This reflection has its origin in my upcoming book on Luke-Acts characterization, coming out next year.  Prof. Darrell Bock and Dr. Ward Gasque are writing the forewords to this book. The blog is a modified and simplified version of that section.  It originally took on various forms in public lectures, class lectures and two popular articles. Just thought I'd share this with my friends here on the blog so that we can slow down to reflect on what Advent actually means. The purpose of this article is to debunk some of the popular "myths" and misinterpretations of Luke's account that have so laced our Christmas story we can no longer distinguish truth from superficial religious sentimentality.  I'm carrying on the materialistic theme of the first installment of "An Advent Reflection."

What if there is room for Jesus?:

A Christmas Meditation on the Poor Man’s Gospel  

Introduction:

During Advent preaching a few years back, my pastor asked the congregation, “What if there is room in the inn for Jesus?”  This is an intriguing question that coheres well with the Christmas message by Luke.  Luke 2 devotes much discussion dealing with that particular question.  In the midst of this joyful season, what does Luke have to say about the birth of Jesus?  Luke 2 has been interpreted in various ways.  The most common way is to see the humility of Jesus in the manger with all its sentimentality and moralistic trappings.  Nothing was further from Luke’s mind.  There are some who would see the two wrappings of Jesus enveloping His life in 2.7 and 23.53.  The problem with such a view is that the Greek indicates different wording for the two events.  Such choice of words by Luke indicates no intention in making parallels between the two events, however much we like to sentimentalize Jesus’ life.  Unless Luke records explicitly from the Suffering Servant passage in Isaiah (e.g. Luke 4.18-19; cf. Isa. 61.1-2), we cannot simply assign meaning, especially when other meanings are plain as day within the text.  No such theology of Suffering Servant occupies Luke when he wrote the infancy story.  Christmas ethics is not much about the humility of Jesus, at least not for Luke.  It is surprisingly practical, as the study below indicates.  The Christmas story should challenge us to action at the end. 

The Gospel of the Manger

The story tells us that Jesus’ parents went to Bethlehem because of a census.  They went there to register (Luke 2.5).  When they got there, the time for the baby to be born was near (Luke 2.6, but there was no room in the inn.  So the couple was relegated to the manger for Jesus.  Luke then flashed to a different scene of shepherds in the fields nearby keeping watch over the flocks at night (Luke 2.8).  Scholars have agreed that it is about spring time, as opposed to the “cold winter night” as some Christmas songs claim, because of the geographical location and the supply of edible grass.  An angel of the Lord told them that in the town of David a savior was born (Luke 2.11).  Yet, the real catch is in Luke 2.12, “This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.” 

Thus far, there had only been one sign: Elizabeth’s pregnancy.  According to Luke, when Mary questioned her own pregnancy, God legitimated her pregnancy by telling her about Elizabeth’s in Luke 1.35-37 where the angel answered the question, “How can this be?”  Yet, the angel did not use the word “sign” to describe Elizabeth’s pregnancy.  In other words, the “sign” was especially reserved for something quite special, even more special than Elizabeth’s pregnancy. 

Traditionally, many interpreters understand the location of Bethlehem as the most important issue.  After all, Jesus needed to be in the town of David, but did he need to be born at that time?  He could have been born any other time in the town of David and would have fulfilled Old Testament prophecy.  Matthew’s point was indeed about location, but Luke’s point was about something else.  The story was all about timing.  The timing was amazingly precise in the way Luke described it.  What if the timing was different when there was room in the inn?  What if the timing was different when the shepherds could not have gotten edible grass from that nearby field?  What if …?

The secondary issue of location was important, but not in the way many imagine.  Already, the knowledge of the Messiah needing to be born in Bethlehem was quite common by Jesus’ time (e.g. Matt. 2.5-6).  The location of the manger however was new.  The angel called the baby in the manger a “sign,” not to anyone else but to the shepherds.  Thus, the story in Luke shows the merging of divine timing and a special location of the manger.  We go back to the question, “What if the timing is different when there is room in the inn?”  In other words, if the couple went to the city without the necessity of political census, they could find room in the inn.  What if the timing was still the same spring time?  The shepherds whose sheep grazed in the field would never be able to identify the Savior because the inn would have had room.  The baby would not be in a manger to be identified by the shepherds.  What if the timing was different when the census came in the winter where there was little to no edible grass in the nearby field?  The baby would be in a manger but there would be no shepherds.  By the time the shepherds made it to the location in the spring, the baby will be long gone.  Thus, the timing must be precise for this whole chain of events to take place.  Only one scenario of Luke 2 would make the story work.  The wrapped baby in a manger repeated in Luke 2.7, 12 was the sign.  The audience ought to note such emphasis.  

