Christmastime is here! For many of us, the holiday brings happiness and cheer and longstanding traditions. One that my family and neighbors participated in when I was a kid was Las Posadas (the inn). Basically a procession of “pilgrims” (neighborhood families) goes house to house asking for lodging. The residents refuse (as planned) and the journey continues until the “innkeeper” takes them in. This festivity serves as a reenactment of Mary and Joseph’s journey to Bethlehem. Plus it comes with plenty of singing, tamale eating, and piñata breaking!
Of course, we all know Mary and Joseph didn’t eat tamales or break piñatas, but it turns out there are other elements in this “reenactment” of the nativity (and in many Christmas carols, for that matter) that may not have been part of the real Christmas narrative.
Theology Mom Krista Bontrager helps explain a few of these common myths about Christmas and how to “detox ourselves” from embellishing on a perfectly good story.
Krista, many of us were taught that Jesus was born in a stable because “there was no room in the inn.” Was He born in a stable?
Probably not. Nowhere in the Bible does it state that Joseph went from home to home looking for a place to stay. That story stems from many translations’ use of the word “inn” in Luke 2:7. From that, we extrapolate a whole slew of events—the innkeeper, innkeeper’s wife, a No Vacancy sign flashing. The problem is that the word used in Luke 2 (kataluma) is not the word for inn—that’s a bad English translation. The word is better translated as “upper room” or “guest room.” In fact, the 2011 translation of NIV makes that correction. Luke 22:11 also uses kataluma to describe the guest room where the last supper took place. In contrast, pandocheion (correctly translated as “inn”) appears in the parable of the Good Samaritan.
Where was Jesus born, then, if not in a stable?
It’s much more likely He was born in a home. Mary and Joseph were going to their ancestral home, which means they had extended family there. It’s almost inconceivable that their family would not have taken them in considering the cultural practices of that time.
So if Jesus was born in a home, why does the Bible say He was placed in a manger?
That’s an important detail because it tells us what part of the house they were in. In those days, homes had an upper level where the family would sleep and a lower level where animals were kept at night for the animals’ protection and to provide heat. It seems that Jesus was born in that lower level where the animals were kept. And he was placed in a manger (feed trough) because they make for a great little cradle. In fact it reminds me of the makeshift bed my husband and I once made for our daughter when we stayed overnight at a hotel.
What about some of the characters often suggested as being present at Christ’s birth?
The shepherds were present, but the three wise men were not. Matthew’s account apparently takes place during a different time frame than Luke’s. One clue is that the Greek word Matthew used to describe Jesus is a paidion, which can mean anything from an infant to a toddler. This range of definitions would be consistent with King Herod killing all the Jewish boys ages two and under (Matthew 2). This would mean that Jesus was probably two or younger when He was visited by the wise men.
Okay, so we’ve eliminated the stable and the wise men from the Nativity. What about the date? Was Jesus born on December 25?
Maybe. The standard story is that December 25 was adopted after Constantine’s conversion to Christianity because it was on a pagan holiday and the winter solstice. Christians then co-opted the holiday and Christianized it. What’s interesting is that the early church put almost no emphasis on celebrating the birth of Christ. They were much more concerned with the resurrection. It’s not until AD 200 where possible dates are mentioned for the celebrating of Christ’s birth. By about AD 300 there were two dates: December 25 (for the west) and January 6 (for the east). There does seem to be a tradition of December 25 long before Constantine’s conversion, so that’s why I say maybe. This article from the Biblical Archaeology Review gives a good summary of “How December 25 Became Christmas.”
So what would you like to say to those who might (facetiously) say this information ruins Christmas for them, or at least shakes up some sentimental traditions?
I think the shepherds are a definite key to Luke’s story. Shepherds were at the bottom of the social ladder, down there with the eunuchs in how they were perceived by their fellow Jews. Having handled animal feces and carcasses, they were dirty and considered ceremonially unclean. In order to worship in the temple, they would have to go through multiple days of cleaning rituals. Yet the Angel tells the shepherds to run to Bethlehem and see the Savior. The Angel doesn’t say “oh, and on your way you might want to get cleaned up first.” No, the shepherds go right there and see God Incarnate. Then they spread the word that Jesus had been born. God chose people at the bottom of the social ladder to be the first evangelists. That, to me, is Luke’s point. It’s the shepherds’ ability to run to the Savior without any ritual or cleaning. This is a Savior for them—these dirty people. It’s the same for the wise men. They were Gentiles, but Christ is a Savior for them, too. They go to Bethlehem and bow down to worship God Incarnate. It’s the very beginnings of the revolution that Jesus will bring. HE is now the temple, the sacrifice, the Great High Priest, the replacement for all of the things the Old Testament foreshadowed.
***
This definitely puts the nativity story into its proper cultural and biblical context, Krista! Its significance isn’t in the stable or in the kindness of the innkeepers or in the timing of the wise men’s visit. The true meaning of Christmas is that God came in the flesh as Jesus Christ to be a Savior for all people and accessible to all people.
Want to hear more from Krista? Check out her Take Two guest post on “Reconsidering the James Ossuary.” And don’t forget to check out her website, Theology Mom, and blog, Old Earth Creationism. She plans to post Christmas-related videos soon! Here’s her post on “Why We Shouldn’t Get Our Theology from the Nativity.”
– Sandra
December 2, 2011 at 12:34 pm
The bible gives all kinds of clues to when Jesus was born…….and it`s no where near December 25th.
It was most likely in September.
