Historical Data - Scriptural Insight And
Jeremiah the fourth chapter tells us how the earth was plunged back into darkness and being void and without form again after the sin of Adam and Eve. Jer.4: 22 For my people [the Jews to whom he gave the Sabbath] is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children, and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge. 23 I beheld the earth, and, lo, it was without form, and void; and the heavens, and they had no light. This the prophet Jeremiah reveals that the world has returned to place where it was at the beginning in Genesis 1 : 1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. 2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
The Apostle John writes from the vantage point of having seen the "Light of the World" (John 8:12) arrived on the earth in the form of a human, yet both God and man. In the Genesis of the New Creation in Christ, John begins his Gospel.
The Gospel of John and the Genesis 1 Birth of Light
The gospel of John chapter 1 was written intentionally as a new creation narrative like that of Genesis 1. Like Genesis 1, it begins with the first day of the week being as a day of the beginning of light. The dividing of light from the darkness. 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2The same was in the beginning with God. 3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. 6There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. 8He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
The first day of creation in Genesis, is the first day of the week, what we call "Sunday". Moses in Genesis one and John in John Chapter 1 both use the bringing forth of Light into the world as the beginning of creation. The Holy Spirit has stirred up the mind of the Apostle John to see consider, the relationship with the bringing forth of light of the sun to provide light for the world, and the Sun of righteousness (Mal.4:2) who would bring forth Light unto men.
John's gospel first reminds us that "All things were made by him (Christ, the Word) and without him was not anything that was made" . These words are of particular significance. It is Christ who made the sun. It is Christ who made the first day of the week and He made it a day of light. In these words we find the refutation of any argument that says the first day of the week is of Pagan origin or that Christ cannot be born on a December 25th. Because, Christ is the Creator of all things 7 days a week 365 days a year, they all belong to Him, the Creator.
As the first day of the week in Genesis, is represented as in darkness and the bringing forth of light of the sun arrives on that day, so Christ saw fit, to be born on the day when all the world knew as the birth of the sun and light, by the Creator. John then directly ties the birth of the sons of God with those who received Christ in this Genesis account of John 1. "12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13Which were BORN, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." The very first "receiving of Him" in scripture is at Christ's birth by the Shepherds and the Magi.
It is in John's gospel in the Genesis narrative, we find the scripture that some go a muck with. "14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, ) full of grace and truth" Because of a hypersensitive wall against Paganism has been built in the same fashion the Pharisees built the hyper-sensitive wall around the law of the Sabbath, some Christians are unable to see the scripture in the frame work and context to see the significance of the 1st day of the week and the bringing forth of the Sun of Righteousness in New Testament scripture.
Yes, John uses the word of God "dwelling among us" in a tabernacling manner. In the context here, it is not Christ's birth that John speaks of but Christ being the "only begotten" . When Christ is first conceived in Mary's womb, he began tabernacling in the flesh. The Israelites began tabernacling not at the Feast of Tabernacles but at Passover. If one were wishing to make a comparison of Christ's Tabernacling beginnings he would be on much safer ground, to say Christ was conceived at Passover, when He first began to tabernacle in the womb of Mary, as Israel began to tabernacle in the Wilderness during these days.. We find in Luke 1:43 that already months before Christ's birth, Elizabeth sees Mary with Christ in her womb and cried out, " Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. 43And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For the Lord was already tabernacling among men. How incredibly significant is it that Exodus 12 commands 1And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, 2This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you. " and that Christ would likely been conceived at the beginning of the "first month" and year of his tabernacling among men in the womb of Mary, in the Egypt of sin and darkness of the world.
While this is an ever fair and accurate analogy, it presents a problem for the Christ was born during the feast crowd. Because, if Christ truly did begin "dwelling among us" in the womb of Mary at about the same time the Israelites began tabernacle-ing, then Christ would have been born in December, a month with which they want nothing to do.
This major problem for those who see paganism at every corner, because then Christ would be born on or near the day of the Birth of the Sun in the sky, when both pagans and Jews looked forward to the days of light. Nevertheless, John 1:14 is given in the context of the creation account of God birth of light upon the first day of the week. And the tabernacling of Christ in the flesh, is directly linked not to the feast of Tabernacles but the day of the Sun giving birth both to Light in the NEW creation, and the sons of God, who receive the Light in the Genesis narrative of John 1.
