Christmas needs an extreme makeover -- Part One

By Tom Kovach

(NOTE: All of the Bible references, unless otherwise noted, are from the New King James Version [NKJ], published by Thomas Nelson, Nashville, TN.)

This column will raise some hackles ... on all sides. That's OK. Truth is truth.

Two years ago, I wrote a column called "The Hijacking of Christmas". In it, I did a "four corners analysis" of various points to show that Santa Claus is a mythical character that is designed (by Satan) to distract Christians from the true meaning of Christmas. This series will look at the larger framework that allowed greed and the character of Santa to achieve such prominence in the first place. Much has been made in recent weeks over arguments such as "Christmas tree vs. holiday tree"; or, "should retail employees greet customers with 'merry Christmas'"? What sparked this examination was an e-mail to a Nashville TV-newsroom about the fact that Target stores withdrew the word Christmas from their advertising. The viewer wrote, "We'll come to blows over this!" Really? Is that how Christians should respond to retail marketing decisions? If not, then what is the proper response to such societal changes?

Christians should boycott modern Christmas altogether!

Now, don't get me wrong. I didn't suggest that we should boycott Jesus, the Son of God. If one is a true follower of Jesus, then it should be a simple matter to separate the "celebration of Christmas" from the "worship of Christ." If modern society determines that it cannot let go of the celebration of His birth, then the day needs an "extreme makeover" to conform to Biblical truths.. (How does celebrating Jesus' Nativity compare with celebrating His Ascension? That day, however, is scarcely a blip on the modern societal radar. Yet, it is Ascension Day that marks the visible victory of Jesus over death and sin.) In the first two centuries of Christianity, there was no Christmas at all. My thought is that Christmas, as we now know it, should be scrapped. Does that sound absurd? Read on.

Although I do not agree with some aspects of his presentation, Garner Ted Armstrong was entirely correct when he wrote, "...it is impossible to 'put Christ back in Christmas,' since He was never in Christmas in the first place!" At least, not in Christmas as we now know it. The modern version of Christmas is so far out of line with Biblical truth as to be an actual mockery of God. I know that's a strong statement, but keep reading.

modern myth vs. ancient Scripture

Jesus taught, "...every tree is known by its own fruit." (Luke 6:44) The fruits of modern Christmas include: overspending, credit card debt, traffic jams, road rage, drunken parties, phoniness toward people (a major cause of "holiday stress"), the anti-Christian myth of Santa Claus (Satan Lucas), and "covetousness, which is idolatry" (Colossians 3:5), which leads to shoplifting and robbery. Can anyone explain to me how trampling people at stores can honor Jesus? Or, can you compare a fistfight over bargains to the shepherds kneeling before the Holy Child in a manger?

But, even the "religious" aspects of modern Christmas have little relation to the story told in the Bible. For example, celebrating the birth of Jesus during the Winter makes no sense in light of Scripture. Joseph and Mary arrived at the inn at Bethlehem (the City of David), and there was no room. The reason there was no room was because of the Roman census, which also required each family to pay a tax. The Romans were interested in getting the money, which might not happen if they required everyone to travel across their country in winter. They would have conducted the census at a time when travel was easiest, not hardest. (Is it mere coincidence that the IRS wants everyone to pay their tax in mid-April? Or, does that find its roots in an ancient practice?) Further in this series, we'll see how Christmas ended up in the Winter, and how its current placement on the calendar actually mocks God.

Also, one would not see "... shepherds living out in the fields, keeping watch over their flock by night" (Luke 2:8) during the Winter in Israel. Instead, the sheep would be kept in pens, eating hay, and the shepherds would be inside their houses. The shepherds lived out in the fields with their flocks during Spring and Summer, when the sheep were allowed to graze on the hills. During the grazing, the shepherds needed to stay with the sheep at all times in order to protect the flock from thieves and predators.