December 5, 2011 at 12:15 pm
Thanks for your comment, Pete. You may have seen Krista’s response on Facebook. The gist is that this post was intended as an introduction and that the jury’s still out regarding a definitive date for Christ’s birth. The key issue we intended to communicate is that Christ was born and that He is the Savior for all people. Hope that came across in the blog.
December 20, 2012 at 10:32 am
xzactly da point…God blezz u!
December 2, 2011 at 1:17 pm
These are important to know, especially addressing challenges such as Zeitgeist, which clames to prove that Christianity is just another religion which imitates other pagan religions. This particular film emphasizes that the Christian belief of Jesus being born on December 25th (which we don’t) is linked to the solstice and the three wisemen at the birth (which is not accurate) mirrors the constellations etc. It’s nothing to ruin someone’s Nativity scene over, but always important to know as much as we can about our Lord.
December 5, 2011 at 12:10 pm
Thanks for the feedback, Michelle. You mentioned a film. Do you mean the Star of Bethlehem? Though it’s not discussed here, it is something Take Two addressed in a previous post. And you’re correct in pointing out that the film emphasizes certain beliefs (link to the solstice; constellations) that we here at RTB wouldn’t necessarily embrace. But, as you rightly stated, it’s important to know more about our Lord. How wonderful that His Word and His creation invite us to know Him more!
December 2, 2011 at 3:03 pm
Thank your for the link to the BAR article. I subscribe to the March 25th date for the conception and death date for Jesus (with Christmas being 9 months later) as I was born on March 25th
Thanks for clearing up a lot of the misinformation spewing about regarding Christmas’ date and pagan connections, even from the pulpit.
December 5, 2011 at 11:59 am
You’re very welcome, Gary. I can see why March 25 is especially meaningful for you! A very early happy birthday to you.
December 4, 2011 at 4:53 pm
Thanks for the historical details of the Christmas story. But now I’ll have to bite my tongue when I hear the story about the hard-hearted innkeeper. I guess I’ll just have to think of the hard-hearted extended family who put the pregnant woman downstairs with the goats and other critters.
December 5, 2011 at 12:03 pm
Thanks for the comment, Mike. Krista’s insight helped me to understand how much we extrapolate from the word “inn.” It certainly does change our perspective on standard stories, doesn’t it?
December 5, 2011 at 11:51 am
another thing is that it wasn’t three wise men, the actual number wasn’t said, only that there were three gifts.
December 5, 2011 at 12:05 pm
You’re absolutely right, Jacob! Krista brought that point up after the blog posted. I may need to update it…
December 9, 2011 at 10:30 pm
A minister that I had met many years ago said he delved into the issue and came across a regulation of the time that stated that sheep were banned from Jerusalem and environs by the priests,except in the period immediately before and after Passover, perhaps to keep smells and dust to a minimum. Unfortunately, I do not know his source and my guess is that he is no longer with us. My guess would be that it is found in the Talmud. If this is so, the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world was born in the same season that the ordinary lambs were.
December 11, 2011 at 3:20 pm
[...] Take Two Apologetics. It’s an interview with Krista Bontrager. I removed the links from the excerpt below, so [...]
December 12, 2011 at 12:55 pm
[...] • Why Christmas? Here are 12 reasons from the best possible source. And here are five common myths about Christmas. [...]
December 13, 2011 at 1:25 am
Thanks for the informative post! Now what about the origin of the Christmas tree? Haha
December 13, 2011 at 8:28 pm
You’re welcome. And funny you should ask, but Maureen’s Christmas controversies post last year discusses the origin of Christmas trees. http://rtbtaketwo.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/christmas-controversies/. However you celebrate the holiday, I hope you have a blessed one!
December 5, 2012 at 3:27 pm
[...] detail about common Christmas myths can be found from some of the folks associated with Reasons to [...]
December 20, 2012 at 12:28 pm
[...] “Top 5 Common Christmas Myths“ [...]
December 21, 2012 at 11:38 pm
[...] Five Common Myths About the Christmas Story. How many of these were you aware of? [...]
December 23, 2012 at 4:32 am
To believe the “Solstice” explanation you’d have to ignore the fact that the Solstice didn’t occur on Dec 25th. It has been and always will be a red herring. The reason for the December Christmas actually comes from Christ’s Passion, death and resurrection. Some of the dates mentioned were between March 17 and 21, which would have been around the Spring Equinox. However, Europeans were using March 25 for the beginning of the New Year and to designate the first day of Spring, though it was inaccurate. The choice for December 25th wasn’t because of the Solstice but because it gave a symbolic meaning for Christ’s birth placing it nine months after New Year as neither Easter nor Christmas coincide with the heavenly cycles. This is to say that Christmas, the birth of the savior, is nine months after the resurrection.
At the time, the Armenians were celebrating Christmas in January, and still do, as they had attempted to find a historic date rather than a symbolic date. To reconcile the differences in the two traditions the 12 days of Christmas were created.
December 27, 2012 at 4:11 am
Surely the reason for the difference between the western and eastern dates for Christmas is that the eastern churches still use the Julian calendar, whereas the western churches use the Gregorian? If so, there wouldn’t have been anything like a two-week difference in 300 A.D.
December 27, 2012 at 4:36 am
Of course, the Gregorian calendar wasn’t introduced until much later than 300 A.D., so the eastern and western churches should have been using the same calendar then.
December 27, 2012 at 4:22 am
Sorry, I accidentally erased the ‘follow-up’ comments option when I replied to the confirming e-mail.