Part 1: The Controversy over Celebrating

The Controversy over Christmas

History

Numerous controversies have arisen over Christmas. Some of the objections to Christmas are well grounded, while others have no historical merit. A minority of Reformed Protestants have historically objected to any celebration of the birth of Jesus,¹ while others have objected to one or more of the following: the name “Christmas,”² the date of December 25,³ certain Christmas activities (such as kissing under the mistletoe,⁴ wassailing,⁵ Santa Claus handing out gifts,⁶ etc), certain Christmas decorations (such as the Christmas tree,⁷ Yule log,⁸ Yule Ham,⁹ mistletoe, holly wreaths, etc), certain compromises in the history of this festival,¹⁰ and/or the alleged pagan origin of this ancient festival. While it is clear that pagan practices have crept into the celebration of Christ’s birth over the centuries, I will argue that the early church originally celebrated Hanukkah, Passover and Pentecost in Jewish style just like the apostles did,¹¹ with no imitation of the pagan festivals whatsoever.

The earliest records we have show that the church celebrated festivals prior to 100AD.¹² Though Hislop quotes Tertullian as an opponent of festivals in 230 AD,¹³ he takes Tertullian completely out of context. Tertullian was vigorously contrasting Christians, who “celebrate their festal days with a good conscience, instead of with the common wantonness” of the pagans.¹⁴ But clearly the Christians had “festal days.” It was not Christian feasts per se that he was opposed to, but pagan feasts, and adoption of pagan practices. He said, “we do not celebrate along with you the holidays of the Caesars in a manner forbidden alike by modesty, decency, and purity, […] affording opportunities for licentiousness.”¹⁵ However, in contrast to the festal days he rejected, Tertullian defends the festivals of Passover and Pentecost as being joyous feast days.¹⁶ Again in chapter 23 he speaks of the proper celebration of Resurrection Day and Pentecost. We will later trace the early celebration of the birthday of Jesus in the church, but these quotes should be sufficient to show that Hislop has grossly misrepresented Tertullian. Many fathers who supported the festival of Christ’s birth in the first few centuries vigorously opposed pagan accretions, but they had no problem with celebrating Jewish festivals that had been Christianized.

Though there was a very early controversy over the right day on which to celebrate Passover,¹⁷ the earliest controversy that attached to the festival of Christ’s birth came in 194-205 AD. Interestingly, the controversy did not revolve around the celebration itself (which apparently was present much earlier),¹⁸ but around the correct date to celebrate His birth. Hippolytus (about 205 AD) said that Jesus was born on December 25,¹⁹ and Clement of Alexandria (writing 194 AD) gave supporting evidence when he gave the date of January 6 as the time of Christ’s baptism. Since Jesus was baptized around the time of his birthday (Luke 3:23), this too would argue for a winter date for Christ’s birth. But the controversy came because some others had been suggesting alternative dates for Christ’s birth.²⁰ Nevertheless, there is clear testimony to the celebration of the birth of Jesus going back to at least 200 AD, and possibly much earlier (see footnote 18). It will be argued later that the confusion over January 6 and December 25 can be partly explained by the difference in the Julian and Gregorian calendars.²¹ But it appears that there was widespread celebration of the birth of Jesus in 200 AD just as there was widespread celebration of at least two other Jewish festivals.

It was not until the Reformation that major opposition to celebrating the birth of Jesus arose among a minority. The general position of the Presbyterian Church in Scotland and of the American Puritans was to totally do away with Christmas.²² They were not content with John Calvin’s reforms of Christmas and Easter,²³ but demanded entire abrogation of the festivals. Calvin,²⁴ Turretin,²⁵ Bullinger,²⁶ Beza,²⁷ and other Reformed leaders²⁸ considered the position of the Scotch Presbyterians to be legalistic. I would not personally want to go that far, having great respect for those who oppose all participation in festivals. There are still some churches and at least three Reformed denominations in North America that totally abstain from these festivals on religious grounds. Nor is this an insignificant issue. Those who abstain from celebrations usually do so for two main reasons: fear of syncretism with pagan worship and fear of violating the regulative principle of worship. Such fear should not be scorned but should be praised since these issues of sola Scriptura²⁹ and Soli Deo Gloria³⁰ are at the heart of the Reformed faith.

The Regulative Principle of Worship

I too oppose syncretism in any form (Rom. 12:1; 1 Cor. 3:10-15; 2 Cor. 4:5; 6:14-18) and uphold the regulative principle of worship - that all of Scripture, and only Scripture is to regulate our worship (Deut. 4:2; Rev. 22:18,19; Prov. 30:5,6; Is. 8:20; Mark 7:7-13; Matt. 15:6-9; Col. 2:20-23; Matt. 28:19ff.).³¹ Though my studies of Scripture have convinced me that celebrating the incarnation of Christ on December 25 is consistent with these principles and very appropriate, I appreciate the concern expressed by those of differing views and am constrained by Scripture to give them liberty concerning the “day” (Rom. 14:5-6) as they should do to me once they see that I am in no way embracing the pagan celebration of Yule Day or Saturnalia on December 25. This book is defending liberty to celebrate the birth of Jesus. The great reformer, Turretin, expresses my position well when he says,

The question is not whether anniversary days may be selected on which either the nativity, or circumcision, or passion, or ascension of Christ, and similar mysteries of redemption, may be commemorated, or even on which the memory of some remarkable blessing may be celebrated. For this the orthodox think should be left to the liberty of the church. Hence some devote certain days to such festivity, not from necessity of faith, but from the counsel of prudence to excite more to piety and devotion. However, others, using their liberty, retain the Lord’s day alone, and in it, at stated times, celebrate the memory of the mysteries of Christ […] we deny that those days are in themselves more holy than others; rather all are equal. If any sanctity is attributed to them, it does not belong to the time and the day, but to the divine worship. Thus, the observance of them among those who retain it, is only of positive right and ecclesiastical appointment; not, however, necessary from a divine precept.³²

Satan the Great Imitator

We do need to deal with the fact that pagans have celebrated a festival on December 25 as well. In the minds of many, this argues strongly that we should distance ourselves from Christmas. But the question we need to consider is this: “Who imitated whom?” We know from Scripture that Satan is a skilled imitator of God (Exodus 7:11-12,22; 8:6-7,17-18; 2 Thes. 2:9), that he knows the Scriptures (Matt. 4:6; Mark 4:15), and that he even knows present and future information about God and man that has not necessarily been revealed to men (Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6; I Kings 22:19-22). Therefore it is no surprise to us that, when God instituted sacrifices (Gen. 3:21; 4:4), Satan followed suit (Gen. 4:3-5) and continued to do so before (2 Kings 23:11; Is. 65:4; 66:3,17; Ex. 8:10; etc.) and after Christ’s coming (1 Cor. 10:20; Rev. 2:14,20). The fact that pagans offered sacrifices did not invalidate the godly giving of sacrifices. The issue was a question of who imitated whom. The same can be said of the universal phenomena of circumcision, baptisms, incense, tongues, prophecies, prayers, healings, etc. Just because false religions practiced these things did not mean that Israel had to abandon them.

Who Imitated Whom?

The start of the conspiracy theory

More to the point of Christmas, “Which celebration of December 25 came first? Did the Christians imitate the pagans, or did the pagans imitate the Christians?” Ever since the writings of Paul Ernst Jablonski (1693-1757), it has been assumed that Christians borrowed the celebration of December 25 from the Roman Saturnalia, and that they began to do so after Constantine converted to Christianity in 312 AD. Hislop’s book, The Two Babylons, reasserts much of Jablonski’s research, and almost all modern literature against Christmas celebration relies heavily on Rev. Hislop’s book.

