On December 25th, 0000 (0000.12.25) Jesus was born.
- Well, no we don't know what day of the year it was, there are arguments for and against being around December - but the fact is, we don't know. And no, his birth was probably a few years earlier based on the information in the Bible. The 0000 year calculation was done years later and, yup, wasn't all that accurate.
Anyway, Joseph along with Mary on a donkey…
- Ah sorry, no Donkey, not mentioned anywhere in the Bible or writings of the time. Some say more likely Joseph pulled Mary in a cart, some say definitely not a donkey - too expensive for Joseph and Mary. But to be fair, Isaiah 1:3, as a prophecy suggests that the donkey might have been at the manger, and that may be where the idea at least came from, but their financial status makes it very unlikely (see later.)
So Joseph and Mary, by some means, leave Nazareth and get to Bethlehem, right?
- Yes that is correct. Luke 2: 4-5
Where the innkeeper said there was no room in the inn.
- Um, sorry, on 2 out of 3. The bible says nothing about an innkeeper, and the word 'inn' is the word katalumatee καταλύματι which means 'guest chamber' or 'place' or … well almost anything of that sort except inn since there is at least one better word for 'inn' in Greek pandocheion πανδοχεῖον, and Luke uses it in Luke 10:34, so I think we can safely rule 'inn' out. So it may have been some relative's house that already had too many people. But yes … there was no room in whatever place would have been obvious to the readers around the time of Jesus.
OK, so they are invited to stay in the stable.
- Sorry, it might have been a cave, a barn, a stable, the lower level of the house (where the animals lived) or a place with no cover overhead even on the 'back lawn'.
But he was born that very night in a manger, I'm sure I read that in the Bible
- Probably not, kind of hard for Mary to give birth in a food trough (manger). He may even have been born in the house that was Joseph's relatives, but there was no space to lay him down that was not the floor, so they took him to the best place they could find - a food trough for animals, a manger, with maybe some nice soft hay, a place to avoid stepping on him accidentally by all those people. (Why do I say hay? it isn't in the bible, but hay is softer than straw, but it could have been other material, they may have removed the feed before putting Jesus in.) Back to the location of the manger - what reason is there to say that the manger wasn't brought in the house because the house had no place for him to safely lay due to all the people. But I'm inclined to think it was outside the house because of the "because there was no καταλύματι available for them"
- All we know is: There wasn't enough room, and they laid him in a manger.
- And as far as it being that very night, it says Luke 2:6 that "while they were there" the baby was born, nothing about immediately that 1st night,
- it does though say the shepherds were notified at night (Luke 2:8) so somewhere between roughly 6pm and 6am. So it could have been at night, so assuming they were told at the instant of the birth - that would then place the birth at night, but that is conjecture only.
OK, but it was silent night, a holy night.
- so if it was night - and there were animals around - why do we think it was a silent night?
- holy night. Holy meaning 'to be set apart'. Well, in one sense it was a holy night, but God didn't see fit to tell us which day of the year it was - so doesn't that mean it was NOT a holy night?
- For the people of that day, it was a noise, regular night. Now - well, we try to set it apart, so I guess that makes it 'holy' in retrospect.
The star and the angel above the manger …
- hold on, the start doesn't come until later (see below) and there is nothing about angels in the nativity scene. Though Mary and Joseph were both visited by angels several months earlier, the next time we see angels is above the shepherds out in the fields.
- Indeed - the shepherds were told to go look for a baby, in cloths, lying in a manger. Don't you think they would have mentioned "oh yeah, and to help you find the correct manger … look that big blazing star right over there". If the star was over the manger, neither the shepherds, and possibly not even the angels noticed it. That was up to the Magi to notice it in the West. (They came FROM the East)
After he was born, this perfect son of God was the perfect baby - no crying he made.
- Nope, that came 19 or so centuries later, made for a nice little song.
- It isn't a sin for a baby to cry - it's how they communicate needs. Jesus didn't come out of the womb talking in words let alone full sentences.
The light Christmas snow was falling gently like a postcard
- interestingly, while the tradition of 'snow at Christmas' came years later in Northern climates, maybe along with Santa in the North pole or more likely Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol helped along by Bing Crosby, it is at least possible, with light snow every 3 to 4 years, most common in December, January and February, so like a 1 in 90 x 3, chance, so maybe a 1 in 270 years chance of it falling on a given day. But not very heavy.
So no sleighbells ringing in a 1 horse open sleigh?
