Reconstructing Christmas

It's time for the Christmas story once again, how Mary and Joseph had to go to Bethlehem to pay their taxes and couldn't find any room in the local inn so they had to suffer the indignity of spending the night with the animals - and that's why the Messiah was literally born in a barn.

But that's not really the way it happened. In some ways the reality wasn't as bad as we think; in other, more important ways, it was worse; and in all ways, it is a more human tale that we usually realize.

First, let's be clear - we are trying to piece together the details of what happened long ago by reconstructing life in first-century Judea and using that to fill in the gaps in the biblical record. Our knowledge is fragmentary, there are lots of gaps, and at times we must simply make our best guess. But we can certainly get closer to the truth than the usual sanitized nativity story bathed in the rosy glow of tradition.

First, Joseph did not go to Bethlehem just to pay his taxes, but to register for a census. Scripture says that everyone went to his own town to be registered as part of a Rome-ordered census. But while history records a number of times that the Romans took a census, there is no record of anyone having to travel to their ancestral homes to be counted. It is possible that Joseph still owned property in Bethlehem and so had to be counted there. Or perhaps because of the Jewish pride in ancestry, this was a local Jewish custom. Especially the descendants of David would want to go to David's hometown to be counted for the census.

Second, why did Mary accompany Joseph? She was certainly not required to do so by law, and it seems unlikely that even local custom would have required a woman to accompany her almost-husband for a Roman census. Again, we are left to make our best guess as to the reason that Mary went to Bethlehem with Joseph, and there are two possibilities. First, she almost certainly knew the prophecy that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem, and perhaps she insisted on going with Joseph in order to fulfill this prophecy. Or there is a darker possibility - Joseph was her betrothed, not her husband. A betrothed woman remained a member of her father's household until the wedding. Once she was "found to be with child," the natural assumption would have been that it was Joseph's child, and the fact that Joseph chose to marry her anyway made this certain - at least in the eyes of her family and neighbors. Might Mary have been banished from her father's home and chosen to accompany Joseph because there was no other real option for her? At least going with Joseph would have provided an escape from the local gossip surrounding the pregnancy.

Once they arrived in Bethlehem - whether they traveled by foot, donkey, or cart, we just don't know - we run into the next big question. What was the "inn"? Several factors suggest that it wasn't actually an inn at all. First, the word traditionally translated "inn" has a variety of uses ranging from "inn" to "guest quarters" or even "dining room," but it's definitely not the usual word for "inn." Second, as far as we know, Bethlehem at the time was an unimportant village of just a few families - not the sort of place that would need an inn. Third, Joseph had relatives in Bethlehem - that's the reason that he went there. Given the strong cultural emphasis on family and hospitality, there's no way that Joseph and Mary were left to fend for themselves at the local inn. So, putting all the pieces together, it's likely that Joseph and Mary were staying with Joseph's relatives, and since there was no room for them in the living quarters, they had to spend the night at the home's stable.

Actually, staying with the animals was probably not that big a deal, especially when away from home. The poor of that day lived as best they could, their houses were generally strong but simple shelters, and they spent most of their time outside anyway. In many houses, the animals lived on the ground floor, with the living quarters above. So rather than being alone in a secluded stable, Mary likely gave birth in or very near a house, with relatives to assist her.

But that brings up another question. It's easy to understand a harried innkeeper turning Joseph and Mary away from his door, but relatives? Especially in light of that culture's hospitality expectations, it's almost inconceivable that Joseph's relatives would not make room for them in the living quarters of the house, even if it meant the owners sleeping with the animals. The situation only makes sense when we understand the stigma that was on Mary as an unwed mother. No doubt in the minds of many, she (and Joseph) should have been stoned for adultery. After bringing such a blight on the family name - David's family! - being granted any lodging at all was more than should be expected.

If this reconstruction is correct, then when newborn Jesus was laid in the manger, it was not because He was ignored, but because, along with Mary and Joseph, He was rejected, deemed unfit to be with the family. The first Christmas, then, was not heartwarming or peaceful, but cruel and cutting. No wonder that Mary "treasured up" the shepherd's visit as the single shining moment of that bitter night, the one reminder that God still remembered her and her Child.

So this year as you celebrate the coming of the Savior, remember the reality of the first Christmas: in the midst of darkness, pain and confusion, Christ enters, faith endures, and God is still in control.