Was There Really "No Room in the Inn"?

You are here

Was There Really "No Room in the Inn"?

Login or Create an Account

With a UCG.org account you will be able to save items to read and study later!

Sign In | Sign Up


A typical translation of Luke 2:7 says about Mary giving birth to Jesus, "And she brought forth her firstborn Son, and wrapped Him in swaddling clothes, and laid Him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn" (New King James Version).

We've grown up hearing the account that the "inn" in Bethlehem was full, with no "room" available, so Joseph and Mary ended up in a stable, with Jesus Christ born and laid in a manger there. This image has been used to promote the typical Christmas nativity scene for generations. Yet a careful analysis of the biblical text reveals quite a different story!

Not an inn but a guest room

The New Testament was originally written in Greek, and the Greek word translated "inn" here is kataluma. It means a place of rest, usually a guest room. In fact, the same writer Luke uses this very word later where it clearly refers to a guest room and not an inn. Notice Luke 22:11, where Jesus said to His disciples, "Then you shall say to the master of the house, 'The Teacher says to you, "'Where is the guest room [kataluma] where I may eat the Passover with My disciples?"'" (emphasis added throughout).

Furthermore, Luke elsewhere in his Gospel uses a different Greek word when he writes about an actual inn—not the word kataluma. In the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus mentions that the injured man in the story was taken to an inn—and here Luke translates using the Greek word pandokheion, the normal word for an inn. We read this in Luke 10:34, where the kind Samaritan set the injured man "on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him."

Interestingly, the Arabic and Syriac versions of the New Testament, which reflect more of a Middle Eastern context, have never translated kataluma as meaning an inn, but instead as a guest room. As Kenneth Bailey, a Middle Eastern and New Testament scholar points out, "This translation [of the word as 'inn'] is a product of our Western heritage" ("The Manger and the Inn: The Cultural Background of Luke 2:7," Bible and Spade, Fall 2007, p. 103).

In addition, Young's Literal Translation uses the term "guest-chamber" instead of an inn. It says: "And she brought forth her son—the first-born, and wrapped him up, and laid him down in the manger, because there was not for them a place in the guest-chamber."

Note also the word here translated "place" or "room." In the context of "inn," most assume this is referring to an individual room ("no room in the inn"), yet even inns of that time did not often have individual rooms. The reference is simply to space. What Luke is telling us is that there was not enough room, or enough space, for them in the guest room.

The linguistic evidence shows that Luke used the term kataluma to mean not an inn, but the guest room—indeed, "the" guest room (the definite article is used) of a particular house.

Historical factors

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, after pointing out that the word kataluma is used elsewhere in the Gospels for the guest chamber of a private home, comments: "Was the 'inn' at Bethlehem, where Joseph and Mary sought a night's lodging, an upper guest room in a private home or some kind of public place for travelers? The question cannot be answered with certainty. It is thought by some that it may have been a guest chamber provided by the community. We know that visitors to the annual feasts in Jerusalem were entertained in the guest rooms of private homes" (1982, Vol. 2, "Inn," p. 826).

Another factor that powerfully argues against this term meaning an inn is that these places were not appropriate to giving birth to a child. Inns at that time were far from anything like typical motels or hotels we might think of today. "Generally speaking, inns had a bad reputation . . . This ill repute of public inns, together with the Semitic spirit of hospitality, led the Jews and the early Christians to recommend the keeping of an open house for the benefit of strangers" (ibid.).

Besides, for commercial reasons inns were usually found along the major roads. Yet Bethlehem was a small town in the upper mountains of Judea, and no major Roman road is known to have passed through it. Since it seems to have been an insignificant village at the time, it's doubtful that an inn even existed there then.

This gives yet more reason to realize that what Luke really wrote is that there was no room in the guest chamber. Certainly, due to the Roman census being taken at the time and the huge number of people traveling to their birthplaces, available space in the guest quarters was scarce.

So the question then becomes: Does that mean Joseph and Mary aimed to stay in someone's home but, since the guest room was full, were turned out into the night to a stable? When Mary was in labor? That might seem worse than being turned away from an inn. Of course, both scenarios seem rather terrible—certainly downright inhospitable, which is far out of line from the way things were at that time.

