During the three centuries after Christ’s life on earth, the event considered most worthy of commemoration was the date of His death. The date of His birth was considered insignificant. “Christmas…. was, according to many authorities, not celebrated in the first centuries of the Christian church, as the Christian usage in general was to celebrate the death of remarkable persons rather than their birth….” (Encyclopedia Americana 1944 edition, “Christmas”).
Both history and the Bible give many strong indications against December 25 as the day of Christ’s birth. In the first 200 years of Christian history no mention is made of the calendar date of His birth. Speculation on the proper date began in the 3rd and 4th centuries, when a controversy arose among Church leaders, with some being opposed to such a celebration. Origen (185-254) strongly recommended against such an innovation. “In the Scriptures, no one is recorded to have kept a feast or held a great banquet on his birthday. It is only sinners who make great rejoicings over the day in which they were born into this world” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1908 edition, Vol. 3, p. 724, “Natal Day”).
In Rome December 25 was made popular by Pope Liberius in 354 and became the rule in the West in 435 when the first “Christ mass” was officiated by Pope Sixtus III. This coincided with the date of a celebration by the Romans to their primary god, the Sun, and to Mithras, a popular Persian sun god supposedly born on the same day. The Roman Catholic writer Mario Righetti candidly admits that, “to facilitate the acceptance of the faith by the pagan masses, the Church of Rome found it convenient to institute the 25th of December as the feast of the birth of Christ to divert them from the pagan feast, celebrated on the same day in honor of the ‘Invincible Sun’ Mithras, the conqueror of darkness” (Manual of Liturgical History, 1955, Vol. 2, p. 67).
The Encyclopedia Americana also makes this clear: “In the fifth century, the Western Church ordered it [Christ’s birth] to be observed forever on the day of the old Roman feast of the birth of Sol [the sun god], as no certain knowledge of the day of Christ’s birth existed” (1944 edition, “Christmas”).
Although the Bible does not reveal the exact date of Christ’s birth or indicate it should be observed by Christians we can determine the probable season of His birth. All scriptural indications argue against a December or another winter date. Israeli meteorologists tracked December weather patterns for many years and concluded the climate in Israel has been essentially constant for at least the last 2,000 years. The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible states that, “broadly speaking, weather phenomena and climatic conditions as pictured in the Bible correspond with conditions as observed today” (R.B.Y. Scott, Vol. 3, Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1962, p. 625).
Snow is common for two or three days in Jerusalem and nearby Bethlehem in December and January. These were also the winter months of increased precipitation in Christ’s time, when the roads became practically unusable and people stayed mostly indoors. A common practice of shepherds was keeping their flocks in the field from April to October, but in the cold and rainy winter months they took their flocks home and sheltered them. At the time of Christ’s birth, the shepherds were tending their flocks in the fields at night (Luke 2:8).
One commentary comments “…as these shepherds had not yet brought home their flocks, it is a presumptive argument that October had not yet commenced, and that, consequently, our Lord was not born on the 25th of December, when no flocks were out in the fields; nor could He have been born later than September, as the flocks were still in the fields by night. On this very ground the nativity in December should be given up.” (Adam Clarke’s Commentary, Abingdon Press, Nashville, note on Luke 2:8).
Another study source agrees: “These humble pastoral folk are out in the field at night with their flock—a feature of the story which would argue against the birth [of Christ] occurring on Dec. 25 since the weather would not have permitted it” (The Interpreter’s One-Volume Commentary, Abingdon Press, Nashville, 1971, note on Luke 2:4-7).
Other evidence arguing against a December birth of Jesus is the Roman census recorded by Luke. “And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be registered…. everyone to his own city. Joseph also went up from Galilee…into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem…to be registered with Mary, his betrothed wife, who was with child. So it was that while they were there … .she brought forth her firstborn Son….” (Luke 2:1-7).
Generally a census would take place after the harvest season, around September or October, when it would not seriously affect the economy, the weather was good and the roads were still dry enough to allow easy travel. According to the normal dates for the census, this would probably be the season of Christ’s birth.
In the 60 years of Church history after Christ’s death we find that, rather than celebrating His birth, the Church commemorated His death through the biblically mandated observance of the Passover. We find no command in Scripture by Christ or His apostles to celebrate His birth. Around 55 A.D. the Apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthian church: “…For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1 Corinthians 5:7-8).
If we follow Christ’s instructions, we will annually commemorate His sacrifice: “With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer; for I say to you, I will no longer eat of it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God…This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of me” (Luke 22:15-16 and19).
