From the beginning of the Christian church, much to-do has been raised over the issue of the virgin birth. By the time the gospels were written decades after the resurrection, it caused much harsh criticism and ridicule. The fact that Jesus’ mother was unwed when He was conceived only served to cast Him in an unfavorable light, and cast nasty aspersions on his mother, among unbelievers. The news of Mary’s conception while still unwed hurt the fledgling religion, yet the gospel writers reported it anyway, believing it to be true.
Could it really be possible that Mary remained a virgin when she became pregnant with Jesus? Historically, the fact of her virginity remained only a matter of faith. In recent years, new evidence has appeared to add strength to the argument for her virginity. Not only was it physically possible for Mary to have conceived by the action of the Holy Spirit alone; other examples of virgin birth have been recorded.
As reported in the documentary film, Jesus–the Whole Story, Sam Berry, a professor of genetics at University College in London, England, is an expert in biological reproduction. In his studies of fish, insects and reptiles, he has found many examples of virgin births. But it is quite a leap from the animal kingdom to human reproduction. According to Berry, the offspring from animal virgin births are always female.
Among human beings, Professor Berry has identified two rare biological conditions where a mother like Mary–that is, a virgin–could have given birth to a boy. First, Mary would have been born with both an X and a Y chromosome, instead of XX, as most women are born. This happens in about one in 5,000,000 women. Most such women have no wombs, but still there are some, which have rudimentary wombs, and still others have been found to have wombs enough to hold a baby. Thus, Professor Berry concludes that virginal conception must be considered a biological anomaly, but not an impossibility.
Some Christians might be discouraged by Professor Berry’s findings, in that it seems to negate the miraculous element of the Spirit’s action in the gospel story. Quite the contrary! Since God created the world and everything in it, there is nothing to prevent God from using ordinary (or even extraordinary, but natural) situations and circumstances to effect God’s will. In fact, as we shall see below, God used the natural instance of an emperor’s decree to place Jesus’ birth in Bethlehem, in fulfillment of the prophesy of Micah (5:2).
Is there anyone who was raised in a Christian home who does not know the Christmas story? For that matter, I have Jewish friends who know the story as well as I do. Some of you who know the story may be tempted to just skip over this part–you know it so well.
But–do you? Do you know the story behind the story? Do you believe the story? Was Jesus really born in a manger? Was Jesus really born? Did angels appear to shepherds in a field? Was it snowing? Was there a miraculous star, and did wise men follow it? Is the whole birth narrative really a true story, or just some enchanting legend that Luke wrote down to enhance Jesus’ mystique?
Let me begin by saying that almost nothing in this next section is written in stone. Scholars have argued, picked the story apart, and debated its validity and symbolism throughout the centuries. If the story is open to so much debate, how can we believe any of it? If all the scholars in the world can’t come to agreement on such a simple little story, then how can we trust any of it? Maybe it was just a fairy tale someone created to keep us all in line. Since we can’t possibly ever get all the facts, we might as well ignore it and move on. Do you think?
When I was growing up, I lived with an aunt who didn’t believe in reading. She used to tell me, “You can’t believe everything you read in books.” Her solution to that bit of truth? Don’t read anything. She never read a book of any kind, and she did her best to keep me from reading, too. Ridiculous isn’t it–the idea that since not every book tells the absolute, 100% truth, then one should not believe anything written in any book–that no one should read books at all!
Should we apply that principle in our study of the bible? Since the bible appears to have discrepancies–since scholars debate it so much–since they have so many differing opinions on who said what and what really happened–can we trust any of it? Oh yes, we can.
Many of the so-called discrepancies actually provide validity to the texts. Three of the gospels are said to have been written by or for three actual witnesses to the events. Each reported the events that were the most meaningful to them, and they wrote from their individual perspectives. It is only natural that while several stories would be the same, other stories would be shared because the individual writer was more impressed by the event than the others were–or perhaps different writers were present at different times. Too, the gospels were written many years after the fact. It would be unreasonable not to expect some minute details to have grown fuzzy in people’s memories. Thus, the stories might appear to be disparate.
