In a Stable?

Well, I've been celebrating Christmas for over 30 years now, most of which I remember. But it wasn't until this year that I realized that there is nothing in any biblical story that says Jesus was born in a stable. In fact the words in the original language may actually lead us to believe he was not. Whoa! What about all those nativity scenes? They can't all be wrong can they? I can see some of you know grabbing your Bible to check it out. Go for it, what you'll find in Luke 2 is two clues: "no room for them in the inn" and "manger." It is from these two descriptions that we have arrived at the standard nativity scene. But a closer look is needed.

Katalooma - The word that is translated "inn" in most Bibles is the word katalooma in Greek. And it doesn't necessarily mean inn. A more appropriate translation might be "guest room," or simply "a place for travelers to rest." (It's the same word used in Luke 22:11, translated "guest room.") In fact, Bethlehem was so small that it is unlikely there was even a public inn in town. So, let's go with guest room. If Joseph was traveling back to his hometown it is likely he still had family there. And it is likely he would not have been the only one traveling back home to register for the census. So perhaps they were staying with relatives, in a full house, where the guest room was already crowded, and not a suitable place to give birth (most prefer an element of privacy for this sort of occasion). So these cruel relatives kicked the so-called "virgin" out to the stable? Hmm, no, probably not, though it didn't occur to me til just now that the whole virgin thing may still have been a little sketchy to family members just hearing about it. It's funny, since I've had 30 years to process the story, I think Joseph's relatives have had that long too (wait, I didn't know what a virgin was 30 years ago ... ok, I've had 12 years to process that part of the story). Anyway, point is, we have to understand the structure of a home in that time/setting to get this. In that culture, for a poor simple family, the animals would have been kept inside at night in the lower floor of the house, whereas the bedrooms would have been upstairs. So Mary and Joseph probably went down to the first level of the home to have the baby (b/c there was no room for such an event in the guest room). Another clue is from Matthew's account: "when the wise men came to the house." (see

Manger - Suddenly the manger makes sense with the "guest room" translation. If there were animals inside, there was probably a feeding trough inside as well. And it would have been a convenient, safe place to put a newborn. Um, I guess that's all there is to say about the manger. A little less eventful than the katalooma discussion.

But what difference does any of that make? Stable? Inn? Guest room? What's really being said? That's the question we need to get at. Even if we could perfectly recreate the scene of Christ's birth, that wouldn't be as valuable to us as what we do have - the words that the Holy Spirit inspired the Biblical authors to write: "no room" ... "manger." What is being communicated by what Luke writes? That's the question. What is significant about the way Jesus comes into the world?

I think it is significant that they were out of place. They were away from home, and there was no room for them in the guest room. Jesus was out of place in this world; He was away from home. And he came to teach us that we are out of place in this world too. There was no special treatment for Jesus, no "hey everybody out of here, make room, this is the king of all creation being born here." No royal announcement, no gathering of big wigs. Oh, wait, there was an announcement ... to shepherds, nobodies in that culture ... humble faithful shepherds who took care of their sheep - just like Jesus would do.

God came into the world quietly, not forcefully, with social nobodies and pagans as his first worshippers. Jesus still invites nobodies and pagans, and he still does not force worshippers. But all who worship Him from the heart find the same joy the shepherds and wise men found.

Punch Line: it's the Pagans (continued from last post)

Yea, so you've got the pseudo-king who just ends up showing the depth of his insecurity, becomes super jealous, and murders even more people - he doesn't show up to honor baby Jesus. To him this "king of the Jews" was a threat, a threat to his power and control. Sadly, Jesus is still seen that way by many. Then you have the posers (religious leaders). And why do I call them posers? Because they thought they had it all together; they thought they had the corner on the religious tidiness market. They thought they knew the Scriptures, but they failed to see that what they thought they knew, really pointed to Jesus (John 5:39). They missed it. And even though they knew the Messiah was to be born in Bethlehem, and even though they heard that he had possibly been born, and even though others were going to check it out... they did not go.

But the magi did; they went. In fact it says they were overjoyed to go. They found the child, and worshipped Him. These pagans, these star-gazers, these ... gentiles, they worshipped Jesus, the Savior of the world. But, wait, these guys didn't deserve to be there; they didn't have the credentials, the Bible knowledge, the right background! And yet they are welcomed, more than that - drawn, to this place, to worship this King. Reminds me of a verse from Isaiah - "I will also make you a light for the Gentiles, that my salvation may reach to the ends of the earth" (49:6). The light of the world began shining on gentiles early in His life. And I'm so thankful He did, because I realize that I am one.

Ya know, I'm glad the magi are in most Nativity scenes. I know, I realize it's not historically accurate, but I like seeing them there ... reminds me that I am also welcomed into the presence of Jesus, even though I don't deserve it.

