Great explanation. Also is this a hill to die on? Whether Jesus was born this day or that…. He came! And honestly living in the snowy dark cold climes of the north…. I need this! So i for one am happy to celebrate now! And naysayers can say nay or not! Thanks!
I don’t think this is a hill to die on, but I do think there is great reason to believe in the traditional date. I’d never say it’s a primary issue, and that the big thing is to affirm the incarnation. 🙂
J.M. Robinson disagreeing with the opinion of Dr. Heiser!? Scandalous! 😱😱😱
Aha, in all seriousness, I feel that the rebuttal to Heiser’s astral prophecy thesis doesn’t do it justice. I am sad to say goodbye to the symbolism of winter, cold, darkness, and the in breaking of light into the world provided by the historic date, but as I hold tradition ought to be shaped by Scripture the fact is Heiser’s reading of Revelation 12 is too coincidental and sophisticated to so easily dismiss. Again, the symbolism of December 25 is nice, but the symbolism of the DCW that Heiser details is more central to the biblical story and it’s must say something that the imagery John uses lines up with actual astronomical events that occurred on an actual day that was rife with symbolism for the Jewish calendar (as Heiser details). What do we do with all this? How can we simply say, “Nah, that’s just a fluke.” Heiser’s work showed that the DCW is one of the major through-lines in the Bible, and that Christ came to defeat the evils identified by the DCW. So, reconsider how John so happening to describe the birth of Christ using terms that so happened to accord with astrological imagery that so happened to come together on an identifiable day that so happened to be associated with the DCW? I’m sorry, to not at the very least hold that there’s INTENSE contention between the two dates is very superficial. As for how John would even know about this: err, the same way he knew anything in the Book of Revelation, he had it revealed? Kind of seems like an odd objection to make, no?
My main point is simply that I can’t just dispense with Heiser’s view because it requires one to write off a vast amount of accompanying symbolism more relevant to the narrative arc of Scripture and Christ’s life as a coincidence. No, this requires far more tact and rigor.
Evan, thanks for the comment! I appreciate the time you put into it. It’s very well crafted.
I have great respect for Dr. Heiser. I think he’s spot on with the work he’s done on DCW. His work was like James Jordan 2.0 for me. I also agree with you that tradition ought to be shaped by scripture, but I also hold to the presupposition that unless what tradition says contradicts scripture, there’s no need to reject it.
As much as I love Mike (and would debate anyone right now at the drop of the hat on the legitimacy of his work on DCW), I think he’s wrong on this and I don’t think that Jesus being born in December 25th weakens his work on DCW.
I wrote this essay last year and since then, I’ve had more time to reflect on its content. My original point addressed the assumption that the Woman in Revelation 12, described as conceiving, represents the constellation Virgo (and by extension, Mary), while the Serpent is Draco. While this interpretation may appear sophisticated, it is neither obvious nor consistent within the framework of mythology.
Where in mythological tradition is Virgo depicted as anything other than a virgin? Nowhere. Where is she ever portrayed as conceiving or pregnant? She isn’t. And where is she depicted as wearing a crown with twelve stars? Again, she isn’t. These elements — pregnancy and the crown of stars are foreign to Virgo’s mythological identity.
Such an interpretation, while imaginative, lacks the support of consistent mythological or historical precedent. And the reason why I reject it, is because of the consistency in source material that I learned in Dr. Heiser’s work.
Another point I was trying to convey is that John’s purpose in Revelation 12 based on the literary context isn’t to provide a divine timestamp for the birth of Christ. Rather, he is using Edenic symbolism to illustrate the cosmic conflict between the woman, her offspring, and the serpent. The imagery is theological and symbolic, not necessarily chronological.
I grant that the argument is sophisticated and that the astronomical alignment around the time of Christ’s birth has historical validity. However, I’m not convinced it carries the theological weight or interpretative authority necessary to redefine the traditional understanding of Revelation 12 or the timing of Christ’s birth. The text is apocalyptic literature, rich with Edenic and covenantal symbolism, not a celestial map providing a divine timestamp. While the alignment is intriguing, it risks reducing profound theological truths to astronomical coincidences. The early Church, which calculated December 25 based on theological reflection and liturgical tradition, never tied Revelation 12 to Virgo or Draco. This modern framework (and make no mistake, it is modern — Heiser came across it from Ernest L. Martin, an International Church of God minister) imposes an astrological lens foreign to the text and its historical reception, making the traditional reading far more consistent with both Scripture and early Christian understanding.
Revelation uses grand cosmic imagery throughout, but these symbols are rarely, if ever, interpreted as literal astronomical events. The “stars falling from heaven” (Revelation 6:13) symbolize divine judgment, and the “great mountain burning with fire” (Revelation 8:8) suggests catastrophic upheaval, not celestial alignments. Revelation 12, with its woman and serpent, fits this broader theological and symbolic framework. Dr. Heiser’s decision to interpret this chapter as a specific astronomical event involving Virgo and Draco departs from how the rest of Revelation’s cosmic language is understood. By selectively applying an astronomical lens to one passage while ignoring others with equally cosmic resonance, the argument risks being inconsistent and undermines its own credibility.
Considering the theological arguments and historical evidence presented, there’s no compelling reason to reject the traditional date of December 25 for Christ’s birth. While Heiser’s perspective is certainly intriguing and thought-provoking, it ultimately remains speculative and does not outweigh the robust theological and historical foundation supporting the traditional view. At least in my thinking.
Another good one! Also, another strong argument is the presence of the census documents that Romans took from Jerusalem. There seems to be historical evidence that these census documents were used to determine the birth of Christ and it was decided December 25th based on when Joseph and Mary were listed in the documents.
