Revised 11-17-98 Chrstmas.Doc
**--CHRISTMAS--**
Christmas, that is, December 25th, should be celebrated as the conception of our Lord Jesus Christ, not his date of birth. Nevertheless, it is still a date that should be celebrated in honor of our Lord, whether a person knows that December the 25th is His date of birth or His date of conception.

In Lu 1:5; There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the "COURSE OF ABIA": and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth.
It is very important to remember this verse, and see how it relates to a time period that each of the priests were assigned to do their "COURSE".
During the time that Zacharias was performing the "COURSE OF ABIA", In Luke 1:10, the whole multitude (a large number) of people were praying "OUTSIDE" the temple. This would most likely be in June (Siven), not in December (Tebeth) when it was cold outside. These months being the two times of the year assigned for Zacharias to perform his duty, in the "COURSE OF ABIA", as priest, in the temple in Jerusalem. The course of ABIA (Abijah) is found in 1Chron 24:10.

Notice; Luke 2:4 "And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)" Then, pay very close attention to Luke 2:5 "To be taxed with Mary his ESPOUSED wife, being great with child". In those days the people were compelled by the Roman government to enroll themselves, for "census taking" and to "pay tax", at their respective "cities" depending upon to which tribe they belonged.
Notice, the word "ESPOUSED", in verse 5, shows that Joseph and Mary were not yet married.
It was the custom in those days to be ESPOUSED for a year before marrying. Since Mary was not yet married, she also would have had to report to her respective city for "census". With both of them reporting to the same city at the same time, shows that they were of the same tribe, that tribe was Judah. Because Mary honored the tribe of Judah, shows that her father was of that tribe, and that his children "by law" would follow that bloodline.
Since Mary was a cousin to Elisabeth, who was a Levite, her mother had to be of the tribe of Levi. This explains how Jesus was a Levite, (a priest, forever after the order of Melchisedek), and also (The Lion) of the tribe of Judah.
Notice Luke 2:7, that there was no room in the inn. By this statement we can see that there must have been some important event going on for so many people to be there. The truth is, as you will see below, that this was the time of The Feast of Tabernacles, which begins on the 15th day of the 7th month (Ethanim, or Tisri) on the Hebrew calendar, which relates to the 29th day of September on our calendar. Also, notice verses 1 through 5 above, and see that the people were to go to their own city to be taxed. With both these events taking place, there probably were not any rooms available anywhere.
Also, notice Luke 2:8, the SHEPHERDS in the SAME COUNTRY, keeping watch over their flock by night. If we relate this time to December 25th, which is in the winter, the sheep would not be out to pasture. But, they would be out to pasture at the time of The Feast of Tabernacles, September 29th. Also notice that the shepherd's were in the same country. It would not take them much time to find the baby Jesus. Lu 2:16 “And they came with HASTE, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger.”
It is very interesting how some people try to relate these wise men to the shepherd's that were watching over their flocks by night, in Luke 1:8, as the same time period. Notice in Matthew 2:16, that Herod sent out an order to kill all the children in Bethlehem, and all the coasts thereof, from the age of TWO and under, ACCORDING TO THE TIME he inquired of the wise men.
If the birth of Jesus happened at the time the wise men first saw the star, there had to be a considerable amount of traveling time before they arrived at the HOUSE where Jesus (the young child) was living.
In Matthew 2:7, Herod asked the wise men what time the star appeared, then in verse 8, Herod told the wise men to go search diligently for the YOUNG CHILD;..... Also, in verse 16, when Herod sent out the decree to kill all children from TWO years and under, he most likely would not have waited TWO years to hear from the wise men, as to where the YOUNG CHILD was, to see that he had been mocked.
Notice the account of the birth of Jesus in Matt 2:11; See how the WISE MEN from the east of Jerusalem followed the star to THE HOUSE (not manger) where THE YOUNG CHILD and his mother Mary were. This was in the city of Nazareth, after they had left Egypt (Matthew 2:23).
When Joseph found out Mary was pregnant, and was not yet married, he (Matt 1:19), did not want to make Mary a public example. To do this, he would have to take her to some other area where she was not known. Probably to prevent gossip, and possible charges against Mary, or cause him to lie and say the child was his. Because as yet, she would not be with child long enough to be showing.
Common sense tells us that if they were still living in Bethlehem at the time of the birth of Jesus, they would have been living in their own place, or at the least at a relatives place, and would not have needed to try to rent a room at the inn.
