The Rest of the Christmas Story

Even in our morally declining society, the Christmas story is still extremely popular. That also means it is extremely marketable and commercialized. We see Nativity scenes all over the place, and it’s hard not to let the commercialized Christmas story be the Christmas story that we picture in our minds.

To a certain extent, this commercialization is awesome. I want people looking at and thinking about God-made-flesh lying in a manger in a stable, whether they want to or not. And yet, to a certain extent I think this commercialization is also harmful. In a typical nativity scene…

• Everyone seems so happy and rosy
• Everyone looks so bright and holy
• The setting seems so idyllic
• As a result, the Nativity takes on an almost surreal, mythical quality

Seeing as the heart is responsible for blood regulation and ED can viagra in india online be caused many a time due to poor artery dilation and abnormal blood flow to the male organ and causing stronger erection for men during sexual stimulation. Make sure it is snug enough for the issue but not necessary all of them are effective for durable and temporary inability of gaining or achieving an slovak-republic.org levitra on line erection for the intercourse. http://www.slovak-republic.org/residence/ tadalafil cheapest online Kamagra oral jelly is one of the pharmaceutical forms of well-known Sildenafil substance. Diabetics should properly manage their blood sugar levels, making sure that they are not too high pharmacy australia cialis or not too low.

It is the last point that particularly unsettles me. Luke’s account, which many of us have memorized, stresses that this was a historical birth, just as historical as yours or mine. This story is not a myth. It happened. It affected and changed the lives of real humans.

Paul Harvey used to make a living telling people “the rest of the story.” I will attempt to do the same for the Christmas story in this post. I want you to begin to imagine how things really were for the persons in that stall on the first Christmas night. This post attempts to provide the plausible backstory for Mary and Joseph’s relationship with each other, and their relationship with the world around them, from biblical and extra-biblical historical sources.

Joseph looks for a wife

The Jews took seriously God’s command to be fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:28). The idea of remaining single would have rarely, if ever, entered Joseph’s mind. This was already true for an ordinary Jewish male, but it was especially true for one who was from “the house and line of David” (Lk 2:4), since the Messiah was promised through that line (2Sa 7:11-16).

How old was Joseph when he began to think about marriage?

For religious purposes, a Jewish boy became an adult – a bar mitzvah, “son of the commandment” – at age 13, but for societal purposes, age 20 was the benchmark of adulthood. In Exodus 30:14; 38:26, men 20 years and older are considered able to give an offering to the Lord and his work from their own earnings. In Numbers 1, men 20 years and older are considered old enough for military service.

The Jewish Mishnah mentions the age of 18 as the ideal age for the Jewish man to get married. Perhaps that is because God had commanded, “If a man has recently married, he must not be sent to war or have any other duty laid on him. For one year he is to be free to stay at home and bring happiness to the wife he has married” (Dt 24:5). If a man married at age 18, that would allow him to spend one full year at home with his wife without taking him away from potential military service.

Rabbi Hisda (d. 309 AD) married at age 16, and he said that if he had married at age 14, he would have been able to spite the devil even more, since he would already have had a godly outlet for his sexual desire (Kiddushin 29b-30a). 24 is the latest age mentioned in the Talmud at which a Jewish man should ideally get married (Kiddushin 30a).

In all likelihood, Joseph was between 17 and 22 when he got betrothed.

What was he looking for in a wife?

Actually, that may not have been as important as what his father Jacob (Mt 1:16) was looking for in a wife for his son. Many considered it the father’s duty to find a wife for his son. (Jeremiah 29:6 explicitly mentions this custom.) However, a father could not be forced to fulfill this duty for his son, and even if he did, he had to have his son’s consent. Some fathers and sons may have preferred that the father keep a respectful distance from the wife-seeking process. Regardless of whether Jacob, the father, or Joseph, the son, went about looking for a wife, either one would have been looking for roughly the same characteristics. (For simplicity’s sake, let us assume that Joseph was doing the searching.)

1. Legitimacy

Joseph would have limited himself to a priest’s daughter, a Levite’s daughter, a full-blooded Israelite, a proselyte, or a freed slave woman. Marrying a daughter from an illegitimate relationship, a descendant of the Gibeonites (Jos 9:3ff), a foundling, or a woman otherwise uncertain of her ancestry would have out of the question (Kiddushin 69a Mishnah, 74a Mishnah). In eventually choosing Mary, Joseph settled on someone like himself, a full-blooded Israelite.