A culture of hospitality and honoring kinship

In Christ's day, hospitality to visitors among the Jews was essential, based on biblical example and law. In Deuteronomy 10:19, God told the Israelites to "love the stranger." And Leviticus 19:33 stated, "If a stranger dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him." Denial of hospitality was shown throughout Scripture to be an outrage. Hospitality toward visitors is still important throughout the Middle East.

Moreover, since Bethlehem was Joseph's ancestral home, he probably had relatives there. And being a descendant of King David, whose hometown this was, he would have been highly respected upon his arrival. Think of a descendant of George Washington coming to his hometown of Alexandria, Virginia, after a long lapse of time. The townspeople would've shown him respect.

As Bailey explains: "[My] thirty-year experience with villagers in the Middle East is that the intensity of honor shown to the passing guest is still very much in force, especially when it is a returning son of the village who is seeking shelter. We have observed cases where a complete village has turned out in a great celebration to greet a young man who has suddenly arrived unannounced in the village, which his grandfather had left many years before" (p. 103).

It should also be pointed out that childbirth was a major event at that time. In a small village like Bethlehem, many neighboring women would have come to help in the birth. Bailey states: "In the case of a birth, the men will sit apart with the neighbors, but the room will be full of women assisting the midwife. A private home would have bedding, facilities for heating water and all that is required for any peasant birth" (p. 102).

What this all means is that it would have been unthinkable and an unimaginable insult and affront to societal decency for Joseph, a returning village son, and his laboring wife to need to seek shelter in an unsavory inn to have a baby of Davidic descent—and then, even worse, to be sent out to have the birth in a stable. This simply cannot be what happened. Nor can it be that they were sent out into the night from a private home.

So what actually happened?  

Reading the text carefully

Regrettably, the birth of Christ is later overlaid with so much tradition and legend about Christmas that it's hard to let the biblical text speak for itself.

The common assumption is that Joseph and Mary arrived in Bethlehem and, being hastened by her labor pains, rushed to an inn only to find it full with no vacancies, so they ended up in a stable where she gave birth.

However, a careful reading of the text shows us they had already been in Bethlehem for some days when she went into labor. Notice carefully Luke 2:4-6: "Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child. So it was, that while they were there, the days were completed for her to be delivered."

Consequently, they must have already been lodging somewhere in Bethlehem when her birth pangs began—and this was surely not a stable for a period of days. Could not Joseph have found a more suitable lodging place for his pregnant wife in that amount of time? Of course.

In fact, we should realize that not far from here dwelt Mary's cousin Elizabeth, whom Mary had lived with for a while during her pregnancy (Luke 1:39-40). If they were seeking a place to stay for days, why didn't they go to Elizabeth's house? The answer is simple. They found a house in which to stay in Bethlehem—probably that of Joseph's relatives.

And being in these accommodations already, it makes no sense for them to suddenly be out seeking a room in an inn or anywhere else at the time of Mary's labor.

Yet we might still be asking: So why were they sent out to a stable? The answer is, they weren't.

Birth in a house, not a stable

The Archaeological Study Bible offers some helpful background: "The 'manger' was the feeding trough of the animals. This is the only indication that Jesus was born in a stable. Very early tradition suggests that his birthplace was a cave, perhaps being used as a stable.

"Justin Martyr in the second century A.D. stated that Jesus' birth took place in a cave close to the village. Over this traditional manger site the emperor Constantine (A.D. 330) and his mother, Helena, constructed the Church of the Nativity" (2005, p. 1669).

Note that it is only the manger, an animal food or water trough, that gives any indication of a stable. And indeed a manger might well have been found in a stable. But it's important to realize that they were also to be found within first-century homes!

A typical Judean house of that day consisted of an area near the door, often with a dirt floor, where the family's animals were kept at night—so they wouldn't be stolen or preyed upon and so their body heat could help warm the home on cool nights. The family lived and slept in a raised part of the same room set back from the door. There was also usually a guest room either upstairs on a second floor or adjoining the family common room on the lower floor. Typically the lower area near the door had a manger for food and/or water for the animals.

