Luke 2:6

And it came to pass, while they were there, the days were fulfilled that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son; and she wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn.

This was the central event in world history, apparently of the most ordinary significance to anyone who might have been aware of it, but actually the pivot upon which the future of mankind turned, the cornerstone and foundation of all mortal hopes.

Her firstborn son ... "This means that there were other children born to Mary after this. If Luke had believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary he most likely would have used "only born" ([@monogene]) rather than "firstborn" ([@prototokon])."[11] Both Mark and Matthew named four sons called "brothers" of Jesus; and there was utterly no indication by either sacred writer that "brothers" was to be construed otherwise than in the ordinary sense. (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3). This writer feels no compulsion toward accommodation with the superstitions that arose with reference to Mary's perpetual virginity. Strong agreement is felt with Childer's comment:

Commentators who accept the Roman Catholic view that Mary had no other children deny that the term firstborn indicates later births by her; but it seems clear to this writer that they are denying fact to support doctrine.[12]

And while it is true that, in a technical sense, "firstborn" does not prove there were other births, it certainly does not deny the fact; and, coupled with the repeated mention of Jesus' "brethren" in the Gospels, it is conclusive. Allegations to the contrary are founded upon a mistaken premise that the state of virginity is holier than the state of matrimony, declared by an apostle to be: "honorable in all."

Wrapped him in swaddling clothes ... Barclay has given the only description of these that this writer has ever seen, as follows:

Swaddling clothes were like this - they consisted of a square of cloth with a long, bandage-like strip coming diagonally off one corner. The child was first wrapped in the square of cloth, and then the long strip was wound round and round about him.[13]

And laid him in a manger ... The word here denotes "not' only a manger but, by metonymy, the stall or `crib' (Proverbs 14:4) containing the manger."[14] One cannot fail to be impressed with the intimations of Christ's final sufferings which appear in things related to his birth. In his death, they wrapped him in "bandages" much like swaddling clothes; and he was nailed to the "tree" much like the manger made from a scooped-out log. He who was to bear the sins of all men, in accepting a share of man's mortality, was even in his birth associated with emblems of suffering. Just as there was no room in the inn, there was no room for him in the world which slew him.

There was no room in the inn ... The limited capacity of ancient inns, the influx of others for the enrollment, and the normal fluctuations in every business were probably among the conditions that made it impossible for the holy parents to have found better accommodations; but, over and beyond all this, it was the will of God that the Saviour of all people should have been born in such humble circumstances.

No room for the Son of God! What a commentary is this upon the situation of Adam's rebellious race when the Dayspring from on High visited our sinful world! The King had indeed come to visit his children, but what unworthy hosts they proved to be!

Just what day of the week, month, or year did this occur? It is simply impossible to tell, there being, in fact, some question of exactly what year it was. The comment of the incomparable Adam Clarke is worthy of repeating in this context. He said:

Fabricus gives a catalogue of no less than 136 opinions concerning the YEAR of Christ's birth; and, as to his BIRTHDAY, it has been placed by Christian sects and learned men in every month of the year!; ... but the Latin Church, supreme in power and infallible in judgment, placed it on the 25th of December, the very day on which the ancient Romans celebrated the feast of their goddess Bruma![15]

Regardless of human curiosity and preoccupation of scholars with this question, "we should take our cue from the obvious lack of divine interest in the question."[16]

[11] Herschel H. Hobbs, An Exposition of the Gospel of Luke (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1966), p. 50..

[12] Charles L. Childers, op. cit., p. 446.

[13] William Barclay, op. cit., p. 16.

[14] W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1940), Vol. II, p. 35.

[15] Adam Clarke, op. cit., p. 370.

[16] Charles L. Childers, op. cit., p. 447.