2. Class

Like most men still today, Joseph would have looked for a woman who was “in his league.” This would have basically ruled out the daughter of a teacher of the law or expert in the law, since they were particularly exclusive and Joseph, though of royal blood, was only from the Podunk town of Nazareth (Lk 2:4; Jn 1:46). But Joseph probably didn’t have such aspirations anyway. He probably was looking for another full-blooded Israelite, like himself, another resident of Nazareth, like himself, and someone who came from a family with roughly the same financial standing as his own.

The easiest way to find someone in one’s own league was to marry a relative, as long as the relation wasn’t too close (rf. Lev 18:6-18). In Numbers 36:11, Zelophehad’s daughters legitimately married their cousins on their father’s side. Luke tells us that both Zechariah and his wife Elizabeth were descendants of Aaron (Lk 1:5).

This might also explain the different genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke. Matthew explicitly links Jesus’ ancestry to David through his legal (though not actual) father, Joseph (Mt 1:16). But Luke doesn’t do so explicitly. He says that Jesus was the son, “as it was thought, of Joseph” (Lk 3:23). This is definitely a reference to Jesus’ unique birth from a virgin, but the Greek also seems to indicate that Luke is linking Jesus’ ancestry to David by blood, through his mother, instead of through his father. That would explain why the ancestors between David and Jesus are different in the two accounts. (Interestingly, there are also two references to “Mary, son of Heli” in the Jerusalem Talmud [Hagigah 2:2 Gemara and Sanhedrin 6:6 Gemara]. She is seen in a dream receiving rather extreme punishment. However, scholars debate whether this is really a reference to Jesus’ mother.)

Although Joseph’s royal blood was concealed under humble circumstances (rf. Isa 11:1), he still understood the significance of his descent from King David. So the fact that he ended up marrying another descendent of David was likely intentional, not coincidental.

3. A young virgin

Since virginity was highly prized, a woman who was not a virgin would conceal that fact if at all possible. Thus it could happen that a husband would not discover that his wife was defiled until his wedding night. If that was the case, it could mean death for the wife (Dt 22:13ff), but by that point, after all the courting and anticipation, such a woman was probably hoping that the husband would be content with her in spite of that disappointment.

But since a man typically did not want to run that risk, the easiest way to insure against it was to have the practice in place of betrothing women before they became sexually mature and marrying them off as soon as, or not long after, they did (Yebamoth 62b). The ages involved for this obviously differed somewhat from woman to woman, but in general a girl ceased to be a minor at age 12 (Yebamoth 100b). The regulations for betrothal (more on this below) in the Mishnah are for the most part written for the na‘arah, a girl between the age of 12 and 12½ who was typically going through puberty (Niddah 45a Baraitha). This in itself shows that most girls were betrothed to husbands at this time. At age 12½ a girl typically became a bogereth, a marriageable, sexually mature woman (Pesahim 113a; Sanhedrin 76a-b). “Since the betrothal period for a na‘arah usually lasted a little longer than 12 months once she got betrothed, young Jewish women were typically permitted to enter into marriage at the age of 13½ to 14 years” (Strack & Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, 2:374).

That Mary, Joseph’s eventual choice, fit the typical mold is shown by the Hebrew word used to describe her in Isaiah 7:14. The word is translated “virgin,” and should be, as shown by the context and by Matthew’s own translation of Isaiah 7:14 (Mt 1:23). But the most basic meaning of the word is “young woman,” that is, a woman so young that to think of her as anything but a virgin would be taking a liberty. It is like our English word maiden, whose most basic meaning is “young woman,” but no one thinks of a maiden as anything but a virgin. So too the word used to describe Mary is stressing her virginity, but also carries the implicit connotation of her tender youth.

Incidentally, this also means that Elizabeth, who was “well along in years” (Lk 1:7), was probably not Mary’s cousin, as is often asserted. The Bible simply says they were relatives (Lk 1:36). Elizabeth was probably Mary’s aunt on Mary’s mother’s side (since they were probably of different lineage on their fathers’ sides), or something along those lines.