Luke 2:4, shows us when Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem to be taxed, they came from NAZARETH, where Joseph had taken Mary to live, just after he found out that she was pregnant, and to be out of site of her relatives and people that knew her.
Notice Matthew 2:19, Herod died after Joseph, Mary and Jesus had been in Egypt for a certain amount of time.
Luke 1:36 shows that Mary was of the tribe of Levi, she being a cousin to Elisabeth, who was “of” the daughters of Aaron, who was the wife of Zachariahs a priest.
Jesus is called "THE SON OF DAVID" in Matthew 1:1, etc., etc. If it means in "bloodline", it had to be through Mary, since Mary was a virgin when she conceived by the Holy Spirit, not by Joseph. Matthew 1:18--23.
With Christ being called the SON OF DAVID, Mary ALSO had to be of the tribe of Judah, which tribe David is from, since Joseph was not the "bloodline" father of Jesus. Matthew 1:1--16 gives the generations from Abraham to Joseph, who was not the NATURAL father of Jesus (seedline from David).
As one can see by comparing the genealogy in Matthew 1:1 through 16, which is that of Joseph, to Luke 3:23 through 38, that the lineage of Mary changes with David's son Nathan, where that of Joseph's continues on from Solomon.
Luke 3:23 "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed "ACCORDING TO THE LAW IN THOSE DAYS") the son of Joseph, the (son) of Heli,..". Here, Luke lets us know that Mary had no brothers, (her bloodline would be passed on through Joseph her husband, the son-in-law of Heli, who was Joseph's father-in-law).
Joseph was considered a (son) of Heli, Mary's father. "By the law, when a couple are married" their children take on the bloodline (tribe/name) of the husband, not the wife, which is common even today. For this reason (Mary not having a brother), Joseph would also carry on the lineage of Mary, showing us the true bloodline to our Lord Jesus Christ.
Let us continue on with the genealogy from David to Mary. Joseph and Mary's seedline, being of Judah, differ in genealogy, after the sons of David; Nathan and Solomon: (Mary being of Nathan, and Joseph being of Solomon). From Adam to David, they are the same. Luke 2:4 "And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)" Then, pay very close attention to Luke 2:5 "To be taxed with Mary his ESPOUSED wife, being great with child". In those days the people were compelled by the Roman government to enroll themselves, for census taking and to pay tax, at their respective "cities" depending upon to which tribe they belonged. Notice the word "ESPOUSED", in verse 5, means that Joseph and Mary were not yet married.
It was the custom in those days to be ESPOUSED for a year before marrying. Since Mary was not yet married, she also would have had to report to her respective city for "census". With both of them reporting to the same city at the same time, and not yet married, shows that they were of the same tribe, that is, Judah.
Mary honored the tribe of Judah, because Heli, her father, was of that tribe, and that his children "by law" would follow his bloodline. Since she was a cousin to Elisabeth, who was a Levite, her mother had to be of the tribe of Levi. This explains how Jesus was a Levite, (a priest, forever after the order of Melchisedek), and also (The Lion) of the tribe of Judah.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to our Modern Calendar, Christ was born in the year 4 B.C.
A.M.=Anno Mundi; i.e. in the year of the world. = B.C. = Reckoned as 4004 A.M.
A.C.=Anno Christi; i.e. in the year of Christ. Reckoned from Nativity 4004 A.M.
and 749-750 A.U.C. = the beginning of A.D. on our Calendar.
A.U.C.=Anno Urbis Conditae; i.e. the year in which the city (Rome) was founded.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Herod was declared king by the Romans in 713-714 A.U.C.=(35-36 years B.C.), and according to Josephus (Ant. xvii. 8:1), who states that his death took place 37 years later, and as he always reckoned his years from Nisan to Nisan (including initial and terminal fractions of the month Nisan as complete years), the death of Herod would be in 749-750 A.U.C., or 4-3 B.C.
Zumpt fixes Quirinus' (Cyrenius') First Governorship as 4 B.C. to 1 B.C. Justin Martyr thrice says that our Lord was born under Quirinus (Apol. 1: XXXIV, p. 37; XLIV, p. 46; Dial. LXXVIII, p. 195. Clark's ed.).
According to Clement of Alexandria (c. A.D. 190-220) "Our Lord was born in the 28th year when FIRST the census (taxing) was ordered to be taken in the reign of Agustus" (Stromata, Book i, see Clark's ed. i. pp. 444-445). If that is correct, and it is true that a Census was taken every 14 years, then the next would fall in A.D. 10=(A.C. 14), and the succeeding one would have been due in A.D. 24=(A.C. 28).

