The Christmas Story comes down to us from antiquity from two main sources. I’m not counting the Armenian Infancy Gospels or 
the more modern Saint Nicholas folklore.
The Story of Jesus coming to earth as a baby are delivered to us by primarily two of the gospel writers – Matthew and Luke. They give the details. They highlight the fulfilled prophecy. They place the event in world and Jewish history. But the other two Gospels tell us a lot more His arrival and purpose than we might otherwise pick up on in either of the main historical accounts.
The beauty of historical accounts show us the authors main focus and main purpose and taking a few posts to look at how each Gospel writer handles the coming of Jesus as a baby reveals their message to their first readers and to us today.
Let’s take a look at how Jesus’ birth is handled in each gospel. It’s an interesting study.
Christmas According to Matthew
The Gospel of Matthew was written to Jewish believers. His genealogy places Jesus in Jewish history. He continually points out how Jesus fulfills the prophecy for the Messiah – including, but not limited to the fact that the Messiah:
- Would be a descendant of Shem named Abraham ( Genesis 22:18; 12; 17; 22). Fulfilled: See Christ’s genealogy in Matthew 1.
- Would be a descendant of Abraham’s son, Isaac, not Ishmael (Gen. 17; 21). Fulfilled: See Christ’s genealogy in Matthew 1.
- Would be a descendant of Isaac’s son, Jacob, not Esau (Gen. 28; 35:10-12; Num. 24:17). Fulfilled: See Christ’s genealogy in Matthew 1.
- Would be a descendant of Judah, not of the other eleven brothers of Jacob. Fulfilled: See Christ’s genealogy in Matthew 1.
- Would be a descendant of the family of Jesse in the tribe of Benjamin (Isaiah 11:1-5). Fulfilled: See Christ’s genealogy in Matthew 1 and Luke 3:23-38.
- Would be of the house of David (2 Samuel 7:12-16; Jeremiah 23:5; Psalm 89:3-4). Fulfilled: See Christ’s genealogy in Matthew 1; Luke 1:27, 32, 69. Note: Since the the Jewish genealogical records were destroyed in 70 A.D., along with the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, it would not be possible for a Messiah impostor who was born later to prove his lineage back to David and thus fulfill this prophecy.
- Would be born in a small city called Bethlehem, specifically the one formerly known as Ephratah (Micah 5:2). Fulfilled: Matthew 2:4-6
- Would be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14). Fulfilled: Matthew 1; Luke 1.
- Would come while the Temple of Jerusalem is standing ( Malachi 3:1; Psalm 118:26; Daniel 9:26; Zechariah 11:13; Haggai 2:7-9). Fulfilled: Matthew 21:12, etc.
- Will perform many miracles (Isaiah 35:5-6). Fulfillment: See the Gospels
- Will open the eyes of the blind (Isa. 29:18). Fulfillment: Matt 9:27-31; 12:22; 20:29;
- Will speak in parables (Psalm 78:2). Fulfillment: Matthew 13:34, etc.
- Will have his way prepared by a messenger (a man of the wilderness) (Isa. 40:3; Malachi 3:1). See John the Baptist (Matthew 3:1-3; 11:10; John 1:23; Luke 1:17).
- Will be betrayed (Psalm 41:9). Fulfillment: Matt. 27:3-10.
- Will be betrayed by a friend (Psalm 41:9). Fulfillment: Matt. 27:3-10; 26:47-48.
- Will be betrayed for thirty pieces of silver (Zech. 11:12). Fulfillment: Matt. 27:3-10.
- The betrayal money will be cast onto the floor (Zech. 11:13). Fulfillment: Matt. 27:5.
- The betrayal money will be cast onto the floor of the Temple (Zech. 11:13). Fulfillment: Matt. 27:3-10.
- The betrayal money will be used to buy a potter’s field (Zech. 11:13). Fulfillment: Matt. 27:6-10.
- Will not open his mouth to defend himself (Isaiah 53:7). Fulfillment: Matthew 27:12.
- Will be beaten and spit upon (Isaiah 50:6). Fulfillment: Matthew 26:67; 27:26-30.
- Will be “numbered with the transgressors” (Isaiah 53:12). Fulfillment: Jesus was crucified as a criminal in between two thieves (Mat 27:38).
- Will be given vinegar and gall to drink (Psalm 69:21). Fulfillment: Matthew 27:34, 48.