More, enlightening is that probablity that God would take the darkest day of the year as the day to bring LIGHT into the world, when man is spiritually represented as being in darkness, void of true knowledge and righteousness.
The first day of creation in the Old Testament , Genesis 1 began with the bringing forth of Light, the New Creation in the New Testament begins the bringing forth of Light, Christ. The whole reason, we have the tracking of years B.C .& A.D., is because the day and year Christ is born a new creation began. It all started with The Sun of Righteousness being born into the world of Darkness and sin. The days of darkness were now ending as in the Genesis 1 account. Now, the Light of the World (Jn.8:12) was brought forth into world to restore what had been lost in sin. To underscore this, Luke 2 records that Christ was born in darkness. And it is highly likely Christ was born on the darkest day of the year to underscore, the darkness of sin into which the world had fallen. Even more, the Light of the world was brought forth at this time that there would be no mistake, "3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made." And this is the very issue, the Sabbatarians refuse to see or even to honor God and credit Christ. They take away the Honor and Glory due to the Creator and give it to the Pagans saying that they own the days and God has nothing to do with either December 25th or the first day of the week, both which are Christ's own creation!
How prophetic are the words and the teaching of the prophet Isaiah concerning the birth of Christ in Chapter 60. " 1Arise, shine; for thy LIGHT is come, and the glory of the LORD is risen upon thee. 2For, behold, the darkness shall cover the earth, and gross darkness the people: but the LORD shall arise upon thee, and his glory shall be seen upon thee. 3And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness of thy rising. 4Lift up thine eyes round about, and see: all they gather themselves together, they come to thee: thy sons shall come from far, and thy daughters shall be nursed at thy side. 5Then thou shalt see, and flow together, and thine heart shall fear, and be enlarged; because the abundance of the sea shall be converted unto thee, the forces of the Gentiles shall come unto thee. 6The multitude of camels shall cover thee, the dromedaries of Midian and Ephah; all they from Sheba shall come: they shall bring gold and incense; and they shall shew forth the praises of the LORD. " We see that Mt.2:11 records the wise men, the Kings of the Gentiles, "they presented unto him (Christ) gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh" at his birth! What great prophetic vision of birth of Christ when "darkness covered the earth and gross darkness the people". But notice how the birth is proclaimed! It is said to be "the brightness of thy rising"! The Sun of Righteousness, Christ is described as an "arising" and the "brightness of light" AT HIS BIRTH!
There is historical proof as well as scriptural proof.
A noted advocate of the December 25th date was John Chrysostom (c. 347-407), a humble and caring man, perhaps best known for his writings on the Bible and the Christian faith. He was also an eloquent preacher in the city of Constantinople, where his sermons became a stronger attraction for people than the shows of the amphitheater. Through his ministry many souls came to Christ-from among heretics, pagans, and Jews.
He was not without his enemies, however, and suffered times of persecution, including his church being burned down. illtimately the Emperor Arcadius ordered his banishment to an inhospitable region, the desert of Pityos. But while being taken there, Chrysostom died in his 60th year. It is reported that with his last words he was praising the Lord!
Chrysostom claimed the December 25th date was supported by the actual census/tax records of the Holy Family when they registered in Bethlehem. We have no way to prove if those records were still in existence, or were authentic, but Chrysostom was not the only one who referred to them.
Justin Martyr (100-165), in his noted Apology-a detailed explanation of the Christian faith addressed to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius-stated that Jesus was born at Bethlehem ''as you can ascertain also from the registers of the taxing" (Apol. I, 34). Tertullian (160-250) spoke of "the census of Augustus-that most faithful witness of the Lord's nativity, kept in the archives of Rome" (Against Marcion, Bk. 4, 7). When Cyril of Jerusalem (348- 386) asked Julius to assign the true date of Christ's birth "from census documents brought by Titus to Rome," Julius assigned December 25th.
Chrysostom taught that it was on the day of Atonement that Zacharias received the angelic announcement that he would have a son. This would place the conception of John in late September, and so the conception of Christ (which was six months later) in March, leading to a December birth!
According to rabbinical tradition, when the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D., the priestly course of Jehoiarib was serving. If the order of priestly service was unbroken through all those 70 years, it has been calculated that the course of Abijah, to which Zacharias belonged, would have been serving during the first week of October. This would be only slightly later than Chrysostom's position, but one which would still allow for Christ's conception to have been in March and his birth in December.
