There are some important customs pertaining to Middle Eastern life in the first century that we must know to understand the birth of Jesus. For example, if a family owned one or two farm animals, it was common to bring them into the house at night. Farm animals were very expensive, and most families owned only a few, if any, so they were brought into the home at night to keep them from being stolen and to protect them from harm. Also, the animals added heat to the house, which would be very welcome on chilly nights. The woman in Endor who King Saul visited at night had her calf in the house with her: “And the woman had a fat calf in the house” (1 Samuel 28:24, KJV). Of course, if the family were shepherds or herdsmen, they would not bring the whole flock or herd into the house, but would have a family member or a hired guard watch them in the field—which was why the shepherds were in the field watching their flocks on the night Jesus was born. It was a common practice to raise the floor of the part of the house where the family lived and to keep the animals in an area that was a little lower, even if only a few inches lower.
This would keep waste from coming into where the family lived and slept. Also, Jesus was laid in a manger, which is an open trough, box, or bin where the animal food was placed so the animals could feed easily. In Western society, animals and mangers are in barns or stables, and since Jesus was laid in a manger, it made sense to Europeans that Jesus was born in a stable and so that became a
fixed part of the traditional Christmas Story. However, in biblical society in the Middle East, where the animals grazed outside during the day and were brought into the house at night, if a family owned a manger, it would almost always be in the house. The manger would keep the animals calm and content in the tighter quarters of the house, just as many modern farm animals have a feeding trough in their stall. The manger would be in the main part of the house, never in the guest room, which is why the text says that Jesus was placed in the manger “because there was no place for them in the guest room” (Luke. 2:7 Common English Bible, 2011).
People in the ancient Near East around the time of Christ knew that a manger would be in the house. Given that, when Jesus was laid in a manger, people would have understood that the guest room was full, so Jesus was born and kept in the main part of the house where the family and animals stayed. Nevertheless, it seems that putting Jesus in the animal manger would have been unusual, and the reason that the family placed him there is not stated. It certainly was not to demean him, so it was likely to protect him from busy feet and drafts in the house. The translation “in the house” is correct, and is used in the more literal translations such as the KJV, ESV, NASB, etc. Fred Wight, Manners and Customs of Bible Lands (Moody Press, Chicago, 1953), p. 34; Bailey, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes, pp. 28-33. The New Testament scholar John Nolland also mentions the area for animals being somewhat lower than where the people ate and slept: “...it is best to think of an overcrowded Palestinian peasant home: a single-roomed home with an animal stall under the same roof (frequently to be distinguished from the family living quarters by the raised platform floor of the latter). John Nolland, Word Biblical Commentary (Nelson Reference and Electronic, Colombia, 1989), p. 105. The modern city of Taybeh in Israel (in the West Bank) has a very old house in typical eastern fashion that has been stocked and decorated with ancient things and thus gives a very good idea of what ancient village life would be like.
As we previously covered in the summary of the biblical Christmas Story, Mary would not have been alone when Jesus was born. Mary would have been attended by the women of the household, any women staying in the guest room, almost certainly the village midwife, and perhaps even some wise and experienced women from the neighborhood. This was Mary’s first child and the baby being born was a descendant of David, so many women would have wanted to be a part of that birth and give any help and support that they could. Also, Joseph and the men of the household would not have been there, but would have graciously left the house sometime during Mary’s labor, which was the ancient custom and standard procedure in that culture. Someone with a modern Western mindset may say, “Well, the Bible does not say those other women were there when Mary gave birth.” Of course not. May we remind the reader that if something was normal for the culture, it was written about only rarely if ever. The details of a woman giving birth are never given in the Bible. The Bible just says, “and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son” (Luke 2:7 NIV).
No details of births are necessary because they were a “normal” part of life, and no first-century reader in Israel would have expected anything different than what usually happens in a village birth. In fact, if women of the household and the village midwife had not been there to help Mary, that would have been so unusual that it would probably have been part of the birth record of Jesus Christ and written about in Matthew or Luke. Craig Keener writes: “Midwives normally assisted at birth; especially because this was Mary’s first child, it's likely (though not explicit in the text) that a midwife would assist her. Jewish law permitted midwives to travel a long distance even on the Sabbath to assist in delivery” (Craig Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, IVP Academic, Downers Grove, IL, 2014, Second Edition, p. 185).
While Mary was in labor and giving birth in the house, the man who owned the house, along with his sons and Joseph, would have been outside or perhaps in the home of a neighbor, giving Mary the privacy she needed during the birth of Jesus. Once Jesus was born, a woman would announce that a baby boy had been born, and there would have been the standard shouting, music, and joyful celebrations that were part of the birth celebration of a baby boy. After Mary gave birth, the women around her would have taken the necessary time to get the house back in proper order and make sure Mary and baby Jesus were comfortable, and then the men would have been allowed back in the house. Therefore, baby Jesus would have been born in normal circumstances, with Mary being helped and cared for by the women around her while the men waited outside to hear the news of the birth. And this was not just any baby boy; this baby boy was a firstborn baby boy in the line of David, whose mother and father were both descendants of David, and he was born in the city of David. There would have been a big celebration, with shouting, singing, music, and dancing—all very customary and easy to locate in the small village of Bethlehem.
