The issue of the time of the birth of Christ has been addressed by many people
in our times ... scholars, theologians, TV personalities, actors, politicians, you name it,
everyone that you can imagine has talked about it. Some people
have even proposed that we should not continue to hold Christmas as a
legitimate feast because the date of December 25 is not accurate. I don't know
if you've heard that but I've heard it. What I intend to do here today is to
present to you an overview of this debate and come to some conclusions from
the historical and biblical perspective and the evidence that is there in an
effort to bring about some clarity to this topic for those who are really
concerned that the 25th of December may not be the correct time to celebrate
Christmas, the birth of Christ. So let me start by saying that there are two
pieces of evidence which people present in support of the position the Christ
was not born in December. The first one is the verse from the Gospel of Luke "and
in that region there were Shepherds out in the field keeping watch over their
flock by night," Luke chapter 2, verse 8. The argument from this is that December
is so cold, too cold perhaps for shepherds to be in the field
watching over their flocks. Hence, the proponents of this theory
claim that Jesus had to be born in the spring. Recently, I read another article
on an online website where the author was claiming -- based on the same reasoning
and the same text from the Gospel of Luke -- that Jesus was probably born in the
fall [because] it was more appropriate before it got cold. I am sure that someone else out
there must have also claimed that Jesus was born in the summer instead and
maybe we're gonna have to celebrate Christmas in July but I don't know. At first sight
any one of these times claimed by the different theorists may seem reasonable.
But without more historical evidence they are just claims because you cannot
rule out the possibility that some shepherds could have been out there
watching over their flocks by the night in the area of Bethlehem even in
December. Why not? What would they do with their sheep? Shepherds had summer pens
for their flocks and then in the winter they would move their sheep into the
caves of the area to protect them from the cold. That's a common practice in the
Middle East, everywhere, even in Cyprus and I remember as a child experiencing
that. The sheep were not grazing in the field by night obviously. The shepherds
were just guarding their flocks perhaps taking turns overnight as a sheep were
in their pens in the nearby caves protecting them from thieves. Although
the weather in this part of the world can be cold in December
it can also be warm enough for the Shepherds to still take their flocks
out during the day but then bring them back again inside the caves at night
where it is much warmer than it would be in their summer pens. This is a practice still
prevalent in these parts of the Middle East even until today. The second piece
of evidence which the proponents of an alternate time for Christmas present is
the fact that the ancient pagans celebrated on December 25 the birth
of the god Sun. As a follow-up syllogism they conclude the Christmas,
that the Christians adopted December 25 to cover up the pagan feast, ignoring the
historical date of his birth. It is in fact true that many pagan feasts were
Christianized during the 4th century and subsequently even which makes this a
reasonable claim. Still, this is no proof but the birth of Christ did not take
place at some time in December even if it was not exactly on December 25 and
even if the Christians intentionally overlaid the birth of Christ over the
pagan feast. So, looking for evidence where do we go? As we look for more
evidence we discover that the feast of Christmas was first celebrated in the
beginning of the fourth century, first in Rome in the year 336 AD and subsequently
in the eastern parts of the Empire by the end of the fourth century where we
find a sermon by Saint John Chrysostom explaining why celebrating Christmas in
December and especially on December 25 is perfectly appropriate.
He presents historical evidence from the events of the New Testament to support
this position. St. Chrysostom preaching at the end of the 4th century
in Antioch about ten years after the feast of Christmas was established in
the east -- as he himself informs us in this sermon --
he offers a contemporary account of the reasoning behind the choice of December
25 as the day for celebrating the birth of Christ.
He's addressing people who disputed both the necessity of the feast as an
innovation as well as the time of its celebration so this is most appropriate
for our discussion here. In his comments St. Chrysostom does not mention the
effort by the Christians to remove from the Roman calendar the pagan worship
of the Sun but he lays out a very distinctly biblical explanation.