- not unless the sleigh has wheels, because no one would build a sleigh for a place that has only had enough snow for a sleigh once in recorded history!
But the sheep and the donkeys and the other animals were amazed at him.
- no indication there were other animals that Mary and Joseph had to fend off or even just tolerate. There might have been, but due to verses like Isaiah 1:3 with its reference to the donkey's master's crib and the ox suggest that prophetically there were those two might have been there and were aware of who Jesus is, it makes the story kind of nice to think there were animals who recognized him for what he was. So if you want to include an ox and a donkey in your nativity scene, that's probably ok as a good guess.
So that night the choir of angels sang to the shepherds against the beautiful background of the stars, right?
- Nope, it was a strategos (army, host) of angels,
- and they spoke, not sang. (Luke 2:9-13)
- we do know it was at night (Luke 2:8)
- It appears almost certainly that it was before Jesus was 8 days old (Luke 21)
A comment I've heard less often is "The shepherds were visited by the angels at midnight". Nothing in the Bible about "mid" night. Just 'at night'.
OK, so the army of angels told the shepherds to go find Jesus wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.
- mostly.
- They did arrive at a time when the baby was resting in the manger, not eating.
- He was wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.
- But … his name wasn't Jesus yet. He was 'a Savior, the Messiah, the Lord' (Luke 2:11), but not yet "Jesus" (Luke 2:21)
And then the shepherds rushed to Bethlehem to find the baby, one of them with that cute lamb over his shoulders - the one on the left.
- you are correct they came to see the baby, but it doesn't say whether they brought any lambs - but it is a nice touch and is possible at least. Luke (2:16).
And the shepherds woke everyone up to tell them what they had seen.
- Yup. (Luke 2:17-18). Well, maybe not everyone, but I'm sure they weren't quiet spreading the news.
Then the little drummer boy stopped by …
- OK, hopefully everyone knows this was made up nearly 2000 years later.
While the little drummer boy was finishing up his song, doing my favorite version, the "Live in Phoenix version by For King and Country", the 3 Kings from the orient arrived, all excited to see the baby in the manger too, and they left their gifts under the evergreen tree with its beautiful decorations.
-
Well, obviously the song came centuries later, and nope to the CHRISTmas tree with or without decorations, but
-
It doesn't say Kings, it says Magi - wise men. Herod would likely have had a bigger fit if a bunch of Kings arrived on his doorstep.
-
Also, while there were 3 GIFTS it doesn't say there where 3 Magi. It was at least 2 and could have been 100's.
-
Then there's that pesky Orient place. The Bible says they came from the East: Iran maybe? India? Myanmar? Southern China (Orient) maybe? You can rule out Greece, Türkiye and Egypt (NW, N and West). Perhaps these Magi were Jewish positional descendants of Daniel and his friends (They had probably been made eunuchs, they served under the 'chief eunuch Ashpenaz" so, you know, not biological descendants)
-
It says the star appeared over the 'place' where Jesus was, then a tiny bit later, the house. So, while it's possible it was the same house the manger was attached to - it would have said the manger if they met him in the nativity scene. Also, his star had appeared 2 years earlier (Matt 2:7 and 16) so he was more likely 2 years old at the time.
-
(Next time you can sing "We the Magi from somewhere East of Bethlehem…" instead of "We three Kings of Orient …")
God warned them in a dream to leave a different way than they came, so they got on their camels and…
- so yes, God warned them in a dream, and maybe they rode camels - but maybe they rode horses, or they were pulled in elaborate wagons, maybe some of them walked. We don't know. But camels do look good in a nativity pageant, especially if you can do an outdoor one with live camels. Or, on your mantel, with the manger on one side, you could have the house with the magi and some donkeys or horses on the other side (2 years away conceptually) and not be straying too far from likelihood.
And then Herod killed all the children under 2 and there was no comfort for those that lost their children to Herod's cruelty.
- Well, yes he killed them all.
- But back in the day, there were no chapter and verse numbers, so when Matthew wrote, (2:17-18), "A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more", he was referring to the scripture starting in Jeremiah 31:15. and Matthew says that was fulfilled (2:17), and Jeremiah goes on to say "Restrain your voice from weeping … there is hope … I have heard …," and in that scripture we find that while it starts with that statement that Rachel refuses to be comforted, it then goes on with several promises, as a result I think it fair to say that Matthew was saying that God comforted them. So while I can't prove this, I'd suggest there is stronger evidence than for camels, stable, sheep and so many more that this verse means that God DID somehow comfort those that lost their 0-2 year old boys due to Herod's cruelty.