Eric F.F. Bishop, an expert in Middle East culture, noted that the birth of Christ probably took place in "one of the Bethlehem houses with the lower section provided for the animals, with mangers 'hollowed in stone,' the dais [or raised area] being reserved for the family. Such a manger being immovable, filled with crushed straw, would do duty for a cradle. An infant might even be left in safety, especially if swaddled, when the mother was absent on temporary business" (Jesus of Palestine, 1955, p. 42).

Yet another authority on Middle Eastern life, Gustaf Dalmann, stated: "In the East today the dwelling-place of man and beast is often in one and the same room. It is quite the usual thing among the peasants for the family to live, eat, and sleep on a kind of raised terrace . . . in the one room of the house, while the cattle, particularly donkeys and oxen, have their place below on the actual floor . . . near the door; this part sometimes is continued along under the terrace as a kind of low vault. On this floor the mangers are fixed, either to the floor, or to the wall, or at the edge of the terrace" (Sacred Sites and Ways, 1935, p. 41).

This scene of an ox or donkey in the house at night might go against our Western sensibilities. Yet, as Bailey comments: "It is we in the West who have decided that life with these great gentle beasts is culturally unacceptable. The raised terrace on which the family ate, slept and lived was unsoiled by the animals, which were taken out each day and during which time the lower level was cleaned. Their presence was in no way offensive" (p. 105). Of course, the animals could have been taken outside when the actual birth was occurring.

Consider that the medium of En Dor whom King Saul sinfully consulted with "had a fatted calf in the house," which she killed to prepare a meal for Saul and his men (1 Samuel 28:24). It was more often the wealthy who had stables for their animals apart from the house.

Thus, a more realistic view of what occurred with Christ's birth according to the customs of the time is that the manger was in a house and not in a stable. It should be stated that this could conceivably have involved a cave, but that's only because some houses were built over caves. Yet this was not the norm. And the cave imagery may come from pagan myth about the Persian sun-god Mithras, who was supposedly born in a cave—along with the belief of some that Christ's birth had to have been in seclusion, as we will see. 

The pieces fall into place

What we've seen so far explains a great deal.

Some might object that Mary and Joseph being accommodated in the family common room of a house instead of the guest room is itself inhospitable. But as Bailey points out: "No unkindness or lack of hospitality is implied when the Holy Family is taken into the main family room of the home in which they are entertained. The guest room is full. The host is not expected to ask prior guests . . . to leave. Such would be quite unthinkable and, in any case, unnecessary. The large family room is more appropriate in any case" (p. 104).

Indeed, considering all the women that would be going in and out of the room during the birth, having Mary stay in the main room would probably have seemed the wisest choice to everyone concerned. In fact, it's possible that Luke's mention of there being no room or space meant that this particular guest room was too small for all the birth activity.  

Bailey continues in regard to understanding kataluma as meaning the guest room: "This option admirably fulfills both the linguistic requirements of the text and the cultural requirements of the village scene. This translation gives new understanding to the story of Jesus' birth. Joseph and Mary arrive in Bethlehem. They find shelter with a family whose separate guest room is full [or too small], and are accommodated among the family in acceptable village style. The birth takes place there on the raised terrace of the family home, and the baby is laid in a manger . . .

"The (Palestinian) reader [of Luke's account] instinctively thinks, 'Manger—oh—they are in the main family room. Why not the guest room?' The author instinctively replies, 'Because there was no place for them in the guest room.' The reader concludes, 'Ah, yes—well, the family room is more appropriate anyway.' Thus, with the translation 'guest room,' all of the cultural, historical and linguistic pieces fall into place" (p. 104).

The reaction of the shepherds

Another element of the story that reinforces the picture here is that of the shepherds who received the announcement of the birth of the Savior, the Lord Messiah, and where to find Him that night from an angel (Luke 2:8-11). As men of the lower ranks of society, they may not have felt they would be received well in visiting a king, but the angel told them that as a sign they would find the child lying in a manger (verse 12).

"That is," says Bailey in an insightful book he has written, "they would find the Christ child in an ordinary peasant home such as theirs. He was not in a governor's mansion or a wealthy merchant's guest room but in a simple two-room home like theirs" (Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes: Cultural Studies in the Gospels, 2008, p. 35).

