse 6: “David was the father of Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife.” You may know the story: King David was up on the top of the roof of his palace, and saw a married woman called Bathsheba showering naked. Well, as King what did David do? He ordered the married woman to come up to his palace, where he slept with her. And then in order to avoid having her husband Uriah around, David sent him away to fight on the front line of a battle, where he knew Uriah would be killed. David conveniently arranged for Uriah to be killed in battle. Even good King David fell well short. Adultery, murder and lies – all from King David.

Sadly, that sets the tone for what follows, in verse 7: ‘Solomon, the father of Rehoboam, Rehoboam the father of Abijah, Abijah the father of Asa, Asa the father of Jehoshaphat, Jehoshaphat the father of Jehoram, Jehoram the father of Uzziah, Uzziah the father of Jotham, Jotham the father of Ahaz, Ahaz the father of Hezekiah, Hezekiah the father of Manasseh, Manasseh the father of Amon, Amon the father of Josiah, and Josiah the father of Jeconiah and his brothers at the time of the exile to Babylon.’

As we go through the names of the kings, as each name comes up we’re supposed to be asking: Is this person really going to be the great King, the Son of David? And if you know your Israelite history, you’ll know that will each one, they are far from perfect. There are one or two bright points along the way: Solomon started well, and there are sometimes better kings than some like Hezekiah or Josiah. But each of them in some way is flawed. They’re not the great King, the amazing descendent of David that has been promised. There are also some awful kings. Manasseh, son of Hezekiah the good king, could have taught Stalin and Hitler a thing or two about shedding innocent blood. And yet, there he is in the genealogy, the ancestry of Jesus Christ. And so as we read through, we have to say with each King, “No, no, this one’s a dud.” Solomon - no, Rehoboam - no, Abijah - no, Asa – no, no, no, no! They all failed in one way or another – some spectacularly.

So after each line, we’re still left looking for someone, somewhere. A King, a descendent of David who won’t fail. And he hasn’t come by the end of Act 2. As the Old Testament progressed, we learn more and more about this mysterious figure, this amazing King whose rule will last forever. We learn so much about this person, that he became known as ‘the Messiah’; this means ‘the Special One’ – a person who has been set apart to rule on God’s behalf. But he still hasn’t arrived.

Act 3: Hope in a situation of desperation

And so we enter Act 3, which is recorded in verses 12-16. And as this Act opens, the situation is grim. In fact the block of names starts with Israel’s ‘Golden Age’ over: the country is past its best, it is in decline. In fact, the nation is in exile in Babylon, in modern day Iraq. See in 587BC, the armies of Babylon dragged the Jews in chains back to their capital having destroyed Jerusalem. This event, known as ‘the exile’, is of massive importance to the Bible writers. And Matthew here definitely agrees with that – we can see that in his structure, he emphasises the exile. Why is it so important to him? The answer is: because effectively the exile was the point at which any hope of a future earthly kingdom got snuffed out.

I wonder if you like making models. I remember when I was a child I was quite enthusiastic about making models – actually my enthusiasm outweighed my ability. I went through a phase of making all sorts of models – aeroplanes, houses, cars. And you need to know that in the Old Testament, God used the people of Israel as a kind of model. The people of Israel acted as a kind of model to represent reality: the Kingdom of Israel was a small scale representation of what it is to live as God’s people in God’s place under God’s rule. The Kingdom of Israel was a group of people who God’s model of what living in God’s Kingdom looked like.

But that wasn’t the full thing. God’s plan was always so much bigger. The model wasn’t the genuine article – and so it comes as little surprise when in judgment (in the exile) God effectively scrapped the model. That is what the people would have concluded whilst in exile – the model is done: the country no longer exists, the capital city has been trashed, including the religious buildings. There was no King, no country, no earthly future. And whilst it’s true that a handful of Israelites like Ezra and Nehemiah trickled back to Jerusalem to do some rebuilding, it didn’t really amount to very much. And from this point on the country of Israel got squeezed on all sides by successive empires: Persia, Greece, Rome. The model had been scrapped.

And we see this in the genealogy in verses 12 onwards, because whilst Jesus’ ancestors from David to Jeconiah were all kings, then the line of kings stopped. The promises made to Abraham and David became increasingly foreign to the situation – they looked increasingly less likely to be fulfilled. And so in verse 12 we read that ‘Jeconiah the king was the father of Shealtiel’ who was … king? No – he was just a man who returned from the exile. Then we read ‘Shealtiel was the father of Zerubbabel’ - and he became king, right? No again: he ruled as a puppet governor of Judah under the authority of Darius the Mede. Zerubbabel is the father of Abiud, and of course we all know who he was, don’t we…? Well, erm, actually nobody knows who Abiud was, or anything about him. And all of the rest are nobodies. We don’t know anything about them. Matthew can’t have got anything about them from the history books, he can only have dug them out of the back issues of the birth and death columns of at a library – every single name gives is unknown, and gives the impression that the hope is fading. God’s promises look less likely to be worked out with each generation. And we’re meant to feel the weight of those names one after another – each one as unpronounceable and unheard of as the next: ‘Abiud the father of Eliakim, Eliakim the father of Azor, Azor the father of Zadok, Zadok the father of Akim, Akim the father of Eliud, Eliud the father of Eleazar, Eleazar the father of Matthan, Matthan the father of Jacob.’ None of them were significant. None of them were kings. The situation looks hopeless.

