On Christ's Birth And Christmas: What Does The Bible Say?

The Journal of Biblical Accuracy http://www.jba.gr/

Article • On Christ’s birth and Christmas (Part I)

Please feel free to copy and forward this article

On Christ's birth and Christmas (Part I) As we all probably know, the present month is the month of the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ. I thought therefore as appropriate to take some time to see what the Bible says about this birth. The relative discussion will be continued in the next issue as well.

1. Luke 1:26-38: The announcement of the conception To start this survey of the things that the Bible says about the birth of Jesus Christ, we will go to the first chapter of Luke. There, verses 5-25 tell us about

the

announcement of the birth of John the Baptist to Zachariah his father, and that Elizabeth, John's mother, hide herself five months after the conception. Then, the verses that follow proceed to tell us what happened in the sixth month from John's conception: Luke 1:26-33 "And in the sixth month [sixth month from John's conception] the angel Gabriel was sent by God to a city of Galilee named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David. The virgin's name was Mary. And the angel came in to her and said: "Greetings, you who are highly favoured. The Lord is with you, blessed are you among women." And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and wondered what manner of greetings this was. Then the angel said to her, "Do not be afraid Mary, for you have found favour with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bring forth a Son, and shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Highest [i.e. Son of God]; and the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David. And he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end" (NKJV-KJV-NIV)

According to the above passage, Gabriel, one of the two archangels of God (the other one is Michael) was sent to Nazareth to announce to Mary that she was going to be mother of Jesus. Apart from this, the angel also said some interesting things about Jesus. So, he said that Jesus was going to be great and that he would be called "Son of the Highest" i.e. Son of God. He also said that God would give him the throne of his father David. This later statement obviously means two things: first that Jesus was of David's lineage and second that he had legal rights over David's throne i.e. he was a legal successor of king David. The reality of all these statements is made clear by the two genealogies of Jesus that are given in Matthew 1:1-17 and in Luke 3:23-38. The first of these genealogies refers to the supposed father of Jesus, Joseph and it shows that he came directly from the regal line of the king David. Therefore, from a legal point of view1 Jesus had legal rights over the throne of David. Apart from this legal standing, and since Jesus was not actually a son of Joseph, he also needed to have a physical standing in David's house. This he had through Mary his mother. Indeed, her genealogy that is given in Luke 3:23-38 shows that she was from the house of David. Therefore, both legally and physically, Jesus was of the house of David with direct rights over David's throne2. All these things were not of course accidental. In contrast, they were prerequisites for the Messiah, since according to the Old Testament prophecies the promised Messiah would come from the lineage of Abraham (see Genesis 21:12 and Galatians 3:16) and from the lineage of David (see Psalms 132:11 and Acts 2:29-30). Therefore, since Jesus was the Messiah, he couldn't be but of the lineage of Abraham and David. And he was. Matthew 1:1 expresses this truth very directly: Matthew 1:1 ".......Jesus Christ, THE SON OF DAVID, THE SON OF ABRAHAM" The genealogies therefore of Jesus Christ are not a historical enumeration but they consist A PROOF THAT JESUS IS THE MESSIAH, THE CHRIST, THE PROMISED 1

According to the costumes of the land, the standing of Jesus in the society was dependant on the credentials of the man that the people supposed to be his father i.e. Joseph. 2 For a more extensive discussion of some things pertaining to the genealogies of Jesus Christ the reader is referred to the appendix at the end of this article.

