Calvary Road Baptist Church

“ANNUNCIATION TO JOSEPH”

Matthew 1.18-25 

God doesn’t do anything contrary to His great plan of redemption. Everything has a reason, and there is a reason for everything. So, the fact that God gave His Son Jesus a stepfather is significant. And the person chosen to be our Lord’s stepfather is significant.

What kind of man must this have been to be the stepfather of the incarnate Second Person of the Triune Godhead? By what grace did he come to be who and what he was? What maturity must God have worked in him to handle such tremendous responsibility as presiding over a home where the only virgin mother would ever live, and her divine Son would reside?

 You would expect him to be a decisive man. You would expect him to have well-developed ideas of right and wrong. You would expect him to be sure of the truthfulness of God’s Word. Without these traits, the stepfather of the Son of God might very well have been reduced to a simpering apologist, and there’s no indication in God’s Word that Joseph was anything like that.

What had God, by grace, made Joseph like? We’ll get an idea as we examine the Biblical record of the annunciation to Joseph. I invite you to stand to read after you have located Matthew 1.18-25: 

18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.

22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. 

I have five main points for your consideration: 

First, CONSIDER WHAT WE ARE TOLD OF MARY’S PREGNANCY 

Verse 18: 

“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” 

Focus your attention on the opening phrase: 

“Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise.” 

With the opening phrase, Matthew seeks not to give details concerning the birth of our Lord but to provide information surrounding Mary’s pregnancy and how Joseph fit into the picture. Notice, if you will, in Matthew’s Gospel, that Joseph is the central figure of the account, not Mary, as she was in Luke’s Gospel. Why is that so? Because Matthew was written from a different perspective than Luke, a view suited primarily to Jewish readers who would be far more concerned with information about Joseph and certain Davidic dynasty legalities than they would be about Mary.

In the second phrase, we read, 

“When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph.” 

I dealt with this espousal question at some length last Sunday night,[1] but allow me to review the matter for the benefit of some briefly.

You might look at man/woman relationships in Judea during New Testament times as they existed in four identifiable stages: informal acquaintances, engagements, espousals or betrothals, and marriages. Acquaintances were casual relationships between people who knew each other casually, possibly because they were close neighbors, distantly related, or attended the same synagogue. Let us not assume, however, that casual friendships between young people of the opposite sex were anything like those that exist in our culture in modern times.

Those casual friendships in Jewish communities would be between a young man and a young woman who had no designs on each other. The next type of relationship was known as engagement. This would be the initial formal relationship between a young man and a young woman exploring the possibility of marriage. Or rather, their parents were exploring the possibility of marriage since such activities as dating were completely unknown except when the female was a prostitute or when she was careless to tolerate a prostitute’s reputation. Unchaperoned encounters with men were forbidden. With this understood, engagements where the compatibility and the financial arrangements of a potential union were being examined were relatively common and could be easily made and easily terminated.

The next step in a formal relationship between a man and a woman was the espousal or the betrothal. This entailed the legal and contractual binding of a young man and woman whose parents had decided after exploring the possibilities during an engagement. This legal arrangement, in which the young man often had considerably more voice in the outcome than did the young woman, established a legal, which is to say contractual, marriage in every respect except for the consummation. Once such betrothals or espousals were duly established, only a formal divorce proceeding could terminate the relationship.

Those people who were married, in the complete sense of the word, had typically gone through their approximately one-year period of espousal, which was customarily used to become acquainted, in chaperoned situations, of course, and had then consummated their marriage in the marriage bed. As we examine Matthew 1.18, it becomes obvious that the angel Gabriel’s announcement of Mary’s pregnancy came after Joseph had discovered or was informed, somehow, that Mary had become pregnant during the period in which they were legally husband and wife, but during which no consummation of the marriage had occurred.

The importance of the third phrase cannot be overstated: 

“before they came together” 

Matthew made it very clear to his readers and those who would listen as the Gospel was read to them that this marriage had not been consummated. To fortify the authenticity of the doctrine of the virgin birth of the Savior, it was critical to establish that their union had not been consummated prior to Christ’s birth.

The fourth phrase reads, 

“she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.” 

Some might think that Joseph discovered Mary’s condition in the marriage bed. But that conclusion is not plausible when considering the facts stated in the Bible. Matthew was very clear in his indication that the discovery of her condition came before their coming together. And if that was the case, how did Joseph know that Mary was with child?

