A
THE BIRTH OF JESUS CHRIST
By Gary Ray Branscome
While every student of Scripture knows that some of the
details included in our popular remembrance of Christmas are not explicitly
stated in Scripture, I find those who constantly point those things out
somewhat irritating; irritating because even though some of the things that
they say are factual, they often go beyond the facts, and, in my opinion,
sometimes “strain at a gnat” while
swallowing “a camel” (Matthew 23:24). That said, let me give some examples.
I heard someone very confidently say, “When Mary and
Joseph arrived in Bethlehem Mary was not riding a donkey.” What that person
failed to see is that even though the Bible does not say that Mary and Joseph
had a donkey, it does not say
that they did not have a donkey. Moreover, there are some good reasons for
believing that they had one. First of all, because Joseph was a carpenter he
would have had his tools with him (that is how he made his living). And,
because those tools were heavy, he would need a donkey to carry them. Second,
because Mary was “great with child,” it would have been difficult for her to
walk, so riding makes sense. My point is this: Instead of picking at details,
let’s just be humble enough to admit that even though Bible does not say that
they had a donkey, there are some good reasons to believe that they did.
I have also heard people say, “Mary and Joseph did not
go to an inn.” To defend this assertion they argue that the word translated
“inn” in Luke 2:7 (KJV) is different from the word for inn used in the parable
of the good Samaritan; and could be translated as
“house” or “guest room”. Some also argue that Mary and Joseph would have stayed
with relatives. However, all of these assertions rest on assumptions. First of
all, the Bible nowhere tells us that they stayed with relatives. Second, the
fault finders read modern ideas of what constitutes and “inn” into the text. In
contrast, the oldest inn in the state of
There are others who assert that Mary and Joseph were
not in a stable at all, but were in a house. They base that claim on the fact
that some archeological excavations of homes from that era show evidence that
animals were kept in the lower level. Nevertheless, we know that a manger was
present in the place Mary and Joseph stayed, so animals were stabled there. I
would call that a stable. Furthermore, the Bible says nothing about the owners
living in the stable, so why call it a house. Anyway, a house could not
accommodate more than a few animals (certainly not a herd of sheep), so the
evidence is far from conclusive.
According to tradition, the stable where Mary and
Joseph stayed was in a cave, and that cave is still shown to tourists in
Has anyone even considered the fact that God may have
planned for Mary and Joseph to stay where they did? The fact that a manger was
present makes it clear that animals were stabled there. And, if the owner
rented space, it could be called an inn.
I have often heard people say, “There were not just
three wise men, there may have been many.” And, while that is possible, the
people who are so quick to make that assertion seem blind to the fact that the Bible nowhere says that there were not
three wise men, so there is no Biblical reason to
nit-pick over the number. Every student of Scripture knows that the number
three is inferred from the fact that there were three gifts. So I repeat. Let’s
just be humble enough to admit that we do not know.
There are also some who are quick to point out that
the “wise men” did not come to the stable. And, while every student of
scripture knows that fact; wise men are included in nativity scenes because
they are part of the Christmas story, and it would be impractical to have
nativity scenes divided into two different places, one for the shepherds and
one for the wise men.
Swallowing One Huge Camel
When it comes to Christ’s birth, the people who
nit-pick over the points just discussed generally turn a blind eye to a total
misrepresentation of Mary and Joseph’s relationship. To put it bluntly: Mary and Joseph were not just engaged. They
were man and wife! Mary was Joseph’s “espoused
wife,” not someone who was not yet his wife (Luke 2:5).
Even though the relationship of Mary and Joseph would
have been described by others in their community as a “betrothal,” according to
Jewish law a betrothed couple were legally man and
wife. Or as Lenski put it, “The Jewish betrothal was the marriage itself. But the Jewish custom
placed an interval, longer or shorter, between the betrothal and the bringing
home of the bride to her husband’s house [R.C.H. Lenski’s
commentary on The Gospel of Matthew, page 40.]
Unlike the Jewish espousal, our modern engagement is
an agreement to enter marriage at a future date, not an agreement to be man and wife. And, because Mary and Joseph
were legally man and wife, those who describe their relationship as a betrothal
or engagement mislead others by leading them to believe that Mary and Joseph
were living together out of wedlock. And, those who tell engaged couples that
being engaged is the same as being married wind up encouraging immorality.
Having said this I will point out that there is no
word in the English language for the relationship that Joseph and Mary had
before Christ’s birth. I use the archaic term, “espousal,” in order to emphasize the difference between their
relationship and a modern engagement. [To espouse is to embrace or “take as a spouse”.]
The website, “My Jewish Learning,” describes the
espousal this way, “Until late in the Middle Ages, marriage consisted of two
ceremonies that were marked by celebrations at two separate times, with an
interval between. First came the betrothal [erusin]; and later, the wedding [nissuin].
At the betrothal the woman was legally married, although she
still remained in her father’s house. She could not belong to another man
unless she was divorced from her betrothed. The wedding meant only that
the betrothed woman, accompanied by a colorful procession, was brought from her
father’s house to the house of her groom, and the legal tie with him was
consummated.” www.myjewishlearning.com
Another Huge Camel
Those who nit-pick over the points
discussed in the first section also turn a blind eye to the totally unbiblical
claim that Mary had to endure shame and ridicule because of her pregnancy. That
claim does not come from the Bible, but from the carnal imagination of those
who stress works righteousness [i.e. works obedience]. There was never any shame
connected with Christ’s birth.
I have already pointed out that Mary was legally
Joseph’s wife, yet those who stress works obedience love to go on and on about
how “obedient” she was to endure the “shame” of being pregnant with Christ.
However, none of it is true! It is all just something they made up! God brought
the custom of espousal into existence so there would never be any shame
connected with Christ’s birth, and there never was. As I have pointed out, Mary
was legally Joseph’s wife. And, soon after she became pregnant she went into
the hill country to stay with her cousin Elisabeth who was six months pregnant
(Luke
We do not know how Joseph learned that
Mary was pregnant, but, after being told by the angel “Do not be afraid to take
unto you Mary your wife,” he took
her to himself (Matt. 1:20, 24). Moreover, just as some weddings today are large
and some are small, so it was then. Joseph could have taken her to his house
without a big celebration, or at three-months no one may have noticed. So there
was no shame! Nor was there any reason for shame. Zacharias,
Elisabeth and Joseph all knew that Mary was pregnant with the messiah. Joseph
then took her to live with him before her pregnancy was obvious, and left for
Conclusion
For serious Christians celebrating Christ’s
entry into the world is an important part of teaching the Gospel. And, the
traditional reenactment of a manger scene by the children is a way of helping
those children understand how Christ entered the world, and why He is both True
Man and True God. Let’s keep that in mind, instead of picking at the details.