ONE. In him God fulfilled not only His promise to Abraham and to David (Genesis 21:12, Psalm 132:11) but also His promise to all the human race (Genesis 3:15) that after the fall waited for the one that would rectify the situation: for the Christ. Returning to the announcement of the angel, Mary had a question: Luke 1:34 "Then Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I do not know a man?" The phrase "I do not know a man" shows that Mary didn't have sexual relationships yet. The reason is because at that time she was no more than betrothed to Joseph, while, in order to have sexual relationships with him, it was needed to be married. However, in contrast to all other cases, the conception of this child wouldn't need the contribution of another human apart from Mary. Instead, as the below explanation of the angel shows, it would be God that would take care of the rest. Luke 1:35-37 "And the angel answered and said to her, "The holy spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you: therefore, the holy one to be born will be called Son of God. And behold Elisabeth your relative has also conceived a son in her old age; and this is now the sixth month for her who was called barren. For with God nothing will be impossible [but the Greek reads: "for with God not anything spoken shall become void of power" (oti ouk adunat e sei para tou theou pan r e ma)]" (NKJV-KJV-NIV) According to the explanations of the angel, this child would be conceived as a result of the miraculous activity of the Highest i.e. of God. That's why he would be called Son of God or Son of the Highest. After Mary heard the explanations, she accepted what the angel said to her:

Luke 1:38-39 "Then Mary said, "Behold the maidservant of the Lord! Let it be to me according to your word." And the angel departed from her" With the approval of the plan by Mary, the angel departed from her3.

2. Matthew 1:18-25: Joseph's reaction Being betrothed with Joseph and having a child that was not Joseph's made the situation for Mary very difficult, and the reactions of Joseph of critical importance. These reactions are given in Matthew 1:18-25 and they will be the topic of this section. Starting from verse 18 we read: Matthew 1:18 "Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: After his mother Mary was betrothed to Joseph, BEFORE THEY CAME TOGETHER, she was found with child of the Holy Spirit." The word "now" in the beginning of the passage is the Greek conjunction "

"

(de) that is used i) to denote movement from one topic to another. In this case it should be translated as "and" or "now" and ii) to make a contrast between what precedes it and what follows it. In this latter case, it should be translated as "but". From the 2,870 times that this conjunction occurs, the KJV translates it 1,237 times as "but", 934 as "and", 166 as "now", while 300 times it doesn't translate it at all. Whether it should be translated as "but" or as "and", "now", it is something that has to be seen from the context of the corresponding passage. In our case, it should be translated as "but" and the reason is that it contrasts the way that Jesus Christ was conceived with the way that those referred in 3

It is interesting to note that the Word of God nowhere says that the angel gave to Mary a .....lily or that the angel had wings or that he or Mary or someone else had a circle around their heads. Obviously, all these are no more than pure human imagination.

the genealogy given in the verses that preceded (Matthew 1:1-17) were conceived. Indeed, though in this genealogy we read that: "Abraham BEGOT Isaac, Isaac BEGOT Jacob.........." Jesus Christ was not begotten by a human father. In contrast to all the other people, father of Jesus was God, and this conjunction wants to make that clear by making this contrast. Having clarified this, we continue in the same passage where we learn that before Joseph and Mary "came together" i.e. before they had sexual relationships, Mary was found pregnant. Under such circumstances, the position of Mary was really very difficult and much was dependant on Joseph's reaction. Really, if because of this, Joseph decided through his words "to bring a bad name on her" (Deutoronomy 22:14) then, according to the law, the penalty for Mary would be death (Deutoronomy 22:13-21). On the other hand, if he decided not to speak publicly, but to treat the whole thing privately then he could write a bill of divorcement and send Mary away (Deutoronomy 24:1). Nevertheless, even in this later case, the position of Mary and the child would also be very difficult since the society wouldn't welcome her to have a child without having a husband. Verse 19 tells us which of these two choices Joseph was thinking to make: Matthew 1:19 "Then Joseph her husband, being a just man and not wanting to make her a public example was minded to put her away secretly." Joseph is described as a just man i.e. as one desirous to keep the law. From the two choices that he had according to the law, he was minded to follow the second one i.e. to put Mary away secretly through a bill of divorcement. However, God interfered at this crucial point to protect Mary and at the same time to protect Jesus: Matthew 1:20-21 "But while he thought about these things, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take to you Mary your

wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." God in his interference informed Joseph that Mary's child was of Him and encouraged him not to do what he was planning to do. Also He told him the name that he should give to the child. This is the second time where the name of the baby is referred4. However, this time the Word tells us also that the reason that this child would be called Jesus was because he would save his people from their sins. Regarding this name, it has to be said that what is unique is not the name itself for this name was not employed for first time. Indeed, Joshua the son of Nun (Joshua 1:1) had exactly the same name with Jesus though the English translation makes them to look different5. The same happens with the man called Jose (KJV, NKJV) or Joshua (NIV) in Luke 3:29. The name of this man in the Greek text is "

" (I e sous) exactly as the name of Jesus. The

significance therefore of this name was not in that it was first time employed, for it wasn't. Instead, its significance was in its meaning that in Hebrew is: "the Lord (Jehovah) our salvation". Really, it was Jesus Christ the one through whom the Lord, the Jehovah, would bring salvation to the people and who would save his people from their sins. That's the really great importance of this name. Returning to Joseph and his reaction, verses 24 and 25 tells us whether the interference of God changed his mind or not: Matthew 1:24 "Then Joseph, being aroused from the sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife" After the interference of God, Joseph decided not to send Mary away. That's how wonderfully God protected Mary and her child in this very critical situation. That's also 4

The first one was in the announcement of the conception to Mary (Luke 1:31). " (I e sous). The English translators transliterate the Joshua is the Hebrew counterpart of the Greek " same name in the Old Testament from the Hebrew text and in the New Testament from the Greek text. That's why the difference. In the ancient Greek text of the Bible (LXX and New Testament) Joshua and Jesus is the same name: I e sous, Jesus. 5

how wonderfully He arranged things so that Mary could have a child that was not her husband's, within a society where something like this would be completely unacceptable. Of course great in all this was the role of Mary and Joseph. Their willingness to believe what God had told them is really an example. Though from a genealogical point of view they were the perfect couple to be the family of the Messiah, this wouldn't happen if one or both of them were unwilling to believe God and cooperate with Him. Having seen all these, let's go to verse 25: Matthew 1:25 "and [Joseph] did not know her [Mary] TILL she had brought forth her FIRSTBORN Son. And he called his name Jesus" Though this verse does not say many new things about Jesus himself, it says a lot about Mary. Thus, though for millions of people Mary stayed a virgin for all her life, the Word of God tells us here that Joseph "did not know her" i.e. didn't have sex with her, TILL she gave birth to Jesus. From this statement, it is clear that he "knew" her, he had sex with her, AFTER the birth of Jesus. Of course there is nothing not normal in this: Joseph and Mary were a married couple and according to the Word of God, sex is a part of a marriage (I Corinthians 7:1-5). Apart from this statement, another proof against a supposed perpetual virginity of Mary is that Jesus is referred as her FIRSTBORN son. If Jesus was the only child of Mary could he be referred as her firstborn? Of course not, since this designation assumes the existence of more than one children among whom a specific child is the FIRSTBORN. Mary therefore had, after the birth of Jesus, other children, as a product of her marriage with Joseph. In fact, the Bible not only tells us that but it also tells us the names of those children. The relative record is in Matthew 13 where we read: Matthew 13:54-55 "When he [Jesus] had come to his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, so that they were astonished and said, "Where did this man get this wisdom and these

mighty works? Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?...." The Word of God names 4 half-brothers of Jesus and it also tells us that he had a plural number of half-sisters. From all the above it is evident that the tradition according to which Mary stayed virgin all her life is unbiblical and therefore it has to be rejected.

