Pop Quiz:
1) What does the manger signify?
2) What if the inn has space?
This is the week leading up to Christmas month. I wish to preview something that will be in my coming book Right Texts, Wrong Meanings. Besides trying to draw some attention to my upcoming book, my main purpose in writing this blog (which has appeared in different forms in various publications) is show that Luke 2 deserves close attention for its strongly social message. Christmas is a great time to remind us of this message so that our 2013 will be a time of building up others while putting down our self-interest.
The common understanding about Luke 2 is that it is about the humble baby Jesus. The author said no such thing. In fact, Jesus did not occupy an important place in it other than being the destination of the quest for the shepherds. After all, why should Jesus be the central figure? He was a baby. He was not doing anything. While I’m not suggesting that Jesus occupy no importance place in his own narrative, the plot is built around the shepherds. The shepherds occupy a lot of the plot.
The repeated phrase in the passage is “lying in a manger” in Lk. 2.7, 12, 16. What is a manger? Most people just focus on the inn having no room. A month before Christmas, the Pope finally came out to say that the manger animal scene is a myth. In the passage, there was no animal. Scholars have different opinions as to what a manger was and what the “inn” actually was (obviously quite different from our Shangri La Hotels). One fascinating suggestion points to the “inn” as a house that was so tiny that Mary could not lay all her stuff out to give birth. [1] The “inn” could have been a tiny house or a tiny guest room in a tiny house or added to the side of or on top of the house that belonged to one of the relatives of the holy family. After all, if they were going back to their hometown, they could count on the relatives’ hospitality there (though we know that Joseph has a house in Nazareth). The slightly changed meaning from the traditional interpretation does not diminish (and may in fact enhance) the difficult circumstance of the holy family. The manger was most likely a wooden feeding (or stone according to one of my scholarly friend who acquired one such artifact) container for a horse at the side of the house. After all, people usually left their animals outside, as they traveled. Why indeed was Jesus left in an outside (but probably sheltered) place? The text clearly states that the shepherds had to find them in Lk. 2.12, 16. There is your answer. God wanted the first witnesses to the first Christmas to be the lowly shepherds, not the rulers of the land in Lk. 2.1. There you have it.
Christmas is not about celebration of the Christ child only. It is about sharing God’s love with those who would otherwise be alienated in the society. The gospel of Christmas is the gospel for the poor. So, as you celebrate, remember the poor.
An Advent prayer: Dear Lord, we pray that your Holy Spirit might prepare our hearts to welcome you in prayer, in your word and sacrament; in friends, family and colleagues; in the poor, the sick, the hungry, the lonely, and all whom you have called us to serve. Amen.[2]
[1] From http://www.hypotyposeis.org/papers/Carlson%202010%20NTS.pdf, accessed Nov. 29, 2012. This article is worth reading. Steven Carlson originally published this article in New Testament Studies, a reputable journal for scholars. If Joseph was from that town, this could have been his house he was returning to.
[2] From http://www.ourlanguageourstory.org/activities/pdf/AdultAdventPrayer.pdf, accessed Nov. 29, 2012.
I think it appropriate that the first people to be notified of the Messiah’s birth were shepherds. The symbolism of Christ being the Good Shepherd is not lost. Shepherd was not a desired occupation. Shepherds weren’t allowed to testify at legal proceedings and you weren’t supposed to buy livestock from them…since the automatic assumption was that they had stolen the livestock. In a word, shepherds were almost despised members of society…yet they were honored with the Good News. They left their flocks, searched till they found Jesus…and having found Him, returned rejoicing and sharing the Good News. We can do no better.
For me,Padre, it’s a yes and no response to your response. I think the Shepherd symbolism from the Israelite Davidic kingship would have little to do with the shepherds of Christmas. I’ll tell you why. The reader was Theophilus who probably had less of an appreciation for such nationalistic messianic symbolism than just the plain sense that these shepherds were just working class blokes.
Hi Sam there!
I follow a very different interpretation. Let’s think about it. The word “inn” (gk: kataluma, a guest room) might actually mean the inner chamber of a “house” where the valuables (animals) are kept. the house was full because everyone came back, so Mary went even inside further (the kataluma). This signifies how important Jesus Christ really is.
And the stone manger scene makes us imagine about the enthronement of a King. Think about when a King is being enthroned, he sits naked, only with a cloth on his body, on a stone-made throne.
What do you think?
Yosef
I seriously doubt it and I’ll tell you why. The animals do not dwell inside the house or their excrement would be cause all sort of uncleanness. If it is that ‘inside’ the shepherd would not find the baby. The whole announcement of the angel presupposes that Jesus was in an area where the shepherds did not have to knock on doors over and over again to look. It would be readily obvious. It was due to the lack of space inside the house that Mary had to go “outside” to lay out all the birthing kits.
As for the king being enthroned on the stone throne, it is nearly impossible as we have zero evidence among gentiles that this symbolism was meaningful. The audience was Theophilus. I highly doubt that he would have understood the symbolism in that way. Thus, Luke would’ve written pure nonsense to his audience. I just can’t see it.
Dear Dr. Tsang,
There are really some evidence that 1st century Isreali put their livestock into the innermost chamber. In my study visit to Israel, I have seen an artifact showing an ancient Israeli home with an inner animal chamber, with holes for string to tie up the animals. These holes are found in the place where people traded sacrifical animals in the Temple area.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zeongogo/2878713374/in/set-72157606921510596
The reason they put their animals inside because the animals are the most most valuable asset in the whole family. I have watched some video documentaries stating that even today some middle-east people place their animals in their very innermost part of their “house”.
I am sorry it really takes me some time to quote which video is which. But I think it is a breeze for you to look for such information, if you want to. I just bought the video from a Christian bookstore…
Now it’s doubtful who “Theophilus” may be. The name only suggests that this might be a person God loved. I have seen many statues depicting a near-naked person, with only one cloth on, being enthroned. It’s a long story. You know why I am not a scholar because I often fail to collect the information needed. My humble opinion: it might be easily understood by a Greek-Roman. Maybe.
Nice to talk and goodnight.
Yosef, that’s interesting info. I have heard about the hole theory, but I really want to ask the question of whether that’s “typical” or exceptional case. I would also want to see how that practice fits a kosher law or did animal traders simply care nothing about kosher rules. I know for sure that shepherds were not consider too clean because of their association with sheep. I just can’t see Joseph’s family, portrayed as good Jews by Luke, to live in such violation. AND if this was Joseph’s house in his hometown or home owned by a relative, I can’t see how that would fit.
The other point about a person sitting on a throne is pretty commonplace, but it’s huge leap to associate a stone manger with a throne. Of course, I too have visited Greco-Roman sites and museums where people did sit on a stone throne. I have just never seen a stone manger being associated with a throne in Greco-Roman literature. The symbol has to fit in abundance for a gentile audience to get it. That’s what i’m getting at.
As for Theophilus, I totally do not buy that theory of a symbolic gentile Christian being loved by God. His title “most excellent” is used consistently in Acts to describe officials. When I run a word search, the title specifically refer to equestrian officer. To symbolize such a title does violence to the way Luke used that title in every other case.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts though. It’s always good to exchange ideas.