1. It thus appears without the shadow of a doubt that the day assigned to the "birth" of the Lord, viz. December 25, was the day on which He was "begotten of the Holy Ghost", i.e. by "pneuma hagion" = divine power (Matt 1:18,20.), and His birth took place on the 15th of "Ethanim (Tisri), September 29th, in the year following, thus making beautifully clear the meaning of John 1:14, "The Word became flesh" (Matt. 1:18,20) on 1st of Tebeth or December 25th (5 b.c.), "and tabernacled (Greek "eskenosen") with us", on 15th Ethanim (Tisri) or September 29th (4 b.c.).
The 15th of Ethanim (or Tisri) was the FIRST day of the Feast of Tabernacles. The circumcision therefore took place on the EIGHTH day of the Feast = 22nd Ethanim = October 6-7 (Lev. 23:33-43). So that these two momentous events fall into their proper place and order, and the REAL REASON is made clear why the 25th of December is associated with our Lord, and was set apart by the Apostolic Church to commemorate the spectacular event of the "Word becoming flesh", and "not" as we have for so long been led to suppose, the commemoration of a pagan festival.
2. An overwhelmingly strong argument in favour of the correctness of this view lies in the fact that the DATE of "the Festival of Michael and All Angels" has been from very early times the 29th day of September, on Gentile (Western) reckoning.
But "the Church" even then had lost sight of the reason why this date rather than any other in the Calendar should be so indissolubly associated with the great Angelic Festival.
The following expresses the almost universal knowledge of "Christendom" on the subject: "We pass on now to consider, in the third place, the commemoration of September 29th, the festival of Michaelmas, "par excellence". It does not appear at all certain what was the ORIGINAL special idea of the commemoration of this day" (Smith's Dict. of Chr. Antiqq. (1893), vol. ii p. 1177 (3)).
A reference, however, to the Table and statements above, makes the "original special idea" why the Festival of "Michael and All Angels" is held on September 29th abundantly clear. Our Lord was BORN on that day, the first day of the "Feast of Tabernacles" (Lev. 23:39). This was on the 15th day of the seventh Jewish month called Tisri, or Ethanim, corresponding to our September 29th (of the year 4 b.c.).
The "Begetting" (genesis) Day of the Lord was announced by the Angel Gabriel. See notes on Dan. 8:16, and Luke 1:19.
The "Birth" Day, by "(the) Angel of the Lord", unnamed in either Matthew or Luke.
That this Angelic Being was "Michael the Archangel" (of Jude verse 9), and "Mika'elo hassar haggadol" -- Michael the Great Prince -- of Daniel 12:1, seems clear for the following reason: If, "when again (yet future) He bringeth the First-begotten into the world, He saith, Let ALL the Angels of God worship Him" (Heb. 1:6; quoting Ps. 97:6) --then this must include the great Archangel Michael himself. By parity of reasoning, on the first "bringing" into the world of the only begotten Son, the Archangel must have been present. And the tremendous announcement to the shepherds, that the Prince of Peace (Isa.9:6) was on earth in the person of the Babe in Bethlehem, must therefore have been made by the same head of the heavenly host (Luke 2:9-14). In a mundane affairs, announcements of supremest importance (of kings, etc.) are invariably conveyed through the most exalted personage in the realm. The point need not be laboured.
3. The fact of the BIRTH of our Lord having been revealed to the shepherds by the Archangel Michael on the 15th of Tisri (or Ethanim), corresponding to September 29th, 4 b.c. --the first day of the Feast of Tabernacles -- must have been known to believers in the Apostolic Age. But "the mystery of iniquity" which was "already working" in Paul's day (2 Thess.2:7) quickly enshrouded this and the other great fact of the day of the Lord's "begetting" on the first day of the Jewish month TEBETH (corresponding to December 25, 5, b.c.) --as well as other events connected with His sojourn on earth, --in a rising mist of obscurity in which they have ever since been lost.
The earliest allusion to December 25 (modern reckoning) as the date for the Nativity is found in the Stromata of Clement of Alexandria, about the beginning of the third century A.D.