- Will be buried with the rich (Isaiah 53:9). Fulfillment: Matthew 27.
- Will be the Son of God (Psa. 2:7). Fulfilled: Matthew 3:17, etc.
Jewish people around the time of Jesus were looking for a Messiah who would be King. Their recent history proved that a dedicated resistance – with the help of God – could overthrow a world power and set up an earthly Kingdom. This is exactly what happened during the inter-testmental period when Judas Maccabeus revolted against the Seleucid Empire. The Greeks had forbidden the practicing Jewish religion since 175 BC. Maccabeus was ultimately victorious, saw the miracle that is remembered in Hanukkah and forged an alliance with the emerging state of Rome to keep the theocracy free.
It happened once – not that long ago in the memory of an ancient people – and Lord willing it could happen again.
Matthew’s genealogy ends with Joseph. He wrote about Joseph and the dreams God gave him. The father’s role of the Messiah was important to the early Jewish believers.
Matthew mentions the weeping in Ramah over the deaths of the children under two by Herod. He talks about Herod, the king in Jerusalem. He includes the Magi coming to find the King and the gifts they brought to the house. There is no mention of the shepherds, no hint of the birth in the manger. Matthew was writing to Jewish Christians to tell them their King had come.
Christmas according to Matthew is the birth of our King.
I love the story in Matthew. It tells me God is in control. Prophecy foretold years in advance is shown as fulfilled. Dreams direct Joseph telling him what to do, when to go and when to come. God is involved in the major life decisions of this family with a young king to care for… and He’s willing to give me similar directions.
Jesus is King. He is sovereign. But He’s not uninvolved with the affairs of man. Christmas according to Matthew proves this once again to me.
Christmas According to Mark
I wonder how many people came to this section with no idea that Mark says nothing about Christmas. I’m sure I snagged a few theologians who think I’m either unschooled or a heretic and are reading to find which it is.
Mark’s conspicuous absence of a nativity account speaks volumes to us and that’s what I want us to consider.
Why would Mark – that in many ways is so close to its synoptic brothers (Matthew and Luke) – leave out any mention of the coming of Jesus as a baby?
Mark starts with a quick mention of John the Baptist and then right into Jesus’ baptism and ministry. He doesn’t seem to care about the prophecies Jesus fulfilled like Matthew. He certainly doesn’t care to put Jesus into Jewish or World history. Some describe Mark a a passion with a longer introduction. Before I explain that, let’s take a look at a few things about the book of Mark.
Since the earliest times it’s been held that Mark, while a witness to the events of Jesus’ life, was the scribe for Peter. Remember Peter was the one to jump onto the waves. He was the one to run into the tomb when John stopped at the entrance. He was the one to speak up when the rest of the disciples were quite. He was the impetuous one.
42 times in 16 chapter (and these are just the ones that make it into English) the word “immediately” is used in the book of Mark. Everything in Mark is focussed on the one event. Everything in Mark rushes towards the reason Jesus came. Mark is so focussed on the passion of Christ – His death on the cross – that he doesn’t have time to waste on Jesus‘ birth.
And that’s something we can never forget in the Christmas season. Yes, Jesus came as a baby and we celebrate his birthday on the only day early Christians could celebrate together as slave and free – the pagan holiday of Saturnalius – but we should never forget Jesus came to this world to die. His death paid the price for our sins. It satisfied the requirements for justice. It made us friends again with the Father. And by His stripes we were healed.
Christmas without the cross is no better than a pagan holiday.
Christmas according to Mark is Jesus came to die.
Christmas According to Luke
Matthew placed Jesus in Jewish history. Luke places Jesus in world history. He puts it in time – Caesar Augusts taxes the world during the time Quirinuis was governor of Syria . His genealogy ends with Adam.
Luke has carefully researched the events around Christ’s birth – and he starts with the events around Jesus’ cousin’s birth – the miraculous birth of John.
