Jesus is Circumcised and Named

LUKE 2:21

What was the point of circumcision?
In understanding why Jesus was circumcised, it is helpful to investigate the law under which the Jews lived at that time. As a part of the covenant made with Abraham when he was 99 years old, recorded in Genesis 17, infant boys were to be circumcised when eight days old. Though over the age of eight, he and his male offspring including his 13 year old son, Ishmael, as well as men and boys of his household bought from strangers were, according to this commandment, to be circumcised. At this time, Abram's name, meaning "noble father", was changed to Abraham, meaning "father of a multitude". Interestingly, his wife's name was also changed, from Sarai (my princess) to Sarah (mother of nations). This was when circumcision began, and it continued through the ages among the Hebrew people, with the exception of when the Israelites were in the wilderness after being rescued from bondage in Egypt. However, their neglect was later corrected. Circumcision did not bring about salvation, but was an outward sign and reminder that one was of the Abrahamic Covenant, which included Abraham's seed, or descendants.

The Abrahamic Covenant and the Law of Moses in the New Testament...
By the time the New Testament events took place, circumcision was a dual purpose ritual, which included the circumcision itself as well as the recipient being officially named. It was still consistently done on the 8th day of an infant boy's life, even if that day fell on the Sabbath. If this occurred, regular Sabbath strictness was relaxed to include the ceremony. Thus, we see that it was a very important thing to the Jews at that time. It signified commitment, and a reminder of the person's inclusion with God's covenant people. However, it was not only an outward sign, but was intended to include also a change within, toward God, obedience and humility.

The first mention of it in the New Testament is when John the Baptist was circumcised. "And it came to pass, that on the eighth day they came to circumcise the child; and they called him Zacharias, after the name of his father. And his mother answered and said, Not so; but he shall be called John." (Luke 1:59-60)

Jesus was also circumcised and named at eight days of age. His circumcision is mentioned almost in passing, before an accounting of Mary's purification and the presentation of baby Jesus. It is written in the context of following the law of Moses. So, it would seem that Jesus was circumcised for this purpose. It also stands to reason that, had He not been circumcised, He would been less accepted by those around Him when He went about His work later in life. It was frowned upon to commune with those who were uncircumcised.

His circumcision as an infant was recorded in Luke 2:21, immediately after the story of the shepherds. "And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called Jesus, which was so named of the angel before he was conceived in the womb." Surely, Joseph and Mary, both direct descendants of Abraham, sought to strictly observe the law of their forefathers in getting baby Jesus circumcised. It was, doubtless, a special day in which they were, in effect, dedicating Him to be humble and obedient. Perhaps they even shed a tear or two for the baby's physical pain, yet surely they felt joy in knowing that they were fulfilling this ancient command.

Did Jesus teach the continued importance of circumcision?
As one reads on, it becomes increasingly apparent that circumcision itself was not so important as the inward change of heart which came when one turned to the Lord. We have only one record of Jesus, himself, mentioning circumcision. This can be found in John 7:22-24, and is given in the context of exposing the hypocrisy of the Jews of His time in judging Him for healing a man on the Sabbath. "Moses therefore gave unto you circumcision; (not because it is of Moses, but of the fathers;) and ye on the sabbath day circumcise a man. If a man on the sabbath day receive circumcision, that the law of Moses should not be broken; are ye angry at me, because I have made a man every whit whole on the sabbath day? Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment." I know of nowhere that Jesus actually states that circumcision is necessary, even when pointedly asked what one must do to obtain eternal life. He only mentioned circumcision once that I am aware of, and it was only in the context of something else. The Jews still thought it was important, but obviously the Lord did not.

Is circumcision no longer needed?
When Gentiles began to be converted, it became a matter of great confusion and debate whether they should be circumcised and encouraged to live the law of Moses. Peter informed those present that there was no need to burden them with this, but that God knew their hears and that they were purified by faith. He went on to say that he believed they were saved by grace. (Acts 15:1-11) In Galatians 6:15 is stated, "For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature." Acts and Galatians, both written only a few years after the Lord's death and resurrection, thus indicated that one's faith and resulting actions were of more importance. After all, one could be circumcised and yet have no faith and obey none of the laws of God. From a spiritual standpoint, what would it gain him or her, then, to have been circumcised?

It appears that, with the Lord's suffering, death and resurrection, came an end to the need for circumcision and the law of Moses. The Lord was, after all, the ultimate sacrifice. What need was there for a continuation of the old law? The law of Moses kept them in remembrance of the coming Messiah, but He had now come among them.