That "Christmas" was a pagan festival long before the time of our Lord is beyond doubt. In Egypt Horus (or Harpocrates), the son of Isis (Queen of Heaven), was born about the time of the winter solstice. By the time of the early part of the fourth century A.D., the REAL reason for observing Christmas as the date for the miraculous "begetting" of Matt.1:18 and "the Word becoming flesh" of John 1:14 had been lost sight of. The policy of Constantine, and his EDICT OF MILAN, by establishing universal freedom of religion furthered this. When many of the followers of the old pagan systems --the vast majority of the empire, it must be remembered-- adopted the Christian religion as a cult, which Constantine had made fashionable, and the "Church" became the Church of the Roman Empire, they brought in with them, among a number of other things emanating from Egypt and Babylon, the various Festival Days of the old "religions". Thus "Christmas Day", the BIRTHDAY of the Egyptian Horus (Osiris), became gradually substituted for the real "NATALIS DOMINI" of our blessed Saviour, viz. September 29, or "MICHAELMAS DAY".
4. If, however, we realize that the center of gravity, so to speak, of what we call the Incarnation is the INCARNATION ITSELF --the wondrous fact of the Divine "begetting", when "the Word became flesh" (see notes on Matt 1:18 and John 1:14) --and that this is to be associated with December 25, instead of March --as for 1,600 years Christendom has been led to believe --then "Christmas" will be seen in quite another light, and many who have hitherto been troubled with scruples concerning the day being, as they have been taught, the anniversary of a Pagan festival, will be enabled to worship on that Day without alloy of doubt, as the time when the astonishing miracle which is the foundation stone of the Christian faith, came to pass.
The "Annunciation" by the Angel Gabriel marked the "genesis" of Matt.1:18, and the first words of John 1:14.
The announcement to the shepherds by the Archangel Michael marked the Birth of our Lord. John 1:14 is read as though "the Word became flesh (R.V.), and dwelt among us", were one and the same thing, whereas they are two clauses.
The paragraph should read thus:
"And the Word became flesh;
(Gr. ho logos sarx egeneto.)
And tabernacled with (or among) us."
(Gr. kai eskenosen en hemin).
The word TABERNACLED here (preserved in R.V. marg.) receives beautiful significance from the knowledge that "the Lord of Glory" was "FOUND in fashion as a man", and thus tabernacling in human flesh. And in turn it shows in equally beautiful significance that our Lord was born on the first day of the great Jewish Feast of Tabernacles, viz. the 15th Tisri, corresponding to September 29, 4 b.c. (modern reckoning).
The circumcision of our Lord took place therefore on the eighth day, the last day of the Feast, the "Great Day of the Feast" of John 7:37 ("tabernacles" had eight days. The Feast of Unleavened Bread had seven days, and pentecost one. See Lev. chapter 23).
5. The main arguments AGAINST the Nativity having taken place in December may be set forth very simply:
(a). The extreme improbability, amounting almost to impossibility, that Mary, under such circumstances, could have undertaken a journey of about 70 miles (as the crow flies), through a hill district averaging some 3,000 feet above sea-level, in the depth of winter: Although, it is possible that she could have taken a route closer to the sea which would have been much further than 70 miles, but at a much lower altitude, on her way from Nazareth to Bethlehem (Luke 2:4).
(b). Shepherds and their flocks would not be found "abiding" (Gr. agrauleo) in the open fields at night in December (Tebeth), for the paramount reason that there would be no pasturage at that time. It was the custom then (as now) to withdraw the flocks during the month Marchesvan (or Bul) (Oct.-- Nov.) from the open districts and house them for the winter.
(c). The Roman authorities in imposing such a "census taking" for the hated and unpopular "foreign" tax would not have enforced the imperial decree (Luke 2:1) at the most inconvenient and inclement season of the year, by compelling the people to enroll themselves at their respective "cities" in December. In such a case they would naturally choose the "line of least resistance", and select a time of year that would cause least friction, and interference with the habits and pursuits of the Jewish people. This would be in the Autumn, when the agricultural round of the year was complete, and the people generally more or less at liberty to take advantage, as we know many did, of the opportunity of "going up" to Jerusalem for the "Feast of Tabernacles" (cp. John 7:8-10, etc.), the crowning Feast of the Jewish year.
To take advantage of such a time would be to the Romans the simplest and most natural policy, whereas to attempt to enforce the Edict of Registration for the purposes of Imperial taxation in the depth of winter,-- when traveling for such purpose would have been deeply resented, and perhaps have brought about a revolt, --would never have been attempted by such an astute ruler as Agustus.