Luke gives fuller accounts of angels – Matthew talks about angels appearing in dreams (more acceptable to a first century Jewish audience) while Luke is writing to Theopilus -either a Greek patron or a group of Greek believers that were known as “God Lovers”. The Greeks were more accustomed to stories of the gods interacting with humans and so would be interested in angelic encounters. He writes about the angel coming to Zachariah who didn’t believe He could become a father and so had his mouth shut until the prophecy was fulfilled. Luke talks about everything Mary hid in her heart about Gabriel’s visit. He reveals the story of the shepherd in the field keeping watch over their flocks by night and lo, the angel of the Lord stood before them and the glory of the Lord shone around them and they were terrified… sorry got lost in a Sunday School production… oh it’s too good, let’s keep going… and the angel said to them – “Fear Not, for behold I bring you news of great joy that shall be for all people, for unto you is born this day in the city of David, a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you ‘you shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes lying in a manger.” And suddenly, there was with the angel a multitude of heavenly hosts singing “Glory to God in the highest and on earth, peace to all men on whom his favor rests”…
Wow, that takes me back… don’t you love Christmas pageants when you can’t hear the kids and don’t care if their lines get mixed up? I don’t care for the professional pageants – but hey if you like them, don’t let me stop you. I know the work that goes into them needs to be appreciated… where was I? OH yah, Luke…
Luke mentions the accounts of women – Mary, Elizabeth, Anna. He’s the one to talk about the sheep herders in the field. He’s the one who makes sure we know they laid the child in a manger because there was no room in the inn. He makes sure to let you know the Angels said this is “great joy for all people”.
Luke was writing to Greek speaking believers who needed to know the Jewish Messiah was for them. You don’t have to be born into the right family. You don’t need to be the top of society. You don’t need to be a man to be loved by God.
It’s a message we need to get out to people every day. Why do non-Christians describe Christians as “Judgmental”? Because too often we are. As long as we have it right, it doesn’t matter who’s going to hell. That’s not the message of Luke.
Christmas according to Luke is Jesus came for all.
Christmas According to John
Can you guess what my favorite Christmas account is?
Is it Matthew that tells us Jesus came as our King? I love Matthew’s interest in how prophecy is fulfilled – I don’t understand it all, but I enjoy seeing how he saw prophecy fulfilled. But it’s not my favorite narrative.
Is it the lack of a story in Mark? When I was a kid, Dad started a tradition of reading a Christmas narrative before we opened our presents. When we read from Luke it seemed like forever. Matthew was quicker, but lacked the angels in the field. I never could get Dad to read the Mark account, even though I’d ask him for it every year… I mean really, those gifts just don’t open themselves. I love remembering Jesus came with a purpose – He came to die, but the lack of an account in Mark is not my favorite account. Besides now I take some pleasure in making my kids wait to open their presents.
Is it the detail of Luke I love? Luke is the classic account. It has so much detail and is so well written, it rolls of the tongue. I so appreciate knowing Jesus came for all, but it’s not my favorite account of the nativity.
So you guessed it. Christmas According to John is my favorite account. It puts the awe of the advent into me every year. I love reading it, reciting it, meditating on it. It’s powerful.
Where is it you ask? Well, here it is. I’m doing this from memory – I can’t remember how far it goes, but it starts with John 1:1:
In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God and the Word was God – He was with God in the beginning. Through him all things were made, without him nothing has been made. In him was life and his life is the light of men. The light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not understood it. There was one sent from God his name was John, he came a witness to the light to testify so that all men might believe. He himself was not the light, he came as a witness to the light. The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world. He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. He came into his own and his own did not receive him. Yet to all who receive him, to those who believed in his name he gave the right to become children of God. Children not born of natural descent or human wisdom or a husband’s will… but born of God. The Word became flesh and made his dwelling with us…
There it is: “The Word became flesh and (literally) camped out for a while.” Remember I said Matthew puts the birth of Jesus in Jewish history and Luke puts the birth of Jesus in World history? John puts the birth of Jesus in Cosmic history.
The One who spoke and the 400 million stars of this galaxy were formed and 400 million galaxies of this Universe came into being – the one who sustains the spin of an electron around a proton and makes the dark matter we’re only speculating about keep the universe together… took on flesh and camped out for a while.
Yes, Jesus came as our King. He came to die in our place. He came for all. But the thing that continually puts me in awe of Christmas is HE CAME. Immanual – “God With Us” stripped himself of his omnipresence and omniscience and came as a helpless baby in a manger.
I don’t understand. I can only see the edges of this picture. But I appreciate it and I’m in awe of it.
Christmas According to John is GOD came.
And shouldn’t we always have that sense of awe when we consider the greatness and love of our great and loving God?
My prayer for you this Christmas is that you’ll find a reverential awe that you’ll experience throughout the year. Take the time to explore more of God today.
Very nice post. I just stumbled upon your blog and wanted to say that I’ve truly enjoyed surfing around your blog posts. After all I’ll be subscribing to your rss feed and I hope you write again soon!