The Birth of Jesus Christ

LUKE 2:6-20

A Fitting Birthplace

Bethlehem
Photo source ➚

Bethlehem holds great historical significance. It was "an early Canaanite settlement connected with the patriarchs. Situated along an ancient caravan route, Bethlehem has harbored a melting pot of peoples and cultures since its beginning. The geography of the region is mountainous, sitting about 2,600 feet above the Mediterranean Sea." (Bethlehem ➚) It was here that Jacob had tended his flocks, and where his favored wife, Rachel, was buried. Here, also, the story of Naomi, Ruth and Boaz took place, and here David was born and raised. In Bethlehem, David was anointed king of Israel by the prophet, Samuel, and it was later fortified and called the City of David. Thus, we see that the location had already been of great importance for hundreds of years, and was a rather appropriate birthplace for the Savior.

Ancient prophecy had already set the birthplace of Jesus, some 700 years before. Micah 5:2 reads, "But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting."

Also significant is that the name "Bethlehem" means "House of Bread". Jesus would later state, "I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst." (John 6:35) So, in the House of Bread was born the Bread of Life.

By the time Mary and Joseph arrived in Bethlehem for the census, ordered by Caesar Augustus, its population had declined to 300-1000 people. One could well imagine that it was overcrowded at this time, as many returned to their ancestral village. It could be assumed that, given that Mary was "great with child" (Luke 2:5), Joseph would have sought a suitable place for her to rest upon their arrival. They had, after all, been traveling for several days. It's easy to picture her labor pains beginning when they finally reached the village, and their need for lodging, thus, being great. However, we don't know how many days or weeks they were there before she gave birth. The text says only, "And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered." (Luke 2:6) Likely it was fairly soon, given that the "inn" was still too full for them to lodge there.

The Inn
Most villages of this size only had one inn, and it may have been little more than four walls and a roof. It has been suggested that Bethlehem's inn may have been built by Chimham, son of Barzilae, with whom King David stayed toward the end of his life. David might have given Chimham part of his inheritance in Bethlehem for the very purpose of building said inn to secure an income for the man. Jesus may have been born in the stable portion of this very inn. Thus, it would be rather appropriate that He may have been born within the property once owned by King David himself, of whom Joseph and Mary were direct descendants. (Bethlehem - the Manger and the Inn ➚)

A Cave
Another theory is that the stable in which the Lord was born was little more than a cave, perhaps with a wall closing in the mouth thereof. Perhaps this idea evolved from the sense that the Son of God should be born in seclusion. The cave scenario has been considered a distinct possibility for centuries, mentioned in writings as early as 150 AD. Caves were historically used for lodging, fortresses, hideouts, storage, and for the housing of animals. Perhaps, if it is true that He was born in just such a cave, it had, at one time, a house attached to it. It was common for a house to have a courtyard which led to a basement or cave, in which food was stored and animals were housed at night. It would be interesting if He were born in a cave of sorts, since he was resurrected from one also, in a sense (from a tomb).

Did They Stay with Relatives?
It is important to remember that Bethlehem was the ancestral home of both Joseph and Mary, and they likely still had relatives living there. Surely, they would have turned to them first, falling under their protection according to Jewish custom, especially given that Mary was pregnant and may need assistance. It would have insulted their relations to have sought refuge elsewhere. I had always pictured them going from one building to the next, Joseph asking for lodging, and repeatedly being turned aside. However, Luke 2:7 states only that Mary gave birth to her firstborn son "and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn." Luke doesn't specifically indicate that Joseph tried multiple times to secure a place to stay before being given permission to stay in a family's stable. It is, though, rather interesting that there was no room in the "inn". This seems a parallel to the fact that we often don't make room for the Lord in our lives either.

Alternative Meaning for the Word Translated as "Inn"
I didn't realize until recently that the word "inn" may mean something entirely different than I had assumed. This same Greek word "kataluma" was translated as "guest room" or "upper room" in the King James Version of Luke 22:11-12 and as "guestchamber" in Mark 14:14. However, the word "pundakeion" rather than "kataluma" was chosen to mean "inn" in the story of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:34. So, was the "inn" actually an extra room in a relative's house in Bethlehem rather than a building meant to house travelers? If so, it would seem that, perhaps, the guest room was full, so they were housed, instead, in the lower level of a relative's home, where the animals were often kept.

Ancient Architecture
In typical Hebrew homes the animals were kept on the lower level or in an adjoining cave, and the people slept above them. When I really stop to think about Mary being given lodging with the animals, it gives me pause. Couldn't someone else have moved in with the animals and given this pregnant woman a more comfortable place to rest? Does having to room with the animals suggest that the family was shaming or rejecting her because they believed her child was illegitimate? Did they even know the whole story about how and when she had become with child?

It is also possible that they sought to get her away from the overcrowded guest room so that she might have a more private place to give birth. Perhaps they were providing Mary with the best or only accommodations they had to offer. With the animals, she was still within the protection of the family, rather than being out on the street, so to speak. Therefore, it could have been a very pointed act of compassion extended to these travelers.

