December 23, 2005

What Really Happened in Bethlehem?

Luke 2:1-7

Christmas is a sentimental time of year. It is a time of repeated, time-honored traditions. It’s not really a time for innovation. It is a time to be nostalgic and to remember things as they have always been.

For Christians, part of the time-honored tradition includes the reading and re-reading of the story of the birth of Jesus. I know in our family growing up, we celebrated Christmas on Christmas Eve. And always, after we have enjoyed a traditional family supper we sat around the Christmas tree and read the Christmas story together before we opened our gifts.

But as familiar as the words are, how well do we know and really understand the Christmas story that we have heard so many times? To test that, I have prepared a simple quiz for you. Take just a moment to fill it in. (By the way, if you’ve been in the church a while and you remember this message from a few years back, don’t help your neighbor. Let him struggle on his own!)

Are you finished? Let’s see how well you did. It’s really quite easy to grade. You see, I believe that the correct answer to each of the questions is “c”.

Does that sound heretical to you? It doesn’t match the typical understanding of the story, does it?

The typical picture we have goes something like this. Joseph arrives in Bethlehem, late in the afternoon or even into the night. He leads a donkey, on which is seated his very pregnant wife, Mary. She is grimacing with the beginning of labor pains. Joseph moves through the streets of the town, from inn to inn, only to be turned away. No room! Finally in desperation he pleads with an inn-keeper. Seeing Mary’s obvious distress, the man grudgingly gives permission for them to sleep in his stable with the animals. That very night, Mary goes into full labor, and alone among the animals, with only Joseph assisting, Mary gives birth to Jesus, the Son of God.

Is that relatively close to your mental picture as we read from Luke 2 this morning? That’s the image or mental picture I grew up with. But in 1980, Kenneth Bailey, a middle east expert and a professor of theology published an article: “The Manger and the Inn: the Cultural Background of Luke 2:7”, in which he challenged that traditional understanding of the events. I would like to draw on his material to take another look at Luke 2 and see if the events of Jesus’ birth happened quite the way we assume they did.

Our traditional view hinges really on two phrases in the text which we need to re-examine.

The two phrases are both found in verse 7: “She placed him in a manger,” and “there was no room for them in the inn.”

Our reasoning goes like this: Mangers are for feeding animals. Animals live in stables. Therefore, if Jesus was laid in a manger, it means he was born in a stable. Now that’s strange. Why would Jesus be born in a stable? The answer: because there was no room for them in the inn, or hotel. Why was there no room for them in the inn? Well, the text doesn’t say, so we use our logic. Presumably it was because they got there too late in the day and the inn was crowded with other people back for the census and there was no opportunity to make other arrangements. So they found the only shelter available which happened to be a stable.

It all seems logical. But will those two statements bear the weight of the logic we put on them? I think that is open to serious questions, especially in light of the cultural factors and other clues in the text.

First, let’s consider the inn itself. In Jesus’ time, inns were located only in major towns. Bethlehem was just a sleepy village of 1000 to 2000 people. Located as it was only 5 miles from Jerusalem, it is unlikely that Bethlehem even had an inn.

Even if there was an inn, the inns of the day were unsafe, dirty, often places of immorality, and what’s more, used by Romans and other Gentiles. It was hardly the sort of place that Joseph would plan to stay with his pregnant wife.

But most compelling of all is this fact. Why was Joseph going to Bethlehem? What was Bethlehem to him? It says in verse that it was “his own town.”

Let me ask you: When you go back to your hometown, where do you stay? Do you stay in a hotel? I remember asking this question of Kenyan audience. They laughed and responded, “It would be impossible!” 

Now I can see some of you mentally trying to flag me down and say: “Wait a minute! All this cultural discussion is quite interesting, but totally irrelevant. After all, the text clearly says: “There was no room for them in the inn.” That proves it. End of discussion.

Well, not quite. Let’s look more closely at the word that Luke uses here. The Greek word that Luke uses here is “kataluma”. Now what does that word suggest to you? Absolutely nothing, right? OK. How about another question? Is this same Greek word used anywhere else in the New Testament?

In fact, it is, in two places. Read Luke 22:11-12. The other place the term is used is in Mark 14:14 in the parallel passage. It is used to refer to a “guest room” in a family home, a room that was specifically used to entertain visitors. It served the same use as a formal “parlor” in many homes a generation ago, or maybe the equivalent of the “majlis” in a traditional Arab home.