Problem 1

There are two major problems with this pagan-origin-of-Christmas thesis: First, the most recent research has demonstrated that Rome started celebrating December 25 with sun-worship long after Christians had already set apart that date.³³ The earliest reference that we have to “the birthday of the undefeated Sun” (Dies Natalis Solis Invicti) being on December 25 is in 354 AD.³⁴ This is one hundred and fifty years after the first undisputed December 25 dating for the birth of Jesus! It is true that the 354 AD inscription presumes an earlier celebration. But so does the earliest reference to celebration of the birth of Jesus on December 25. It is also true that many scholars assume that the Roman Emperor Aurelian may have established December 25 when he sought to institute the cult of Sol Invictus in 274 AD. However, this is merely an assumption, and an interesting archeological inscription from the reign of Lucius Septimus Severus dates the birthday of the Sun God to December 19.³⁵ This means that a later emperor must have changed the date to December 25 for some reason. It is that reason for the change that is most intriguing.

For the sake of argument, let us assume that the earliest possible date for the Roman pagan celebration of December 25 is 274 AD. This is still almost three quarters of a century removed from the earliest uncontested Christian reference to the birth of Jesus being on December 25. Who is copying whom? It is extremely unlikely that Christianity (still an illegal persecuted religion) would imitate its persecutors. Since the Emperor Aurelian was desperately trying to consolidate all religions under Rome, and since Christianity was fast becoming the largest religion in Rome, William Tighe says that it “was almost certainly an attempt to create a pagan alternative to a date that was already of some significance to Roman Christians.”³⁶ Tighe, Associate Professor of History at Muhlenberg College in Allentown, Pennsylvania, came to the conclusion that “the ‘pagan origins of Christmas’ [idea] is a myth without historical substance.”³⁷ My own research has led me to the same conclusion.

If it is objected that two Roman temples of the sun existed in the first century, it should be immediately asked, “What is the date of their festivals to the Sun?” And the answer is, “August.” Talley and Tighe argue that even with Mithraism and other eastern cults, the festivals were not on December 25 prior to Aurelian’s initiative, and no written record can be found for this date prior to 354 AD. This is a fatal blow to the theory that Christians borrowed December 25 because of pagan syncretism. The evidence seems to favor the opposite conclusion.

Problem 2

The second major problem with this thesis is that it fails to account for Hanukkah, the Jewish festival that fell on December 25 in 5 B.C. (the year Christ was born). If Christians borrowed their celebration of December 25 from the pagans, whom did the Jews borrow their celebration from? It is impossible to credibly argue that the Maccabean freedom fighters borrowed anything from the pagans. They were willing to lay down their lives and be tortured and killed rather than to compromise on the slightest deviation from the law.³⁸ 4 Maccabees 18:5 says, “in no way whatever was he [Antiochus] able to compel the Israelites to become pagans and to abandon their ancestral customs.” The Maccabees were purists who allowed not the slightest degree of syncretism with paganism. Their cry was, “Far be it from us to desert the law and the ordinances” (1 Macc. 2:21). It is clear that there was no borrowing of December 25 (or rather the Jewish lunar equivalent of Chislev 25) from the pagans. It is also clear that the festival of Hanukkah went back to at least the third century BC.³⁹ This deals a second deathblow to the pagan-origin-of-December-25-thesis. It simply will not work when it is tested against the Jewish celebration of December 25.⁴⁰

Satan’s great strategy

Instead, what happened is that Satan used his “Plan B.” “Plan A” is to destroy God’s people with persecution. When that cannot be accomplished, he imitates God’s plan and seeks to confuse God’s people by mixing counterfeit with real. Satan is the great conspirator. When God instituted a Sabbath in the Garden of Eden, Satan followed suit. Every major religion in the world has its equivalent to a Sabbath day. When God established sacrifices with Abel after the Fall, Satan followed suit and sacrifices became universal. When God established circumcision, Satan sought to obliterate this distinction by having other nations practice circumcision. When God established a temple, so did Satan. If the pagan day proves anything, it is that Satan has set up a competing day on a competing calendar. Just as a counterfeit dollar presupposes a real dollar, and Satan’s many other counterfeits presuppose the real thing, why can’t a pagan day of December 25 (especially when celebrated under so many religions and cults - i.e., not a coincidence) presuppose a “real” day of December 25?

The Biblical Origins

The Feast of Hanukkah

What are the origins of the Christian festival then? Christmas is the modern name for the Jewish festival of Hanukkah which Christ attended in John 10:22-42 and of which He declared Himself to be the fulfillment. Hanukkah is the Hebrew word for “dedication.” Other names for this festival are the Feast of Dedication, Dedication of the Temple, Dedication of the Altar, Consecration, Feast of Lights, and Chanukah. Very simply, “The 25th of December, which is, according to the Jewish Calendar, the 25th of Kislev, and the generally accepted date for the Day of Hanukkah, has become Christmas.”⁴¹

The Bible calls this feast the “Festival of Dedication” (John 10:22) because Chislev 25 was the date in which three former dedications had been made: 1) the dedication of the tabernacle under Moses, 2) the dedication of the altar under Ezra/Nehemiah, and 3) the dedication of the temple under the Maccabees. In addition to those three dedications that set apart Chislev 25, there were two additional dedication festivals of the temple which form a background to Hanukkah: 1) the dedication of the temple under Solomon was celebrated with Hanukkah-style festivities and 2) the dedication of the cleansed temple under Hezekiah was followed by an eight day celebration. So there are four Biblical precedents for Hanukkah and one inter-testamental celebration of Hanukkah with prophetic witness. We will analyze each of these dedications.

The Festival of Dedication under Moses

The first “feast of dedication” (Hanukkah) was authorized under Moses in Numbers 7-8; Leviticus 8-9 and Exodus 40 and commenced on Chislev 25.⁴² Though this feast was not listed by Moses as one of the mandated festivals of Leviticus 23, this was a joyful festival which celebrated the “dedication of the altar” (7:10-11,84,88) and the dedicating of the Levites (8:5-26). There were eight days (Lev. 9:1) in which the altar was purified every day, and on the eighth day God Himself set the altar apart as holy with heavenly fire (Lev. 9:24) and judged Nadab and Abihu’s subsequent irreverence when they brought “strange fire” (Lev. 10). In addition to the eight days related directly to the purification of the altar, there were a total of twelve days⁴³ of celebration, feasting, gift giving, filling the lamps and candlestick with oil and lighting of the candlestick and of the lamps of the temple. All of this prefigured the incarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ. The following chart shows five parallels:

Interestingly, both the text of Numbers and Jewish tradition indicate that though the tabernacle was dedicated and purified with offerings on this first festival (Numb. 7-8), the people did not offer sacrifices until Passover on Nisan 14 (Numb. 9). In the same way, Jesus was born on Chislev 25 but was sacrificed on Nisan 14. This first festival of Hanukkah was a perfect prefigurement of the Incarnation.

The Festival of Dedication under Solomon

The second festival of dedication occurred under Solomon. This massive celebration is discussed in 1Kings 8:1 - 9:9 and 2 Chronicles 5-7. Though this festival was not on Chislev 25⁴⁴, but rather on Tabernacles (Succoth), Chislev was considered a second Feast of Tabernacles or the “Succoth in Chislev” by the Jews. Certainly the same themes are present.⁴⁵ The dedication of the temple under Solomon in other respects parallels the other Hanukkah dedications. There is an eight-day celebration (2 Chron. 7:9; 1 Kings 8:66), feasting (1 Kings 8:65-66; 2 Chron. 5:3; 7:8-9), it is called a festival of the “dedication of the altar” (2 Chron. 7:9; 1 Kings 8:63; 2 Chron. 7:5), God shows a miracle to show his favor - in this case, the glory cloud filling the temple and fire falling from heaven and consuming the sacrifice (2 Chron. 7:1-3). Solomon “dedicated the house of the LORD” (1 Kings 8:63; 2 Chron. 7:5) on day one followed by seven days of festival (1 Kings 8:65; 2 Chron. 7:8), making a total of eight days (2 Chron. 7:9) directly related to the temple.