Pagans, Posers, and a Pseudo-king (please pronounce the p in pseudo to make the aliteration work)

Picture this ... the most important religious leader of all time is being born. His birth has been foretold for hundreds of years. His influence will surpass that of any other human on earth til that time or since. His teachings will be recorded and taught for thousands of years after he's gone. What kind of people would be there to celebrate the birth of this special child? Of course the leader I'm talking about is Jesus. The predictions of his birth are the OT prophecies, and his influence is still seen around the world today. So, who showed up for the birth of Jesus? There are three sets of people presented in Matthew 2:1-12 ... pagans, posers, and a pseudo king.

The king, king Herod, is certifiably crazy. He has killed anyone who was even remotely a threat to his reign, including family members. Clearly this guy has some security issues. He wants nothing more than to be king, king of everything, in control, with no threat to his own sovereignty. The posers are the religious leaders. They knew the prophecies, knew where the Messiah was supposed be born. In fact they are the ones who told Herod that he was to be born in Bethlehem. They had the facts memorized, had their religious structures in place. But what about these pagans? The "magi" they're called. Where did they come from? And why of all people did they feel the need to come honor this child-king who had been born. We're given little detail, only that they came from the east, had an interest in stars, and had somehow heard about "one who was born king of the Jews." These were not Hebrews, not religious guys, not well respected in Jesus' culture. They were pagans, star-gazers, foreigners, gentiles. (by the way, all we know is that they followed a star, found their way to Jerusalem, and asked about a child-king ... let's not pretend that there aren't some pieces missing here - if all they saw was a star, how did they know to expect a king? did an angel visit them as well and we're not told about it? did word travel to their land about Jesus? did they somehow have copies of ancient Hebrew Scriptures that gave them clues? for all we know, they knew very little about what they were getting into)

So, the stage is set ... who's going to show up to honor this king? tbc...

A Royal Mess

So why does Matthew include these women? In a genealogy, which typically only has men, and which sometimes excluded men of questionable character? And in a genealogy of the Son of God ... seems like it would be easy to get left out of that one. And yet, there they are, scandalous women... but wait, we only mentioned four. Who is the fifth woman mentioned in the genealogy? Matthew 1:16 "...and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, and Mary was the mother of Jesus who is called the Messiah." Woman number 5: Mary, the mother of Jesus, and no less scandalous if you think about it. Her story must have sounded crazy. I'm pregnant, but don't worry ... Yahweh is the father. What? Perhaps Matthew was showing that for those who were put off or taken back by her story, Jesus has descended from a long line of crazy stories. The royal line that brought Messiah into the world was a royal mess. Don't let Mary's scandal scare you ... it's nothing new, except this time, it was only apparent scandal. Perhaps Matthew was also reminding us that Jesus has descended from humans, very human humans, scandalous humans ... the very humans He came to save.

Scandalous

This morning I was a guest at gathering of men who meet once a week to fellowship, read a chapter from the Bible, and pray together. While deciding which chapter to read this morning one of the men joked that they were going to make the oldest member (who's 90 btw) read Matthew 1. Of course, the joke was that it would be funny to hear him (or anyone) try to pronounce all the ancient Hebrew names in the genealogy of Jesus found in that chapter. But that's not to say there's nothing of value in this long list of names.

Matthew's record of the lineage of Jesus is very strategic, though not exhaustive. He intentionally leaves some kings out and structures his account so that there are 3 sets of 14 generations. 14 from Abraham to David; 14 from David to the exile; 14 from the exile to Jesus. Much can be said about this, but what should be made clear is that this was not a mistake or lack of diligent research, but rather a literary device making a case for the royal ancestry of Jesus.

There are interesting technical features to be studied up on, but what has really stood out to me as I've been reading the Christmas story this season is the scandalous women found in the genealogy in Matthew 1! Women were not typically cited in genealogies anyway, let alone the brand of woman that are mentioned here. So, why on does Matthew draw attention to these four women: Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, Bathsheeba (who, btw, doesn't even get named). What do these women have in common, if anything, and what do they have to do with the Christmas story? Let us consider ...

Tamar - posed as a prostitute and slept with her father in law, Judah, the tribe from which the Messiah would come.

Rahab - a lying gentile prostitute, she lied to the soldiers in Jericho, hid the Hebrew spies and helped them get away. And for this, she and her family were spared. She ended up marrying a Hebrew, Salmon, and having a son named Boaz, which brings us to ...

Ruth - a gentile who stayed in Israel after the death of her husband, and used less than chaste means (though this is debated) to attract and secure a husband, Boaz. In spite of the scandalous origin of this relationship, they bring the grandfather of King David into the world.

"Solomon, whose mother had been Uriah's wife" - I mean really?! There had to be a better way to say that, a less scandalous way to say that! Poor girl doesn't even get named. In fact, the very thing that made her relationship with David scandalous is what is used to describe her: she "had been Uriah's wife." Bathsheeba was taken to be the wife of King David as a result of his lust, adultery, and murder. Hardly the sort of proud family line you want to trace your heritage back to.

So, four scandalous women (though it should be noted, Judah and David were way more scandalous than the women mentioned in association with them) ... but wait, those aren't the only women mentioned in this genealogy ...