Away in a Manger

The Lucan narrative of the birth of Jesus (Lk 2:1-20) begins with the story of the census that caused Joseph, along with the pregnant Mary, to travel from their hometown of Nazareth to Bethlehem. It continues with Jesus’ birth in a stable and a visit from shepherds. Except for the mention of the angel who had announced Jesus’ birth to Mary, one could start reading Luke’s gospel beginning with chapter 2 and not be aware that anything had been missed.

Census

There are many problems with Luke’s mention of the census. In 1:5, Luke states that Gabriel visited Zechariah in “the days of Herod, king of Judea.” This agrees with Matthew in setting the birth of Jesus during the days of Herod the Great who died in 4 BCE. But in 2:2, Luke dates the census to the time of Quirinius, governor of Syria. Quirinius did conduct a census of Judea, but not until 6-7 CE, so Luke’s dating is off by 10 years. And a census of Judea would not have affected Joseph living in Nazareth, nor was there any requirement that people travel to their ancestral home. Such a requirement would defeat the point of a census, which is to identify the number of people residing in a certain location.

Both Luke and Matthew appear to be trying to deal with contradictory traditions. On the one hand, it was well-known that Jesus came from Nazareth. On the other hand, there was a belief the messiah would be born in Bethlehem. Matthew sees Joseph and Mary as residents of Bethlehem who, after the birth of Jesus, were forced to move to Nazareth for safety reasons. In Luke’s account, the census required Joseph and Mary to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem so that Jesus could be born there. The Emperor Augustus who issued the edict for the census was an unwitting actor in God’s plan to have a Nazarene born in Bethlehem, thus reconciling the two traditions.

Luke may also have had in mind a passage from the Greek version of Psalm 87:6: “In the census of the peoples, this one will be born there.”

Manger

According to Luke, some time after arriving in Bethlehem (2:6), Mary gave birth to Jesus, swaddled him with strips of cloth and laid him to rest in a manger. The angel appearing to the shepherds repeats this, telling the shepherds this will be the sign of the messiah’s birth (v. 12). And, upon arriving in Bethlehem, they encounter the baby in the manger just as the angel had described (v. 16). Obviously, the manger is a key symbol for Luke.

Adoration of the Shepherds by Bartolome Esteban Murillo (c. 1650)

In the Greek version of Isaiah 1:3, God complains: “The ox knows its owner and the donkey knows the manger of its lord, but Israel has not known me.” When the shepherds arrive and see the baby lying in the manger, their reaction is to begin praising and glorifying God. This is Luke’s way of saying that God’s people have begun to know the manger of their Lord.

According to the traditional King James translation, Mary laid Jesus in a manager “because there was no room for them in the inn.” A modern reader might get the idea of a hotel with no available rooms. But a more accurate translation would be “because there was no place for them in the lodgings.” The word translated as “inn” or “lodgings” would be something like a caravansary or khan. Think of an open-air courtyard where people would stake out an area and set up tents for the night. Given the presence of a manger, a stable is a reasonable surmise for the location of Jesus’ birthplace, but Luke is not interested in that detail.

Gloria

Luke spends the majority of this passage on the annunciation of the angel to the shepherds and their reaction to finding the baby in the manger. In the stereotype of an angelic appearance, we first have the reaction of fear and the assurance, “Be not afraid” (2:10). The angel then announces the birth of the savior in “the city of David” (v. 11). Earlier in v. 4, Bethlehem was called “the city of David.” After the angel departed, the shepherds immediately identified “the city of David” with Bethlehem. The interesting thing about all of this is that, in the OT, Jerusalem is always identified as “the city of David.” If you visit Jerusalem today, you can tour the City of David excavations. Luke intends to shift attention from Jerusalem to Bethlehem because Bethlehem is now where the presence of the Lord resides.

The angel is joined by a heavenly host reciting a very brief canticle (2:14). The traditional King James translation consists of a tricolon:

Glory to God in the highest,
and on earth peace,
good will toward men.

The NRSV, based on more reliable texts, translates as a bicolon:

Glory to God in the highest heaven,
and on earth peace among those whom he favors.

This matches the proclamations of the disciples on Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem (Lk 19:38):

Peace in heaven,
and glory in the highest heaven.

The angels are proclaiming peace on earth and the disciples are proclaiming peace in heaven. Some biblical scholars think the two verses, now separated in the gospel, may have been originally part of the same hymn.