The Festival of Dedication under Hezekiah

The third mention of a festival of dedication of the temple occurred under Hezekiah. Hezekiah’s father had defiled the temple, and when Hezekiah came to power, he immediately set to work to purify the temple, rededicate it to God, to offer sacrifices, and to give an eight day festival (2 Kings 18:1-4; 2 Chron. 29:3-36). This purification of the temple after defilement was so closely paralleled to the indignities that Antiochus Epiphanes later perpetrated against the temple and the true religion, that the Maccabees had this in mind when they later purified the temple on Chislev 25. We see the same themes of purification, dedication, antithesis of truth with error, eight days of celebration and feasting.

The Festival of Dedication under Nehemiah

The month of Chislev became very significant for the establishing of the new temple in the post-exilic period. News of the temple being in shambles reached Nehemiah in the month of Chislev (Neh. 1:1ff). This was an appropriate month to stir up mourning over the state of the temple. This Chislev-news jolted Nehemiah just as the news of the defilement of the temple on Chislev 25, 247 BC would jolt the priest Mattathias many years later. Because the people had been neglecting the temple and the priesthood in the post-exilic community, God raised up prophets who sought to bring reform and were greatly concerned for the rebuilding of the temple. Zechariah began to preach such reformation early in the month of Chislev (Zech. 7-8). Ezra too called for reform later in the month (on Chislev 20), demanding that mixed marriages between believers and unbelievers be remedied. Repentance was achieved and the people began to work on the temple. The foundation stone of the temple was laid on Chislev 24 (Hag. 2:18), and the days after this were considered the turning point from cursing to blessing.⁴⁶ Haggai gave a prophecy concerning temple and high priest on Chislev 24 and declared that “from this day forward” he would bless them (Hag. 2:10-23).

According to Jewish history, there are other fascinating parallels between the dedication of the temple under Nehemiah and the events under the Maccabees. A jar of sacred oil had been hidden by the priests just prior to the exile, and the earthen pit had preserved the oil for just such a time as this. According to Jewish tradition,

Suddenly the sun, which was hidden behind the clouds, burst forth in all its majesty. Its rays beat down upon the altar and lo, the residue of the oil burst into flame. Priests and people marveled at this wondrous sight, and Nehemiah decreed that henceforth a period of prayer and feasting and rejoicing should be held throughout all the generations of Israel on the anniversary of the day on which the altar and the rebuilt temple had been dedicated. And this day was the twenty-fifth day of Kislev.⁴⁷

The Festival of Dedication under the Maccabees

The fifth written celebration of a feast of dedication of the temple occurred during the Inter-Testamental era. The eight-day festival of dedication under the Maccabees is recorded for us in 2 Maccabees 10:1-8 and 1 Maccabees 4:41-49. The history preceding this event takes up the bulk of modern Jewish Hanukkah celebration, though readings from the previous ones are also included. We will include some readings of this distressing time in part 2. For now I will summarize the events and point out the connections with the previous celebrations.

When Antiochus Epiphanes sought to root out and destroy the true faith and to destroy all Scriptures, a small remnant of the Jews resisted. The resistance grew when more and more citizens understood the degree of hatred that Antiochus had toward the true faith. He killed those who refused to renounce Yahweh, destroyed their Bibles, forbad circumcision, killed men, women and even babies in the most barbaric manner, and showed himself utterly unable to compromise or show moderation. On Chislev 25, 167 BC, he sacrificed a pig upon the altar of the temple in order to defile it and devote the temple to his pagan deity. The date he picked cannot be a coincidence, and shows the hatred that Satan has for that date. The Maccabees engaged in a heroic struggle against the Greeks and Syrians and, against all odds, won the battles. Exactly three years to the day after the temple was defiled, the Jews cleansed and restored the temple on Chislev 25. All of this was prophesied by Daniel in Daniel 8:13-14. From that time forward, the ancient Feast of Dedication, which had been celebrated from time to time since Moses, was now celebrated every year without fail. It testified to the importance of uncompromising faithfulness to God, of the importance of God’s Word guiding all that we do, and of God’s miraculous provision for those who trust Him.

This festival had in common with all the previous ones the following points: 1) Each occasion had a miracle by which God authenticated the dedication of His temple. The miracles under the Maccabees were the amazing successes in battle against all odds and the preserved jar of oil that miraculously never ran out for the eight days needed until new oil could be consecrated. 2) Each festival was for eight days. 3) Each festival was concerned with a dedication of the altar and of the temple. 4) Each festival celebrated with lights (and thus is often called the “feast of lights”). 5) Each festival had feasting, rejoicing, and gatherings of God’s people. 6) Though every era acknowledged that this festival was not listed in Leviticus 23, they all insisted that it was given by the law.⁴⁸ 7) The teaching of the law was highlighted in each of these festivals.

Other commonalities with the festival in the time of the Maccabees are gift-giving (see Moses and Nehemiah), finding a preserved jar of sacred oil that lasts (see Nehemiah), cleansing from defilement of an evil man (see Hezekiah), the use of branches from a tree (see Hezekiah and Nehemiah), a time of great danger (see Hezekiah and Nehemiah), and a time of great apostasy (see Hezekiah).

The Festival of Dedication Celebrated by Jesus

Some authors have sought to demonstrate that the structure of the Gospel of John follows the precise order of the Jewish synagogue lectionary and constitutes a commentary on that lectionary.⁴⁹ Others have questioned whether it actually constitutes a commentary on the lectionary.⁵⁰ Nevertheless, most would agree with F.F. Bruce when he says that John “shows himself intimately acquainted with the Old Testament passages which the Palestinian Jewish lectionary prescribed for reading in synagogue at the festivals and other periods of the year.”⁵¹ References to these lectionary portions of Scripture can be seen for even the non-Levitical feasts such as Purim (John 5) and Hanukkah (John 10).

We have already seen⁵² that the original Feast of Dedication beautifully foreshadowed the coming of the Messiah from the time of Moses. But when Jesus attended the Feast of Dedication in 30 AD (see John 10:22), He gave further commentary, which flows beautifully from the Jewish lectionary readings that occurred on that feast day. When Jesus celebrated Hanukkah, he said that he was the one whom the Father had consecrated (v. 36). The verb used (ἡγίασεν) is also used in the Greek translation of Numbers 7:1, the first verse that was read on Hanukkah from the Torah passage. The Hebrew meshiach, or anointed, which occurs in Numbers 7:1,10,84 and 88, is a term that has Messianic overtones. As A. Guilding points out,

“Thus in New Testament times Hanukkah would doubtless be associated in Jewish minds with two contrasting sets of ideas: the blasphemy of false worship, the Man of Sin, and the Temple defiled; the true worship of a regathered Israel (an idea found already in 2 Maccabees 2:18), the return of the Shekinah, and the Temple restored.”⁵³

Other connections to the lectionary readings jump out: John 10:1-21 is tightly related to the Good Shepherd readings done in the lectionary. John 10:22-39 reflects themes in the dedication section of readings. Other themes have been pointed out from the readings in Zechariah 4, 1 Kings 7:40-50; Gen. 46:28-47:31; Ezekiel 34,37 and Leviticus 24:1-25:13.