Although the Bible does not give us such details, we must remember that all of this occurred following Mary’s return to Nazareth from the southern hills of Judea ... when she was three months into her pregnancy. Perhaps Mary’s condition was known to women in Nazareth, and from them, it eventually got around to Joseph. Maybe her pregnancy affected her such that, even though the clothes women wore in those days would have made concealment usually possible, she became bloated, and women who knew her could tell that she was with child. Whatever, Matthew does want us to see the Cause of the pregnancy. The cause of Mary’s pregnancy is asserted with the words “of the Holy Ghost.” 

Next, FROM A CONSIDERATION OF MARY’S PREGNANCY, OUR ATTENTION IS NOW DIRECTED TO A CONSIDERATION OF JOSEPH’S PERPLEXITY 

Verse 19: 

“Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.” 

The first phrase of the verse reads, 

“Then Joseph her husband.” 

Because we are aware of the customs of the Jewish people during this time, we remember that during a betrothal, such as with Joseph and Mary, couples were genuinely married even though the marriage had not been consummated. Joseph is her husband, though she is still a virgin.

That understood, let us now ponder Joseph’s dilemma: 

“Then Joseph her husband being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.” 

Joseph clearly had an inner conflict of the heart. He was a just man, according to Scripture. Therefore, he felt that to ignore sin, as he thinks that his beloved has committed it, is impossible without altogether abandoning the principles by which he lived his life.

Unprincipled people unfamiliar with integrity do not appreciate those principled individuals. Men and women with integrity are compelled by character to do right even when doing right involves pain for their loved ones. Would to God our Churches had more men and women with Joseph’s brand of integrity. On the other hand, Joseph also had tremendous love and loyalty for Mary. He did not want her held up to public ridicule and scrutiny for the sin of adultery, so he decided to divorce her as quietly and privately as possible.

All of this relates to the issue we have dealt with in our study of “The Life And Lessons Of The Lord Jesus Christ.” That question is, “Does God Permit Divorce?”[2] Although we will not address that question, you might want to consider this one thing: Thinking that his wife had committed adultery, Joseph is described in God’s Word as a just man for his intention to put her away.

Does “put away” mean Joseph was really considering divorcing Mary? Yes. The Greek word translated “put away,” ἀpolύoo, does refer to divorce.[3] Additionally, the concept of “separation” so common in our culture is unscriptural, according to First Corinthians 7.5, and only adds to the problems of a troubled marriage. Joseph was torn by his love for God, his desire to do right, and his love for his young bride.

Scripture does not suggest Joseph was required to divorce Mary for what he then thought she had done, but no one can adequately question that he had Scriptural permission to do so since he was described in his contemplation of divorcing Mary as a “just man.” 

WE CONSIDERED THE PREGNANCY OF MARY AND THE PERPLEXITY OF JOSEPH. Third, WE CONSIDER THE PROPHECY OF THE ANGEL 

Verses 20-21: 

20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.

21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. 

Notice several things in these two verses:

First, notice Joseph’s dream. We understand that Joseph’s dream has little to do with the Joel prophecy that Simon Peter referred to in his Pentecostal sermon delivered more than thirty years later. Still, perhaps we can learn something about Joseph by application or extrapolation. Turn to Acts 2.17 and read along with me a few of Peter’s words: 

“And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.” 

Who will dream the dreams? Old men. Might we possibly infer from this that Joseph is significantly older than Mary?

We should not make too much of a prophecy that does not directly address Joseph’s dream. Still, because Joseph will never be referred to in our Lord’s adult life, and considering the possibility that God’s use of dreams when He used dreams tended to be in the lives of older men, it might be that Joseph was considerably older than Mary. Thus, we might reflect on the possibility of Joseph and Mary being in a May/December marriage. At any rate, God gave Joseph this dream that was more than just a dream to solve his dilemma. This dream was not Joseph’s unconscious imagination at work but a means by which God used an angel to communicate truth to him.

Next, notice the reference to King David in the dream. Remember, if you will, that Joseph was a direct descendant of King David, who had been Israel’s most glorious king of 1000 years earlier. And Matthew did begin his Gospel account with the genealogy tracing King David’s lineage to the Lord Jesus Christ through His stepfather Joseph. Also, remember the so-called Davidic Covenant in connection with King David. That covenant, established by God with King David, promised a king to sit on David’s throne, in David’s kingdom, in perpetuity.[4] Such a reference to King David, stirring up all of the ancient memories and Biblical promises which had not yet been fulfilled but which no doubt would someday be fulfilled in their entirety, had to make for a stirring dream on Joseph’s part.

