The Christmas Story as Scripture Tells it. Luke 2:1-40; Matt. 2:1-18. December 23, 2012

Many people have different ideas about the birth of Jesus. Some people get their theology of Christmas from watching a Charlie Brown animated cartoon on television. Other people get their idea of Christmas from what they observe in different churches or from what they hear in some secular classroom where some professor really has no idea what Christmas is all about. But for those of us who are believers in the Lord Jesus Christ, who believe in the inerrancy, infallibility and accuracy of Scripture, we have to study what the Bible teaches about the birth of Jesus.

But unfortunately, like in so many other areas in our lives, we have a lot of false ideas that have crept into tradition and into our culture that really aren’t part of the Scriptural accounts of the birth of Christ. We have misconceptions about when Jesus was born. Was He actually born on December 25^th or at another time? Is it conceivable that He was even born on December 25^th, or what time of day was it that He was born? Where did His parents stay when they came to Bethlehem? We have this idea that there was this inn and innkeeper and that they were in a barn where the cattle are watching. Is there any mention of cattle or sheep or anything else in the so-called stable that we believe Jesus was born in? We also have in the various nativity scenes that are around the presence of the Magi (always three) and the shepherds at the same time. We also have been told that the swaddling cloths in which the newborn baby was wrapped were really grave clothes. Is that true? We always hear some kind of report from some meteorologist or astronomer talking about the star that appeared in the heavens. Was this a natural star or was this a supernatural star that conveyed a special meaning?

This is a great test of reading for us and of actually seeing what is on the page of Scripture, and not what we have been told is from the page. One of the problems that entered into the church very early on was that by the middle of the second century a division had occurred between Jews and Christians. In the early part of Acts almost all believers were Jewish background believers and understood the Jewish backgrounds of the New Testament, but a hundred years later hardly any Christian understood the Jewish background to the New Testament or had any appreciation for the cultural historical framework of living in Judea in the early part of the first century. So Greeks, Romans and others just sort of imposed their ideas on the story.

One of the most important things we should realise is that the birth of Jesus wasn’t an accident. It didn’t just happen by chance at this particular time. God had prepared the human race for this particular time and had so orchestrated the affairs of history that it was a perfect time for the birth of the savior. Spiritually, God took almost 4000 years to prepare mankind for what was going to be done through the savior. Primarily this was done through the Jewish people in preparation for the coming of a promised Messiah, and there were hundreds of promises and prophesies in the Old Testament focusing on the coming of the promised deliverer and savior who would bear the iniquity of all and provide righteousness for man, according to the prophesy in Isaiah 53.

Paul writes in Galatians 4:4, 5 ^NASB “But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.” In the huge expansion of the Roman Empire there was peace, and this was a time when later throughout the empire travel would be unimpeded. The purpose of Christ’s birth was redemption. He was going to pay that penalty for sin that we might have eternal life.

We are told that in the order of events first the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary, a very young woman probably fifteen or sixteen years of age, who is living in an extremely small virtually insignificant village in Galilee. Nazareth had a population of somewhere between 150-200 and it was viewed by many as not having much value. Gabriel announces to Mary that is going to give birth to a child. Luke 1:26 ^NASB “Now in the sixth month [of Elizabeth’s pregnancy] the angel Gabriel was sent from God to a city in Galilee called Nazareth, [27] to a virgin engaged to a man whose name was Joseph, of the descendants of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.” There was a period in Jewish custom, a betrothal before the actual marriage and the consummation of the marriage. During that period Mary was found to be pregnant. Joseph, we are told in Matthew, is warned by the angel that this was going to happen but that her pregnancy does not mean that she has been unfaithful. She has been made pregnant through the Holy Spirit who has overshadowed her so that she could give birth to the savior, and Joseph would not put her away in divorce.