It should be carefully noted, however, that numerous arguments have been based on when Zacharias served. None are conclusive, since all must assume certain things:
Did the priestly courses start at the beginning of each year, or did they function as a continuous week by week cycle? Was this cycle interrupted during the annual feasts? Did all priests serve then, with the order of courses continuing thereafter? When the Jews added a month, every three years or so (to bring their lunar calendar into alignment with the solar year), how did this affect the timing of the courses? Did they always follow a totally uniform and unchanging policy from generation to generation, or were there variables? Our purpose here is not to argue for one date over another, so we need not get hung up on details.
THE CHRIST FROM BIRTH
There was a sect, the Gnostics, who believed Jesus of Nazareth became the "Christ" at his baptism, that this was when God was "manifested" in the flesh. Eventually, through the influence of Valentinus, January 6 was set aside to honor this event, called "Epiphany" (from the Greek epiphaneia, meaning manifestation).
There were others who began to observe Epiphany on this date also, but they believed (correctly) that Jesus was the Christ from his birth. However, since Jesus' baptism occurred on or near the anniversary of his birth (Lk. 3:23), it seemed more fitting for them to observe January 6th in honor of his birth. This may have even served to counter the false teaching of the Gnostics, emphasizing by this observance, that he had an actual birth as the Christ. If so, setting aside a day to honor his birth did not stem from some ulterior motive. The Armenian Church still observes January 6th.
Was there a feasible basis for January 6th as the date of Christ's birth, and subsequent baptism 30 years later on this date? Was this based on some then-extant records? I don't know. Centuries ago there were disputes as to whether January 6th or December 25th was the correct date, with large groups of people favoring one or the other. But in either case, these two dates only a few days apart are both in winter!
Would winter be a feasible time for the baptism of Jesus? I know of no reason why not at least the winter weather would not have interfered. The very low elevation of the Jordan where Jesus was baptized-near the Dead Sea, which is the lowest spot on earth-enjoys a very mild winter climate.
What about travel for Joseph and Mary from Nazareth to Bethlehem in winter? It is very possible they would have chosen the route through the Jordan Valley. If so, a large percentage of the trip would have been below sea level, thus providing protection from cold weather, even in December. (The Jordan Valley runs between the Sea of Galilee at 689 feet below sea level, to the Dead Sea at 1,306 feet below sea level.)
Would winter have been the time for people like Joseph and Mary to be taxed? It must have been in winter, for only then was field labor suspended! Shepherds in the field at winter, yes. It has been often stated that shepherds in that, part of the world did not abide in the field during the middle of winter, that by October 15th they would have brought their flocks home-thus ruling out December as the time of Christ's birth. But this is far from conclusive. There may have been exceptions. That some shepherds did face cold weather may be seen in Jacob's complaint to Laban, that he had suffered from frost by night (Gen. 31:40).
In his highly regarded and scholarly volumes, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Alfred Edersheim says about December 25th: "There is no adequate reason for questioning the historical accuracy of this date. The objections generally made rest on grounds, which seem to me historically untenable." Though various writers have quoted Lightfoot about flocks not lying out during the winter months, this was not true of all flocks. He cites ancient Jewish sources to the effect that there are flocks that "remain in the open alike in the hottest days and in the rainy season i.e. all the year round" (The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Bk.2, p.186),
When Luke mentioned shepherds abiding in the field, did he seek to convey what time of year it was, was not or might these words suggest something different: that these shepherds were very poor, living in the field with their flock? They may have been without shelter for their flock or houses for themselves regardless of what season it was.
It is very possible they were this poor. If so, there is a beautiful contrast between the shepherds and the wise men who were, apparently, very rich. Both groups came to worship Jesus while he was an infant, a lovely example of how the message of Christ is for all people, rich or poor.
Anti-Christmas in the Christmas Bible Story????
The Biblical account celebrates the day of Christ's birth but, the story of Christ's birth doesn't end there. The Biblical account also reminds us of the slaughter of the innocent infants, (Mt. 2:16-18) , that suffered as a result of Herod's attempt to destroy Christ AT the DAY of His birth. It's not surprising to see those who zealously work today, to destroy celebration of the day OF Christ's birth.... Herod tried it first, 2,000 years ago.