Third, notice the Savior’s deliverance. Joseph was comforted and told not to fear taking Mary to be his wife because the child she was carrying was of the Holy Ghost. Furthermore, the Child would be a son Whose name Joseph was to call Jesus because He would save His people from their sins. At this point, a question arises. What is the essential kind of deliverance any human being can experience? 

The most significant delivery, the deliverance beside which all other deliverances pale in comparison, is deliverance the angel foretold, salvation from sin. This is what Jesus would come to do for His people. 

HAVING CONSIDERED THE PREGNANCY OF MARY, THE PERPLEXITY OF JOSEPH, AND THE PROPHECY OF THE ANGEL, WE NOW CONSIDER THE PARENTHESIS OF MATTHEW 

Verses 22-23: 

22 Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying,

23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us. 

I suggest that you go through the Gospel of Matthew and underline these kinds of phrases as a means of learning the extreme importance of our Lord as the Fulfiller of these ancient predictions made by the Old Testament prophets, “that it might be fulfilled” and “which was spoke of the Lord by the prophet.” Things do not occur by accident. There are no such things as coincidences. Luck is fiction. God has a plan. And we read Matthew’s account of God fulfilling His plan and showing how God kept to His plan.

The specific prediction referred to here is found in Isaiah 7.14. Let us now examine the issue that directly affects this passage. The Hebrew word translated “virgin” in Isaiah 7.14, alma, is said by some liberal and modernistic theologians actually to mean “maiden” or “young woman.” And since what such men say about this verse reflects on the very nature of our Lord Jesus Christ, we’re going to deal with it. Three things need to be pointed out:

First, the Hebrew word alma is used seven times in the Old Testament. And it just so happens, in the other six places the word is found, it is easy to see that the Scripture writer always used the word to refer to a virgin and not a maiden.[5] Therefore, unless our context dictates otherwise, we must also assume that “virgin” is what is meant here.

Second, how in the world are we to consider it a sign for a young woman to be with a child? Don’t such “signs” occur periodically at public high schools with tragic regularity, and even in some junior high schools? No, it is no sign when a young woman gets pregnant. But it is a sign when a virgin becomes pregnant.

Finally, how can a Savior be sinless and undefiled by the taint of this race if He had a human father? No, my Savior was “virgin” conceived and born. My Savior’s father was not some Roman soldier or a Jewish man. My Savior’s Father is God, Himself. 

CLOSING OUT THE FIRST CHAPTER OF MATTHEW’S GOSPEL, WE CONSIDER JOSEPH’S PURPOSE 

Verses 24-25: 

24 Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife:

25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS. 

Here we see that Joseph did what God, using the angel, wanted him to do. He was obedient, even though his obedience to God would mean mockery for him in the community in which he lived and for Mary.

I was hoping you could take note of this since so many people who are wrapped up in sin behave as though the solution to the problem is to run away from everyone who knows about the sin. If running away was a remedy, Joseph would have had every legitimate reason to relocate, to become scarce, because he hadn’t done anything wrong.

But does Joseph move? Not of his own choice. He did not move away from Nazareth to solve any personal problems that he had. It was the Roman taxation that resulted in his temporary removal with Mary to Bethlehem. And it was the threat to his son’s life that prompted him to move to Egypt for a season.

Want to know why? Relocating rarely solves personal problems. It is incredible the tendency of immature young men to attempt the resolution of personal problems by relocating geographically. News flash! Personal problems are personal problems, not geographical problems. So, unless you leave yourself behind when you move, you take your personal problems with you when you move. “I just want a fresh start, Pastor.” And your idea of a fresh start is living where no one knows the truth about your history, character, wisdom, or folly? In other words, your idea of a fresh start is the ignorance or deception of the community you choose to live in? I am so glad Joseph was not that kind of man.