Aside: Defending the Culture

That women would be married off at such a young age is rather unbelievable, even repulsive, to current American sensitivities. (Perhaps you are thinking of your own 12- to 13-year-old daughter right now, and are tempted to gag.) But we must realize that the Jewish culture of Jesus’ day was much different from ours in this regard (as is the Middle Eastern culture of today), and that our repulsiveness stems at least in part from the scorn for marriage and children that is part and parcel of the spirit of our society.

We Americans tend to value independence, careers, and the pursuit of personal dreams and wealth more highly than we do settling down and busying ourselves with raising a family. We prefer to postpone marriage and the possibility for more children if it means being able to make an absolutely independent decision about our spouse. Not only that, but we tend to adopt a rather laissez attitude toward the sexual “fooling around” that happens during the teenage years. Sadly, some have almost come to view the “sowing of wild oats” as a necessary prerequisite to growing up. But in Jesus’ day, there was not much of a middle period. You were a child, and then you grew up.

Wise pastors today will advise other pastors that, if you want to keep more young people around at church, “put them to work.” That was basically the attitude of Jesus’ day on a much weightier scale. If you wanted to keep teenagers out of trouble – so it was thought – then have serious expectations of them, put them in a marriage, give them domestic responsibility, and make them start contributing to society.

Christians today who have difficulty finding a spouse, who struggle with sexual temptation, and/or who come from extremely large families are probably some of the few who are sympathetic to this practice.

Back on track: What was Joseph looking for (continued)?

When Joseph began looking for a wife, he was likely looking at young women between 11 and 12 years old, since he would need some time to discuss and finalize the matter with the father of the prospective wife. It was, after all, the father who was responsible for the husband his daughter would marry, unless he had failed to marry her off before she became a bogereth, a sexually mature woman. Scripture also alludes to this duty of the father when it talks about “giving in marriage” (e.g. Mt 24:38). However, the father was still expected to do this only with his daughter’s consent, which no doubt was the case with Mary considering the apparently godly family she came from (Lk 1:38).

4. Physical attractiveness

Like most men still today, Joseph would have looked for a physically attractive bride, relative to his circumstances and preferences. (The concept of attractiveness is different for a wealthy or distinguished man than it is for a poor or undistinguished man.)

In Kethuboth 75b Mishnah, it is assumed that, it there was a bath-house in the town where the couple were betrothed, the man would have his female relatives examine his bride-to-be for physical defects. I do not know whether there was a bath-house in Nazareth, but we can safely assume that for more godly, simple folk like Joseph, such potential physical defects would not have carried as much weight, and certainly would not have been grounds for breaking his betrothal. What he saw for himself was no doubt examination enough.

Mary Is Betrothed to Joseph

After taking all of this into consideration, Joseph obviously had his heart set on Mary, the daughter of Heli (Lk 3:23; rf. my earlier hypothesis about the genealogies). Once Heli gave Joseph the green light, Joseph would have come calling on Mary to woo her and get to know her better. Mary would have understood Joseph’s visits as a sign of her father’s approval, and she would have consented to give Joseph a chance, unless she had good reasons not to.

Since we know that Mary was a God-fearing woman (Lk 1:38) and that Joseph was a righteous man (Mt 1:19), that they were both from the small town of Nazareth, and both descended from David, we would be surprised if we learned that Mary put up all sorts of hurdles for Joseph to leap. She probably counted herself blessed to have such a man show interest in her in an age when people stressed the importance of family and when the most women could do was to say no. (And they could only do that at the risk of annoying their fathers and families, and at the risk of society’s scorn or gossip if they continued to refuse every suitor).

After settling on all the preliminaries of the betrothal with Mary’s father, legal and otherwise (e.g. the dowry), the time came for the betrothal itself. A date, place, and time were set. Joseph and Mary presented themselves in front of at least two witnesses. Not all that long ago it was the custom at weddings that the man put a ring on his bride-to-be’s finger and say, “With this ring, I thee wed.” In much the same way, Joseph would have given money or a costly article to Mary, declaring to her, “Behold, you are set apart for me,” or, “Behold, you are betrothed to me,” or, “Behold, you are mine for marriage” (Tosefta, Kiddushin 1:1ff [334]).