The Messianic expectations surrounding Hanukkah were strong. Unfortunately, it was a political Messianism that dominated. Many of the revolutionary Zealots and Sicari among the Jews identified with the Maccabean freedom fighters, and had turned Hanukkah into a patriot celebration. There is evidence that some of the disciples were among these patriot fighters.⁵⁴ Certainly it was common to name children after the Maccabees. Names like Simon, Judas, Matthew, were names worn with pride by those who wanted independence. To any Jew reading the Gospel of John it would have been obvious that the apostle John was deliberately confronting false Messianic claims surrounding the feast of Hanukkah and reestablishing the Mosaic meaning of the feast. John said,

Now it was the Feast of Dedication in Jerusalem, and it was winter. And Jesus walked in the temple, in Solomon’s porch. Then the Jews surrounded Him and said to Him, “How long do You keep us in doubt? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.” Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe.”

Christ had told them how he perfectly fulfilled the meaning of Hanukkah, but they were only interested in a political leader who would help them fight against Rome. For them, Hanukkah had come to mean political independence. For them Messiah was a loaded term carrying ideas of national independence. For Jesus, the hopes and dreams of the Jewish people were going to come true, but He had to realign their ideas with the Bible. As Wright says,

“Jesus’ redefined notion of Messiahship thus corresponded to his whole kingdom-praxis…. It offered itself as the central answer to other key kingdom-questions. And it pointed on to a fulfillment of Israel’s destiny which no one had imagined or suspected. He came, as the representative of the people of YHWH, to bring about an end of exile, the renewal of the covenant, the forgiveness of sins. To accomplish this, an obvious first-century option for a would-be Messiah would run: go to Jerusalem, fight the battle against the forces of evil, and get yourself enthroned as the rightful king. Jesus, in fact, adopted precisely this strategy. But, as he hinted to James and John, he had in mind a different battle, a different throne.”⁵⁵

In summary, Jesus not only celebrated the festival of Hanukkah, He also pointed people beyond the Maccabees to the distant meaning of the feast found in Moses. He declared Himself to be the fulfillment of what Moses looked for. John, by framing his Gospel around the Jewish festivals, also endorsed Hanukkah as a Messianic feast day. There is no indication that either John or Jesus thought that it was inappropriate to have a permanent celebration of this ancient feast on a yearly basis. They appeal to all the Biblical themes in the liturgy.

The 25th of Chislev is about the time of winter solstice when the sun begins its annual rising. So too the Messiah is prophesied as being the sun (Ps. 19; 84:11; Is. 60:19ff.; Mal. 4:2) and His birth is spoken of as being the rising of the sun (Luke 1:78). This feast celebrating the rebuilding of the Temple points to Christ who is the Temple (John 2:19), and will begin His work of Temple-building. It spells the beginnings of the reversal of the blackness and cold of the long winter nights when all nations except for Israel sat in the darkness of sin. No longer would the nations have to come to Israel to find salvation, but God would send the victory of His kingdom throughout the world and gather in His great harvest from every kindred and tongue. The candles that were lit in the Temple and every home were beautiful symbols of this. Every night more candles were lit as an expression of the increase of Christ’s kingdom.

The Date of Christ’s Birth – Two Possibilities

But is it reasonable to think that Jesus was born on December 25? If one holds to a three and a half year ministry of Jesus (as I do), there are only two credible theories for the birth of Christ from the Biblical and historical evidence: 1) that Jesus was conceived on December 25 and born in September, or 2) that Jesus was conceived in March and born on December 25. No other dates have any solid evidence.⁵⁶ They are all based on conjecture. The first posits a conception of Jesus on December 25 and His birth in Fall during the Festival of Tabernacles. The other posits a conception on March 25 and a birth on December 25. It is my view that the second alternative has the strongest evidence in its favor; but on either view, Chislev 25 (and the festival of Hanukkah) has great significance.

Theory 1 – Christ born on the Festival of Tabernacles

Let me first give the evidences that others have adduced that Jesus was born on the Festival of Tabernacles. First, we know that Jesus was crucified at the time of Passover (John 18:39). It is quite clear that His public ministry lasted at least three and a half years (based on the festival sequences in the Gospel of John). If it was exactly three and a half years, that would place the beginning of his ministry in the Fall. At the time of his baptism, Jesus “was about thirty years old” (Luke 3:23; compare with the requirements for priests in Numbers 4:3,47). This makes His birthday somewhere near the Fall.

The second major pillar of this viewpoint is based on the time of Zacharias’ Temple ministry. We know from 1 Chronicles 24:7-19 that there were twenty-four courses of priests. We know from Josephus that each course ministered “eight days, from Sabbath to Sabbath.”⁵⁷ This fits with the evidence that we have in 2 Chronicles 23:8. 1 Chronicles 24:10 says that Abijah had the eighth course, and Luke 1:5,8 says that Zacharias belonged “to the priestly division of Abijah.” Now we come to a major assumption: if the first course started serving during the first month of the Jewish calendar (early spring), then Zacharias would have served in early June.⁵⁸

If the previous assumption is true, then the angel appears to Zacharias while serving in the temple (Luke 1:8) in June. He returns home and Elizabeth presumably conceives right away. Adding nine months makes John’s birth in the early spring of the next year. Since Jesus was born six months after John (deduction from Luke 1:24-26,36), this would place Christ’s birth in the fall.

The next portion of the argument is that it would be easier for Joseph and Mary to go to Bethlehem to be taxed⁵⁹ after the harvest, not before it. Likewise, it would make sense to go in the direction of Jerusalem during the Festival of Tabernacles.⁶⁰ The presence of large crowds at the Festival of Tabernacles could explain why there was no room in the local inn since thousands of Jews converge on the area for such festivals on their way to Jerusalem, just five miles away.⁶¹

The next argument that is offered is that John 1:14 says that “The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us.” The word for “dwelt” in the NKJV is literally “tabernacled.” This would tie in nicely with the festival of tabernacles.⁶² Furthermore there is a nice symmetry with symbolism since John the Baptist would be born on Passover (the day that Jews leave an empty chair for Elijah the prophet, and Jesus says that John was the symbolic Elijah) and Jesus would be born on Tishri 15, 5 BC.

Even this interpretation gives significance to the date of December 25: If Jesus was born on Tabernacles, then counting back exactly 267 days (which would still be a normal pregnancy) you get a date for conception of December 25. This is an amazing coincidence, and it has made some people believe that the conception did indeed occur on December 25. Either way, we are stuck with December 25 being a very significant date. Though I do not agree with this date for conception, perhaps an awareness of this fact will temper the fierce opposition some have to the day of December 25 being somehow pagan. They will have to deal with the issue of a December 25 date one way or another.

Theory 2 – Christ was born on December 25, 5 BC

I believe that both the internal and external evidence relating to the birth of Jesus Christ favors a December 25 date for His birth, but to ascertain the date on the lunar and solar calendars, it is imperative that we find the right year for Christ’s birth.

Internal Evidence

Anyone who has worked with chronologies knows that to be off by even one year will radically affect the outcome of the calculations of months and days. This is true because the Jews followed a lunar calendar whereas we follow a solar calendar. Because the year assigned to Christ’s birth radically affects the outcome of monthly calculations, it is important to be as accurate as possible on this date. It is also important that the Gospel of John’s careful record of the festivals be taken into account. Most conservative scholars believe that John’s Gospel mandates at least a three and a half year ministry for Jesus.

Does a December 25 birth fit the length of Christ’s ministry?