Modern myths talk about three Wise Men, and plastic "religious" statues show them at the manger with the shepherds. But, first of all, there is no mention in the Bible of how many Wise Men there were. The Bible only mentions three types of gifts. In the custom of the Middle East, it would've been much more likely that the Wise Men traveled in a large caravan. That way, among other things, the valued gifts would be protected from robbers. The caravan would have taken months to travel 600 miles from the area near the former Babylon. But, the Gospel of Matthew indicates that the Wise Men came about two years after the birth of Jesus. When they came, they worshipped a "young Child" (Matthew 2:11), not a baby. The same verse tells us that they came to the "house," not to a stable with a manger (hay trough). Jesus did not live in a house until after the Holy Family had returned from the census in Bethlehem. For those that find these facts hard to believe, in comparison to the story told by plastic statues, Verse 16 describes this two-year gap plainly. Thus, contrary to modern myth, the Wise Men were never at the manger.

Conversely, the shepherds were not guided by the star. They were residents of a small town. The angel told them, "And this will be the sign to you: You will find a Babe wrapped in swaddling cloths, lying in a manger." The custom was to have a baby at home, attended by a midwife. It would be abnormal to find a baby lying in a manger. But, even if it was normal, the shepherds needed only to ask amongst themselves who was pregnant in town. If they didn't know any women that were about to deliver, then the obvious place to look for a babe in a manger would be at the inn — where all the travelers had come into town for the census. In modern times, the "sign" given by the angel seems like some sort of trick or riddle. (How do you find one baby in a town?) But, to the shepherds of Bethlehem, the angel's sign would've been considered a virtual "no-brainer" to guide them to the Baby Jesus. Thus, they didn't need the star, so the angel never mentioned it to them. The angel gave them a sign that they understood.

The modern myth focuses on the Wise Men (and has even invented names for them). But, the Bible focuses specifically upon the gifts that were presented to Jesus. Why? Did each of the gifts have a certain meaning? Oh, yes. Gold was the tribute paid to a conquering king. Frankincense was (and still is) the most expensive ingredient of a blend of incense that is to be burned only before God. (I once lived in a monastery that made incense according to the Biblical formula. I have held pure frankincense in my hand. The mixing room had a smell that was positively "heavenly.") Myrrh is the oil used to anoint a prophet. (Myrrh also has a heavenly scent.) So, in a single verse, the Bible declares Jesus to be simultaneously a prophet, a king, and God Incarnate. The story goes far deeper than the plastic statues can convey.

lambs, wheat, and fruits

One of the many titles of Jesus is the Lamb of God. He gained this title because He was sacrificed for our sins. There is a "foretype" of His title in the image of God providing a ram in the thicket, to be sacrificed by Abraham. The ram is caught in the thicket by his horns. Jesus was pierced with a crown of thorns around his head before He was crucified, just as the ram in the thicket had thorns around his head before he was sacrificed. Jesus is our substitute, just as the ram was substituted for Isaac, because we deserve death for our sins.

God knows "the end from the beginning" (Isaiah 46:10). Thus, if He placed a ram in a thicket 1,500 years before the birth of Jesus, then wouldn't it make sense that God would also make other parallels between a real lamb and Jesus? And, if that's true, then wouldn't it make sense that Jesus was born during the Spring lambing season?

The ancient Hebrews believed that their great prophets, such as King David, were born and died on the same date. This belief is based upon the view that God does not create confusion (see 1^st Corinthians 14:33); therefore, He would not have a prophet live a fraction of a year. It is a recorded historical fact that Jesus died during the Passover, which is always in the Spring. (For Christians, Jesus is the Eternal Passover Lamb — the Holy Pascha [Peshach in Hebrew].) If we believe that Jesus was the Son of God, then that makes Him the greatest prophet. Thus, the rule about birth and death would apply to Him even more than the other prophets, as a sign from God of the authenticity of Jesus' ministry on earth. And, one of His other titles was Son of David (because of the lineage of his earthly father, Joseph). So, according to this rule, Jesus would've been born at Passover. That makes sense both in terms of the "prophets' rule," and in terms of families going to the city of their lineage for the Roman census. (Thus, spending Passover with their relatives.) As we now see, celebrating His birth in the Winter is a big mistake. (And, being so nonchalant about such a significant fact is a way of mocking God. We'll see more about this in Part Two.)