This was a legally binding act uniting them in marriage, even though it was not the marriage itself. From the moment of betrothal, Joseph would have referred to Mary as his wife, and Mary to Joseph as her husband. Mary could be widowed or divorced (as is evidenced by Matthew 1:19), and sexual activity with anyone but each other was not considered to be fornication, but adultery. We also know from Scripture that the betrothal union meant that the couple could be taxed as a family (Lk 2:1-5). In modern-day terms, the betrothal was today’s wedding service, and the marriage was today’s wedding reception.

However, just as today sexual activity by the married couple between the wedding and the reception is considered uncouth and a sign of unbridled passion, so also the betrothed couple were seriously expected to refrain from sexual activity between their betrothal and the marriage festival a year later. Kethuboth 10b Mishnah says that a maiden who has been divorced from betrothal, and is later remarried, can still be brought to the courts for punishment by her second husband if she turns out not to be a virgin. But Kethuboth 11a-b Mishnah says that no such punishment can be inflicted against a woman divorced from marriage, because it was expected that such a woman would no longer be a virgin.

We know that Mary and Joseph, as God-fearing Jews, honored this expectation. The very fact that Mary was a virgin when the angel Gabriel came to her, even though she was already betrothed at that time, testifies to this (Lk 1:27). Joseph became even more sensitive to this expectation once he discovered the importance of the virgin birth of Mary’s son (Mt 1:25).

As already mentioned, Jewish law stipulated that a betrothed man and woman be allotted a full year to prepare their marriage outfits. For the woman that meant preparing to present herself in a beautiful way to her husband (rf. Isa 61:10; Ps 45:13-15). For the man that meant preparing to present himself in a handsome way to his wife (rf. Isa 61:10), but also making preparations for the feast and having a livelihood in place for both of them, including a house with a suitably adorned bridal chamber.

Applying the Information to the Story

The Mishnah says that all widows should not remarry until three months have passed from the death of their husbands. This was because three months was considered the average time it took to discover that someone was pregnant, on the basis of Genesis 38:24.

Thus if we are to come up with a plausible timeline for Joseph and Mary, it would go something like this:

• Joseph – age 17; Mary – age 11: Joseph desires to have Mary for his wife, makes arrangements with her father, begins wooing
• Joseph – age 18; Mary – age 12: Joseph and Mary are betrothed
• Six months later (?): The angel Gabriel announces the birth of Jesus to Mary; Mary conceives, goes to visit her relative Elizabeth in the hill country of Judea (Lk 1:39-40)
• Three months later: Mary returns home to Nazareth (Lk 1:56), visibly pregnant, communicates to Joseph that she is pregnant through the Holy Spirit, but Joseph understandably does not believe her; Joseph ponders a quiet avenue for divorce; an angel of the Lord appears to Joseph and tells him that Mary is telling the truth
• About six months later, Joseph – age 19; Mary – age 13: Joseph and Mary have received Caesar Augustus’ census decree, journey to Bethlehem; Mary gives birth to Jesus
• One month later (?): Joseph officially marries Mary (probably without the usual fanfare)

This is just one possible scenario, but it prompts a number of thoughts and questions:

1. It makes us that much more amazed at the faith of Mary. How could she accept such a mind-blowing announcement so unquestioningly at roughly the age of 12? How could she remain so calm, in spite of the problems she would face with Joseph, with the residents of Nazareth, and with the Jewish community at large? And look at what she even did for Joseph’s sake – staying in Judea until she was visibly pregnant, so that, if Joseph wished to divorce her, he could do so without the authorities suspecting that he was falsely accusing her, since she had been gone for the last three months! If anything, it would look like Mary had defiled herself with a Judean man in the hill country.
2. It makes us that much more amazed at the faith of Joseph. First, that he would not seek to maximize her shame in his heartbreak and anger, but that he simply wished to write her a certificate of divorce and separate himself from her, letting her suffer only the shame that would come to her naturally. Secondly, which 18-year-old man do you know who would unquestioningly accept the angel’s words that his betrothed is in fact pregnant through the Holy Spirit? And even if he did, would he still want to have that woman as his wife and have to deal with all the questions, disbelief, and suspicion that were sure to arise as a result?
3. We can just about imagine what kind of kooks the Jews thought Mary and Joseph were. At first it was bad enough that Joseph and Mary apparently couldn’t control themselves for the full twelve month betrothal period. But then, being the upright people they were, Joseph told his neighbors that he did not sleep with Mary and that the child was not his. Rather, they both maintained that Mary was pregnant through the Holy Spirit! “Either confess what you did together, or have enough self-respect to stop covering up for your wife, Joseph. At the very least, come up with a plausible excuse!” we can imagine them saying.
4. We can only imagine how alone they felt and what apprehension they felt as the time for the birth drew near. Mary was still a virgin. How painful was this going to be, not just for her, but for the precious child she was carrying and whose well-being she was responsible for? How would Joseph adapt as the boy’s father, knowing that he was not?
5. We can only imagine how this apprehension was compounded and what chaos there might have been inside the stable that first Christmas night. Certainly the Lord was with them, but they were still human. What help could Joseph afford? How helpless did he feel? There was nothing sterile here. This was not the place for a birth. One wonders how many curious passers-by poked their heads in out of curiosity, or how many people staying at the inn became witnesses when they simply came in to tend to or retrieve their animals? And what cruelty – as Luther mentions – that no one in the inn would give up their room for a pregnant woman about to give birth! (One wonders if Mary and Joseph’s relatives were among those who had a room; after all, they too were from the house and line of David and thus had to make the same journey to Bethlehem. Then again, perhaps some of the more kindhearted of them, like their parents, stood by to help them, though Luke does not mention anyone else in describing the scene [Lk 2:6-7,16].)
6. Finally, the shepherds, whom we happily set up in our Nativity sets, were probably the last people on earth Mary wanted to see that night, as were any guests. Who knows what kind of mess was there in the stable? Who knows how horrible Mary looked, what condition she was in, and how exhausted she was (not to mention Joseph)? Who knows what kind of danger the child Jesus’ life was in, in that non-sterile environment, surrounded by dirty animals? And now there were visitors who wished to see the child?

Still, Mary and Joseph did not turn the shepherds away. They came, they worshipped, and then they went out and spread the news. The only thing that holds this entire story together and keeps it from being a tragic horror story is the grace and providence of God and the God-given faith of Mary and Joseph, who believed that this child truly was Jeshua, their “Salvation,” the Son of the Most High God. That is why, instead of doing her best to forget everything that had just happened now that her child was finally born, “Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart” (Lk 2:19).

Applying the Story to Ourselves

Hardly the ideal Nativity scene, huh?

And yet, who would have it any other way? Everything that happens, happens to fulfill God’s promises. Everything that happens, happens for us sinful humans, so that each one of us might know that this Child is born to us, is given to us, is able to relate to us and help us in our deepest distresses and worst plights. From the very beginning he shows that he came to purify humanity from its very dregs. From the very beginning he humbles himself completely, that we might be completely exalted to his right hand in glory.

Not only that, but everything shows us the power of the means of grace for our lives here on earth. A popular professor I had used to say: “Puberty and a state of grace are mutually exclusive propositions.” In other words, you can’t be a youth and a believer. The professor said that in jest, but sometimes it seems that way.

And yet, here is proof that is not always true. This is the story of the birth of our Savior, but it is also the story of two young people who demonstrate extraordinary faith in God’s promises. How? Simply by the power of God’s gracious word. By the power of God’s word, these two young people acknowledge their sinfulness and readily embrace the Child who is born, in spite of the almost insurmountable psychological and physical difficulties, because they so desperately need what this Child came to bring – full and free forgiveness for all their sins.

Those who tell you there is no hope for young people, that you just have to let them be until they’re ready to grow up, who tell you as a young person that you are no better than a wild animal that cannot be tamed, simply do not know the power of the good news of Jesus’ birth, the power of the gospel. These young people are not models for humanity because of their photogenic looks, or because their videos went viral, or because they have millions of screaming fans who are obsessed with the entertainment they have to offer, or even because they remained sexually chaste and were morally upright (after all, they still had the same sinful flesh as you and I have). Rather, these young people are true models for humanity – youth and adults alike – because by God’s grace they listened to God’s gracious word and submit to it in humble faith. “God, you wish to do this for me, sinner though I am? So be it; your will be done.”

At this point, Paul Harvey would say, “And now you know the rest of the story. Paul Harvey. Good day!” But now that you know the rest of the Christmas story, I can confidently wish you something much better (which I could already wish you even if you only knew the Christmas story without any of the background):

Merry Christmas, and a blessed eternity.