The festival sequence in the Gospel of John can be interpreted anywhere from three and a half years to four years. A December 25 date for Christ’s birth could mean that He either 1) ministered for slightly more than 3.5 years or 2) that He was baptized a couple months after His birthday. External evidence has convinced me that He was born on December 25 and baptized less than two weeks later on January 6. Internal evidence would allow for this, though does not necessitate it. We know that He died on Passover (John 18:28,39), that He was baptized when He “was about thirty years old” (Luke 3:23), and that (based on Numbers 4:3,47) it is unlikely He would have begun His ministry before His birthday. So He must have been slightly older than thirty. Thus the dates of either theory fit the length of His ministry perfectly well.

However, when it comes to the sequence of Christ’s ministry, the theory that has Christ born in the Fall of 6 BC falls apart. It mandates that at least five months have elapsed between Christ’s baptism and John 2:13. As we will see in the next section, not more than three months could have elapsed (which takes us to the end of December or beginning of January).

Does it fit the year of Christ’s birth?

But what about the year of His birth? Is there any evidence that can narrow this down with reasonable certainty?

1. We know from Matthew 2:1 that Jesus was born before Herod’s death. Josephus records that Herod died in April of 4 BC.⁶³ This would indicate that Christ had to be born sometime before April of 4 BC.⁶⁴ The most common current scholarship has opted for a 5 BC date.
2. The killing of the children in Bethlehem from two years old and under was “according to the time which he had determined from the wise men” (Matt. 2:16). It is true that Herod may have been trying to play it safe by killing older than he needed to. Nevertheless, this reference would seem to indicate a birth of Jesus by sometime between late 6 and early 4 BC. It still does not narrow the time frame down by much.
3. But we have a great hint in the “forty-six years” mentioned in John 2:20. Verse 13 indicates that this statement was made during the first Passover of His ministry immediately after He cleansed the temple (John 2:14-16). The Jews affirm that the temple construction had begun forty-six years previously (John 2:20). From Josephus we know that the work began in 19 BC. Thus, simple math brings us to the Spring of AD 27 as the time of the first Passover in the Gospel of John.
4. Building on the previous point, we can move backwards from the Passover of John 2:13-22 to the earlier baptism of Jesus (John 1:29-34). We know that this baptism occurred somewhere close to His thirtieth birthday (Luke 3:21-23). By examining what time transpired between His baptism and John 2:13, we can narrow the timing down much more precisely. Actual harmonies of the four Gospel accounts do not allow for more than three months between Christ’s baptism and the cleansing of the temple. Nor do they allow for much less. The events that must be fit in are the forty days of fasting (Matt. 4:1-11; Mark 1:12-13; Luke 4:1-13), John’s announcement of the Messiah (John 1:29-34), the selection of the first five disciples (John 1:35-51), the miracle of the water into wine (John 2:1-11) and the brief sojourn in Capernaum (John 2:12). This three-month period makes a fall baptism impossible (September to March is six months). Furthermore, it narrows the timing of Christ’s birth to sometime between December of 5 BC and the middle of January of 4 BC. No other scenario fits the evidence.
5. 5 BC happens to be one of those rare years in which Chislev 25 falls on December 25. As we have seen earlier, this is a remarkable coincidence.
6. As we will see in the next section, the best scenario for the angelic visitation to Zacharias (Luke 1:5-23) is in the Fall of 6 BC. This makes for a conception of Jesus in March and a birth in late December to early January (depending on the length of the pregnancy).

Does it fit the time of the angelic visitation to Zacharias?

The strongest internal evidence comes from the time that Zacharias served in the temple. According to Luke 1:5, Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, was a priest of the order of Abijah. He was performing his duties in the temple when the angel told him that his wife, Elizabeth, would conceive a child, and that he should call his name John. Because Mary’s conception occurs in the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, we can calculate the birth of Jesus if we know the time that Zacharias served in the temple. This will be a fairly accurate dating method, plus or minus about a week (time for Zacharias to travel home). What are some clues?

1. Zacharias belonged to the Levitical division of Abijah. (Luke 1:5)
2. Abijah was the eighth division of twenty-four divisions (1 Chronicles 24:1).
3. Three times a year, all 24 courses worked together (Deut. 16:16). However, it is clear from Luke’s account that Zacharias was not simply helping others in their course. Luke was quite clear that the angel appeared to him “while he was serving as priest before God in the order of his division” (Luke 1:8). Our date must line up with a specific week assigned to his order of priests.
4. Each course ordinarily served for seven days, measured from Saturday evening to Saturday evening (1 Chron. 9:25; 2 Chron. 23:1-8).
5. As will be discussed under external evidences (see “Evidence from 70 AD”), we have indisputable evidence that Zacharias served only two courses of temple ministry in 6 BC (the year before Christ’s birth). The division of Abijah (of which Zacharias was a part) served from April 18-25 and served again from October 3-10.
6. Of these two dates, we can narrow it down to October 3-10 for two reasons: First, when the angel met Zacharias, “the whole multitude of the people were in prayer outside” (Luke 1:10). The whole multitude only gathered at one of the three required feasts: Passover, Pentecost and the Feast of Tabernacles. Second, it had to be a feast that overlapped the “appointed order” (Luke 1:5). The only feast that did so in 6 BC was the Feast of Tabernacles (Sept. 29-Oct. 5). During these festivals the priests of the appointed orders were the ones who offered the daily offerings.⁶⁵ This duty was assigned by lots,⁶⁶ just as Zacharias’ duties were (Luke 1:9).
7. Zacharias’ service ended on October 10. Since this was to be a miraculous conception, there is no need to think of a monthly fertility cycle. She no doubt conceived that night or the next day.
8. Mary conceived during the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, which also happened to be the sixth month of the Syro-Macedonian calendar, Xanthikos. Kenneth Doig demonstrates how this was five and a half months after the conception of Elizabeth.⁶⁷ “The sixth inclusive month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy began about March 10, 5 BCE, and the middle of that lunar month was about March 25. This is the traditional day for the Annunciation, or conception of Jesus.”⁶⁸ (See external evidence for more on this date.)
9. Taking all of the Biblical data, Doig gives the following chart of events:

   Oct 3-10, 6 BC	Division of Abijah served
   Oct. 10	Conception of John
   March 25	Conception of Jesus
   Dec 25, 5 BC	Birth of Jesus

Jesus’ presentation at the temple (after 41 days) would have occurred on February 2, 4 BC. The Bible presents its own chronology of events, but there is also abundant external evidence to supplement it, as we will see in the next section.

External Evidence

The external evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of a March 25 date for Christ’s conception and a December 25 date for Christ’s birth.

Nova on March 25, 5 BC

It is an exceptionally rare coincidence to have a nova like the one that occurred on March 25, 5 BC⁶⁹ to coincide with the Bible’s chronology of the conception of Jesus. This nova was visible for 70 days. If one believes that all the major events of redemptive history had celestial signs accompanying them, then this could be significant.

December 25 = Chislev 25 in 5 BC

It is also an extremely rare occurrence to have December 25 and Chislev 25 (the Jewish lunar date for Hanukkah) to coincide, but in 5 B.C., the year of Christ’s birth, they did.⁷⁰ This is an amazing “coincidence.” This festival expressed the hope of the return of the Shekinah glory of God to Israel when Messiah would come. It foretold the coming of “The Prophet” spoken of in 1 Maccabees 4:46, and the dedication of a new temple. The Shepherds did indeed see the Shekinah light of God when the Messiah was born. Jesus declared that his body was the temple that they looked for (John 2:19-21). During Hanukkah, Jesus declared his deity, saying, “I and my Father are one” (John 10:22-30).