Luke 2:1 ^NASB “Now in those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that a census be taken of all the inhabited earth. [2] This was the first census taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria.” This locates us in a particular time period. There are some problems here. First of all, there is the historical problem of determining Quirinius’s rule. He became the governor in Syria about some time in 5 or 6 AD. One thing we should understand is that in the early Middle Ages when they were reestablishing the calendar—at the time of Gregory the Great in the 7^th century—they misidentified when Jesus was born. So zero or 1 AD is off the mark. Jesus was not born in year 0. We know from historical records that once they established that and we were able to clarify things that actually Herod the Great, who was the ruler of Judea at the time that Jesus was born, died in 4 BC—specifically on April 11^th. However, Quirinius doesn’t become the official ruler in Syria until around 4 or 5 AD. There are many who have raised issues over this and there are various solutions. One is that this isn’t referring to the time when he was the actual governor over Syria but is referring to when he had a lower position in the administration, overseeing this tax.

“The first census” indicated that there was a second census. That is the one that we do know about from Josephus that took place about AD 6. One of the more recent approaches to resolving this historical problem is in a paper that has recently been written but hasn’t really been vetted much by peers is that Josephus got his dates wrong, not Luke. There seems to be some valid information there. It is also very possible that Quirinius was working his way up through the ranks before he became the governor in Syria and was actually the chief administrator of one of these censuses that were taken, one of these administrative tax things. There is other information we have historically that this kind of thing happened periodically in the Roman Empire and there are other examples, specifically in Egypt and some other areas, where people were required to go back to the historical family village, especially if they owned land or real estate in that home area. Octavius or Augustus was the ruler of the Roman Empire from 27 BC until AD 14. Luke 2:3 ^NASB “And everyone was on his way to register for the census, each to his own city.”

When Mary has been discovered to be pregnant, Joseph as a godly and just man, might have departed earlier than her final trimester just to get her away from town so that there wouldn’t be any questions and people wouldn’t be gossiping about her. We don’t know how far along in the pregnancy she was when they left and went to Bethlehem. The traditional view is that is was very far along in the pregnancy. That doesn’t make a lot of sense, because who is going to put their wife in the last couple of weeks of pregnancy on top of a donkey to walk about 100 miles to get down to Bethlehem? It is likely that it was a couple of months before Mary’s time of expectation would come.

Luke 2:4 ^NASB “Joseph also went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David.” Matthew gives a genealogy of Joseph. It begins with Abraham and it concludes with Joseph. In the middle we read: Matthew 1:11 ^NASB “Josiah became the father of Jeconiah and his brothers, at the time of the deportation to Babylon. [12] After the deportation to Babylon: Jeconiah became the father of Shealtiel, and Shealtiel the father of Zerubbabel… [16] Jacob was the father of Joseph the husband of Mary, by whom Jesus was born, who is called the Messiah.”

Some have said—and it has been very popular to teach—that the genealogy on Matthew establishes a royal line for Joseph, showing that even though Joseph is not the physical father of Jesus he had a claim to the throne. It is true that Joseph would have had a claim to the throne under normal circumstances. If Judea had been an autonomous kingdom and the line of David was still on the throne it is likely that Joseph would have been the king of Judea. But this is not the way things had worked out historically and would not because of an event that occurred in the Old Testament.

Jeconiah--otherwise known by a shortened form of his name, Coniah—had been an evil king and God’s punishment was announced in Jeremiah 22:30: that no descendant of his would ever sit on the throne of Israel and prosper. ^NASB “Thus says the LORD, ‘Write this man down childless, A man who will not prosper in his days; For no man of his descendants will prosper Sitting on the throne of David Or ruling again in Judah.’” So the purpose for that genealogy in Matthew was to show that Joseph couldn’t be Jesus’ physical father. If he had been Jesus’ physical father then Jesus would have no claim to the throne because of the Coniah curse. It is not there positively to show His connection to the Davidic line, it is there negatively to show that Joseph could not be the father. The Luke genealogy focuses on Mary. It splits after the mention of David, going down through the line of Nathan rather than the line of Solomon, ending up with Mary to show that Jesus through Mary has a legitimate claim to the throne of David being from the house and lineage of David.