- In addition, God warned Joseph to leave, so he preserved the life of his son.
Jumping back a couple years. Remember I said that Joseph likely couldn't afford a donkey? (Luke 2:22-24), they presented him to Lord with a sacrifice of a pair of doves or two young pigeons. Contrast this with Leviticus 12:6-9, and especially verse 8: But if she cannot afford a lamb, she is to bring two doves or two young pigeons… So we know that there wasn't enough money to buy a lamb, so there certainly wasn't enough to have a donkey. Jesus was born into poverty, it wasn't until 2 years later (gold, frankincense and myrrh) that there was wealth available for the trip to Egypt perhaps.
So was Jesus God's son, not Joseph's biological son? Yes, Joseph effectively adopted him. Did he come to save me? Yes! He came to save you and me to.
And did Santa Clause, with the help of Rudolf spirit Joseph, Mary and Jesus away to Egypt to protect them from Herod? Nope, St. Nicholas came many years later, never lived in Canada, let alone at the geographic or magnetic North pole (both currently in Canada), and never had any reindeer - let alone one that 'you could almost say it glowed'. And … no elves, toy shop, magic sled.
There are other issues that some have.
Was Mary a perpetual virgin? No, Matthew 1:25, and discussions later about his siblings (4 brothers and at least 2 sisters) Matthew 13:55-56, Mark 6:3, John 7:1-10. I know some claim 'that wasn't literal, they were cousins or children of Joseph with a prior wife'. But the straight sense of the scripture says that Mary did not stay a virgin after the birth of Jesus. It is wild speculation to suggest that she was a perpetual virgin with no basis in scripture.
We shouldn't celebrate CHRISTmas, it has pagan roots. I say - so what. It is what it is. It has been perverted and purified many times. The key is - I am celebrating what the Bible says happened and it is the 2nd most important week in my (Christian) calendar. (Easter, with Good Friday and Easter Sunday getting top billing.)
The Bible says that CHRISTmas trees are evil. This comes from Jeremiah 10:1-5. Going with a fairly literal translation, the NET: "For the religion of these people is worthless.
They cut down a tree in the forest,
and a craftsman makes it into an idol with his tools.
4 He decorates it with overlays of silver and gold.
He uses hammer and nails to fasten it together
so that it will not fall over.
5 Such idols are like scarecrows in a cucumber field.
They cannot talk.
They must be carried because they cannot walk.
Do not be afraid of them
because they cannot hurt you.
And they do not have any power to help you."
It is the 'deck it with silver and gold' I think that gets people thinking they are evil. But notice -
-
They cut it down
-
A craftsman makes it into an idol
-
THEN it is decorated
We don't worship (make an idol out of) the tree. It stays the tree and is decorated, we don't then carry it around, we aren't afraid of them (unless you put wax candles on and light them, but then it is the fire that we are afraid of, not the tree.) We do not think it has any power to help you. So … I think CHRISTmas trees are well and good.
Quick note: Why do I say "CHRISTmas" instead of Christmas and why do I often pronounce it "CHRIST-mas"? Because years ago Christians were tired of 'Christmas' being about gifts and tinsel and turkey, instead of about CHRIST, so they did the obvious thing, they started spelling it Xmas or χmas … the Greek letter "Chi", as it the first part of the word 'Christ' - to emphasize CHRIST in Christmas. It wasn't "X-ing it out", but over time, Xmas started to be used for those that wanted to remove CHRIST from CHRISTmas, and it fell out of vogue with Christians where were trying to emphasize CHRIST in CHRISTmas. So … I took to writing it CHRISTmas, and so far it has worked, people KNOW that I'm emphasizing CHRIST in Christmas. So I wish you a very merry "Chi"mas (Xmas) and a blessed CHRISTmas to boot. (Christ-mas would probably work too if CHRISTmas is too emphatical for you) … but if you say Xmas to me, I'll know you are trying to very strongly emphasize Christ, and I hope every time you see Xmas, as a Jewish rabbi friend of mine said to me once: "Now I can't help but think of Christ every time I see Xmas, I wish people would go back to Christmas so I wouldn't be constantly reminded about the Christ in Xmas."
Can I suggest you read the real story? Luke 1 & 2, Matthew 1:17-2:21