Great explanation. Also is this a hill to die on? Whether Jesus was born this day or that…. He came! And honestly living in the snowy dark cold climes of the north…. I need this! So i for one am happy to celebrate now! And naysayers can say nay or not! Thanks!
You’re welcome!
I don’t think this is a hill to die on, but I do think there is great reason to believe in the traditional date. I’d never say it’s a primary issue, and that the big thing is to affirm the incarnation. 🙂
Thanks!
J.M. Robinson disagreeing with the opinion of Dr. Heiser!? Scandalous! 😱😱😱
Aha, in all seriousness, I feel that the rebuttal to Heiser’s astral prophecy thesis doesn’t do it justice. I am sad to say goodbye to the symbolism of winter, cold, darkness, and the in breaking of light into the world provided by the historic date, but as I hold tradition ought to be shaped by Scripture the fact is Heiser’s reading of Revelation 12 is too coincidental and sophisticated to so easily dismiss. Again, the symbolism of December 25 is nice, but the symbolism of the DCW that Heiser details is more central to the biblical story and it’s must say something that the imagery John uses lines up with actual astronomical events that occurred on an actual day that was rife with symbolism for the Jewish calendar (as Heiser details). What do we do with all this? How can we simply say, “Nah, that’s just a fluke.” Heiser’s work showed that the DCW is one of the major through-lines in the Bible, and that Christ came to defeat the evils identified by the DCW. So, reconsider how John so happening to describe the birth of Christ using terms that so happened to accord with astrological imagery that so happened to come together on an identifiable day that so happened to be associated with the DCW? I’m sorry, to not at the very least hold that there’s INTENSE contention between the two dates is very superficial. As for how John would even know about this: err, the same way he knew anything in the Book of Revelation, he had it revealed? Kind of seems like an odd objection to make, no?
My main point is simply that I can’t just dispense with Heiser’s view because it requires one to write off a vast amount of accompanying symbolism more relevant to the narrative arc of Scripture and Christ’s life as a coincidence. No, this requires far more tact and rigor.
Evan, thanks for the comment! I appreciate the time you put into it. It’s very well crafted.
I have great respect for Dr. Heiser. I think he’s spot on with the work he’s done on DCW. His work was like James Jordan 2.0 for me. I also agree with you that tradition ought to be shaped by scripture, but I also hold to the presupposition that unless what tradition says contradicts scripture, there’s no need to reject it.
As much as I love Mike (and would debate anyone right now at the drop of the hat on the legitimacy of his work on DCW), I think he’s wrong on this and I don’t think that Jesus being born in December 25th weakens his work on DCW.
I wrote this essay last year and since then, I’ve had more time to reflect on its content. My original point addressed the assumption that the Woman in Revelation 12, described as conceiving, represents the constellation Virgo (and by extension, Mary), while the Serpent is Draco. While this interpretation may appear sophisticated, it is neither obvious nor consistent within the framework of mythology.
Where in mythological tradition is Virgo depicted as anything other than a virgin? Nowhere. Where is she ever portrayed as conceiving or pregnant? She isn’t. And where is she depicted as wearing a crown with twelve stars? Again, she isn’t. These elements — pregnancy and the crown of stars are foreign to Virgo’s mythological identity.
Such an interpretation, while imaginative, lacks the support of consistent mythological or historical precedent. And the reason why I reject it, is because of the consistency in source material that I learned in Dr. Heiser’s work.
Another point I was trying to convey is that John’s purpose in Revelation 12 based on the literary context isn’t to provide a divine timestamp for the birth of Christ. Rather, he is using Edenic symbolism to illustrate the cosmic conflict between the woman, her offspring, and the serpent. The imagery is theological and symbolic, not necessarily chronological.
I grant that the argument is sophisticated and that the astronomical alignment around the time of Christ’s birth has historical validity. However, I’m not convinced it carries the theological weight or interpretative authority necessary to redefine the traditional understanding of Revelation 12 or the timing of Christ’s birth. The text is apocalyptic literature, rich with Edenic and covenantal symbolism, not a celestial map providing a divine timestamp. While the alignment is intriguing, it risks reducing profound theological truths to astronomical coincidences. The early Church, which calculated December 25 based on theological reflection and liturgical tradition, never tied Revelation 12 to Virgo or Draco. This modern framework (and make no mistake, it is modern — Heiser came across it from Ernest L. Martin, an International Church of God minister) imposes an astrological lens foreign to the text and its historical reception, making the traditional reading far more consistent with both Scripture and early Christian understanding.
Revelation uses grand cosmic imagery throughout, but these symbols are rarely, if ever, interpreted as literal astronomical events. The “stars falling from heaven” (Revelation 6:13) symbolize divine judgment, and the “great mountain burning with fire” (Revelation 8:8) suggests catastrophic upheaval, not celestial alignments. Revelation 12, with its woman and serpent, fits this broader theological and symbolic framework. Dr. Heiser’s decision to interpret this chapter as a specific astronomical event involving Virgo and Draco departs from how the rest of Revelation’s cosmic language is understood. By selectively applying an astronomical lens to one passage while ignoring others with equally cosmic resonance, the argument risks being inconsistent and undermines its own credibility.
Considering the theological arguments and historical evidence presented, there’s no compelling reason to reject the traditional date of December 25 for Christ’s birth. While Heiser’s perspective is certainly intriguing and thought-provoking, it ultimately remains speculative and does not outweigh the robust theological and historical foundation supporting the traditional view. At least in my thinking.
Blessings brother!
Another good one! Also, another strong argument is the presence of the census documents that Romans took from Jerusalem. There seems to be historical evidence that these census documents were used to determine the birth of Christ and it was decided December 25th based on when Joseph and Mary were listed in the documents.