But also if you’ve understood Matthew’s structure to Jesus’ genealogy, what should also happen as we read this names is our anticipation should build as we sense another section ending; which we find when we finally get to verse 16: ‘… and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.’

We can easily miss the point here. Matthew is saying that Jesus is the Christ! Sometimes we get so used to hearing the name ‘Jesus Christ’ we miss the shock here. But Matthew isn’t saying that Christ was Jesus’ surname. No: he’s making a much bigger point! Do you remember I said that the Special King became known as the ‘Messiah’ in the Hebrew language? And what is the translation of Messiah into Greek, the language Matthew was writing in? Christ. Matthew is saying this: Jesus is legally Joseph’s adopted son, and he is the child of Mary … but he’s the Christ, the Messiah, the Special King God had promised. And so Matthew is making a massive claim: remember how God said he’d always come and provide the perfect King who’d win a victory and bring peace? Remember that? We’ll now he’s come: Jesus is the Christ!

And so when Matthew says in verse 1: “A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham”, he’s making a massive claim. Jesus is the Christ. Jesus is the Messiah. Jesus is the great King who will bring a victory for his people that will bring peace. Above all, Matthew is saying this: we’ve been waiting for this descendent of David, a King who is going to win a victory and bring peace forever – and guess what, he’s arrived!

I guess to a Jewish audience, this genealogy must have been incredible - certainly not the dusty thing it looks at a first glance. And we should realise the significance here too as we draw out the implications of this genealogy. Matthew is saying that Jesus is the climax of the whole of the Old Testament. The whole of it points forward to him. In fact, in 5:17 of Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus goes on to say that he has fulfilled the Law and the Prophets - it all points to him. For me, as a Christian, this is an amazing thing when I catch myself thinking: is Jesus really God? Can his death on the cross really save me? And I then start thinking about the ways in which Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament in an incredible way, not just in terms of the prophesies made about him, but also in terms of the whole storyline, of the one true God drawing together a people for himself into his kingdom. It’s through King Jesus, and through his life, death and resurrection that the Old Testament makes sense. So a genealogy like this should give us confidence that Jesus really is the Christ, he really is God’s king, and he really is fulfilling all that God is doing in the world.

I think a second implication of this genealogy is one that speaks about God: it shows that he is not aloof, as we perhaps sometimes think, but that incredibly he has intervened in the world. God has not remained distant to us, but has intervened to act. He has helped us in a way that we could not help ourselves. I read earlier in the week of another time when the situation in the Middle East was dangerously unstable, and Henry Kissinger, then US Foreign Secretary was flying round and round from country to country to try to sort out the problems. But he had to shrug his shoulders in despair. And this is what he said at that point: “There can’t be an international crisis next week. My diary is already full.”

It was one of those rare acknowledgements by a politician of their own limitations. Because, of course, human leaders are never ultimately able to resolve the intractable human situation. When the chips really are down, we can’t look to other people – they are themselves part of the problem. And this genealogy reminds us we cannot secure our planet’s salvation, or even our personal salvation [I wonder if that’s something that somebody here needs to be reminded of today: there’s no way I, personally, can mend my situation before God by trying hard to please Him]. But the genealogy does provide an answer in the person of Jesus Christ. You see, as we read on in Matthew’s Gospel, we see that, through Jesus, a wonderful new start is open to us all, not because of anything we can do ourselves, but because of what God did when he intervened and busted into history in the person of Jesus Christ. God hasn’t stayed far off, but has given us King Jesus, who has won the victory over sin and death and allowed us to enter his incredible kingdom.

Finally, before I close, let’s notice just one final thing. Notice the kind of person that Matthew includes in Jesus’ family tree. I spoke earlier of how some people try to edit their family trees in order to keep unsavoury-type people out of their families. But one quick look at Jesus’ family tree is that it is obvious that this is something Matthew doesn’t do: in fact, if anything he tries to include these people. And so we see mentioned people like: Tamar (verse 3) – a woman so desperate for children she conned her father-in-law to have sex with her; Rahab (verse 5) – a prostitute, and Manasseh (verse 10) – a mass murderer.

The point is this: God worked his plans out deliberately so that even unsavoury characters like this might be part of his great King’s family; perhaps even people like you. There might be people here today who feel beyond the pale – just too bad for God – if that’s you, then know this: God wants you to be part of his plans too. In fact whoever you are – man or woman, whatever you’re like, good or bad – God wants you to know that Jesus is for all of you. It’s something his genealogy hints at. It’s a reminder that Jesus’ message is for people like you and me. And this is why, although Matthew’s genealogy might not at first seem to match the opening sentences of Harry Potter and the Lord of the Rings, it does in fact tell us of the greatest story ever told.