Reactions

After the angelic visitors departed, the shepherds headed for Bethlehem and found the baby lying in the manger. After they described their experience, we see three sets of reactions. All who heard were astonished, but Mary “kept all these things, pondering them in her heart” (2:19 RSV), and the shepherds returned to their fields glorifying and praising God.

Many biblical commentators assume that the shepherds represent the common folk, but with all the references to “the city of David,” it is more likely that Luke is recalling King David who was once a shepherd in the region of Bethlehem. They also, as mentioned above, represent the Israel who now knows the manger of its Lord. The shepherds' response to all they have heard and seen is to praise and glorify God. Just as the heavenly host praised and glorified God in the heavens, now the shepherds do so on earth as well.

The previously unmentioned bystanders who heard the shepherds' story are merely astonished. In the NT, astonishment is a common reaction, but noncommittal in nature.

Mary, on the other hand, recalled these events and sought to interpret them. She is the sole bridge between the events of the infancy narrative and the public ministry of Jesus and the Church. Later in the gospel (8:21) she will appear with the brothers of Jesus as one who hears the word of God and does it. And in Acts (1:14), she will again appear alongside the brothers, disciples and other believers awaiting the day of Pentecost. Luke knew that Mary must have successfully interpreted the events she experienced because she became a model believer. He would have his audience do likewise.

Samson the Nazorean?

One aspect of Matthew’s style is to quote a passage from the OT prefixed with words to the effect: “All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had spoken by the prophet who said...” Matthew does this more than any of the other evangelists, some 10 to 14 times (depending on what qualifies as a citation). In most cases, it breaks up the narrative flow and the passage reads better without the citation.

Almost certainly, these OT quotes were added by Matthew and were not part of the tradition he received. For example, Mark 1:14 records the beginning of Jesus’ ministry in Galilee after John the Baptist’s arrest. This verse is paralleled in Luke 4:14, also without a Scripture citation. But when Matthew records the same incident in his gospel at 4:12-16, he states this was done to fulfill what Isaiah prophesied in Is 8:23-9:1 (9:1-2 in some translations).

In a previous article, I covered Mt 1:22-23, the first of his 10-14 fulfillment citations. Mt 2 offers three or maybe four more prophetic citations. Let me briefly discuss each one.

1. From you will come forth a ruler who will shepherd my people (2:6)

This is an oddball passage. First, it does cite the OT but lacks the “all this took place to fulfill…” formula. This is one of those cases scholars are not sure should count as a prophetic fulfillment.

Second, the citation references two separate verses from the OT:

• “But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel.” (Micah 5:1; 5:2 in some translations)
• “You shall be shepherd of my people Israel” (2 Samuel 5:2)

Matthew made some minor changes like replacing Ephrathah with “land of Judah” for the better understanding of his readers, but nothing substantial.

This passage is one piece of evidence that there was an expectation in the 1st century CE that the messiah would be born in Bethlehem. John 7:41-42 provides independent evidence of the same expectation. Matthew and Luke wrote their infancy narratives in part to affirm that Jesus was in fact born in Bethlehem, although he was better-known as a resident of Nazareth. 

2. Out of Egypt I have called my son (2:15b)

An almost verbatim citation of Hosea 11:1. The only thing worth mentioning is that the “son” in the original is a reference to Israel and its exodus from Egypt. Matthew, like his contemporaries, was not overly concerned with interpreting a verse in its original context. 

3. Rachel crying for her children (2:18)

Again, we have a fairly accurate citation of Jeremiah 31:15. In the original context, Jeremiah is possibly referring to Judah’s defeat by the Babylonians; Ramah was a staging point for the deportations from Jerusalem (Jer 40:1). Also, in the original context, the figurative Rachel is being told to stop weeping because her children will return from the enemy’s land (vv. 16-17). There is no such hope in Matthew’s situation.

4. He will be called a Nazorean (2:23b)

The evangelists use the terms “Jesus the Nazarane” and “Jesus the Nazorean” interchangeably. Matthew, however, only uses the Nazorean form. And he only uses it here at the beginning of his gospel and again towards the end (26:71).