6. With regard to the other two "Quarter Days", June 24, March 25, these are both associated with the miraculous (Luke 1:7) "conception" and birth of the forerunner, as December 25 and September 29 are with our Lord's miraculous "Begetting" and Birth; and are therefore connected with "the course of Abiah".
"The course of Abia" : This was the eighth of the priestly courses of ministration in the Temple (1 Chron. 24:10), and occurred, as did others, twice in the year.
The "courses" were changed every week, beginning each with a Sabbath. The reckoning commenced on the 22nd day of Tisri or Ethanim (Oct.6-7). This was the eighth and last day of the Feast of Tabernacles, "the Great Day of the Feast" (John 7:37), and was a Sabbath (Lev.23:39).
The first course fell by lot to Jehoiarib, and the eighth to Abia, or "Abijah" (1 Chron. 24:10).
Bearing in mind that "all" the courses served together at the three Great Feasts, the dates for the two yearly "ministrations" of Abiah will be seen to fall as follows:
The first ministration was from 12-18 Chisleu= (December 6-12).
The second ministration was from 12-18 Sivan= (June 13-19).
The announcement therefore to Zacharias in the Temple as to the conception of John the Baptist took place between 12-18 Sivan (June 13-19), in the year 5 B.C. After finishing his "ministration", the aged priest "departed to his own house" (Luke 1:23), which was in a city in "the hill country" of Juda (verse 39), which would be approximately 30 miles. Joshua 21:10-11; "Which were the children of Aaron,...who were the children of Levi, had: for theirs was the first lot. And they gave them the city of Arba the father of Anak, which city is Hebron, in the hill country of Judah,.."
The day following the end of the "Course of Abia" being a Sabbath (Sivan 19), he would not be able to leave Jerusalem before the 20th, because they were not allowed to travel that far on the sabbath.
The about 30 miles journey, would probably occupy for an old man a couple of days at least. He would therefore arrive at his house on the 21st or 22nd. This leaves ample time for the miraculous "conception" of Elizabeth to take place on or about the 23rd of Sivan - which would correspond to June 23-24 of that year. The fact of the conception and its date would necessarily be known at that time and afterwards, and hence the 23rd Sivan (June 23-24) would henceforth be associated with the conception of John the Baptist, as would the 1st Tebeth (December 25) be with that of our Lord.
But the same influences that speedily obscured and presently obliterated the real dates of our Lord's "Begetting" and Birth, were also at work with regard to those of the Forerunner, and with the same results. As soon as the true "Birth day" of Christ had been shifted from its proper date, (visualize the 15th of Tisri [September 29]), and a Festival Day from the Pagan Calendars substituted for it (visualize December 25), then everything else had to be altered too.
Hence "Lady Day" in association with March 25 (new style) became necessarily connected with the Annunciation. And June 24 made its appearance, as it still is in our Calendar, as the date of "the Nativity of John the Baptist", instead of, as it really is, the date of his miraculous conception.
The Four "Quarter Days" may therefore be set forth thus: first in the chronological order of the events with which they are associated, visualize:

The conception of John the Baptist, on or about 23rd Sivan = June 24, in yr. 5 b.c.
The (Begetting) of our Lord, “ “ 1st Tebeth = December 25 " " 5 "
The birth of John the Baptist, “ “ 4-7 Nisan = March 25-29 " " 4 "
The birth of our Lord , “ “ 15th Tisri = September 29 " " 4 "

or, place the two sets together naturally:-
The conception of John, “ “ 23rd Sivan = June 23-24 " " 5 "
The birth of John, “ “ 4th-7th Nisan = March 25-29 " " 4 "

The Miraculous "begetting", “ “ 1st Tebeth= December 25 " " 5 "
The Lord's birth "Nativity", “ “ 15th Tisri = September 29 " " 4 "

"REFERENCE: THE COMPANION BIBLE; APPENDIX 179"

The correct time of gestation for a woman is approximately 280 days.
If John were conceived on June 24th (Sivan 23), and born March 25th (Nisan 4th, that would be a period of 275 days plus the additional 3 days on the 6th month (Elul) and the additional 2 days on the 12th month (Adar), making it 280 days.
If Jesus were conceived on December 25th (1st Tebeth), and born September 29th (15th Tisri), that would be a period of 278 days, plus the additional 2 days of the 12th month (Adar) and 3 additional days of the 6th month (Elul), making it 283 days.