Two Gospel angles on the visits of the angels.
Matthew 1 18-25; Luke 1 26-36
We regularly come across angels in the run-up to Christmas. We see them in displays in shops and online stores, reminding us to buy our presents early. We scrutinise them on Christmas cards, wondering whether to go for classical or contemporary versions. Parents with primary school children will be kitting out their own little angels with wings for the school Nativity play. And most of us will recall again the angels’ part in the Nativity story, bringing Good News to the terrified shepherds and filling the skies with their angelic choir. Angels are seasonal visitors in the UK, showing up especially at this time of year.
Yet, in the biblical accounts, angels are on the scene months before Jesus is born. Nine months in fact. They are the ones who break the news to the two key players that they are about to become parents. Both Joseph and Mary receive a visit from an angel, and detailed account of these encounters are given in the Gospels. Yet, when we read those accounts we find they’re very different. Even though the underlying news is the same – a baby is going to be born from a miraculous conception – the rest of the stories contrast with each other. In Matthew’s Gospel, the focus is on Joseph and he sees an angel when he is struggling with a decision. In Luke’s Gospel the focus is on Mary, and the angel s visit to her is completely out of the blue. The stories are complementary rather than contradictory, but why are the accounts so different?
The answer lies in the authorship, and the intended readers. Matthew and Luke were very different people, writing about the events of Jesus’ life and death for different audiences and often from different perspectives. Matthew’s is the ‘Jewish Gospel’ written by someone who was part of a Christian Jewish community and who was learned in Jewish history and Hebrew scriptures. Luke’s Gospel is authored by a Gentile doctor, who was particularly interested in people’s ailments and healings; he also wrote the Acts of the Apostles. And although in both of their accounts we find overlapping material from Mark, much of their narrative is also unique to each of them. This comes out very significantly in the way they present the visits of the angels.
In Matthew ‘s Gospel the angel comes to Joseph in a dream. Joseph has already discovered that his fiancée is pregnant and since they had not had sexual relations, he knows for certain that the child is not his. So not surprisingly, his conclusion is that the woman he was betrothed to has been unfaithful. The dilemma for Joseph now is whether to make her adultery public, which could have had very serious consequences for Mary, or to quietly divorce her (betrothal was as binding as marriage). That would presumably leave her free to marry the baby’s father, if he were willing, or to go back to her own family. Having decided on the latter action, Matthew tells us that Joseph is then confronted by an angel in a dream. The angel brings him the news that his fiancée’s has not betrayed him but her pregnancy is miraculous; she has conceived through the power of the Holy Spirit. So the angel instructs Joseph neither to expose her as an adulteress nor to divorce her, but to continue into marriage and accept this child as from God. He further instructs Joseph as to what to name the child. The dream is quite brief and Joseph is unable to ask any questions, yet the encounter is so powerful that he is convinced by the angel. Matthew tells us that he responds by faithfully carrying out what he has been told to do.
In Luke’s Gospel, the angel comes to Mary before the start of her pregnancy. Luke tells us it’s the angel Gabriel and he appears in person to explain that Mary is to become a mother. Joseph does not feature at all in this account, except as an absent figure who has not had sex with his fiancée. Mary’s response is fear and confusion, not least because she knows she is a virgin. A conversation then takes place between her and the angel, where the angel gives her identical news to that given to Joseph -that her conception will be brought about by the power of the Holy Spirit. The angel then refers her to her elderly cousin, Elizabeth whose pregnancy, long after the age of conception is also miraculous, although of a different order. Mary finds the angel’s response reassuring, and confirms that she is God’s servant and willing to accept whatever God has planned for her.
Notice how the gender demarcation in the two accounts is very evident. It also reflects the difference in the background of the authors. Matthew reports the story from Joseph’s point of view, because this is much more in line with the thinking in his Jewish community. The rights and responsibilities of Jewish men were well laid out. Husbands were the ones with authority in the family, making all decisions including naming the children. Only they could procure a divorce, and the penalties for an unfaithful wife were heavy ones. Twice elsewhere in his Gospel Matthew discusses divorce and shows how Jesus urges greater protection for women against husband who have the power of divorce. So Matthew’s readers would be well able to connect with Joseph’s dilemma. From his description of Joseph’s kindness and concern, Matthew seems keen to offer him as a role model for men, even before he hears from the angel.
Luke helps us to see the events from Mary’s point of view. His narrative describes a very personal encounter between human and angelic being. Luke does not find it presumptuous of Mary to question Gabriel and in the conversation between them, Mary is not patronised. The angel gives her as many details about her conception as he has himself, but the baby’s future name is not given to her. Instead, through the reference to Elizabeth’s pregnancy, Luke shows an appreciation for the way women relate to each other. This is all very much in keeping with the rest of his Gospel. More than any other Gospel writer he demonstrates particular interest in women’s health and wellbeing and in their more vulnerable status. He is the one who highlights the women who travel with Jesus and support him financially. And all those concerns about women are reflected in this story of the angel’s visit.
What do these stories mean to us today?
Matthew and Luke offer us two different cameos of visiting angels. Both writers recognize the significance of angels and their roles as God’s messengers. Together these two accounts give us a richer picture not just of the miraculous conception of Jesus and of angels, but the gender differences embedded within the culture of the Gospels.
The stories help us today in several ways. First they challenge us to reflect more on the biblical narratives, and what we learn from their differences. Especially in the four Gospels, the areas of overlap and the areas of uniqueness are both important. They build up a powerful picture of God’s relationship with us. We never need to set the Gospel writers against each other, because the four authors are not competing or disagreeing. There are many ways of telling a story and they each give us an authentic account of the life of Jesus, based on the testimony of eye witnesses.
The stories also help us to recognize the biblical truth about angels. That they are real. They are not products of our imagination. Nor are they part of the romantic fantasy world which we often see depicted in movies or in stories of the paranormal. They exist where God is at work in our normal everyday world. They still convey messages from God, they still release people from danger, still prompt and lead the praise of God’s people.
Many people claim to have seen angels and even though much may be wish-fulfilment, some testimonies are very powerful. After an emergency operation my father’s life was in the balance. I sat by his bedside as the doctors checked constantly, fearing his kidneys may have packed in, his coughing was pulling the wound, his blood pressure was sinking. With each piece of news, I phoned round our prayer supporters. As I prayed, I slowly noticed a change; his coughing stopped, his breathing became easier and the tubes connected to his bladder began to fill with urine. He made a full recovery and lived for another 28 years. Afterwards he told me, with utter conviction, that an angel had accompanied him, sitting at the end of his bed, urging him to get better and giving him enormous peace.
We might not always identify our sudden rescue from danger, or new powerful conviction as the work of an angel. But the Gospels assure us that angels are active even in our world today.
