*Dating Christ's Birth

Despite the continuing secularization of our society, people remain fascinated and curious about the historical basis for the life of Jesus Christ. This curiosity becomes apparent especially around the traditional holidays of Christmas and Easter, when Jesus is supposed to be "the reason for the season." The Internet provides a wide-open window into the things people are thinking about, and questions about Jesus' birth and death are frequently asked on search engines and answers are posted on social media sites. For instance, a quick inquiry on Google or Bing about the date of Jesus' birth returns literally millions of pages of material.

As the world just experienced, the vast majority of mainstream Christians celebrate Christmas on December 25 or January 6 (Eastern Orthodox), depending on their denominational allegiance. While a minority of these Christians insist that December 25 is the correct date of the Nativity, most people realize that proof for this early winter date is quite scanty, which we will see presently. Even so, very few of them think that the date is significant as long as one is celebrating the advent of the Son of God into the world for the salvation of mankind—and one experiences good cheer with family and friends and receives the expected number of presents under the tree. I know, my cynicism is showing.

In the run-up to Christmas, it is not uncommon for newspapers, magazines, and online news sites to publish articles revealing the errors and inconsistencies in the supposedly Christian holiday. A person would be ignorant indeed if he did not know that erecting Christmas trees, burning yule logs, hanging mistletoe, and putting up twinkling house lights have no biblical foundation, and in fact, hail from paganism. Santa Claus blends the fourth-century Saint Nicolas with old Germanic and Scandinavian traditions that probably have their roots in Odin worship, and his eight reindeer likely derive from Odin's eight-footed horse, Sleipnir. (Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, the ninth reindeer, was added in 1939, thanks to the poem of that name by Robert L. May written for the Montgomery Ward department store chain.) Santa's modern look comes courtesy of a Coca-Cola advertising campaign in the 1930s.

The more serious-minded publications, however, tend to focus on the date, the place, and the biblical and historical sources of Jesus' birth. In 2012, "Bible History Daily," an online publication of the Biblical Archaeology Society, published "How December 25 Became Christmas," written by Andrew McGowan, Warden and President of Trinity College at the University of Melbourne, Australia. Writing for the general public, McGowan collates the findings of numerous scholars who have looked into the issue, concluding that, frankly, no one can really be sure how Christmas came to fall on December 25.

In typical scholarly fashion, McGowan brushes over the biblical information, mentioning only the detail of the shepherds being out with their flocks at night (Luke 2:8). He snootily dismisses it, writing, "Yet most scholars would urge caution about extracting such a precise but incidental detail from a narrative whose focus is theological rather than calendrical." He quickly hurries on to extra-biblical findings, clearly believing them to be more credible.

In spite of his less-than-comforting dismissal of what the Bible says on the subject, McGowan rounds up the historical facts with rigor. He shows that Christian leaders well into the late-third century did not celebrate Christ's birth, citing the well-known "Early Church Father," Origen: "Origen of Alexandria (c. 165–264) goes so far as to mock Roman celebrations of birth anniversaries, dismissing them as 'pagan' practices—a strong indication that Jesus' birth was not marked with similar festivities at that place and time." Note that Origen lived into the latter half of the third century.

Earlier, around the year 200, Clement of Alexandria had written that Christian teachers had proposed various dates for the Nativity, but December 25 was not among them. In fact, most of them fall in the spring. But by the fourth century, December 25 in the Roman West and January 6 in Egypt and the East had become widely recognized as competing dates for that unique day in Bethlehem. How had the people of that time come to decide on these dates?

McGowan posits two theories—and that is all they are. The first is the one most members of God's church are familiar with: that December 25 is borrowed from Roman paganism, particularly the Saturnalia festival kept in late December. As the author notes in support of the idea, "To top it off, in 274 C.E., the Roman emperor Aurelian established a feast of the birth of Sol Invictus (the Unconquered Sun), on December 25."