This is the oddest fulfillment citation yet because there is no clear OT verse that Matthew is citing. Did Matthew just make it up? The best guesses for his OT sources are:

• “He will be called holy.” (Isaiah 4:3)
• “I have been a Nazirite of God.” (Judges 16:17)

Now, if those two OT verses don’t seem anything at all like Matthew’s citation, you’re not alone. This will require a bit of explanation.

Nazirite comes from the Hebrew word nazir, meaning “set apart as sacred.” (It should definitely not be confused with the German Nazi Party!) The Nazirite vow is explained in Numbers 6:1-21 and involves abstaining from the products of grapes, cutting of the hair, and contact with the dead. The vow was usually taken for a short period of time, but there were some (like Samson and Samuel) who were life-long Nazirites. The quote above from Judges is Samson’s statement to Delilah as to why he does not cut his hair.

World’s worst haircut. Samson was a Nazirite and Matthew saw this as foretelling Jesus would be a Nazorean? Victor Mature and Hedy Lamarr (inventor of spread-spectrum technologies) in Cecil B. DeMille’s Samson and Delilah.

When this verse was translated into Greek, some manuscripts took a literal approach and translated nazir as Naziraios, while other manuscripts freely translated it as hagios (“holy one”). Keeping in mind the interchangeability in the Greek versions of hagios/Naziraios, when Matthew looked at Is 4:3, he could read it as “He will be called a Naziraios.” This is very close to what Matthew wrote down: “He will be called a Nazoraios.” 

Essentially, Matthew is getting a two-fer as the word Nazoraios both describes Jesus as coming from Nazareth, and it also depicts him as the “Holy One of God.” Some explanation of Jesus coming from Nazareth was necessary because, unlike Bethlehem, Nazareth is never mentioned in the OT at all. If the prophets foresaw the virginal conception, birth in Bethlehem, the massacre of the innocents, and the flight into Egypt, then they must certainly have foretold that Jesus would come from Nazareth. The “Holy One of God” title is a very unusual one for Jesus, appearing only in Mark 1:24; Luke 4:34; and John 6:69.

This convoluted way of interpreting Scripture was common in Matthew’s day. It was based on the idea that all of Scripture had God as the one author and spoke with one voice, although in many accents. As a scribe, Matthew would see himself as discerning a pattern in the Scriptures that pointed to God’s plan for the birth and ministry of his Son.

An Epiphany of Sorts

The word epiphany comes from the Greek word meaning “appearance” or “manifestation.” In the Church calendar, the feast of Epiphany is traditionally celebrated on January 6 in commemoration of the coming of the magi to the Christ Child and marks the end of the 12 days of Christmas. Called “Three Kings Day” in some countries, the festival celebrates the first manifestation of Christ to the Gentiles. In conversational usage, “epiphany” means a sudden flash of understanding or insight through a simple or commonplace experience.

Visit of the Astrologers

Mt 2:1-23 provides the story of the visit of the magi, the flight to Egypt and the massacre of the innocent. The evangelist jumps straight from Joseph naming Jesus after his birth in 1:25 to the magi arriving in Jerusalem in 2:1. The magi, or wise men, were most likely astrologers, not kings. Matthew doesn’t say how many there were or their point of origin other than that they were “from the east.” The popular idea that there were three wise men is based on the three gifts the magi brought: gold, frankincense and myrrh. Later traditions (from the 6th century CE) provide them with names such as Melchior, Gaspar, and Balthasar, different ethnicities and ages (old man with a white beard, young beardless man, and man with black skin).

The Adoration of the Magi, tapestry (designed by Edward Burne-Jones 1888, woven 1894)

Noting the rising of a particular star, the magi determined that it signified the birth of the “king of the Jews.” Thus, it was observations of the natural world that led the Gentile astrologers to the messiah. But, the natural world reveals only so much; the magi must inquire of King Herod the Great in Jerusalem as to the exact location of the child. God’s revelation in Scripture is needed for them to complete their journey.

Herod calls together his “chief priests and scribes” – the same antagonists that the adult Jesus will face in his ministry – and is told that Bethlehem is the birth place based on Micah 5:2. Although Herod and his scribes have the Scriptures, they do not believe and hence cannot use that information themselves. Herod learns the exact time of the star’s appearance – presumably the date of the child’s birth – from the magi and asks them to report back to him once they have found the newborn king.