Luke's account further states that the shepherds "came with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the Babe lying in a manger" (verse 16). On arriving they made "widely known" what had been announced to them (verse 17)—showing that there were many people there. And when they left, they went out "praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen" (verse 20).

Bailey points out: "The word all obviously included the quality of the hospitality that they witnessed on arrival. Clearly, they found the holy family in perfectly adequate accommodations, not in a dirty stable. If, on arrival, they had found a smelly stable, a frightened young mother and a desperate Joseph, they would have said, 'This is outrageous! Come home with us! Our women will take care of you!'

"Within five minutes the shepherds would have moved the little family to their own homes. The honor of the entire village would rest on their shoulders and they would have sensed their responsibility to do their duty. The fact that they walked out, without moving the young family, means that the shepherds felt they could not offer better hospitality than what had already been extended to them" (pp. 35-36, emphasis in original).    

Where does this leave us?

So what are the implications of upending the traditional view of the Christmas nativity scene?

We should first ask, given the facts we've seen, why has there been such an insistence since early centuries that the birth setting of Christ was a stable or cave with no one around—perhaps even outside the town, as some have even contended?

Bailey reveals: "After reading a number of Arabic and Syriac fathers' writings on the question, one has the distinct feeling there is an unspoken subjective pressure to understand the birth as having taken place without witnesses because of the sacred nature of the 'mother of God' giving birth to the 'Son of God.'

"Even as the sacraments are consecrated in utter seclusion behind an altar screen, so the eyes of even the faithful might not look on the holy event, even so Middle Eastern Christology, Mariology and piety seem to combine to insist that the birth took place where no eye beheld the divine mystery" ("The Manger and the Inn," p. 105).

Yet this is a fiction straight out of ancient pagan mystery religion. The reality is quite different, as we've seen. While Jesus was conceived of God the Father through the Holy Spirit, His was nonetheless a typical birth for the common man of His day. Though begotten of God, He truly came as one of us.

As for the common tradition, Kenneth Bailey concludes: "We all face the enormous weight of church tradition which surrounds us with the 'no room at the inn' mythology. If our conclusions are valid, thousands of good Christmas sermons, plays, filmstrips, films, poems, songs and books will have to be discarded.

"But is the traditional myth of a lonely birth in a stable a help or a hindrance to the reality the text proclaims? Surely a more authentic cultural understanding enhances the meaning of the story, rather than diminishing it.

"Jesus was rejected at His birth by Herod, but the Bethlehem shepherds welcomed Him with great joy, as did the common people in later years. The city of David was true to its own, and the village community provided for Him. He was born among them, in the natural setting of the birth of any village boy, surrounded by helping hands and encouraging women's voices.

"For centuries Palestinian peasants have been born on the raised terraces of the one-room family homes. The birth of Jesus was no different. His incarnation was authentic. His birth most likely took place in the natural place for a peasant to be born—in a peasant home" (pp. 105-106).

Let's be thankful that we can examine the biblical text without the hidden biases of religious tradition—and that we don't have to prop up a wrong meaning of a term in order to keep alive the religious myths of Christmas.

The Bereans left us with a wonderful example on how we should base our faith. Luke commended them by saying in Acts 17:11, "These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so."

May we all do the same!


  • mjohn

    This writer lacks real understanding of Jesus and His birth. He talks about "hospitality" of those days. This cannot be an acceptable argument to negate the "laid in a manger" truth. John says, "He came to his own and his own received him not." Isaiah says, "He was despised and REJECTED of men…" Where, then is the "hospitality of those days?" In all likelihood, Jesus was born in the underground "parking garage" which usually was a cave used to keep all the animals of the travelers. And it would be full of animal filth, dung and urine. No, it was in a cozy, warm, comfortable house my Savior was born, but in a dirty cattle shed. I do not think Joseph was looking for a "guest-chamber," but a little room somewhere in that inn, but was refused. Hence they both chose the cattle shed. By the way, I am not a theologian or a Bible scholar, but a simple Christian who follows the rejected Christ. I find great joy in following God's rejected Son. The good news - He came into my heart which was worse than that cattle shed; washed it clean and made it habitable for Him! May His name be exalted throughout this world and the one to come! Please do not remove the rejection of Jesus from your Bible.