While collecting the facts assiduously, he stumbles in interpreting them. Finding no historical proof that the Roman church in the late-third or early-fourth century intentionally syncretized the pagan holiday into Christianity, McGowan fails to see any plausibility in this theory. However, he later contradicts himself: "From the mid-fourth century on, we do find Christians deliberately adapting and Christianizing pagan festivals." For this, he blames Constantine, who "converted" in AD 312. We can only conclude that he is being either naïve or purposely disingenuous about the Roman church's penchant to ignore God's Word in its quest for converts.

The second theory makes a great to-do about the date of Passover (Nisan 14) when Christ died, which at the time was believed to have occurred on March 25, exactly nine months prior to December 25. The ancients apparently considered such symmetry to be divinely ordained. "Thus," McGowan writes:

Jesus was believed to have been conceived and crucified on the same day of the year. Exactly nine months later, Jesus was born, on December 25. . . . Connecting Jesus' conception and death in this way will certainly seem odd to modern readers, but it reflects ancient and medieval understandings of the whole of salvation being bound up together.

Despite this theory being based on supposition and "divine symmetry," McGowan considers it more likely than deliberate syncretism—before the mid-fourth century, of course.

Belief in the general historicity of God's Word would solve his dilemma, but trusting the Bible is rare among critical scholars these days. Our article, "When Was Jesus Born?" uses the biblical details to narrow the possible dates to a two-week period in the early autumn, aligning well with the fall holy days, particularly the Feast of Trumpets. It is far more likely that the divine symmetry would align Christ's birth with God's feasts than with the short days of early winter.

Born to Rule

Every year as winter begins, millions of sincere Christians eagerly celebrate the birth of Jesus with good will and Christmas cheer, scrumptious dinners and endless parties, eggnog and Yule logs, loads of gifts and lot of carols. On Christmas Eve, as on Easter Sunday, the churches are full, and all seems right with the world. For many, the Christmas season is their favorite time of the year.

However, with all the commercialism infusing this particular holiday, the birth of Jesus has slipped far enough from its place of primacy that many concerned Christians make a point of urging their friends and neighbors to return the worship of Jesus to Christmas. “He’s the Reason for the season!” they argue. “Put Christ back in Christmas!”

A fine sentiment, undoubtedly expressed in all fervency, but it is entirely misguided.

Such a statement is probably shocking to many, but it is true nonetheless because Jesus Christ was never in Christmas. The holiday is an entirely manmade celebration, instituted by Catholic Church fathers—Pope Julius officially sanctioned December 25 as the birthday of Christ in AD 350—to encourage the conversion of pagans to Christianity. It is no coincidence that Christmas coincides with the Roman Saturnalia, the Empire’s winter solstice celebration, because Christmas was instituted to replace the Saturnalia’s pagan rites with more wholesome, Christian ones. This covering-over or blending of non-Christian practices with Christian ones (called “syncretism”) accounts for the many pagan elements that have become indelibly fused with Christmas observance.

The Bible itself is silent on the Christian celebration of Jesus’ birth. One would think that if God the Father wanted His Beloved Son’s birth to be honored, He would have taken special care to ensure that the Good Book contained a directive to do so. But what do we find? Instead, Jesus Himself instructs us to remember—not His birth—but His death (Luke 22:14-20; I Corinthians 11:23-26)! The coming of the Savior into the world is certainly important, but at that point, Jesus was a helpless baby who had as yet done nothing. It was what He did with His life over the next thirty-three years that makes all the difference!

The Bible contains the true account of Jesus’ begettal and birth in the early chapters of Matthew and Luke. These authors’ aims were 1) to give an accurate account of the circumstances, and 2) to reveal certain elements of spiritual significance to their readers. Matthew, a Jew writing mainly to other Jews, weaves his story around specific Old Testament prophecies that were fulfilled in these events. He is trying to show that Jesus Christ is the promised Messiah and heir of David, and thus the true King of Israel. For this reason, his account is interspersed with quotations from the prophets.