Luke’s perspective was different from the other gospel writers. Luke was a doctor–a scientist–and he approached his work with a scientist’s eye and mind. Further, because he was a doctor he would have been privy to certain information provided by his patients to which other writers might not have had access. He might have been able to interview Mary in a way that others could not, for example. She might have shared things with him, as her physician, she told to no other.
Many scholars believe that Luke was a Gentile. If this is true, it would have freed him from a tradition bias. That is, in matters of faith, when one is brought up in one religion or system of beliefs, it is more emotionally and spiritually difficult for that person to challenge the faith’s teachings than for an outsider to do so. Luke had none of the insider’s qualms, so he was free to investigate, and let the chips fall where they may. He became not only a staunch Christian, but also a close companion of Paul’s, and accompanied him on several of his missionary journeys. His writings (Luke/Acts) constitute no less than 27% of the Christian Testament.
There is no doubt that Jesus existed. The historian, Josephus, as well over 75 others wrote of him and his deeds. That He lived is not a question. Scholars have disagreed greatly about the incidence of His birth. Luke’s gospel provides the only account. Perhaps this is because Luke, the physician, might have been given the information from Jesus’ mother, Mary, or from a close relative. This is his story.
At that time, it came to pass that Caesar Augustus decreed that there should be taken a census of the entire Roman world. (This first census took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria.) So all the people went to their home towns to be registered. Likewise, Joseph went up from Galilee, from the city of Nazareth, to Judea, to the city of David, called Bethlehem, since he was from the house and family of David. He went there with Mary, his betrothed wife, soon due to give birth. While they were there Mary’s time was fulfilled, and she gave birth to her first-born son. Since there was no room for them in the inn, she wrapped him up in cloths and placed him in a manger. (Luke 2:1-8)
Caesar Augustus was emperor of Rome, and Palestine at the time was an occupied Roman territory. The purpose of the census had to do with assessing taxation. Luke may have been mistaken about Quirinius’ position at the time, as he didn’t become governor of Syria until 6 A.D., though he was a high official for years prior.
Joseph, since he was of King David’s lineage, went to Bethlehem for the census. Nazareth was over eighty miles away from Bethlehem. This would have been a most arduous trip for a pregnant woman to take. Since she had spent only three months with her relative, Elizabeth, Mary’s pregnancy might not have yet been apparent, so it could very well be that Joseph quickly spirited her away from town to avoid the community’s consternation and wrath. Luke doesn’t tell us how long it took the couple to reach Bethlehem, nor how long they were there before Mary’s time for delivery came. While tradition depicts the couple going from inn to inn and being turned out just before the baby’s birth, that scenario might not have been the case at all. Since Joseph’s family was originally from Bethlehem, most likely there were relatives at whose homes they might have stayed. Of course, since all of the out-of-town relatives had come in all at once, the home could have been crowded.
First century Palestinian homes were laid out quite differently from the way most are today. In some isolated villages, some homes still are configured in much the same way they were then. Here it is considered normal for humans and animals to share living space. The homes consist of two floors. The animals live on ground level, while the humans live in a loft above. This layout serves several purposes. During the cold months, it provides warmth and safety for the animals, while the heat from the animals serves to make the upper area warmer, too.
The Greek word for inn is kataluma, and can also refer to an upper room in a home. So, it might very well be that what Luke wrote was that because the upper room was so crowded with other relatives, Mary and Joseph had to stay below, and Mary gave birth to Jesus downstairs among the animals. If the living quarters were crowded, it also seems obvious that the host women would have made a place for Mary with the animals to provide her a little privacy while she delivered the baby. We find some indication that the baby was actually born in a house in Matthew 2:11.
Newborns were usually wrapped in long strips of cloth, which would provide both warmth and a sense of security. The baby Jesus was placed in a manger. It would have been a very handy and logical substitute for a crib.
This ends today’s study.
Thoughts to Ponder