They also may have been housed in the main living area where many peasant babies were traditionally born, especially given that the guest room was full. The animals were on a sunken floor or cave at night. Thus the Child would have been born in cleaner surroundings above, yet laid in the manger at the edge of where the floor is sunken.

Suffice it to say that we can't say for sure where Jesus was born. The great event could have taken place in a stable attached to the inn, or in a basement or lower level with the animals owned by relatives, or in a secluded cave. What we do know is that he was born in Bethlehem and that his birth was long awaited by those who knew the ancient prophecies. The Savior being born changed everything.

Angels Visit the Shepherds

Photo source ➚

These particular shepherds were likely tending the temple flock, meaning that these sheep were being raised for sacrificial purposes, for the temple in Jerusalem. Jewish tradition stated that the Messiah would be revealed from the "tower of the flock", a tower along the road to Jerusalem, but not far from Bethlehem. (Migdal Edar - Biblical Location ➚) Such towers were used as a lookout to spy enemies approaching, but also for shepherds to keep an eye on the flocks. This one would have been used to oversee the temple flock specifically, which pastured there. (Shepherds - Bible Dictionary ➚) The tower was originally erected as a monument at Rachel's tomb. There, she died giving birth to Ben-Oni (son of sorrow), whose name was changed to Benjamin (son of the right hand).

Photo source ➚

Angels visit the shepherds near Bethlehem
Photo source ➚

The roles of shepherds were to lead the sheep to food and water, rescue any that wandered off, and to protect the flock from predators and thieves. In reality, the shepherds had to be willing to do most anything to keep the sheep well and safe, even putting their own lives in danger if need be. They had to be vigilant and watchful, and were sometimes also at the mercy of extreme weather conditions. These particular shepherds were charged also with carefully selecting lambs fit for sacrifice. Those chosen were sometimes wrapped in swaddling clothes of sorts, some believe, I suppose as a way of marking them as different from the others, which were flawed.

It's amazing to think about the miraculous story of the shepherds. They were out tending sheep in the fields outside of Bethlehem at night, when an angel, presumably the Angel Gabriel who had appeared to Mary prior to the conception of Jesus, visited them and the glory of the Lord "shone round about them". Imagine! Unaccustomed to such an occurrence, naturally they were terrified. The angel assured them that there was no need to fear, and informed them that the Savior had been born that day in the city of David (Bethlehem). They were to know that they'd found the right baby when they saw Him, wrapped in swaddling clothes and lying in a manger. It is interesting that both the sacrificial lambs and baby Jesus were clothed in such a manner. Surely, there is symbolism in this. Perhaps the message to these shepherds, in effect, was that, though they tended the sacrificial temple flock, another "Lamb" had been born that would be the ultimate sacrifice. It is only fitting that the angel told them first, given that it was their calling to certify lambs suitable for sacrifice.

After this exciting message was relayed, suddenly many more angels appeared, praising God! I can't even imagine what an amazing experience that must have been for them. Did others round about see or hear the angels as well? We are not given any information in that regard in Luke's account. Perhaps they were only, miraculously, visible to the shepherds. Throughout the Bible, God seems to look favorably upon humble shepherds, and even Jesus called himself the Good Shepherd. "I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep... I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine." (John 10:11, 14)

Once the angels disappeared, the shepherds promptly went to Bethlehem to find the babe. How could they not, after such an experience? They didn't doubt at all, it seems. "Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us." (Luke 2:15) They did not question whether the message was of God. They were completely sure that if they went to Bethlehem, they would find exactly what they were told they'd find. That is inspiring, in and of itself.

The faithful shepherds did just that, and found Mary, Joseph and baby Jesus. After so doing, they praised God and told others all that had happened. Everyone that heard about it was amazed. Keep in mind that shepherds, though they served a crucial purpose, were somewhat nomadic and were low on the social and economic ladder, with little or no formal education. Their testimonies were not even admissible in court in that era! Yet here they were, receiving an angelic visitation, being among the first to see the newborn Lord, and telling everyone they could who would listen, perhaps even those to whom the chosen sheep were later taken in Jerusalem.

Mary's Response

Mary pondered on the shepherds' experience
Photo source ➚

Mary's reaction is particularly interesting as well. Its mention in the text speaks of the importance of her response. Following the visit from the shepherds, during which they would have surely given an account of the angelic visitation, she "kept these things, and pondered them in her heart." (Luke 2:19) She was obviously a very faithful, reflective young woman, given to meditating on all that she and others had experienced with regard to the Son of God. Surely, she was in awe at all that had happened, and thought much on what was to come.