I don’t usually post my responses to private emails online, but I think this one might be worthwhile to some. It’ll at least make somebody mad, which I seem to be good at doing lately.
Yesterday I sent out a newsletter for BiblePlaces.com which featured photos related to the Christmas Story. (I think my timing was bad because with this Nativity Story movie out now, everyone’s standard for realistic depiction has risen beyond what this non-Hollywood-budget guy is able to produce.) In any case, I got a couple of replies from people unhappy that I celebrate Christmas. Here’s my very fast and unstudied reply.
I do not celebrate any “mass,” I do not celebrate any pagan holiday, and I do not try to change the time. I have not adapted any heathen holiday. In fact the shepherds and the wise men were the first to celebrate Jesus’ birth and I think their practice is a wise one to follow. Jesus’ incarnation was one of the most glorious of all of God’s doings in human history, and the Lord was careful to give us many details about the birth of His Son, indicating a great concern for the event. I am sorry that you hate the festival. There are certain non-Christian aspects to its celebration which I do not embrace, but I am most happy to teach my children about the coming of Yeshua into the world and its significance for our lives.
I believe there are many more important issues that the Lord would have us to address, and many more important false teachings that are important to denounce. I think Satan loves to sidetrack us with discussions of minute significance. If you lived in a country where Christianity was the minority, I think it would help you to separate the issues of greater importance from the issues of lesser importance. Believers here are sometimes persecuted for their faith, and whether or not we sing songs about Jesus’ birth on December 25 is really a non-issue between us.
I’m angry… that I didn’t get the update you reference here. Please resend. And hurry!
Excellent response Todd. Beautifully articulated and succinct.
You go, Todd!
Imagine if we spent all that anti-Christmas energy on doing something like feeding the hungry?
Todd, something that got my attention in your newsletter was the photos of shepherds supposedly on Christmas Day & Eve, as well as 2 night scenes. It’s impossible to tell the temperature of your photo (maybe you could be the first Holyland photographer to use an infrared camera in the future), but I had heard that it was too cold in late December for shepherds to tend their flocks at night near Bethlehem (Luke 2:8), giving credence to those who believe He was born on the Feast of Trumpets in Sep/Oct. Please confirm or deny the dates associated with these photos, & let us know if there are any shepherds with flocks out in the fields at night exposed to the elements nowadays. Thanks!
G.M.,
Todd might already be through posting for the day, so I’ll offer something I wrote last year dealing with the issue you raise. You can see Todd’s comment, which verifies that shepherds can be in the fields at night – even at the end of December.
http://cdunning.blogspot.com/2005/12/watching-their-flocks-by-night.html#links
Get em Todd!!!!
Thanx for letting facts persuade you and not drama. I remember whilst living in israel and Christmas was approaching that the obvious disregard for the commemoration of Christ’s birth (in Dec or ANY month) made it all the more tunnel visioned for me, a Christian. No pagan traditions, no consumer mayhem to distract me….just sincere and pure gratitude for Christ’s birth. THanx for bringing it back to where it belongs (I think).
Thanks, Craig! I posted a rhetorical question over there. I’m still curious if Todd can confirm the date of those 2 night photos near the end of his PPT (LifeintheHolyLand.com/LOC, LC-matpc-02990 & LifeintheHolyLand.com/LOC, LC-matpc-05259). On a personal note, I’m sure God could’ve struck Bethlehem with a heatwave in the middle of winter (Jan/Feb) if it were important for Biblical typology to have shepherds out there at that time. In general, I’m in agreement with Todd’s basic point in this post, particularly the final paragraph.
“I think Satan loves to sidetrack us with discussions of minute significance.” Yeah, I thought the argument was Satanic too.
;-)
At work we are not allowed to have “Christmas” trees… only “holiday” trees, and by no means may we adorn said trees with “religious” ornaments such as winged angels. I was a bit angry at first, but tried to figure out what the biblical response would be. It probably doesn’t convey a positive impression to unbelievers if Christians get all huffy about “their” holiday being messed with. Lights and bulbs still look pretty enough on my office’s tree… and Christmas isn’t about a tree, it’s about a Savior. I hope to focus on the Cross this Christmas!
So, I may be the only comment thus far to disagree, but I thought I’d throw something in. I agree comletely with most of Todd’s comments. I’m thankful that we can commemorate and honor Christ’s birth. But this doesn’t seem to be the issue. I think the thing that concerns me is everything else. When we sing about figgi pudding in church simply because it is festive and traditional. It seems to me that throughout the year we are so concerned about being totally doctrinally sound in our worship, and then at Christmas, the standards drop. In addition, there are a lot of things that are consumed with materialism, so I don’t think we throw out everything. But, I do feel that if we then associate the name of Christ with all of the materialism, where are we. Do we honor Christ to be consumed for a month with a holiday, trying always to insert Him into all the festivities somewhere? I think that you can celebrate the holiday in a God-honoring way, but still where do we draw the lines. So, just some things that I have been working through, I’m not sure yet on any of these points.
