Eighth Day of Christmas Reflection January 1

Just a word about Eastern Orthodox icons. They are not pictures of events to look at. They are windows to look through to see deeper spiritual realities. There is a lot going on in this Nativity Icon. Look at it carefully before going on line to find a guide for interpreting it. While icons do vary, you will find most nativity icons will include the same or similar elements handled in somewhat different ways.

If you have been reading Matthew 1:18-25 (2:1-18) and Luke 2:1-20 (21-40) you are well aware that they are reporting the same event, the birth of Jesus, in dramatically different ways. Liturgical conventions with different seasons for Christmas (December 25-January 5) and Epiphany (starting January 6) keep these two accounts separate so they each stand on their own with their special emphases. Commercial interests and popular culture seem to conspire to mash both of these into the Advent season so that by the time Christmas comes we are tired of it and glad it is over, when it should be just to begin. Many congregations, especially those without deep liturgical roots, also tend to mush Matthew and Luke together so that shepherds and Wise Men arrive at the manger simultaneously for a children’s pageant or for the singing of Silent Night in the closing candlelight on Christmas Eve.

I have no illusions of bringing about a radical change or debunking long cherished memories. I would say that in my years of pastoral ministry, I did attempt to be gentle about encouraging making a distinction between the Matthew and Luke accounts without recklessly upsetting the congregational apple cart. I do hope that if you have been reading both Matthew and Luke these past days you have already begun to recognize and appreciate the emphasis of each.

The Gospels agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem to Mary and Joseph of Nazareth while Mary was still a virgin. (I know some scholars do all sorts of exegetical gymnastics about that, but I am wanting us to look at the wonderful simplicity of these two narratives.) Scholars also probe in detailed conjecture and speculation about why Matthew and Luke are so different: literary purpose, intended audience, author’s background, access to original participants to interview, differing oral traditions in different parts of the Church. I am not interested in embroiling you in these scholarly pursuits, which can also distract from our appreciation of what Matthew and Luke have given us.

So as you read today, attending only and exactly what is written, what differences do you observe between Matthew and Luke? As you allow each to speak to you on its own, what do you receive from each that is unique?