Evidence from 70 AD

Kenneth F. Doig did an analysis of all the key events interrupting the priestly cycles from David to 70 AD.⁷¹ I will not repeat his complicated analysis here, but his historical analysis of the dates from David to 6 BC reconcile perfectly with the dates counting backwards from 70 AD to 6 BC. The Jews wrote that the priestly division of Jehoiarib was serving in the temple when it fell in 70 AD.⁷² 1 Chronicles 24 tells us that Jehoiarib’s division was the first one, and Abijah’s was the eighth. Calculating backwards from 70 AD to 6 BC we can know the exact times that Jehoiarib’s and Abijah’s divisions were serving. As discussed earlier, this narrows the date of John the Baptist’s conception down to within a week, which narrows the birth of Jesus down to late December. (See fuller discussion from the internal evidence section.)

The early Christians had access to the Roman census

Cyril of Jerusalem (348-386) asked Julius to assign the true date of Christ’s birth “from the census documents brought by Titus to Rome.”⁷³ It is clear that Julius had access to these records. After investigation, Julius assigned the date of December 25^th for Christ’s birth. John Chrysostom (347-407 AD) says that he saw the actual census/tax records that contained the names of Joseph and Mary when they were registered in Bethlehem. He too dates the events to December 25 based upon those records. These are eyewitnesses to documents recorded in 5 BC. As early as the second century, church fathers appealed to these Roman records: Justyn Martyr (100-165 AD), in his Apology, drew up an explanation of the Christian faith for Emperor Marcus Aurelius. He said that Jesus was born at Bethlehem “as you can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing.”⁷⁴ Though no date is mentioned by Justyn, the fact that early fathers saw this document indicates that they would have known the date of Christ’s birth. Tertullian (160-250 AD), spoke of “the census of Augustus – that most faithful witness of the Lord’s nativity, kept in the archives of Rome.”⁷⁵ This should temper the skepticism of those who think that the numerous church fathers (listed below) who confidently affirm a December 25 birth for Jesus should be discarded. At least some of them were eyewitnesses to the census.⁷⁶

Evidence from AD 70-125

It appears that the “Ebionite Christians of Palestine first instituted the feast [of the Baptism of Jesus on January 6], and this in fact, must underlie the statement of John of Nice, a late but well-informed writer (c. 950), that it was fixed by the disciples of John the Baptist who were present at Jesus’ Baptism.”⁷⁷

Another interesting evidence comes from the first century document, Megillath Taanith Batra, otherwise known as “the Scroll of Fasts.” This document lists the well-known fasts of the Jews, but adds one on Tebeth 9, with the note: “our teachers do not say why.” The famous Jewish convert to Christianity, Alfred Edersheim, said, “Now, Jewish chronologists have fixed on that day as that of Christ’s birth, and it is remarkable that, between the years 500 and 816 A.D. the 25^th of December fell no less than twelve times on the 9^th of Tebeth. If the 9^th of Tebeth, or 25^th December, was regarded as the birthday of Christ, we can understand the concealment about it. Comp. Zunz, Ritus d. Synago. Gottesd. P. 126.”⁷⁸ Though the Jewish calculation was off by a few days, it is interesting that they ascribe a winter date so close to that given by the church.

Evidence from AD 129-154

Note that the evidence cited in this paragraph has been challenged by recent scholars as being a possible fabrication from later centuries. There are other scholars who question such skepticism,⁷⁹ but I will not present this evidence with any degree of dogmatism. This evidence comes from two church fathers: Telesphorus, second pastor of Rome (129-138 AD) and Theophilus, the bishop of Caesarea (died in 195 AD). George K. Evans states,

Telesphorus, the second bishop of Rome (129-138), ordained that ‘in the holy night of the Nativity of our Lord and Savior, they do celebrate public church services, and in them solemnly sing the Angels’ Hymn, because also the same night he was declared unto the shepherds by an angel, as the truth itself doth witness.’ Theophilus, who was Bishop of Caesarea during this same period, urged that ‘the observance or celebration of the birthday of our Lord [be held] on what day soever the 25 of December shall happen.’⁸⁰

Evidence from AD 125 & 200

An unusual reference to the celebration of the birth and baptism of Jesus comes from the Gnostic heretic, Basilides (c. AD 125). Clement of Alexandria (writing about AD 200) questions the date that they (and a few of Clement’s contemporaries) assigned to the birth of Jesus (25 Pachon or May 20). But in the course of discussing their wrong date, he mentions that “the followers of Basilides celebrate the day of His Baptism too, spending the previous night in readings. And they say that it was the 15th of the month Tybi of the 15th year of Tiberius Caesar.”⁸¹ The 15^th of Tybi is January 6. There are three facts to glean from Clement’s comments: 1) In 200 AD there were those who celebrated both the birth and the baptism of Jesus. 2) In 125 AD the Basilideans celebrated both festivals. 3) Since the baptism of Jesus was believed by both Clement and Basilideans to be on January 6, it is likely that his birthday was shortly before that. Later fathers spoke of January 6 as the “twelfth day,” that is, the twelfth day from December 25.⁸²

Evidence from AD 205

In 205 AD, Hippolytus (165-235 AD) clearly speaks of December 25 as being the birth date of Jesus. He said, “The first coming of our Lord, that in the flesh, in which he was born in Bethlehem, took place eight days before Kalends of January…” (Commentary on Daniel 4:23). Eight days before Kalends of January would be December 25.

Evidence from AD 221

Sextus Julius Africanus, in his Chronicle entry for the year 221 AD, stated that Jesus was born on December 25. He is noted as being an expert in comparative chronologies and world history.

Evidence from AD 243-311

From a sermon given by Augustine against the Donatists (see Augustine below), Thomas J. Talley concludes that the Donatists must have celebrated Christmas before 311 AD, and that it must have had universal affirmation prior to the Donatist schism. This also places the celebration of the birth of Jesus before Constantine’s protection of the church. Talley concludes, “If we supposed that that festival was kept by the Donatists, we may place its establishment between 243 and 311.”⁸³

Evidence from AD 300-330

In the early fourth century document, De Solstitiis et Aequinoctia, the writer says, “Therefore, our Lord was conceived on the eighth of the kalends of April in the month of March, which is the day of the passion of the Lord and of his conception. For on the day that he was conceived on the same he suffered.”⁸⁴ Analysis of the Scripture variants and the Semitisms in the article have led scholars to believe that it must have been written in either Syria or (more likely) Palestine. An intricate dating is used explaining how Zacharias served in the Autumn, John the Baptist was conceived at the Autumn equinox, was born at the summer solstice, that Jesus was conceived exactly six months after John was conceived, and that Jesus was delivered at the Winter solstice. It very strangely appeals to the law in Exodus 34:25-26 that forbids a kid from being boiled in its mother’s milk because Jesus was killed at the very time of his mother’s lactation. (Augustine later used this same argument.) His calculations move from conception on March 25 to birth on December 25 (nine months later). Aside from the strange argument on lactation, his dating seems sound.

