Happy Christmas! Yes, I know it's only May... but I'm currently writing the booklet for an Advent Calendar pack, so my thoughts are nestling snugly in December. I have been thinking about the 'stable' in the middle of the Christmas story. When I was a Schools' Worker, I used to do a True-False quiz about the Christmas story - where 'True' meant it came from the Bible narrative, and 'False' meant it had been added to the traditional story. Added bits included things like, 'Mary rode on a donkey', 'Three kings came to visit Jesus', and 'The kings were called Melchior, Balthazzar and Caspar'. (No donkey is mentioned; the visitors were Magi, not kings; and we aren't told their number or their names.)
But what about the 'stable'? One of my aims in creating this blog is to think through some of the issues related to teaching the Bible faithfully to children. How much can we leave out when 'simplifying' for young children? How do we decide what stays and what goes? And are there guidelines for the use of imagination in storytelling, so that the finished story remains true to God's perfect Word?
So... what about the stable? Traditionally, the nativity centers round a stable, preferably with a rabble of animals keeping watch. But the Bible doesn't mention a stable anywhere. It simply tells us the building Jesus was NOT born in (the inn) and that His first bed was actually an animal's food box (Luke 2 v 7). So, one of my 'False' statements in the above quiz was 'Jesus was born in a stable'.
My understanding of likely housing in Bethlehem at the time is that many homes would have a section where they kept the animals at night - effectively the animal's part of the house, complete with a manger with some fodder in it. Jesus COULD have been born in a separate stable, but it's more likely that He was born in the animal's part of someone's home.
My question is, does it matter?
• IF we're helping children to see that the Bible is God's book, which is always true, and is the place to find the facts about God's actions in history - then it matters that we don't blithely tell stories about stables that are never mentioned.
• IF the key teaching point we are making is that God's Son was born in Bethlehem as the promised Messiah, in perfect accord with God's wonderful rescue plan - then while His birth in obscure, rough circumstances is a relevant part of that event, maybe the exact location (stable or house) isn't.
What do you think? I'd love to know...
2 comments:
Interesting questions my young Paduan assistant.
The problem with the stable stuff is that it sometimes suggests the wrong themes. I have heard, and (shame!) sometimes given talks which have centred on the poverty/refugee/oppression angle that the popular mythical version of the nativity story carries within it.
But are these themes actually part of the thinking of the Bible writers in general?
Outside the gospels - Paul in 2 Cor 8:9 suggests that the incarnation is exactly this - the Lord excanging the riches of heaven for the poverty of this world - so that we might be rich. Hallelujah!
The only other explicit reference (please do correct me if I'm wrong anyone out there) is in Galatians 4 v 3-4 where the emphasis is on Jesus arriving to free a people in slavery. Both themes have a resonance with images of a child born in poverty/subject to the occupation.
In the gospel accounts, Matthew, for Jewish authors, has a particular interest in prophesy, and wants us to make the links of Jesus being like the new Moses. So he selects the stories of the Magi, the slaughter of the innocents and the flight to Egypt, towgether with their relevant OT prophesies. No mention there of poverty.
Luke, for roman authors, wants to draw out the comparison between Caesar Augustus and the new king born in Bethlehem. The question is, Why did Like include the detail of the manger - did he want us to infer anything from this? Or was it just a detail he threw in because it was true? I suspect that the manger reference, whether a stable, cave or room in a house manger helps to emphasize the contrast with Caesar (the human king) and Jesus (God's true king).
So, my conclusion would be that, the histoirical question of what kind of place he was born in is not that important (neither Matt or Luke use it, so it can't be), but theme of poverty/slavery is legitimate to bring out, as it is given elsewhere in scripture, and is implicit in the manger anyway.
My best guess would be that He wasn't born in a stable, as, if he was, Luke would ahve mentioned it, as it would ahve added weight to his 'poverty' theme.
Obi-wan
I never thought that the stable was a separate building - rather that the inn was like a seventeenth century coaching inn - one area to live/eat etc in, and another attached section (perhaps a lean-to rather than a building per se) for the animals. I am refering to such an area as a stable.
Post a Comment