Now, this does not prove the case, as scholars tell us that the word “kataluma” was also used in the literature of the day to describe an inn. But we do not have an example of such a use in the Scripture. So we might ask another question: Is there another word in Greek which is clearly used to describe an inn or hotel where the public could find accommodation? In fact, there is. It is the word “pandokeion” which literally means “receiving everyone”. Luke himself uses this word in the story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:34). So Luke had another, unambiguous word he could have used if he meant “inn”. But he chose the word “kataluma”.

Now you may be mentally waving at me again saying: Wait a minute! What about the manger? Mangers are used for feeding animals, right? That’s right. And animals live in stables, right? Not necessarily. That is an assumption that many of us bring from our cultures.  But in Jesus’ day and in his culture, they did not use stables or separate buildings for keeping animals. Larger animals were brought into the house at night for safety and even to provide warmth on cold evenings.

Let me describe a floor plan for a typical Jewish home in Jesus’ time. It consisted of three rooms or areas. The first area, on ground level, was an entry area, and it was also used to keep the larger animals in. Several steps would then lead up to the main room of the home. There was often no wall between these areas. Only the different levels kept them separate and often the mangers or feeding troughs were built into the raised area. The raised, main area of the home was that occupied by the family, and was a multi-use room: cooking, eating, and sleeping would all take place in this area. Now, separate from this family room was the “kataluma” the room for receiving and entertaining guests.

With these facts in mind, what really happened in Bethlehem?

Joseph is returning to his home town to register for the census. The only logical place to stay is with relatives, extended family, or friends. They arrive in Bethlehem. The time of day is not stated. In fact the wording in v. 6 does not give any indication of urgency or immediacy. They are received and welcomed. Remember that hospitality, especially to family or friends, is a deeply held cultural value. Other guests have preceded them and the kataluma or guest room is occupied. So they stay with the rest of the family in the common living area. During their stay, the baby Jesus is born. We can assume it was a major family event with the women of the family clustered around to help. It was a normal birth with all the accompanying excitement and joy of a first born son, within the framework of an extended Jewish family: simple, earthy, humble. And the baby is laid in a manger, a natural, ready-made, sturdy little bed for an infant.

What are the implications if this interpretation of events is true?

Well, in all honesty, not much really changes. In fact some things remain very much the same.

1.      Jesus’ birth demonstrates his humility.

Whether he was born in a stable, or in a simple peasant home, Jesus chose to be born in humble circumstance. No palaces. No silver spoon.

As II Corinthians 8:9 says: For you know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, so that you through his poverty might become rich.

When Jesus took on the form of a servant, he demonstrated it in the place and manner of his birth.

2.      Jesus’ birth demonstrates his accessibility.

When the shepherd on the hillside heard the angel’s announcement they said simply: “Let’s go and see.” If this baby is lying in a manger, then, whether in a stable or in a simple home, it’s our kind of place. It is a place where we can go and where we will be welcomed, and we will be able to see for ourselves.

These things remain the same. There is one point of difference I would stress if this interpretation is correct.

3.      Jesus’ birth was absolutely and incredibly normal.

I think we may miss this in the traditional stable story. It’s just a bit too dramatic. There’s too much thought of the darkness, the loneliness, the cruel innkeeper. Poor Mary! Poor Jesus! No room in the inn! But I would like to suggest that this is not a drama of rejection. This was a normal birth, in humble, simple circumstances. They were circumstances that the world could understand then, and which much of the world can still understand today. This baby was born in just the same way that countless millions of babies had been born before him and countless millions since.

It was an incredible act of identification. Jesus, God in the flesh, slipping quietly and naturally into the stream of human history. Supernaturally and miraculously conceived, yet born under natural physical, cultural and sociological circumstances. It was an utterly normal birth of an utterly extraordinary child. The Word, who was and is God, became flesh and dwelt among us. God became a man.

Well, I can’t ultimately prove it happened that way. I hope I haven’t shaken anyone’s faith this morning or spoiled your Christmas. If you disagree and prefer the tradition interpretation as the best explanation of the text, that’s fine. As I said, not that much changes. The Christmas message rests not on the when or the where, or even the how of the story. But it rests totally on the who and the why. And here we are left with no ambiguity at all.

1.      Who is this baby?

From the lips of the angel who announced his birth to the shepherds come the words: “Today, in the town of David, a Savior has been born to you: He is Christ, the Lord.”

2.      Why was he born?

From the lips of the angel to Joseph: “You are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”

So as you prepare to celebrate Christmas this year, make sure you are focused on the true meaning of the season. And that is found in the Who and the Why of Christmas.