The magi set out towards Bethlehem and the star led them to the exact location (2:9). Many have speculated if the “star” was a supernova, comet, or planetary conjunction. None of these could be used to pinpoint a particular house in Bethlehem. And it is a house in Bethlehem, according to v. 11. In Matthew’s telling, Mary and Joseph were residents of Bethlehem.

About those gifts...Matthew is not explicitly citing Isaiah, but may have him in mind: “all those from Sheba shall come bearing gold and frankincense and proclaiming the salvation of the Lord” (Is 60:6, LXX). We’re all familiar with gold. Frankincense was usually burnt as incense in religious ceremonies. Myrrh, an aromatic spice, was used as incense, as perfume, and as a cosmetic. Mixed with wine, it was offered as a painkiller to Jesus on the cross (Mark 15:23) and, with aloes, was used to embalm Jesus (John 19:39). Certainly, they were gifts befitting a king.

Refugees in Egypt

After the magi failed to return to Herod, he ordered the death of all boys two years of age or younger in the vicinity of Bethlehem. If the population of Bethlehem was about 1000, the number would be less than 20 boys. There are no records of Herod ordering this, but he was notoriously paranoid and it sounds like something he could have done. Matthew tells us that Herod decided on two years based on the time of the star’s first appearance (v. 16). The clues in the story tell us that Jesus would have been one or two years old, not the newborn babe in the traditional nativity story.

Joseph was warned of the danger by an angel in a dream and told to take his family and flee to Egypt until further notice. Only after the death of Herod (in 4 BCE) does the angel re-appear to Joseph in a dream and instruct him to return to Israel “for those who were seeking the child’s life are dead” (v. 20). This is a clear echo of Exodus 4:19 when Moses is told the same thing while he is an exile in Midian.

Joseph planned to return to Bethlehem until he learned that Herod’s son Archelaus was ruling over Judea. An angel had to instruct Joseph in one more dream that he should go instead to Galilee, whereupon he made his home in Nazareth. Why didn’t the angel simply tell Joseph in one dream to go directly to Galilee from Egypt? The awkwardness probably stems from Matthew adding vv. 22-23 to material that he inherited. Matthew is taking pains to explain to his audience how Jesus could have been born in Bethlehem – because that’s was Joseph’s home – yet was known to have come from Nazareth. (Luke uses the census to explain how Joseph and Mary, residents of Nazareth, found themselves in Bethlehem for Jesus’ birth.)

Mosaic Pattern

The imagery in Matthew’s narrative is reminiscent of stories surrounding Moses. It is not mentioned in the OT, but the Jewish historian Josephus, writing around the time of Matthew (80-90 CE), told the story of an Egyptian pharaoh who was informed by one of his fortune-tellers that a child born of the Israelites would be the downfall of the Egyptians. This caused the pharaoh to order the deaths of the male babies. But Moses’ father Amram was visited by God in a dream and told that his unborn child would be the one feared in the Egyptian prophecy. Later, as an adult, Moses fled to Midian to save his life, only returning to Egypt once he was told that those seeking his life were dead.

Much later still, when Moses was leading the Israelites to the promised land, Balak the king of Moab, called upon Balaam, a practitioner of the magical arts (the NT would call him a magus), to curse Israel (Numbers 22-24). Instead of cursing the Israelites, Balaam blessed them, predicting that “a star shall rise out of Jacob and a scepter shall come forth from Israel” (Num 24:17). This was understood as referring to the Davidic monarchy, but later was re-interpreted as a prophecy of a messianic king in the line of David.

Gospel in Miniature

Having reviewed Mt 1-2, we can see why the infancy narrative is called “a gospel in miniature.” In these two short chapters, Matthew explains various christological titles ascribed to Jesus: Christ, Son of Abraham, Son of David, Son of God, and King of the Jews. He also shows the reactions to this revelation, both good (the magi) and bad (Herod). Despite having the guide of the Scriptures, Herod (representing the Jews) rejects the messiah and tries to kill him, but he is accepted and paid homage by the magi (representing the Gentiles). This reflects the situation in Matthew’s community, which is predominantly Gentile. Although his opponents tried to kill Jesus, God protected him and later brought him back.

Studying the infancy narrative here and in Luke more than 30 years ago, was sort of an epiphany for me. I began to see that the imagery and symbolism had layers of meaning far deeper than I could have imagined. They were no longer background stories for nativity plays and Christmas specials. Understanding their true purpose helped me put the adult Christ back into Christmas.