Jesus was Born on December 25th

A Defense of the Traditional Christmas Date

Introduction

The star sat high in the sky over Bethlehem, with its light shining to the ends of the earth. The high angel, casting its radiant glow to the farthest reaches, beckoned all the ends of the earth to come and see. And indeed, they did. People from every corner responded.

From the humble shepherds of Bethlehem to the wise magi of Persia — both Jew and Gentile — all converged upon the cradle-throne to gaze upon the Infant King. Bearing gifts, they prostrated themselves before the newborn, recognizing that within the finite form of the babe resided the boundless essence of the infinite Godhead. What wonder! What mystery! The convergence of the finite and the infinite, the union of divinity and humanity in flesh. How can one comprehend such an extraordinary occurrence?

In the midst of this awe-inspiring spectacle, Mary cradled her newborn with tender care, gathering every moment and storing these profound experiences deep within her heart.

The burning question that resonates throughout Christendom persists: When did this wondrous event transpire?

There has been much debate over this question, and indeed, much ink has been spilled. Mother Church has declared December 25th as the date. Yet, dissenting voices have not been silent. Some argue against this, claiming it to be an effort to "Christianize" paganism, while others insist that such a momentous event could not have transpired in the winter.

However, there are compelling reasons to believe that this extraordinary event did indeed occur when Mother Church has communicated to her sons and daughters. It is equally valid to question the private opinions of those who openly defy the traditions and ceremonies of the church, provided they are not in conflict with the Word of God.

Let us embark on a collective journey and carefully examine the evidence.

Evidence For December 25th

What evidence is there that the Nativity of our Lord happened on December 25th? Is there any at all? Are the Scriptures silent on the specific day of Jesus' birth?

One way to discern the date of Christ's birth is by examining the timing of events surrounding Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, as described by Saint Luke. Saint Luke notes that Zacharias served in the "course of Abias" (Luke 1:5), the eighth course among the twenty-four priestly courses that were divided up to serve in the Temple back in 1 Chronicles 24:10. These courses served in the temple for one week twice a year. The course of Abias, or the course of Saint Zacharias, served during the eighth and thirty-second weeks of the annual cycle.

Undoubtedly, the priestly course of Abias (Zacharias's course) served during the second week of the Jewish month of Tishri, coinciding with the Day of Atonement on the 10th of Tishri. In our calendar, the Day of Atonement falls between September 22 and October 8.

Zacharias and Elizabeth conceived John the Baptist immediately after he completed his priestly service (Luke 1:23). This places the conception of Saint John the Baptist around the end of September, aligning with the church’s traditional celebration of the Conception of John the Baptist on September 23. Consequently, John's birth is estimated to be at the end of June, which is also in line with the church’s traditional celebration of the Nativity of Saint John the Baptist on June 24.

Supporting this late September conception of John the Baptist is the Infancy Narrative or Protoevangelium of James (Dated 145 AD). This work portrays Saint Zacharias as associated with the Day of Atonement, occurring on the tenth day of the Hebrew month of Tishri (Again, roughly the end of our September).

Moving forward, the dating becomes straightforward. According to the Gospel of Luke, Mary conceived Christ and then visited her cousin Elizabeth, who was six months pregnant with John the Baptist. This implies that John the Baptist was six months older than our Lord Jesus Christ (Luke 1:24-27, 36).

By adding six months to June 24, we arrive at December 24-25 as the likely birthday of Christ.

The historical foundation for the traditional Nativity date of our Lord was also firmly established in early Christian writings. Evidence suggests that this date was observed within less than one hundred years of the closing of the scriptural canon. Prominent figures such as Theophilus, Bishop of Caesarea (AD 115-181), Clement, Bishop of Alexandria (AD 153-217), and Hippolytus of Rome (AD 170-240) unequivocally affirmed that the celebration of Christ's birth took place on December 25th.

“We ought to celebrate the birthday of our Lord on what day soever the 25th of December shall happen.”

Theophilus of Caesarea, Magdeburgenses, de orign Festorum Chirstianorum

“For the first advent of our Lord in the flesh, when he was born in Bethlehem, was December 25th, a Wednesday, while Augustus was in his forty-second year, but from Adam, five thousand and five hundred years.  He suffered in the thirty-third year, March 25th, Friday, the eighteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, while Rufus and Roubellion were Consuls.”

Hippolytus of Rome, Commentary on Daniel 4.23.3

“And there are those who have determined not only the year of our Lord’s birth, but also the day; and they say that it took place in the twenty-eighth year of Augustus, and in the twenty-fifth day of Pachon… Further, others say that he was born on the twenty-fourth or twenty-fifth of Pharmuthi.”

Clement of Alexandria, Stomata, I, XXI, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2, pg. 333. 

Furthermore, it is noteworthy that Hippolytus of Rome had a direct connection to the apostolic lineage. As a disciple of Saint Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, who in turn was a disciple of Saint Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, and a direct disciple of Saint John the Apostle, there exists an unbroken line of doctrinal and liturgical succession. This lineage strengthens the case that the celebration of the Lord's Nativity on December 25th was indeed an apostolic practice.

Pagan Festivals, Shepherds, and Astral Prophecy

The primary counter arguments against the traditional December 25th date often center around the idea that Christians aimed to "Christianize" various pagan celebrations to convert pagans. These attempts include the Christianization of Saturnalia and Sol Invictus.

However, a significant issue arises when examining these claims — the proposed dates do not align.