For those that don't believe this approach, let's look at other recorded facts in the Bible, and draw some comparisons. In the Gospel of Luke, several key details are given that link the birth of Jesus to other events that would've been recorded at the time. One of those events is the conception and birth of John the Baptizer^*. John was born to elderly parents: Zacharias and Elizabeth. Zacharias was a priest; and, his was a fairly common name among the Hebrews. So, to narrow down his identity, Luke gives us several more details. He was from the division of Abijah. And, his wife was "of the daughters of Aaron." (Verse 5. That detail becomes significant later in this explanation.) But, just in case all of those details don't narrow it down, there are some very distinctive details about Zacharias. First, during his service, he is made mute by the angel Gabriel. Second, his elderly (and heretofore barren) wife gives birth to a healthy son. Third, at the naming ceremony, Zacharias regains his ability to speak. The point is that, during the time when the Temple was still in operation (before Jerusalem was sacked by the Romans in 70 AD), any skeptic trying to disprove the story of Jesus could've looked through the Temple records of priestly duties. If the story were fiction, why would Luke include so many verifiable details? Now, why are the details about Zacharias so important?

Let's start with the fact that the Bible names his wife, and includes the detail that she was "of the daughters of Aaron." In Luke 1:26, we learn that the angel Gabriel made his Annunciation to Mary in the sixth month of Elizabeth's pregnancy. That pregnancy was widely known among people, because she was old and previously barren. More importantly, though, in Verse 36, the angel mentions that Elizabeth is Mary's relative. Thus, if Elizabeth was from the line of Aaron, then so was her relative Mary. Thus, in terms of His earthly lineage, Jesus was of the line of David (warrior king) on his father's side, and of the line of Aaron (high priest) on his mother's side. This lineage shows that Jesus had an inherent right to occupy both the throne and the altar.

Now, let's compare the timing of two events. After the angel appeared to Zacharias, and after the completion of his priestly duties, he went home to Elizabeth. Luke writes, in Verse 24, "Now after those days his wife Elizabeth conceived ...." (emphasis added) By comparison, when Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit, she "arose in those days and went into the hill country with haste ...." (Verse 39, emphasis added) The implication here is that Elizabeth did not conceive immediately after Zacharias completed his priestly duties. There was a gap of a certain period of time. I believe that many in the past have overlooked the gap of time as they tried to affix a date for the birth of Jesus. Without the gap in time, a calculation of His birth in December is not only possible but also likely. (I admire Joseph Farah's boldly logical presentation on that topic.) But, if every detail in the Bible has meaning (and it does), then Verse 24 contains the phrase "after those days" for a reason. (Perhaps, when she learned why her husband was mute, Elizabeth was not "in the mood" for quite awhile.) I believe that Farah's calculation of the time of Zacharias' priestly duties is correct, which puts them approximately in October. Exactly when in October, and how long a gap of time, are unknown factors that are buried in the differences between the ancient Hebrew calendar and the modern Western^† calendar. But, the Hebrew festival of Shavuot, which we know as Pentecost, is a key to our understanding.

The conception of John is important to the timing of the birth of Jesus, because Luke writes (Verse 26) that Gabriel made his Annunciation to Mary in the sixth month of Elizabeth's pregnancy. That is significant, because Elizabeth hid herself for the first five months (before she started "showing"). In order for Jesus to have been born in the Spring, when most lambs are born, then He would've been conceived in the Summer. Shavuot comes at the beginning of Summer, and marks both the "giving of the Law" and the firstfruits of the wheat harvest. One of the other titles of Jesus is the Bread of Life. Bread is made from wheat. Jesus was born in Bethlehem — "Beit Lechem" in Hebrew, meaning "house of bread").

Jesus taught, "Most assuredly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the ground and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it produces much grain." (John 12:24) Jesus left his Heavenly estate, went "into the ground" (first by coming to Earth, and later by being buried in it — just as ancient farmers first dropped the seeds into the furrow, and later covered them over), and died for our sins. Our acceptance of His atonement ensures that His act "produces much grain." Thus, it seems to me that the "planting" of Jesus occurred at the time of the Hebrew festival of Shavuot (the firstfruits of the wheat harvest). Jesus would be the firstfruit of Heaven, harvested for our Bread of Life.