So they travelled from Nazareth down to Bethlehem (about 75-90 miles). In a direct line they would have gone through Samaria but no self-respecting Jew would travel through Samaria. They usually would cross over into the area known as Perea on the east side of the Jordan River and travel until they reached the area around Bethany beyond the Jordan and then would cross back over as they came to Jerusalem, and Bethlehem is only about seven miles from Jerusalem from the temple mount. So Bethlehem is extremely close to Jerusalem. The reason Bethlehem is important is because in the Old Testament there was a prophesy that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. So God working through the Roman emperor works things together so that there is this decree that means that Joseph has to head back to his ancestral home in Bethlehem which was the small village where the great king David had lived, and this is why it is called the city of David—although the city of David often refers to Jerusalem which became the capital rather than Bethlehem. In Micah 5:2 we are told ^NASB “But as for you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, {Too} little to be among the clans of Judah, From you One will go forth for Me to be ruler in Israel. His goings forth are from long ago, From the days of eternity.” Only God is eternal, so this indicates that the ruler who would come to rule in Israel is going to be born (involving humanity), but He is also one who is eternal (indicating deity).

Luke 2:5 ^NASB “in order to register along with Mary, who was engaged to him, and was with child. [6] While they were there, the days were completed for her to give birth.” That is not a verse that sounds like as soon as she got to the outskirts of Bethlehem she went into labor. They arrived and some time goes by for her days of her pregnancy to be completed, and then she gave birth to her son. [7] “And she gave birth to her firstborn son; and she wrapped Him in cloths, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.” It doesn’t say anything about where she was when she gave birth, but it des say that she brought forth her firstborn son and laid Him in a manger. The mangers are not what we typically see in art work or various other depictions of the birth of Jesus. It is not a sort of makeshift wooden trough for animal feed. They were actually made out of stone. Swaddling cloths were just strips of cloth made from old clothes. When a newborn arrived they would wrap his legs and his arms with these swaddling cloths in order to protect them and so that the limbs would grow straight. This was a normal procedure for any baby. This is not a technical term for some sort of wrapping that would occur for a corpse as well, though there are some who teach that: that even at His birth this foreshadows His death.

He is born at a location. We are told at the end of verse seven that she laid Him in a manger because there was no room for them in the inn. This has given forth the idea that there was a “motel” there is Bethlehem and they forgot to leave the light on for them: that there was no room for them, no vacancy sign out and the heartless innkeeper couldn’t find the presidential suite for them to go to. That is not what is conveyed in the Greek. “There was no room for them” is not an accurate translation. The Greek word translated “room” is topos [topoj], from which we get our English word “topography.” It simply means space or place or a location. There was no space for them in the inn—the Greek word kataluma [kataluma], which doesn’t actually refer to a professional hotel or inn, it refers to a guestroom in a house.

The historical site for the birth of Jesus is now the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. As you come to the front in the church there is a stairway where you go down into the grotto of the nativity, which is a cave. This is the traditional site of the birth of the Lord. People ask how they know that. One of the ways is that in roughly 425-430 when Helena the mother of Constantine, a Christian, travelled down to this area of the Middle East she wanted to know where Jesus was born, where He lived and where He died and she was pointed to these places. But that was several hundred years later so how would they know? There was very solid tradition. One of the things that she discovered was that at the site of the holy sepulcher in Jerusalem Hadrian the Roman Emperor from the early part of the second century had built pagan temples because he didn’t want Jews and Christians coming back to these sites as worship sites. He was going to eradicate any remembrance of either Christianity or Judaism after the Bar Kokhba revolt because the Jews had been so antagonistic to the Romans. So he built those pagan temples on sites that around 125-130 were already sites that were venerated and worshipped by Christians. So the tradition goes back an extremely long way. Helena appealed to her son the emperor and they destroyed the pagan temples and they built churches on the sites to commemorate the events that had taken place there. But they are all covered up by this religiosity and others things and it is a little off-putting.

