Manger Scene Madness from Luke 2

 Today I am commenting on Luke 2:6-7 which reads:

While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them.

Manger scenes are one of Christianity’s great Christmas traditions. In the days leading up to Christmas, churches, homes, and many public places will be adorned by the figures of Mary and Joseph and the little baby Jesus in a stable, surrounded by barnyard animals, shepherds, and Wise Men who had come from afar. These figures create beautiful tableaus which allege to tell the story of that first Christmas.

Some churches will even host a live nativity scene with people, animals, and a new-born babe. The best of these, in my opinion, include a Gospel presentation, giving people the chance to actually worship “Christ the new-born King” by giving their lives to Him.

Nativity scenes for the home are popular and they are best sellers. One of my personal favorites was acquired during a mission trip to Peru and depicts the Holy Family in traditional Peruvian dress, and instead of donkeys, cows, and sheep, it features llamas.

Yes, nativity scenes are a wonderful staple of Christmas celebrations . . . except that they are all wrong. OK, they are not all wrong . . .  just mostly wrong. Before anyone gets angry, let us look at the Bible and see what it says.

No Wise Men:

The first correction we need to make is that we should never include the Wise Men in a manger scene.  

Matthew 2:1 tells us that the Magi came to Jerusalem “after Jesus was born in Bethlehem.” Although Mary and Joseph did receive visitors that night, they were the lowly shepherds who had been abiding in the fields, not the Wise Men from the East.

No Stable:

I remember hearing a colleague once criticizing a manger scene as not being Biblical because it depicted a wooden barn instead of a cave. It is true that visitors to the Holy Land are taken to a cave which is said to be the place of Christ’s birth, but if we want to be Biblical, we must realize that neither account of Christ’s birth in Luke nor Matthew mention a stable. 

Or animals, either.

We do know from the Biblical record that Jesus was laid in a manger, and so we assume that an animal feeding trough was in a stable, surrounded by animals, but that is only an assumption. The Bible does not say where Jesus was born, it only tells us where He was not born.

The fact that Jesus was laid in a manger does not mean He had to be born in a stable. I can see a situation where, as Jesus was being born, a young boy or girl was sent out to find something to lay the newborn baby in. This well-meaning adolescent grabbed the first crib-like device that was close at hand – the manger used to feed the family’s animals.  Regardless, there is no mention of a stable. 

In fact, Matthew 2 tells us that the Magi came to Jesus at a house. Yes, this was several days after Jesus was born, but while Matthew and Luke never mention a stable, Matthew does feature a house in the story of the birth of Jesus. This leads me to my next point.

No Innkeeper (and Maybe No Inn, Either):

As they tell the story of the first Christmas, live nativity presentations will often include a scene in which Mary and Joseph are turned away from an inn by a heartless or even evil innkeeper. Please look closely at Luke 2. No innkeeper is mentioned. Did one ever exist?

Proving a negative is always difficult, but we know that Luke was a researcher and that he included many details of the life and ministry of Jesus that are not found in the other Gospels. That is why it is a longer account: he included more details.

From what we know about Luke, can we take the absence of an innkeeper as a fact? No, but we also cannot say there was an innkeeper either, especially if we consider there may not have been an inn.

The NIV translation uses the term “guest room” instead of an inn. Although the ESV uses the traditional “inn” in the text, it allows for the term to be translated as “guest room” in a footnote. With the background of middle eastern hospitality in mind, I think that “guest room” is the proper translation. 

So, no inn, and therefore no evil innkeeper. But in saying that, I don’t lose sight of the fact that there was no proper place available for Christ to be born. 

No Problem:

As I have recounted the problems that I have noted with traditional depictions of the first Christmas, does this make me some kind of doubter or heretic? 

No, not at all. We really do not need to add in stables, animals, or harried innkeepers to realize the humble nature of Christ’s birth. 

He was born to a young, officially unwed mother who was traveling to an overcrowded and strange (to her) town because of a government dictate. The birth of the King of Kings and Lord of Lords was only celebrated by lowly (and probably smelly) shepherds, and there was no proper crib for the baby to lie in.  

This description of Christ’s birth is more Biblically accurate, and it is totally in line with Philippians 2:5-8 which reads:

In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross!

No Excuses:

So, is there anything wrong with our traditional depictions of manger scenes? 

Well, as long as the Magi are not included there is nothing that we depict in a manger scene that contradicts Scripture. I think we can do better, however.

The thing is, like the notes in a study Bible, or the section titles that are included in many Bibles, we must be sure to note that our nativity scenes are culturally oriented messages that must be accompanied by solid Biblical preaching. Let me explain.

During a class on Bible translation at a missionary training center, an instructor was describing how translators must take into account local culture when producing Bibles in local languages. He told of a tribe where the sacrificial animal was a pig and that this tribe had never seen a sheep. He argued that in a Bible for that tribe John 1:29 should read “Behold the pig of God that takes away the sin of the world.”  I disagreed with that idea then, just as I do now.

The idea that Jesus should be called a pig is wrong on many levels, not the least of which is the fact that the Bible called Him a lamb.  Bible translations should consider cultural relevance, but frankly, that was taking things too far. 

I could see translating “lamb” as “sacrificial animal” or some other descriptive term, but I believe it would have been better to be accurate and it should have been left as “lamb.” The role of the preacher  is to interpret the Word and many other passages exist that need a preacher's interpretation.

As Christians, we all need to be one who “correctly handles the Word of Truth.” 

We need to distinguish Biblical principles and facts from explanations or sermon illustrations. 

We also need to make sure we do not overlay our own culture over the Biblical message in a way that excludes people of other cultures or implies that the Scripture teaches things that it doesn’t.

Paul said that being a teacher of the Bible is a serious business and that teachers are held to a higher standard.  We need to do better as we worship Him and propagate the Gospel.

Every blessing and Merry Christmas,

Dr. Otis Corbitt