God’s way of dealing with problems is to stand fast and slug it out, meet problems head-on, deal with people face to face, and address the issues you face rather than running from them. Adam’s way of addressing the personal problem he created in the Garden of Eden was to run and hide. Jonah’s way of solving his personal problem of rebellion against God’s will for his life was to flee. Too many pastors approach this matter of problems by resigning and moving somewhere rather than addressing the problems they have head-on. How is that for manliness? Thank God Joseph demonstrated the intestinal fortitude that he did concerning Mary. Thank God he did as the angel of the Lord told him and decided to hang tough for the rest of his life! Thank God he was the husband to Mary that she would need to get through the years of false accusations they would both endure as a result of doing God’s will.

Mary remained a virgin until after Christ was born, and Joseph called the name of her firstborn son Jesus. 

Why do you suppose Matthew indicated that Joseph “knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn”? Why did Matthew use the word “till,” the little Greek word ἕoos, that refers to not permanently?[6] And why did Matthew refer to the Savior as Mary’s firstborn, her prwtόtokoV, and not her only-born? Why did he not refer to Christ as her only begotten, though He was God’s only begotten?

Would it have been wrong for Mary and Joseph to have consummated their marriage in the marriage bed after the Christ child was born? Yet Roman Catholic doctrine insists Mary was a virgin her whole life and never consummated her marriage with Joseph. They maintain that for her to have consummated her marriage to Joseph would have been wrong, would have been sin. Yet, the Bible shows that it is sin for couples not to render due benevolence to each other. Excuse me, but it is wrong for married couples not to engage in the behavior called for in God’s Word, “due benevolence,” in First Corinthians 7.3.

If the Catholic Church is correct, would it not also have been wrong for Joseph and Mary to live together? Does it not look like two people who live together in such a manner do things in private that frequently result in children being conceived?

Is that not why professing Christians of the opposite sex are ridiculous to assume people think they are not having sex when they spend nights together in the same house? How is that abstaining from all appearance of evil, First Thessalonians 5.22?

This is Occam’s razor.[7] The simplest explanation is the likeliest. If it was wrong for Joseph and Mary to have normal husband and wife relations, living together would give the impression that they had a normal sex life, thus giving the appearance of evil. But if it is okay to appear to be an ordinary husband and wife, it must actually be okay to be a husband and wife, rendering due benevolence. God does not object to the appearance of that which is, in fact, proper behavior.

And Matthew 13.55-56 seems to lend credence to what I have just asserted, where the reaction of the Nazarene villagers the first time Christ reentered Nazareth after having begun His public ministry is seen. The people knew Who Jesus was. They knew who His stepfather was and His mother. And they knew His brothers and sisters: 

“Is not this the carpenter’s son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?” 

I have concluded in this manner to show you that Joseph was a normal man. He was normal in his passions and in his appetites and longings. And it was possible for a normal man to be the stepfather of God’s Son and for God to be well-pleased.

So, as we prepare for our focus on Christ’s birth this evening in our 6:00 PM service, what do we know about the woman chosen to be Christ’s mother and the man chosen to be His stepfather from our series of messages so far? We know Mary to have been a young woman who had experienced the grace of God, Who she described as “God my Savior.” Meaning? She was a sinner saved by God’s grace. Joseph, also a sinner saved by God’s grace, is described as having been a just man who appeared to have been willing to obey the dictates of God’s Word and positively responded to the revealed will of God.

The Biblical record concerning these two people who raised our Lord from His birth to adulthood shouts out that they were ordinary people who, by God’s mercy grace, chose to obey God. Do you realize what that means? It means you and I are more than halfway there, because the Savior came so much more than halfway to us. Here we are, ordinary people like Joseph and Mary. Like them, we can avail ourselves of God’s abundance graces and choose to serve God like Joseph and Mary did.

__________

[1] https://www.calvaryroadbaptist.church/sermon.php?sermonDate=20221218b

[2] See David Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context, (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002) and Divorce and Remarriage in the Church: Biblical Solutions for Pastoral Realities, (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Books, 2003) for thoughtful treatments of the topic.

[3] Bauer, Danker, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature, (Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press, 2000), pages 117-118.

[4] 2 Samuel 7.3-17

[5] Genesis 24.43; Exodus 2.8; Psalm 68.25; Proverbs 30.19; Song 1.3; 6.8

[6] Ibid., pages 422-424.

[7] https://www.britannica.com/topic/Occams-razor

 

Question? Comment?

Would you like to contact Dr. Waldrip about this sermon? Fill out the form below to send him an email. Thank you.