Well if this isn’t an inn where does the cave come from? The word “inn” is the word kataluma in the Greek, which really means a guest room or an upper room. In reality Jesus was born in a home. The people in Bethlehem, Middle-Easterners, to this day are known for their hospitality. To tell Mary to go have her baby in the barn doesn’t fit with Middle-Eastern hospitality. Traditionally in a home there was an up-stairs living area, an eating area, and they would roll out pallets on the floor when they slept at night and roll them up in the morning. On the ground floor there were a couple of working rooms, a main room where the family would often gather together, a cistern for water, a courtyard, and then there was an indoor stable where the animals were kept inside of the house. Around Bethlehem there are many caves, so it is possible that a home would be built up against one of the hillsides where there was a cave to utilize the cave as part of the house structure itself. This where both archaeology and tradition can be shown to fit together.

This is seen throughout the Scripture. There are stories like the witch of Endor. When Saul came to her she was going to fix dinner. She had a fatted calf in the house. They kept their animals in the house. There is an episode in Luke 13 where Jesus healed a woman who because of demonism had a physical illness. He healed her on the Sabbath and there is a confrontation with the Pharisees over the fact that Jesus healed on the Sabbath. Jesus rebukes them because of their hypocrisy: “You hypocrites, does not each of you on the Sabbath untie his ox or his donkey from the stall [inside the house] and lead him away to water {him?}” His allusion here is to this practice of bringing the animals inside at night and letting them loose the next morning.

In the story of the good Samaritan. The victim is taken to an “inn”—the Greek word pandocheion [pandoxeion], which is the technical Greek word for a hotel or motel. So if Luke had wanted to convey the idea that Joseph and Mary had gone to a traditional inn he would have used this word instead of kataluma which he uses to indicate an upper room. kataluma is the same word used of the upper room used by Jesus and the disciples to celebrate the Passover meal the night before He went to the cross. So Joseph and Mary are not showing up at “Motel Six” where they have some uncaring innkeeper tell them to go stay out in the barn. They are showing up at a relative’s home most likely and when they arrive because so many others had to go to Bethlehem the upper room is already occupied, so they are staying downstairs in the family quarters near where the animals would be. Another possible explanation is that it is crowded and Mary wants a bit of privacy, and she doesn’t want to be upstairs where there are more people.

This isn’t a new view. Anglican scholar E. F.F. Bishop who lived in Jerusalem from 1922-1950 observed this same practice in modern homes in the Bethlehem area. He said: “Perhaps recourse was had to one of the Bethlehem houses with the lower section provided for the animals, with mangers hollowed in stone. The dais, i.e. the first floor is raised up a little, being reserved for the family. Such a manger being immovable, filled with fresh straw, would do duty for a cradle.” Alfred Plummer in his commentary on Luke, written in the first part of the 20^th century, also concluded this on the basis of the vocabulary. He said: “It is a little doubtful whether the familiar translation “in the inn” is correct. It is possible that Joseph had relied on the hospitality of some friend in Bethlehem who guest chamber, however, was already full when he and Mary arrived.” So this changes our perception just a little.

After Mary has given birth. What time of the day did she give birth? We don’t know. But we do know that the angels appeared to the shepherds at night, the text says so. Luke 2:8 ^NASB “In the same region there were {some} shepherds staying out in the fields and keeping watch over their flock by night.” She probably gave birth some time during the day. [10] “But the angel said to them, ‘Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of great joy which will be for all the people; [11] for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. [12] This {will be} a sign for you: you will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.”

Some people have made an issue of the different terms used for babe or child. The technical term for a newborn infant or very young baby is brephos [brefoj] in Greek. There is a broader term, teknion [teknion] which can refer to any child from birth to puberty. When Jesus is taken for circumcision on the eight day He is called a teknion. We can’t base anything substantive on the terms used for Him as a child. He is still an infant all through this particular episode.

Luke 2:13 ^NASB “And suddenly there appeared with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying, [14] ‘Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace among men with whom He is pleased.’” The NKJV reads: “Glory to God in the highest, And on earth peace, goodwill toward men,” which is in the majority of MSS and so it is probably superior to that which is in the Critical Text. The Critical Test reads: “…among men with whom He is pleased.” But God is announcing a savior has come for all, so it is good for all, peace for all, if they believe in Christ as savior.

Then we are told” Luke 2:16 ^NASB “So they came in a hurry and found their way to Mary and Joseph, and the baby as He lay in the manger.” No mention of the Magi.