G.M. – I cannot confirm that those two photos were taken at Christmas time, but I can confirm that another one in the set, which was identified as taken at Christmas, was (in the 1960s). And I have another photo which I took which shows a flock out in the area on Christmas morning (in 1993).
By Craig Harris, HERALD-PRESS (PALESTINE, Texas) via BAS: Sukkot
G.M. – I read this article last week and I thought it so worthless that I didn’t bother to mention it. Why BAS would give it notice is beyond me. Maybe Jesus was born on Sukkot, but not for any of the reasons given.
1. Jesus did come and “tabernacle” with men, but that doesn’t he was born on the day of tabernacles. It sounds good in a sermon, but there is no evidence.
2. Strips of cloth were used in the temple. Jesus was wrapped in swaddling clothes in Bethlehem. I don’t see the connection.
3. All baby boys were circumcised on the eighth day. Were they all born on the first day of Sukkot?
4. Good thing their tents had a hole or they never would have seen the star. Wise men back then never went outside.
5. Shepherds weren’t out with their flocks in the winter; I’ve answered that myth above.
6. Quirinius was governor in 1 B.C.? Herod died in 1 or 2 A.D.? I guess I must have missed this new data. If it’s true, it is very important and should be the focus of this article.
Wacky theories get media attention because they are “news,” but that doesn’t mean they withstand even the most basic analysis.
Of course it’s only speculative, but I think the main key to a Sep/Oct date is the jellybean trail of clues provided in Luke about Zacharias’ Temple service (1Ch 24:1, 8th course = 4th month) & the number of months relative to Elizabeth & Mary. You skipped over this in Chumney’s article, but I too didn’t notice the apparent error therein regarding “10th week” (I don’t know how he arrived at that).
In any event, this week I read a little 14-page ICR tract written by Henry M. Morris in 2003 (fairly recent), “Christmas in Heaven”. His basic point is that the Conception was more important than the Birth, & that’s what will be commemorated throughout eternity. A bit speculative, but tenable. This follows from the fact that the act of Him kinning Himself with us occurred when His God-man life began (a good deduction based on what we believe about the sanctity of life in the womb). But Morris also says:
“Practically all Bible students agree that Christ’s human birth was in the early fall, when the shepherds were actually ‘abiding in the field … by night.’ The most probable date might well be September 29…”
Then he deduces that the Conception would’ve occurred 3 months later on the calendar, or near Dec. 25th. So actually, that’s a good date to celebrate His first coming–but being the Conception, not Birth. This would seem to be a good compromise between all of us, no?
G.M. – I agree that the date is less significant than the reality. I wish you a blessed celebration of his conception or birth.
I did some reading & was surprised how wrong I again was. The course of Abijah ain’t nearly as cut/dry as I thought (i.e., simply dividing each of the 12 months in half for 24 courses). According to the Talmud, the courses were served week-by-week & repeated ~6 months later. Where the “10th week” idea came from was that the 3 annual feasts required the presence of all the priests; hence 48+3 weeks in a typical Jewish year. So Abijah’s 8th course was interrupted by Passover & Pentecost, which bumped it up to the 10th week. But also to my surprise was evidence for the Dec. 25th date if one uses the 6-months-later date for Abijah. Here are 2 well-written pages (better than the Chumney review you so detested, Todd):
http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Articles/Christmas/christmas.html
http://www.christiancommunitychurch.us/cruci0.html
After all the posts I’ve made over the past week on this subject, I feel like I’ve been on a jury trial, where one side presents their case & I think, “That sounds good; they must be right”, & likewise as soon as the other side presents their case. The 2 pages I cited above at least provide both sides simultaneously, & I now agree with each of their conclusions:
“Numerous arguments have been based on when Zacharias served. None are conclusive, since all must assume certain things. Did the priestly divisions 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 divisions continuing thereafter? When the Jews added a month, every three years or so, how did this affect the timing of the divisions? Did they always follow a totally uniform and unchanging policy from generation to generation, or were there variables?”
“In light of these uncertainties, it is perhaps advisable to take a humble attitude and confess our ignorance of the matter. The important thing, of course, is that our LORD was indeed born and ransomed us from the wages of our sins.”
Thanks again to Todd for bringing up this subject & indirectly motivating me to stay on course.
G.M. – thanks for sharing what you’ve learned. May we all always be careful students of the Word.