  • HeavenlyTruth

    I hope the real truth will be heard. Not this ear tickler.

  • dust_i_am

    Isn't there a problem in claiming a "culture of hospitality," given the circumstances by which Mary became pregnant?
    Looking at it admittedly from our modern perspective, would family members (especially strict Jews) really have welcomed someone perceived to have a baby out of wedlock?

  • Zebhaggerty

    This is a vital point that is left out of the research in this story and I believe it is the most important piece! I agree with you - I don’t believe hospitality would have been given to Joseph and his pregnant, unwed “girlfriend”. This doesn’t diminish the truth of the language used - but I don’t think we can assume that cultural hospitality would have been extended to what this culture would see as sinners;
    At the end of the day - these details hardly matter. God came and dwelt among us. While these details make good sermons - they do not change the Gospel.

  • Wendy Englehardt

    An excellent article!

  • Malachi 3_16-18
    E Navarone, Putting some Biblical facts together, it’s likely Jesus’ birth was in early fall. John the Baptist was born about 6 months before Jesus (Lk 1:26). If we can figure out approximately when John was born, we could know the season of Jesus’ birth. John’s father, Zacharias, was a priest of the Abijah order, the 8th course (1 Chron 24:10). Each course ran for a week, starting with the 1st. week in the month Nisan. So it’s likely Zacharias served around early June, and Elizabeth conceived around mid-June. Nine months later would be a late March birth for John. And 6 months later is late Sept. So interestingly, Jesus could have been born around the time of the Feast of Tabernacles (which starts anywhere from late Sept/early Oct.). This could also explain why all the guest rooms were full. Jesus’ parents came to Bethlehem to register in a Roman census (Lk 2:1-4), but it’s likely Caesar Augustus had the census coincide with a time when many would already be traveling to the region for the Feast of Tabernacles in Jerusalem. An autumn birth would also explain why shepherds were still out at night with their sheep (Lk 2:8), since the cold of winter had not yet set in.
  • E Navarone
    Would they have kept animals in the house during the summer? It seems it must have been summer for the shepherds to be out with their flocks. Does the bible give any indication as whether it was late summer, by either where the constellations where at or even what the sheep may have been eating at the time?
  • rogeliofeir
    This is indeed very enlightening. It appears corruption creeps in everything to cover the truth. I am glad to read this full text.
  • Antipodean
    By my understanding, the guest accommodations generally consisted of a large room, where the humans took space on a mezzanine surrounding the main floor where the animals were kept, where they would provide the entire room with heat. If this is true, being crowded out on the mezzanine would mean nothing more than having to take up a spot on the floor, rather than being turned out into a different structure.
  • mvallejo3

    I would also like to add my sincere thanks for such a revealing and educational article. I was recently introduced to the works of Ken Bailey, and delighted to see him quoted in your article.

    I learned more in the few minutes of reading your article than ever before.

    I will share this with my church family.

    Thank you, Mr. Seigle and Mr. Robinson. Have a blessed Christmas.

  • MJGardner

    Finally, the TRUTH comes to light! I have not questioned the "nativity" story, but hearing about the "Guest Room" makes sense.
    I remember reading about the "stranger in the land", but never took the next step of Christ's birth.

    Thank you, Mr. Seiglie and Mr. Robinson for showing us what really must have happened.

  • mazusano

    thank you very much for this well-researched article. i have long believed that the traditional nativity scene is problematic, but the fresh material this article provides enriches further what the churches of god have long believed.

  • mjohn

    and it is full of speculation and rejection of the truth.

  • cjgennaro

    Thank you very much for the article. I did not know that there was more problems with the traditional view of the nativity scene other than the fact that were not necessarily three wiseman- only three gifts were presented. But this article brings so much more to light. Thank you again

  • KARS

    I have searched the scriptures daily. I know that the nativity seen is wrong. There is biblical proof.

  • KARS

    Thank you for all your hard work and research on the birth of our Lord and King gentlemen.


  • Join the conversation!

    Log in or register to post comments