Luke 2:21 ^NASB “And when eight days had passed, before His circumcision, His name was {then} called Jesus, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb.” Jesus is the Greek form of a Hebrew word Jehoshua or Joshua, from the root word meaning to save or deliver. This is the fulfillment of the command in Matthew 1:21 ^NASB “She [Mary] will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” So this is understood from the very beginning.

Luke 2:22 ^NASB “And when the days for their purification according to the law of Moses were completed …” This is an additional 33 days—Leviticus 12:1-4. “… they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord.” The 42^nd day would be the day when Jesus would be presented at the temple. The Magi don’t show up until after that period, according to what is said in Matthew. In Matthew it says they come and He is in the house. Well He has always been in the house; there is no contradiction there, He was in the same place where He was born.

We know that after the Magi left Joseph is warned in a dream that he needs to leave because of Herod the Great. They leave and go to Egypt and some time after that—a week, two weeks, three weeks—Herod recognizes that the Magi skipped out without returning to him and according to the information they gave him he decides to kill all the male babies two years and younger in Bethlehem. We don’t know why he chose two years. He may have been overcompensating to make sure he got all of them. So that doesn’t give us a precise chronology. After the infants are slaughtered we know that Herod the Great died on April 11^th 4 BC. This means that Jesus is born some time before April 11^th 4 BC. If you add up the 41 days, add in two or three weeks for the visitation of the Magi, the organization that would be needed to get the troops out to go kill all of the infants, two or three weeks at least for Joseph and Mary to go down to Egypt, you end up with a minimal time frame of about seventy-seven days before the death of Herod for Jesus to be born. That would be in mid-January or maybe even mid-December. But because of that statement of “two years or less” it is probably not the immediate December before. It could have been some time up to two years. Jesus could not have been born any later than January of 4 BC but He is not born any earlier than April 11^th of 6 BC.

In the Magi account of Matthew chapter two we are told that Herod secretly called for the Magi and there were more than three. There could have been ten, twenty, thirty or forty; we don’t know how many. They were part of an ethnic tribe in Parthia and they were the soothsays, astronomers and mathematicians who counseled the court of the emperor of Parthia. They were actually the counsel that chose the king in Parthia. Herod was paranoid about the Parthians, he had already run them out of Judea once, and so when these kingmakers showed up on his doorstep asking the whereabouts of the King of the Jews and it wasn’t him his paranoia went into overdrive. He was mentally unstable the last ten years of his life.

Herod asks them when the star appeared and when he makes the decision to kill all of the infants two years and under he does it on the basis of information they gave him. So it is likely that it was not in early 4 BC that Jesus was born but probably in 5 or closer to 6 BC. Matthew focuses on the kingly lineage, and he tells us that Jesus was born “in the days of Herod the king.” So it has to be before 4 BC.

Matthew 2:9 ^NASB “After hearing the king, they went their way; and the star, which they had seen in the east, went on before them until it came and stood over {the place} where the Child was.” So it is not a star that is out in the heavens but one that is close enough to indicate a specific house. [11] “After coming into the house they saw the Child with Mary His mother; and they fell to the ground and worshiped Him. Then, opening their treasures, they presented to Him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh.” So this is the same location where He was born. After that they are warned off by an angel and return another way. Joseph then is warned to take the young child to Egypt (v. 13) and they stay there until the death of Herod.

As we have said, none of this happened by chance. When the fullness of time came God sent forth His Son. We celebrate Jesus’ birth because of the purpose. He came to redeem those who were under the law. 1 Timothy 1:15 ^NASB “It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners…” This is why we celebrate Christmas: because the savior has come. As Gabriel announced to Mary, she would name Him Jesus because He would save His people from their sins. The issue today is the same as throughout history since Christ came: Do we believe that He is the promised Messiah who died on the cross for our sins?

Christmas is a time when we celebrate the Light that has come into the world that we might have eternal life. It is a time when we focus on the birth of the savior because there is only one hope, only one light, only one way to have an eternity with God and that is by faith in Jesus Christ.