Evidence from 336 & 354

The Roman Chronograph of 354 AD clearly marks December 25 as the birthday of Jesus. It has two lists associated with it, the Depositio Martyrum (a list of burial dates for Christians and martyrs) and the Depositio Episcoporum (the burial dates for church leaders). Both lists make December 25 the liturgical date for Christ’s birth. This indicates that Christ’s birth was celebrated on this date for a long period already. Based on this calendar’s markings we know that an earlier calendar existed in 336 that dates Christ’s birth to December 25. This is the calendar that the Roman Chronograph is based upon.⁸⁵

Evidence from 350-400

1. Ephrem the Syrian (306-373) puts Christ’s conception in the Jewish month of Nisan.⁸⁶ This would mean a December birth.
2. Cyril of Jerusalem (348-386) asked Julius to assign the true date of Christ’s birth “from the census documents brought by Titus to Rome.”⁸⁷ After investigation, Julius assigned the date of December 25^th. If Julius still had access to these census documents, then he had a much clearer picture of when Joseph and Mary were in Bethlehem than we do.
3. In 354 AD, Pope Liberius moved the birth of Jesus from January 6 to December 25. He had strong evidence that convinced him that the January 6 date was wrong (though it may indeed have been the date of Christ’s baptism). It is also interesting to note that he would not have done this to coincide with the winter solstice, since by that time the winter solstice had retreated to December 21. He was moving the date for his regional celebrations based on concrete evidence, and to conform to earlier celebrations in other regions of the empire.
4. John Chrysostom (347-407 AD) says that he saw the actual census/tax records for Joseph and Mary when they were registered in Bethlehem. He said that based on these census documents, we can know with certainty that the birth took place on December 25. He delivered a sermon on December 25 outlining a detailed chronology of events from Zacharias’ ministry in the temple to the birth of Jesus, stating that Zacharias ministered on the Fast for the Day of Atonement and the following Festival of Tabernacles. Working forward six months he came to the conception of Jesus on March 25 and then nine months later his birth on December 25. Unless we are willing to say that he deliberately lied, there is no reason to question his claim to have seen the census documents containing the names of Joseph, Mary and Jesus.
5. In 379 Gregory Nazianzenus stated that Jesus was born on December 25.
6. In 386 Gregory of Nyssa supported a December 25 date in his sermon on the Nativity.
7. Epiphanius (310-403) said, “Zacharias remained until the completion of the two feasts, twelve days, and it was on Tisri 22, on the fifth day of the week [that he fell dumb], and on the Friday (urbath) he went home and came in to his wife Elisabeth and she conceived at eventide of Urbath the lightgiving torch which was to precede the sun of righteousness. So that from that day until Nisan, the 6th of April there are 5-1/2 months, a point set forth by the holy archangel when he said ‘In the sixth month.’” His discourse continues its calculations, giving a birth date for Jesus on January 6. Though this is different from our December 25 date, it 1) argues for a winter birth and 2) can be explained by virtue of the difference between the Julian and Gregorian calendars. He continues: “For Christ was born in the month of January, that is, on the eighth before the Ides of January – in the Roman calendar this is the evening of January fifth, at the beginning of January sixth. In the Egyptian calendar it is the eleventh of Tybi.”⁸⁸ “For the magi themselves reached Bethlehem, after a two year interval, on this very day of the Epiphany …As I have said before and am obliged to say over and over, this was the day in the thirteenth consulship of Octavius Augustus and the consulship of Silvanus which fell on the eighth day before the Ides of January, thirteen days after the increase of the daylight. This lasts from the winter solstice, the eighth before the Kalends of January [December 25], until the actual day of Christ’s birth and Manifestation, because of the type I spoke of – the Savior himself and his disciples, making thirteen.”⁸⁹
8. The Armenian Church observes January 6 as the birthday of Jesus, believing that he was baptized on that day. (Again, Luke does not say it was his birthday, but implies that it was near to his birthday – “about.”) But this is testimony to a winter birth that goes back quite early. Again, there was very little debate about the timing of Christ’s baptism, so it is a more certain anchor point from which to work.

Evidence from AD 400-500

1. Orosius (375-418) said, “He was baptized in the Jordan on the sixth day of the month of Audynae.”⁹⁰ This January 6 baptism again points to a winter birth.
2. Augustine (354-430) said, “For he is believed to have been conceived on the 25^th of March, upon which day also he suffered; so the womb of the Virgin, in which he was conceived, where no one of mortals was begotten, corresponds to the new grave in which he was buried, wherein was never man laid… But he was born, according to tradition, upon December the 25^th.”⁹¹ He described the number of days Christ was in the womb as “276…i.e. nine months and six days. This is the time between March 25^th (the day on which the Lord is believed to have been conceived, since he also suffered and died on that same day) to December 25^th (the day on which he was born.)”⁹² Augustine also complained that the Donatists, having despised the unity of the whole church, did not celebrate the feast of Epiphany “with us.” This implies that Epiphany was a well-established festival by Augustine’s time. (See sermon 202.) From this sermon, Thomas J. Talley concludes that the Donatists did celebrate Christmas before 311 AD, and that it must have had universal affirmation prior to the Donatist schism. This also places the celebration of the birth of Jesus before Constantine’s protection of the church. Talley concludes, “If we supposed that that festival was kept by the Donatists, we may place its establishment between 243 and 311.”⁹³
3. In a sermon on December 25, 410 AD, Jerome claimed that the tradition of celebrating Christmas on December 25 goes back to Peter and Paul.⁹⁴

Evidence from AD 500-600

1. “Both Bainton and Talley find a later but more explicit witness in Cosmas Indicopleustes relating the chronology of the conception and birth of John counted down to the days, with the birth of Christ on Choiak 28, that is, 25 December.”⁹⁵ Cosmos Indicopleustes was a Greek merchant who later became a monk. He wrote around 522 AD.
2. 532 AD - the Abbot of Rome, Dionysius Exiguus said that the Annunciation to Mary (and thus the conception) occurred on March 25 and his birth (nine months later) was December 25.
3. John Malalas (d. 578), in his “Chronographia” PG xcvii, col. 351, says “In the 4th month of the 42nd year of Augustus, on the 8th of the Calends of January [that is, December 25th] at the seventh hour of the day, our Lord Jesus Christ was born at Bethlehem.” ⁹⁶

Answering other objections

Some have objected that it would have been too cold for shepherds to be with their flocks in the fields. However, those who are familiar with the weather patterns in Israel disagree. The rainfall in December was far lower than the rainfall in January and February; so much so that Taan 6b says, “Good the year in which Tebheth (December-January) is without rain.”⁹⁷ There are contemporary⁹⁸ and historical records of sheep in the fields in December. Edersheim quotes ancient Jewish sources that show that flocks “remain in the open alike in the hottest days and in the rainy season – i.e. all the year round.”⁹⁹ Shepherds in the fields of Bethlehem would have been on the way to the Jerusalem market (a distance of five miles). In any case, the sheep that were being raised for Temple use were in the fields outside Bethlehem all year round.¹⁰⁰ These sheep would be needed for the daily sacrifices at the temple. It is interesting in connection with this that the Jews believed that Messiah would be born in Bethlehem and “revealed from Migdal Eder, the tower of the flock.”¹⁰¹ Thus, the Lamb of God was brought forth where the Temple lambs were brought forth, and was marked out for sacrifice just as they were.

Others object that it would have been too cold for Joseph and Mary to travel during the winter. However, it is possible they chose a route through the Jordan Valley. If so, a large portion of the trip would be below sea level and fairly mild.

Others object that Rome would not have done a census during the winter months. However, the very best time for a tax enrollment would be when field labor was no longer working. (Rome did not want to jeopardize increased taxes.) So a winter date for their travel to Bethlehem is more likely than a fall date. It would not interrupt the business cycle as severely.

Others have objected that Jesus could not have been immersed on his birthday (Luke 3:21-23) if it was in the dead of winter. Even if one holds to immersion,¹⁰² it is clear that Jesus was baptized near the Dead Sea, which is the lowest spot on the earth. It makes for a very mild winter climate.

The Name Christmas?

What about the name Christmas? Is our use of it an indication of an unthinking acceptance of Roman Catholic ritual in this area? I may be wrong, but I do not think that the name carries any evil import. In footnote 2, I have demonstrated that the etymology of the word “mass” does not refer to the Roman Catholic mass, but rather to a festival, meeting or assembly. Because Eucharist became central to the mass, mass later came to refer to Eucharist also. When we celebrate Christmas we are not partaking of Eucharist but of a meeting or festival. However, if one feels uncomfortable with the word, or if the word is misunderstood, one can substitute any number of names such as Dedication (Hanukkah), Consecration, and Feast of Lights. I prefer the first name Hanukkah since it clearly portrays the setting up of The Temple. However, Christmas appears to me to be a suitable term as well.