If the above timing is true, then it opens up deeper levels of meaning to Verses 14 and 17 in the 1^st Chapter of the Gospel of John. Verse 14 says that Jesus is "full of grace and truth." Verse 17 says, "For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." Shavuot celebrates God's giving of the Law to the people of Israel through Moses. Wouldn't it make perfect sense that God also gave His ultimate expression of grace at the same point on the Israelite calendar? The historic church has referred to pre-Nativity time as the "Age of the Law," and post-Nativity time as the "Age of Grace." If the rule about fractions of years applies to prophets of God, then wouldn't it also apply to ages established by God? If so, then the two ages would certainly be marked by the same festival on the calendar. Grace was given on the same date as Law.

This timing would explain another detail from the Gospel of Luke: the pre-born John "leaping" in his mother's womb. In Leviticus 23:10-13, God demands a "wave offering" at the time of the wheat harvest. Obviously, while in his mother's womb, John did not have a sheaf of wheat in his hands. But, when he came into the presence of God Incarnate, it would have been reasonable for the prophet to offer a wave. If that seems "illogical," just remember that Gabriel told Zacharias that John would be filled with the Holy Spirit "even from his mother's womb." (Luke 1:15).

Just as the barley precedes the wheat in the farming cycle (which the ancient Hebrews clearly understood), John preceded Jesus and prepared the way for His earthly ministry. John even led the way in his death before Jesus. And, the beheading of John seems to be Satan's revenge for God's plague against Pharaoh. "Now the flax and the barley were struck, for the barley was in the head ...." (Leviticus 9:31) John was the barley, and Jesus is the wheat. God has a "foretype" for important events and characters in the Bible. And, by delaying John's conception for a short time, God ensured that his birth would be "fresh news" when Zacharias returned to the Temple for his annual duties the following year.

In summary, if Jesus was conceived at the time of the Firstfruits of the Wheat Harvest (Shavuot), then He would've been born in Spring, at the time of the lambing season, and the time of the Passover. Thus, under the "prophet's rule," He would have died on the same day that He was born: the Passover. And, by timing both His conception and His birth to major Hebrew festivals, God has proven that Jesus is the Messiah "for the Jew first and also for the Greek [Gentile].." (Romans 1:16, emphasis added) Thus, the celebration of His birth in December is way off, and completely dilutes the deeper meanings attached to the event by the timing of the Hebrew festivals. Ignoring this major link between the Old and New Testaments is one way of mocking God. But, as we will see in Part Two, the mockery goes much deeper.

planting seeds

Now, let's go back and revisit the visit of the Wise Men. We have already seen that the modern Christmas celebration places them where they never were, and creates "facts" about them that don't matter. But, why were they even there in the first place?

Modern myth speculates that they came from Babylon. But, what if that was wrong, too? (As we've seen so far, the track record indicates that it was.) A journey from the region that had been Babylon would've taken about six months. But, what if the Wise Men had come from much farther away? They didn't arrive in Bethlehem until Jesus was about two years old.

The city of Tabriz in northern Iran is home to groups representing many different religions. Tabriz is a cross-cultural city, located along ancient trading routes that connect Europe and Asia. Tabriz has a history of approximately three thousand continuous years. The city thrived with trade in those days, and was a key center for the major religion practiced in the region then. (By contrast, Babylon was in deep decline after the conquests by the Medes and Greeks. Part of God's punishment against Babylon was to turn it into desert.) During the conquests of Alexander the Great, over 300 years before the birth of Christ, he designated the city of Tabriz as a colonial capital. One of Alexander's generals, Atropates, ruled the colony of Azerbaijan. In the Azeri language, the name of their country means "land of fire." Although this seems to be from the "mud volcanoes" of the region, could there be an even deeper meaning?