3. Luke 2:1-20: The night of the birth Having seen the announcement of the conception of Jesus to Mary and the reaction of her husband Joseph, the next thing that we are going to see is what happened in the night of the birth. To start, we will go to the second chapter of Luke where verses 1-3 tells us: Luke 2:1-3 "And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered. This census first took place while Quirinius was governing Syria. So all went to be registered, everyone to his own city." A lot of historical information is given in this passage that can help us to pinpoint the year and the period of the year that Jesus was born. The first piece of information is about a registration of "all the world" i.e. of the world that was under the Roman occupation. According to historical sources, this registration happened around 3 B.C. The reason that the Word of God refers to this census as "FIRST" is to help us not to confuse it with another census that happened later, around 6/7 A.D. That Jesus Christ was born earlier than the year that it is supposed that he was born is also indicated by the fact that Matthew 2:1 tells us that when Jesus was born, king of Judea was Herod. Again, according to historical sources this king died sometime between 5 B.C. and 1 B.C. It is

therefore clear that, if this source is correct, Jesus was born certainly before 1 B.C. and if the supposed year of the registration is also correct then he was born around 3 B.C. Regarding now the period of the year that Jesus was born it is quite improbable that he was born on the 25th of December. This is obvious by the fact that a census would have never been done in the heart of the winter since the weather conditions would make the transportation of the people to the city of their family6 very difficult. In fact, even in our modern age of fast speed means of transportation, the censuses are always done in periods where the weather will not be an obstacle. Obviously, if this is true today it should have been true in those days as well. Therefore, a supposed Christ's birth on the 25th of December and a census of the whole world at this date are not things that can go together. Also, the fact that verse 8 speaks about shepherds that were with their flock in the field is one more indication that Christ wasn't born on the 25th of December, since because of the weather, the flock is never in the field at that time. As Adam Clark characteristically says: "As these shepherds had not yet brought home their flocks, it is a presumptive argument that October had not yet commenced, and that, consequently, our Lord was not born on the 25th of December, when no flocks were out in the fields.....On this very ground the nativity in December should be given up" (The quotation is taken from R. E. Woodrow: "Babylon Mystery Religion", Ralph Woodrow Evangelistic Association Inc., 1966, this printing 1992 p.141) From all the above, it is clear that it is very improbable that Jesus was born on the 25th of December. Why then is his birth celebrated at this date? The reason is no other than pagan costumes that converted pagans introduced to Christianity. As J. Frazer says: "The largest pagan religious cult which fostered the celebration of December 25 as a holiday throughout the Roman and Greek worlds was the pagan sun worship6

The weather in Palestine is not much different from the weather in my country, Greece. Thus though the warm part of the year is much larger than in North Europe, the period from November to March is not less colder with temperatures that are very frequently negative.

Mithraism....This winter festival was called "the Nativity" - the "Nativity of the of the sun" (See J. Frazer: "The Golden Bough", New York, Macmillan Co., 1935 p.471. The quotation is taken from R. Woodrow op.cit. p. 143) Even such a conservative source as "The Catholic Encyclopaedia" admits that it was this heathen festival that produced the celebration of Christ's birth on the 25th of December: "The well-known solar feast of Natalis Invicti [the Nativity of the Unconquered Sun] celebrated on 25 December, has a strong claim on the responsibility for our December date" (See: "The Catholic Encyclopaedia", New York, Robert Appleton Co., 1911, p.725. This quotation was taken from R. Woodrow, op. cit. p.143) From all the above7, it is clear that the 25th of December is not the day of Christ's birth but the day that pagans celebrated the nativity of the sun. When these pagans were converted to Christianity, they brought with them their heathen practices. The church instead of taking a bold standing and fight those practices, it preferred to "christianise" them. So "the nativity of the sun-god" was changed to "the nativity of the Son of God". Unfortunately, that's just one of the many heathen practices and traditions that are still followed by a considerable number of Christians. All this of course does not mean that we should take action against the celebration of the birth of Jesus on the 25th of December or start fighting with our families for this. The date that Jesus was born is not more important than that HE WAS BORN!!! However, we should keep in our minds the truth about all the things that we may see going around this period and not be carried away by believing various man made traditions.