Lunar Versus Solar Calendar?

Someone might think that we should follow the Jewish Calendar rather than our present one since Chislev 25 does not always fall on December 25. There is nothing wrong with doing so. However, three things should be born in mind. 1) First, the only mandated feast day in the New Covenant is the Sunday Sabbath.¹⁰³ There is no “should” about such celebrations as Hanukkah. They are educational experiences, and refreshing times, but not holy days. 2) The present Jewish calendar is quite different than the Biblical calendar anyway. Since Bible times it has undergone two revisions. Even the names of months have changed. For example the first month, Abib, changed to Nisan as seen in Deuteronomy 16, Nehemiah 2:1, and Esther 3:7.¹⁰⁴ 3) The Jewish calendar months are not any more “righteous” than ours are since they are Phoenician or Babylonian in origin. For example, the month Tammuz is named after the Phoenician god mentioned in Ezekiel 8:14. 4) As Rushdoony has pointed out we have switched to a “Christian” calendar - that is, Christ’s birth is the focal point of History (all history is either AD or BC). Since Christ has come and is central to history, we do not need to revert to the Jewish system of calculating the calendar.

But What about Liberty of Conscience?

Individual Liberty

I want to end this thesis by repeating once again that it is not the intent of this book to impose Christmas as a “holy day” upon God’s people. It is not a holy day. Galatians 4:10 and Colossians 2:16 render all Old Testament holy days as no longer holy. It is precisely because they are not holy that Paul insists on liberty and says, “let no one judge you” with respect to them (Col. 2:16). This command means that no one can judge a person who has chosen not to celebrate Christmas as if he is somehow in sin. But this command also means that such a person may not judge those of us who desire to celebrate Christmas Jewish style as being in sin. As Paul said in Romans 14, “He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it” (v. 6). Christmas celebration is an issue of liberty.

Church Liberty

But what about church-celebration of a non-holy day? It is my view that this would be no different than the church calling for a fast day or a day of thanksgiving. The Westminster Confession of Faith not only declared the freedom of people from “holy days,” but also balanced this by saying that it was quite proper for a church to have “solemn fastings and thanksgivings upon special occasions, which are, in their several times and seasons, to be used in an holy and religious manner” (WCF 21.5). In other words, the worship that occurs on such days can be holy without the day itself being holy. The great reformer, Turretin, summarized this view well when he said,

The question is not whether anniversary days may be selected on which either the nativity, or circumcision, or passion, or ascension of Christ, and similar mysteries of redemption, may be commemorated, or even on which the memory of some remarkable blessing may be celebrated. For this the orthodox think should be left to the liberty of the church. Hence some devote certain days to such festivity, not from necessity of faith, but from the counsel of prudence to excite more to piety and devotion. However, others, using their liberty, retain the Lord’s day alone, and in it, at stated times, celebrate the memory of the mysteries of Christ … we deny that those days are in themselves more holy than others; rather all are equal. If any sanctity is attributed to them, it does not belong to the time and the day, but to the divine worship. Thus, the observance of them among those who retain it, is only of positive right and ecclesiastical appointment; not, however, necessary from a divine precept.¹⁰⁵

Does Church Liberty Conflict with Personal Liberty?

But doesn’t the church’s liberty to celebrate Christmas infringe on private liberty to not so celebrate? I believe that Turretin’s comments in the preceding paragraph answer this objection. The only way that such a conflict would arise would be if the church added ceremonies that are not a part of normal church worship (such as having a Christmas tree, a candlelight ceremony, an outdoor service facing the sunrise on Easter, passing of Easter eggs, etc.). But these “extras” conflict with the regulative principle of worship in their own right.

However, if there is no “element of worship” that is being added on these festival days, the question can be asked, “Which portion of the service would violate a person’s conscience?” If singing a traditional “Christmas hymn” in July would not violate the regulative principle, then why would singing the same hymn in December do so? If preaching on Matthew 1-2 in August would not violate the regulative principle of worship, then why would preaching on such a text in December violate a person’s conscience? So long as a church’s celebration of Christ’s birth in December could also be done on another portion of the year, there is no way in which the church’s liberty and the individual’s liberty needs to come into conflict.

Perhaps Paul’s own practice will illustrate this point. When the Judaizers said, “unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved” (Acts 15:1), Paul vigorously opposed their call for circumcision (Acts 15:1-41), and refused to submit to their demands that Titus get circumcised (Gal. 2:1-5). To submit to circumcision in those circumstances would have been tantamount to compromising the Gospel. When the other side pushed its own agenda and said that no one could get circumcised (Acts 21:21), Paul resisted that extreme as well and said that circumcision was a matter of liberty (Acts 21:22-26). As far as Paul was concerned, “circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters” (1 Cor. 7:19). Circumcision was no longer a commandment of God. Yet it is interesting that immediately after the Jerusalem Council Paul circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:1-5). What makes this even more significant is that Paul circumcised Timothy (verse 2) immediately before the two of them delivered the Jerusalem decrees to all the churches (Acts 16:1-5). He was making a point that anyone can engage in circumcision, so long as they do not consider it to be a means of salvation.

Paul treated the issue of festivals in exactly the same manner. When the Jews insisted that the Gentiles had to follow the ceremonial law to be saved, Paul said that it would be better not to “observe days and months and seasons and years” at all if it would give people that idea (Gal. 4:10). It’s not that all day-keeping was forbidden. In fact, Paul told the same Galatian church that they were under “orders” to observe the first day of the week as the Christian Sabbath (“as I have given orders to the churches of Galatia, so you must do also: on the first day Sabbath [literal Greek] let each one of you lay something aside” [1 Cor. 16:1-2]). Obviously Paul did not intend to prohibit all day-keeping. Galatians 4:6 and Colossians 2:16 need to be taken in the context of the threat of Judaizers destroying the Gospel.

Once Paul had established that neither circumcision nor day-keeping could be a basis for salvation, he immediately went on to say that both can continue to be an issue of total liberty within the church. Indeed, Paul delighted in celebrating Jewish feast days with a Christian accent. For example, Paul said, “I must by all means keep this coming feast in Jerusalem.” He was not just attending the feast; he was keeping it or observing it. Paul saw no contradiction with doing so. Some people read Colossians 2:16-17 only as an abolition of Jewish day-keeping and fail to see that Paul’s words “let no one judge you … regarding a festival or a new moon or Sabbaths” also prohibit “Scottish Reformation” brothers from judging those of us who delight in celebrating such days, not as holy days, but as what the Confession calls days and seasons of thanksgiving. It is clear that Paul delighted in the refreshing celebration of those same Jewish festivals (see for example Acts 18:21; 20:16; 1 Cor. 16:8). If Christmas is seen as a thanksgiving day for the incarnation, there is nothing in Scripture that would say it was wrong. Likewise, if we celebrate the birth of Jesus in the Jewish Christian way that Jesus (John 10:22) and the early church did, it could make this special thanksgiving day even more Christ-centered. Celebrating Christmas Jewish style has given our family a renewed sense of covenant history and has been a wonderful educational tool. It has certainly been fun for our children to have eight days of gift giving rather than one or two.

Where Do We Go from Here?

I have written this book to give the theological background for our unique approach to Christmas as a Christian Hanukkah. Part 2 will show what my family does to make this a very special celebration. We hope that those who have not been convinced by this volume will give us grace and we hope that those who want to experiment with the ideas in part 2 will find them worthwhile. Blessings to you, and a Merry Hanukkah!

For more information on the feasts of Israel and their prophetic significance, see the Feasts Of Israel on BB Research.