Posted on 12/29/2019 11:28:33 PM PST by kathsua
I'm tired of people applying 21st Century standards to Jesus birth place
Joseph and Mary were in Bethlehem.
Luke 2:7 "While they were there, the time came for her Child to be born. 7And she gave birth to her firstborn, a Son. She wrapped Him in swaddling cloths and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn."
A manger in a stable might not be a good place to have a baby today, but 2,000 years ago a stable was probably the best place for a visitor to Bethlehem to have her first baby.
There are two suggested definitions for what "inn" means. One type "inn" had a large common room in which people slept on the floor .I've forgotten the name of .the preacher who pointed out that offering Mary room in a stable would have provided her with privacy for her truly blessed event she wouldn’t have had in a large common room.
The alternate "inn" was a guest room in a private home. Some believe the owner rejected Joseph and Mary because they weren’t married. It seems more likely Joseph, to protect Mary's honor , told people they were married and he was the father.
Most guest room owners probably had a policy of not offering a room to those with young children or women about to give birth. New babies would be undesirable in either type "inn" because of their crying.
Most people think of Luke as if it said "because there was no room --- in the inn." instead of '" because there was no room for them in the inn." The inn might have had room for someone other than Joseph and Mary.
Biblehub.com points out the stable would have been empty and clean because the animals were in the fields Mary had privacy and didn’t have to worry that people would complain when her baby cried.
The stable, unlike the inns, had ample room for the shepherds who came to Jesus birthday party. The shepherds assured Mary people wanted her baby even if "inn-keepers" had rejected her because of the baby.
A stable back then was little more than the rear room of a house, in many cases. There is no reason for Christ not to be born in a stable. That’s all they had.
The word the author is looking for is kataluma and can mean inn or guestroom. In any case people have been using outbuildings and barns for temporary shelter for thousands of years. Compared to communal living it would provide privacy for such an intimate moment.
Bethlehem would have been overflowing with people at the time because everyone young or old including descendents of David - who came from there, had to return there- all at once - to be registered for paying their taxes. There would have been many more people than space in homes for rent and being a tiny town not much in the way of inns. In some homes the animals would have been used to provide heat for the adjacent or overhanging human living space. Not just Joseph’s family, but likely many others would also have had to settle for an animal stall or ‘barn,’ in that area, often a cave, grotto, or rock shelter. That area was where many of the animals including lambs to be used for sacrifice were born and raised, so such shelters were probably more numerous than homes.
From all I’ve read and heard, as you said, it most likely was a stable in a cave — common for that era.
In some homes the animals would have been used to provide heat for the adjacent or overhanging human living space.
That said, in my reading of works on archaeology in the Holy Land, I am not sure that the Holy Land has ever been one of these places. White outs there are likely infrequent, and never long enough to unduly delay milking.
Is there significance to “no room in the inn” compared to “no room in the inns”? Was it a case that “the inn” really was just the one place the cousins had gathered, and not every inn in Bethlehem?
He was not born in a stable; he was born in a Sukkah, because it was the feast of Sukkot (Tabernacles). This was likely in October. Sukkot is a mandatory Moed, where all Jewish males must go to Jerusalem to appear before God. Bethlehem is a short walk to the Temple and a good place to lodge during the 8 day festival. So it was a combination of events: the government knew millions of people would be there at that time; Bethlehem was the ancestral home place so there would be family reunions taking place as well as paying taxes. What better place for Yeshua to be circumcised than in the holy city itself. The Sukkah is a memorial to the temporary shelters Israel lived in for 40 years in the wilderness. It is a mitzvah to dwell in it during the festival. In the Sukkah was a bread basket (manger) to memorialize the manna, the ‘bread of heaven’ that God provided Israel for those 40 years. The infant Jesus was place in it, symbolizing that he is like the manna (See John 6). The ‘swaddling clothes’ likely came from his mothers brother-in-law Zechariah, who was a Kohen: a priest. So Yeshua could have been wrapped in the garments of the priesthood. If these things are true, Yeshua was born on the first day of the moed, a sabbath, and circumcised on the eight day of the moed, also a sabbath. The time key to the birth of Messiah is found in Luke chapter 1. This sets the time for john the Baptist’s conception near Shavuot (Pentecost). When Gabriel visits Miriam he tells her that her cousin Elesheva is already 6 months pregnant. This would set the time of the ‘annunciation’ at Hanukkah, the 25th od the month of Kislev. (Near the time oF the Christian Christmas). Nine month from Hanukkah brings us to Sukkot: the actual time of Jesus’ birth.
The important points of the article:
“A manger . . might not be . . was probably .
. two suggested definitions . . It seems more likely . . owners probably . .
The inn might have had . .”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.