This would keep waste from coming into where the family lived and slept. Also, Jesus was laid in a manger, which is an open trough, box, or bin where the animal food was placed so the animals could feed easily. In Western society, animals and mangers are in barns or stables, and since Jesus was laid in a manger, it made sense to Europeans that Jesus was born in a stable and so that became a
fixed part of the traditional Christmas Story. However, in biblical society in the Middle East, where the animals grazed outside during the day and were brought into the house at night, if a family owned a manger, it would almost always be in the house. The manger would keep the animals calm and content in the tighter quarters of the house, just as many modern farm animals have a feeding trough in their stall. The manger would be in the main part of the house, never in the guest room, which is why the text says that Jesus was placed in the manger “because there was no place for them in the guest room” (Luke. 2:7 Common English Bible, 2011).
People in the ancient Near East around the time of Christ knew that a manger would be in the house. Given that, when Jesus was laid in a manger, people would have understood that the guest room was full, so Jesus was born and kept in the main part of the house where the family and animals stayed. Nevertheless, it seems that putting Jesus in the animal manger would have been unusual, and the reason that the family placed him there is not stated. It certainly was not to demean him, so it was likely to protect him from busy feet and drafts in the house. The translation “in the house” is correct, and is used in the more literal translations such as the KJV, ESV, NASB, etc. Fred Wight, Manners and Customs of Bible Lands (Moody Press, Chicago, 1953), p. 34; Bailey, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes, pp. 28-33. The New Testament scholar John Nolland also mentions the area for animals being somewhat lower than where the people ate and slept: “...it is best to think of an overcrowded Palestinian peasant home: a single-roomed home with an animal stall under the same roof (frequently to be distinguished from the family living quarters by the raised platform floor of the latter). John Nolland, Word Biblical Commentary (Nelson Reference and Electronic, Colombia, 1989), p. 105. The modern city of Taybeh in Israel (in the West Bank) has a very old house in typical eastern fashion that has been stocked and decorated with ancient things and thus gives a very good idea of what ancient village life would be like.
As we previously covered in the summary of the biblical Christmas Story, Mary would not have been alone when Jesus was born. Mary would have been attended by the women of the household, any women staying in the guest room, almost certainly the village midwife, and perhaps even some wise and experienced women from the neighborhood. This was Mary’s first child and the baby being born was a descendant of David, so many women would have wanted to be a part of that birth and give any help and support that they could. Also, Joseph and the men of the household would not have been there, but would have graciously left the house sometime during Mary’s labor, which was the ancient custom and standard procedure in that culture. Someone with a modern Western mindset may say, “Well, the Bible does not say those other women were there when Mary gave birth.” Of course not. May we remind the reader that if something was normal for the culture, it was written about only rarely if ever. The details of a woman giving birth are never given in the Bible. The Bible just says, “and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son” (Luke 2:7 NIV).
No details of births are necessary because they were a “normal” part of life, and no first-century reader in Israel would have expected anything different than what usually happens in a village birth. In fact, if women of the household and the village midwife had not been there to help Mary, that would have been so unusual that it would probably have been part of the birth record of Jesus Christ and written about in Matthew or Luke. Craig Keener writes: “Midwives normally assisted at birth; especially because this was Mary’s first child, it's likely (though not explicit in the text) that a midwife would assist her. Jewish law permitted midwives to travel a long distance even on the Sabbath to assist in delivery” (Craig Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary: New Testament, IVP Academic, Downers Grove, IL, 2014, Second Edition, p. 185).
While Mary was in labor and giving birth in the house, the man who owned the house, along with his sons and Joseph, would have been outside or perhaps in the home of a neighbor, giving Mary the privacy she needed during the birth of Jesus. Once Jesus was born, a woman would announce that a baby boy had been born, and there would have been the standard shouting, music, and joyful celebrations that were part of the birth celebration of a baby boy. After Mary gave birth, the women around her would have taken the necessary time to get the house back in proper order and make sure Mary and baby Jesus were comfortable, and then the men would have been allowed back in the house. Therefore, baby Jesus would have been born in normal circumstances, with Mary being helped and cared for by the women around her while the men waited outside to hear the news of the birth. And this was not just any baby boy; this baby boy was a firstborn baby boy in the line of David, whose mother and father were both descendants of David, and he was born in the city of David. There would have been a big celebration, with shouting, singing, music, and dancing—all very customary and easy to locate in the small village of Bethlehem.