He starts with the time of the census as mentioned in Luke Chapter 2, verses 1-7
and points out that this was the first census which happened when Quirinius was
governor of Syria. He also points out that whoever wants to know the exact
time of the census can freely search the ancient codices which are kept in the
public libraries of Rome hinting at the time of the birth of Christ is
easily verifiable from the public records. Chrysostom was himself a trained
lawyer of that time with personal knowledge of governmental records and he
points exactly to the source of the historical evidence. He then continues
his argument from a biblical perspective explaining the Jewish tradition of the
censing of the Temple in Jerusalem by the high priest who would
enter the Holy of Holies only once a year during the Feast of Tabernacles in
September. He points to the Gospel of Luke Chapter 1, verses 8-15 when
Zacharias was selected to enter the Holy of Holies to offer
incense. This selection of Zacharias perhaps happened because there was no
high priest at the time during that year and the group of
Levites who were on duty at that time would select if there was no high priest
-- they were selected by lot according to tradition -- a priest who would make the
offering in place of the high priest. So Zacharias is chosen, he entered the
Holy of Holies and there he had a vision of an angel of
the Lord who announced to him the birth of his son whom he was to call
John. Soon after that his wife Elizabeth became pregnant. Continuing with a
biblical narrative, Chrysostom points out that six months later the angel Gabriel
appears to the Virgin Mary and announces to her that she would bear the Son of
God and also reveals to her that her cousin
Elizabeth is already in her sixth month of pregnancy. This is Luke Chapter 1
verses 30 -37. So, Elizabeth became pregnant in September and the Virgin
Mary becomes pregnant in March. Chrysostom concludes that Elizabeth
had become pregnant in the latter part of September after the Feast of
Tabernacles and the Virgin Mary became pregnant six months later in the latter
part of March. If then we count nine months from
that time we end up at the latter part of December as simple as that. Which is
the time when Jesus was born. Hence, he concludes the celebration of Christmas
on December 25 is fully justified. Now that's Chrysostom seventeen hundred
years ago. The fact is that we do not know the exact date of Christ's birth but
the Christians of the fourth century had calculated the time of his birth using
whatever evidence was available to them and concluded with December as the month.
They were much closer to the original event and much closer to the people who
had experienced it than any person of today. Their decision was biblically
and historically based and it might as well be much closer to the real day than
any modern guesses. It is possible, however, that the decision to establish
the celebration of Christmas of December 25 -- and not on December 20th or the
24th or whatever date would have been the real date of the birth of Christ -- was
indeed intentional. There is a chance that this indeed intentional to be the
25th aiming at quashing the pagan feast of the god Sun.
Although Chrysostom is silent about this in his homily -- he never mentions anything
about -- it it is indeed possible that the Christians sought to substitute
the celebration of the birth of the god Sun
with the birth of the Son of God. This seems to have become one more victory
for them against the dwindling pagan religion which worshiped the creation
rather than the creator. They were comfortable that the season of his birth
was the right one and December 25 seemed perfectly good to them. Hence for those
of you who have been worried about it, have been worried that they might be
celebrating Christmas at the wrong time, please enjoy the joyful feast and find
comfort in the fact that the early Christians knew what they were doing
when they decided that December 25 would be the date. Christmas is the only
Christian feast that unites us all in the one faith that the second person of the Holy
Trinity, the Son of God, has become man in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ who
assumed our humanity so that He can perfect it in Himself and save it. In him,
humanity perfectly and unconfusedly united to His divinity was preserved
sinless and it was perfected in obedience to God just as God intended for us from the
very beginning. He then allowed His sinless humanity to die on the cross so
that He can raise it from the dead and glorify it internally in Himself as He
ascended to heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father ...
continuing to be the theanthropos, the Godman through whom we find salvation.
December 25 is a perfectly good day to celebrate this amazing work of God for
us. Merry Christmas brothers and sisters. καλά Χριστούγεννα.
Thank you!