The mud volcanoes are produced by the constant buildup of flammable gas, which comes from the famous near-surface Azerbaijani petroleum deposits. These deposits have been harnessed into "temples of fire," which have been used by the Zoroastrian religion of that area for 2,500 continuous years. The founder, Zoroaster (also transliterated as Zarathustra) was born in the Azerbaijani city of Urmia. Some scholars believe that the Garden of Eden was located there, and not at Uruk (in southern Iraq). But, could both be true? In other words, did the Garden have a southern gate at Uruk and a northern gate at Urmia? (Although the precise location cannot be known, this idea is presented as a way of showing that the answer might not fall into the "either/or" category.) If the Garden of Eden was (at least partially) located at Urmia, then a case can be made for the Wise Men coming from the region of Azerbaijan — and most likely from Tabriz. The importance of this point will soon become clear.

At the time that God cast out Adam and Eve from the Garden, He posted "a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life." (Genesis 3:24) Could the constant fires of the Azerbaijani petroleum gas pockets be the remnant of that flaming sword? If so, then did God call the Wise Men to declare the birth of salvation from the very land where sin was born? As we have seen with other foretypes in the Bible, such details reveal the magnificence of God's plan of salvation. To me, it only makes perfect sense. This is especially true in light of the ancient Orthodox Christian hymn that has come to be known as the Christmas Troparion. "Thy Nativity, O Christ our God, has shown the world the light of reason. For by it those who worship the stars were taught by a star to adore Thee: the Sun of Righteousness...." (Malachi 4:2)

The city of Tabriz is located in the rugged mountains of what is now northern Iran. (And, because of the much greater distance, would have been about two years' journey from Jerusalem.) Although it is technically in Iran, the inhabitants of that region are mostly Azeri people (not Persians) — the same as the inhabitants of the separate Republic of Azerbaijan. But, while the mountains rise to the east of Tabriz, the vast Mesopotamian Plain begins to spread out to its west. Thus, it would have been a perfect location for "those who worship the stars" to observe the Star of Bethlehem.

Astrology and astronomy were common throughout the Middle East, and beyond, in ancient times. So, why would I suggest that Tabriz is a place where the Wise Men could have come from? It is not because of the men themselves. Rather, it is because of the location. God was reclaiming the land of Eden itself from the stain of sin. (Daniel 10:13 reveals that specific demons are assigned to specific lands. Thus, it would make sense that God would redeem a sin-stained land as part of His redemption of mankind.) And, at the same time, God was planting new seeds of salvation along the trade routes.

In the act of organizing a caravan to present expensive gifts to a faraway King, it would have been necessary for the Wise Men to tell people what they were doing. If it took two years to get to Bethlehem, then it must've taken them even longer to return, because Herod wanted them dead. (If they spread their knowledge of the Messiah's birth to other lands, then King Herod would be "out of a job" — and, he would become the laughingstock of the world for his slaughter of the Innocents, which precisely paralleled what Pharaoh had done in an attempt to stop Moses.) Imagine trying to recruit men to go on "a five year mission, to do what no man has done before." How many people at the city of origin heard about the purpose of the journey? How many other people did those people tell? And, more importantly, how many people heard the stories from the Wise Men after they returned from Bethlehem and Jerusalem?

Because Tabriz is a city along a major route of travel, trade, and conquest, the stories told by the Wise Men would have begun to spread during Jesus' childhood. Thus, by the telling of these stories along the trade route, God had planted seeds that would enable people to later hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ and understand it. The fact that the Wise Men (probably Zoroastrian astrologer-priests) made the journey in the first place would be enough to convince many listeners of the importance of the young King Jesus.

foundations laid

Believe it or not, there is more to tell regarding what needs to be done to produce an extreme makeover of our ramshackle version of The Feast of the Nativity. Part One has only told part of "what happened" to Christmas. Hopefully, it will ignite a discussion within Christendom about the need to make changes. What changes are needed? Should we scrap Christmas altogether? (Some denominations did that decades, or centuries, ago. From the founding of America until after the Civil War, the celebration of Christmas was either ignored or outlawed in most of this country.) How did we come to accept the Pagan influences of the celebration of Jesus' Nativity? How do we rid ourselves of those influences? Or, do we even have the willpower to do so? Those questions will be addressed in Part Two.


© Tom Kovach