Saturnalia, an ancient Roman festival dedicated to the god Saturn, occurred on December 17th, not December 25th. Although later expanded with additional festivities lasting until December 23rd, the timing doesn't quite match.

Another example is Sol Invictus, another ancient Roman festival honoring the invincible sun. Emperor Aurelian introduced this festival to Rome in AD 274, but this was well after Christians had already established December 25th as the date for celebrating Christmas. It seems more plausible that Sol Invictus was an attempt to "Romanize" Christmas rather than Christmas being an attempt to "Christianize" Sol Invictus.

Another frequently encountered counter argument posits that the traditional date is flawed based on the biblical reference to shepherds watching their flocks in the fields by night (Luke 2:8). The contention is that the birth of Jesus couldn't have occurred in December because shepherds typically do not oversee their flocks in snowy conditions.

However, it's crucial to consider that Bethlehem in Judea differs significantly in climate from locations like England, Russia, or Alaska. As I compose this essay well into the latter half of December, a quick weather check reveals that the temperature in Bethlehem remains at a relatively mild 55 degrees. Merely an hour and a half north in Tel Aviv, the temperature sits comfortably at 63 degrees. This isn't an isolated occurrence; numerous visitors to Israel and the Mediterranean have consistently noted the presence of flocks in the fields tended by shepherds during the month of December for countless millennia.

Another counter argument that has become popular in recent years is from Dr. Michael Heiser, whom I hold in high regard for his significant contributions to the Kingdom of God. While I believe his work will have a lasting impact, I differ in opinion regarding his stance on the birth of our Lord.

Heiser's proposition is based on Revelation 12, particularly Saint John's apocalyptic vision of a woman adorned in the sun with twelve stars above her head, an interpretation he views as an astral prophecy. He asserts that the imagery in Revelation 12 serves as a divine timestamp pinpointing the birth of Jesus. According to Heiser, the virgin symbolizes the constellation Virgo, while the dragon symbolizes the constellation Draco. By scrutinizing this specific celestial alignment throughout history using astronomy software, Heiser concludes that Jesus' birth aligns with September 11th, 3 BC.

While Heiser's argument may seem compelling on the surface, it's crucial to acknowledge several underlying assumptions in his exegesis that raise uncertainties.

Firstly, it presupposes that Saint John is employing astrological symbolism for the point of conveying a timestamp. Many scholars contend that while Revelation 12 is undoubtedly symbolic, its primary purpose is not to convey a divine timestamp for Jesus' birth but rather to depict the cosmic struggle between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Darkness, highlighting the triumph of God over the powers of darkness. Simply read the rest of Revelation 12. Did Virgo flee into the wilderness? Did Draco chase after her spewing water from his mouth and then go make war with the remnant of her seed?

I believe that Heiser’s exegesis of Revelation 12 collapses as one simply reads the rest of the text. The passage is about the conflict between the seed of the woman and the dragon — Satan (Revelation 12:9). The original audience, which were early followers of Jesus, would have understood this as they were suffering great persecution at the hands of God’s enemies.

Secondly, the argument presupposes that Saint John had knowledge of the celestial configuration at the precise moment of Jesus' birth. This assumption poses challenges, especially since Heiser proposes Jesus' birth in the year 3 BC, while Saint John is believed to have been born in the year 11 AD. Although it's conceivable that such information could have been communicated to Saint John, possibly through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, it introduces a notable degree of assumption. This is particularly true when considering the additional assumption that Saint John employed astrological symbolism with the specific intent of conveying a birthdate.

Furthermore, it's worth noting that early Christians adhered to the December 25th birthdate tradition, and there is no compelling reason to believe they interpreted Saint John's writings as an attempt to communicate a specific birthdate using astrological symbolism.

Thirdly, it’s also important to highlight that Heiser's argument is not an original concept and has questionable origins. Heiser himself acknowledges in the footnotes of his excellent book Reversing Hermon that this argument can be traced back to Ernest L. Martin, a meteorologist and minister associated with the Worldwide Church of God, an organization with a contentious stance against the church calendar. Walter Martin, in his work The Kingdom of the Cults, dedicated 34 pages to scrutinizing the Worldwide Church of God, contending that many of its beliefs were borrowed from Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Mormonism.

Now, this last point doesn’t invalidate Heiser’s arguments. I would be guilty of committing the genetic fallacy for making that case that we should reject an argument based off of where it comes from. I am not making that case. However, I am making the case that the argument comes from questionable origins, and that it is not compelling in light of good exegesis and church history.

Conclusion

The burning question echoing through the age of Christendom persists: When did this transcendent event happen? The evidence presented here, intertwined with the liturgical traditions and the unbroken thread going back to the Apostles points steadfastly to the December 25th celebration of the Nativity. Indeed, Christian early Christians who had connections with the Apostles themselves affirmed this date within a century of the scriptural canon's closure, solidifying its historical foundation.

Addressing the counterarguments, we find that attempts to link the Nativity to pagan festivals or refute the winter occurrence falter under scrutiny. The examination of historical records dispels notions of syncretism with Saturnalia, Sol Invictus, and Solstice Festivals, while climatic considerations in Bethlehem defy assumptions about shepherds and wintery conditions.

In light of all of this, it is my contention that there is no good reason to reject the traditional Christmas date as it is not repugnant to the Word of God. Thus, let us therefore reject the opinions and conspiracy theories of those who think they know better than Mother Church. Instead, let us invest our time in actively participating in the Christmas season, eagerly anticipating the birth of our Lord and Savior, and rejoicing when the time arrives.