Luke, however, was a Gentile writing primarily to other Gentiles, so he is not as interested in fulfillments of prophecy or Jesus’ Jewish roots. He wants his readers to know that Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men and women of every age and condition. In other words, he is intent on revealing Jesus as the universal Christ and Second Adam, through whom came life (see I Corinthians 15:20-22). These two perspectives and objectives go a long way in explaining the differences in their narratives. They are not contradictory but complementary.

This distinction is perhaps best seen in their different genealogies of Jesus. Matthew begins his book with Jesus’ family tree (Matthew 1:1-17) because a person’s heritage was of primary importance to Jews. It is clear that Mattew's list of Jesus’ forefathers is, in fact, His stepfather Joseph’s line of descent, meaning that Matthew is most interested in establishing Jesus’ legal status as “the Son of David, the Son of Abraham” (verse 1). In other words, He has a valid, legal claim to the throne of Israel; He meets the qualifications.

Luke has a very different list (Luke 3:23-38). It is evidently Mary’s genealogy, and thus Jesus’ natural genealogy. In addition, Luke takes the record all the way back to Adam and then to God Himself (verse 38), showing that, not only is Jesus the Son of Man, but He is also the Son of God. Jesus, then, has both a natural and a supernatural right to be mankind’s Savior and Sovereign.

The story of Jesus’ birth we all know well. The angel Gabriel appears to Mary, announcing that God had chosen her to bear His Son (Luke 1:26-38). At some point soon thereafter, she conceives through a miracle from God. When she is found to be pregnant, her betrothed husband Joseph decides to divorce her quietly, but an angel informs him in a dream that what had happened was from God (Matthew 1:18-20). The Child is to be named Jesus, and He would “save His people from their sins” (verse 21).

About the time that the Baby is due, Joseph and Mary travel down to Bethlehem to comply with a Roman census, and there Jesus was born, most likely in the early autumn (Luke 2:1-7; Matthew 2:1). To shepherds in the fields, an angel in great glory announces “good tidings of great joy which will be to all people,” and the shepherds, after seeing Him for themselves (Luke 2:8-16), spread the good news far and wide (verses 17-18). In accordance with the law, Jesus is circumcised on the eighth day (verse 21) and after forty days presented at the Temple along with an offering (verses 22-24). At that time, Simeon and Anna witness to His being the promised Redeemer (verses 25-38).

Sometime after Jesus’ birth, an unknown number of wise men from the East come and worship Him, presenting Him with rich gifts: gold, frankincense, and myrrh (Matthew 2:1-12). These are typically gifts given to royalty, which He was, and signify—among other interpretations—His righteous life, complete sacrifice, and efficacious death. After the wise men leave, His parents are divinely warned to flee to Egypt, which they do (verses 13-15). While they are gone, Herod massacres the children of Bethlehem under two years of age in an attempt to stamp out his rival to the throne (verses 16-18). Returning to Judea after Herod’s death soon thereafter, Joseph, Mary, and Jesus live in Nazareth until He begins His ministry about thirty years later (verses 19-23; Luke 2:39-40; 3:23).

The constant theme that emerges from both accounts of Jesus’ birth is that He was born into this world to save humanity from sin and rule as King of kings. His birth was the inauguration of a life dedicated to the service of God and all mankind.

A Sanitary Christmas

The winter solstice has just passed, beginning the coldest three months of the year, and this means that Christmas is only days away. It used to be that the solstice and Christmas coincided—a remarkable coincidence (wink, wink)—but because of the inexactitude of our calendar, the solstice has crept forward a few days over the past few centuries. If we were to stick around long enough, we could witness Christmas celebrated in springtime! Come to think of it, a hefty percentage of the world's population already celebrates it as the heat of summer arrives—but for reasons altogether different!