Now that we have established the sign as being the baby in the manger, we must look at the reason why God wanted to reveal to the shepherds.  Luke went on to tell us that the shepherds went off and see baby Jesus.  When they saw the baby, they spread the word about the supernatural sign in Luke 2.17.  The people were amazed and the shepherds glorified and praised God for the events happening just as they had been told, namely the precise timing of a baby in a manger as the sign (Luke 2.18-20).  In other words, the sign was there to make the first human messengers to be shepherds.  The people were amazed not because these messengers were shepherds, but because of the message “WHAT the shepherds said to them.”  Luke was saying that God especially prepared the timing of this event so that the shepherds who were normally not in contact with humans during this time of the year could be a witness to the good news.  In the story, we may notice the names that are given such as Augustus, Joseph, and Mary.  These were historically significant people.  In contrast, the shepherds remained nameless.  Yet, their role was indispensable for the preservation of Luke’s story.  Only they could tell the story about the angel and the sign because they alone experienced the angel and the sign.  God made the insignificant significant. 

The Gospel to the First Audience

As any educated reader of Luke would know, the gospel was written to the most excellent Theophilus in Luke 1.3.  Only Roman officers deserved the title “most excellent” in Jesus day.  As such, the Gospel addressed an aristocrat. 

As an aristocrat, the historical figure Theophilus did not have very much contact with commoners.  In fact, the chance of his contact with shepherds would be slim to none.  His circle would be other more elite members of the society.  What was the meaning of such a story to the original reader Theophilus?  How should the specific timing, location and the special usage of the word “sign” impress Theophilus?  There is a lesson somewhere in this story which brings us to the ethics of Christmas to the first reader. 

The Practical Message of Christmas: gospel for the poor

The Christmas message came through the manger.  It did not merely convey some poor Savior who had been born into Israel.  It did not even talk mainly about the

Suffering Servant whose fate will be the cross.  It did, however, convey the importance of the sign which made the first evangelists to be the shepherds.  THIS, more than anything else, was the point of Christmas.  In God’s eyes, the poor were of vital importance in His kingdom.  Jesus’ birth brought them into God’s fold for worship.  The new kingdom of Jesus was not merely for the rich like Theophilus.  It was also for the poor.  Kingdoms by nature were geared for the rich.  Only conquerors like Augustus in Luke 2.1 got the worldly kingdom, not through humility but through politics.  Yet, even Augustus’ political decision here was controlled by the great God of Israel so that a few insignificant and nameless shepherds became the first messengers.  God was for the poor.  That is the good news according to Luke here. 

For Theophilus, he must learn two lessons.  First, politics and Caesar’s kingdom could only get him so far in life.  Ultimately, God controlled everything.  His faith, then, should not be in politics but in God.  Luke’s infancy record had a definitive teaching about the limitations of political power.  Second, in order to express this new-found faith in God, he must apply his life by noticing the poor who also needed to be brought into the Church to worship the king.  He should use his hard earned money to assist the poor instead of merely promoting his own status.  The incarnation is a lesson of generosity.  If God so cares for the poor shepherds, why should His people neglect the poor?

What does this have to do with us?  First, Christians can often overreact against the American sentiment of radical separation of church and state.  As a result, they would uncritically support political parties that are willing to use evangelicals to get votes.  Political parties have long latched on to the religious game and have used Christians to do their bidding.  The infancy story warns us against reliance on political powers.  Politics have their limitations.  Christians would be wise to walk a careful line in dealing with HOW they influence the government, so that they do not become fools at the end.  Second, the North American Church is primarily an upper-middle class church.  We are in a sense like Theophilus.  We are the most upwardly mobile minority.  We are experts in using the system in our favor.  Yet, Christmas tells us a different story.  Christmas tells us that we cannot rely on our riches and achievements.  All such things are nothing without God.  Christmas also demands of us selfless sacrifice.  Just like God uses the manger to call the poor to worship Jesus and spread the gospel, so we should take care of the poor.  We must remember the poor among us and bring both material and spiritual assistance to them.  For those with resource, Christmas’ message still rings true: The Gospel is for the poor also.  Christmas tell us, “Theology without action is a dead faith.”  Third, the Christmas spirit is not about giving in general but about giving to those in need.  General gift giving for those who do not need the gifts is contrary to the spirit of the first Christmas.  The whole American tradition of the Black Friday rush is the very enemy of Christmas.  I’m almost tempted to say that Christmas shopping is contrary to the spirit of Christmas unless the gift is given to the poor.  I think if we think hard enough, we may find it difficult to recall all the gifts given to us last year.  That is because for most of us, we really do not need more gifts.  Yet, the poor needs our gift.  The first gift of Christmas was given to the poor.  God’s heart is for the poor still.