7

For more evidence the reader is referred to the excellent work of Ralph Woodrow op. cit.

After this digression regarding the date of Christ's birth, it is time to continue in Luke 2. So after verses 1-3 gave us some historical information about the registration, verses 4-7 tell us what Joseph and Mary did: Luke 2:4-7 "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 a child. So it was, that while they were there, the days were completed for her to be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in shaddling cloths, and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn." Jesus Christ's birth in Bethlehem was again not accidental. According to the Old Testament (Micah 5:2) the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem. It is really, amazing the way that God arranged things to make possible the fulfilment of this prophecy. Joseph and Mary didn't live in Bethlehem. In fact, Bethlehem was very far from Nazareth8 and probably only the compulsion of a registration could make them to go there under such conditions (Mary was pregnant). But when the right time came, this reason was brought forth and Joseph and Mary had to go there. And there Jesus was born and the promise of God was fulfilled. To fulfil His promise God didn't possess them and took them to Bethlehem. Possession is a way that God never goes. Instead, when something is His will, He arranges the situations so that it can be performed. But let's carry on: Luke 2:8-14 "Now there were in the same country shepherds living out in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night. And behold an angel of the Lord stood before them9 [Greek: "ephistemi” meaning: "stand by"], and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and 8

According to the map it is 108 Km away. The angel of the Lord was not hovering around the shepherds but he stood by them. Also in verse 13 since the multitude of the heavenly host was WITH this angel this means that they also stood BY the shepherds. If from this you detract the human imaginations according to which angels have wings, or music instruments or circles around their heads, you will really have a breathtaking scene. 9

they were greatly afraid. Then the angel said to them, "Do not be afraid , for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people. For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord. And this will be the sign to you: You will find a babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of heavenly host praising God and saying: "Glory to God in the highest. And on earth peace, goodwill toward men!" The first to whom God announced the birth of His Son were those humble shepherds. And do you know why God announced the news to them and not to Herod or to the Pharisees or to the other authorities of the time? Because the shepherds BELIEVED Him. They believed that this baby was the Messiah, the Christ as the angel told them. Verse twenty tells us that they "returned [from the manger] glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen". They believed what God told them via His angel about this child and it was this believing that produced their gladness. Herod, as well as the religious men of that age, didn't believe that. They persecuted this child and his coming only problems created to them. That's why God didn't make the announcement of Jesus' birth to them. Even today: God is ready to reveal His Son to everyone that has a heart to BELIEVE Him and really every single soul that is hungry for God's Word will be filled. On the other hand, those that are enemies of the Word, those that despise the Word, they are not going to have it; the wonderful announcements of the Word are not going to be made to them or if they are made they are not going to produce any profit, as it happened with the Pharisees. That's why we have to have our ears open to see what God wants from us instead of making up our mind to speak the Word randomly to "Pharisees" and to "shepherds" alike. If we have our ears open, God will send us to "shepherds", to people that are hungry for the Word so that may be filled. If we don't have our ears open but we do the things of God based on our five senses then we will probably end up wasting our very valuable for God and for us time with "Pharisees" that despise the food of the Word, while the "shepherds" will be seeking for someone to feed them. But let's continue:

Luke 2:15-20 "So it was, when the angels had gone away from them into heaven, that the shepherds said to one another, "Let us now go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has come to pass, which the Lord has made known to us. And they came with haste and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby lying in a manger. And when they had seen him, they made widely known the saying which was told to them concerning this child. And all those who heard it marvelled at those things which were told them by the shepherds. But Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her heart. Then the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told them." The shepherds believed the angel and went there and they found Jesus wrapped in shaddling clothes and lying in a manger exactly as the angel told them. It is at this point where tradition assumes that "the wise men", that it also assumes that they were three, came. Whether these traditions are right or wrong we will see it in the next issue. (to be continued)