Lately, Christmas-keeping Christians have been forced to stand up for Christmas. Atheists, agnostics, and the ACLU-crowd have been clamoring for the removal of religion from Christmas celebrations. They want advertisers to market the season without reference to "Christmas," instead using the innocuous "Holiday" moniker. They want businesses to ditch playing traditional Christmas carols over their in-store audio systems in favor of "winter music"—in other words, to play "Sleigh Bells" instead of "Away in a Manger." Countless courts have weighed in—some on one side, some on the other—concerning Christmas crèches on public property. Christian groups have had to file lawsuits to force school systems to allow their students to sing "Silent Night"—and not some wintry parody—during winter concerts!

This is all extremely ironic—even hilarious at times. Christmas-celebrating Christians rush to the barricades to defend this most sacred holiday from the godless hordes, all the while totally missing the fact that they are defending the indefensible! Where is their authority to keep the day in the first place? Rome? Probably. Jerusalem? Nope. Bethlehem? Hardly. The Bible. Not a chance!

In reality, by its materialism and syncretism, this world's Christianity has helped the modern, secular world sanitize—not Santa-ize—Christmas. This supposedly Christian holiday has been systematically disinfected of its biblical "taint" simply because it is fundamentally unbiblical! Its only scriptural basis is the gospel accounts of the birth of Jesus, and they prove that the traditional Christmas teaching sits on foundation of sand.

The Nativity—a fancy word for "birth"—of Jesus Christ is found in two of the Gospels, Matthew and Luke. Try as one might, a birth date for our Savior cannot be found in either, and in fact, honest, objective scholars and theologians admit that a winter date is perhaps the least likely time. December, as any biblical geographer will attest, is the beginning of the rainy season in Palestine, and shepherds would have stopped leaving their flocks in the fields at night a good month or two before then. Majority opinion places Jesus' birth in the autumn, probably on or near the fall festivals of Trumpets or Tabernacles.

Other aspects of the traditional nativity also fail the test of biblical authenticity. For instance, the Gospels do not say that there were three wise men, nor are their names anywhere recorded in history. In this case, the number three has its source in the number of gifts the wise men gave to Jesus: gold, frankincense, and myrrh. It is certainly possible that He received other gifts from them, but Matthew decided to highlight these particular three for symbolic reasons.

Many of the manger scenes even get details wrong, like the fact that when the wise men showed up, Jesus was no longer a newborn lying in a manger, but as Matthew writes, a "young Child" living in "a house" (Matthew 2:11). Traditional Christmas crèches also tend to combine Luke's account of the shepherds' arrival almost immediately after His birth with the coming of the wise men, which evidently occurred perhaps weeks or months later (see verse 16: Some contend that it could have been as long as two years later!). And, of course, none of the Nativity participants wore halos!

These few scenes are the extent of the Bible's information about Christ's birth. Neither Mark nor John saw fit to add to what Matthew and Luke had already written. Both Mark and John begin their narratives about the time of Jesus' baptism three decades later. Why? In the grand scheme of Jesus' life, His birth is of less importance than His ministry, death, and resurrection. Certainly, it was a wonderful day when God-in-the-flesh appeared among us, but it pales in meaning to what He taught, what He sacrificed for us, and what He now does for us as our living High Priest. Why dwell on His past, helpless infancy when we can rejoice in His present, powerful advocacy?

The Christmas controversy does not hinge on whether it is politically correct to wish someone "Merry Christmas!" but on a factor that is far more significant: truth. Is Christmas true? The biblical facts shout a resounding, "NO!" Then why celebrate a lie? Falsehood is never good, never beneficial, never right. Keeping a false holiday in dedication to Jesus is still a lie. Do we really think He feels honored by a lie, which is sin (check Exodus 20:16 and Revelation 21:8; 22:15)? He receives much more honor when we, instead, keep His commandments (John 14:15; 15:10).

We can only hope that today's swirl over this holiday wakes Christians up—not just to America's eroding Christian values, but to the sad fact that what most assume to be ever-so-Christian is nothing of the sort.