Thank you…how did you get to Christmas info in May?
This one was very handy, exactly what I was lookin’ for
Thank you for letting me know.
I love your current blog Looking at the Christmas Story Through The Eyes of The Authors | RevTrev.com. Thanks a ton with regard to this amazing blog post! I will bookmark your blog site and additionally check again right here often.
Thanks so much
What an awesome look at the entire Christmas narrative…John’s my favorite as well.
Thanks Benjer.
Great video on your site. I’m working on a book on persecuted Christians with a friend who works with VOM. Let’s keep in touch.
People have heard enough about Jesus to think.
That doesn’t mean I should ever stop talking about Him.
Trev,
I was interested in your look at the Christmas story from these different angles. It seems to me that the reason that each of the different gospels tell a different version of the Christmas story is because they were collectively written by groups who had different focuses for their religious work and vision. Mark, the oldest of the gospels, was written shortly the destruction of the second temple in 70 AD with only a remote chance that the authors witnessed anything they wrote about. As time passed on the story became more mythologized. John is my favorite version as well but isn’t a synoptic gospel – it is a highly symbolic one. It also is the youngest gospel written furthest away from the time of Jesus by people who had zero chance to have been around Jesus.
This is not to detract from the value of the story nor of the religious impact of Jesus or the value of faith but the comprehensive way you looked at the story brought up other ways of valuing the story while grounding the story in history more deeply.
The fact of the matter is that we don’t really know when Jesus was born at all and the way that we got the date of Christmas is pretty mushy. The fact that many other gods in the pagan world also have a “birthday” of December 25th is weird.
Dionysius Exiguus, a Russian monk was asked by Pope John I to set out the calendar dates for Easter from the years 527 for the next hundred years. For some reason the Pope wanted to impose some order on the erratic celebration of Easter – which was the big holiday. In order to do this job Dionysius had to do some math and decided to calculate this calendar based on what he considered to be the year of Jesus’ birth. He chose the year in which Rome had been founded and determined, from the evidence known to him, that Jesus had been born 753 years later.
The first mention of December 25th as the birthday of Jesus was by Hippolytus (170–236) but not only is it a passing reference but this claim doesn’t have any counter reference elsewhere or arguments for it. But Dionysius came up with one…
The thought of the day was that God created the earth on March 25.
It was inconceivable that the son of God could have been in any way imperfect
Ergo Jesus must have been conceived on March 25
This meant that he must have been born nine months later—December 25.
And that Jesus, as a perfect being, could not have lived an incomplete life so he must have died on March 25 as well
December 25 was an fortunate date to work with. In 274 Emperor Aurelian declared December 25 a civic holiday in celebration of the birth of Mithras, the sun god. By 336, in that same city, Christians countered by celebrating the birth of Jesus, the son of God, on December 25.
In 375 Antioch Christians celebrated the birth of Jesus on January 6. Alexandrian Christians didn’t begin to celebrate Christmas at all until 430. So until Dionysius came along there was confusion over dates, matching the date with pagan son gods and debates raged, even over the usefulness of celebrating the birth of Jesus at all. What had been universally important for all Christians—the pre-eminent event—was the celebration of Easter.
So inn 527 Dionysus formalized the date of Jesus’ birth and finally put Christmas on the map in a big ways. Jesus was born, he declared, on December 25 in the Roman year 753. Dionysius then suspended time for a few days, declaring January 1, 754—New Year’s day in Rome—as the first year in a new era of world history.
Perhaps not intentionally Dionysius managed to shift the attention of the church from Easter to Christmas. From that point forward it seemed only logical to celebrate the birth of Jesus before his death. If the crucifixion had made possible salvation for all people everywhere then his birth was the sign that God was identifying with human kind by taking human form.
But Dionysius didn’t know that he made a serious oops with his calculations. In Matthew Jesus is said to have been born while Herod was still King (2:1). That would translate into somewhere in the range of 8 bc – 4 bc according to the calculations of Dionysius. As a consequence, for Christians the year 2000 is not two thousand years after the birth of Jesus, but probably more like 2004.
But Dionysius had some other mistakes…. he followed the convention of the time and, as the Roman calendar moved from the year 753 to 754, he called the latter “year one” of the New World order—anno domini the year of our Lord. But the concept of zero didn’t come into Europe from Arabia and India until about two hundred years later. As a result, centuries end with zero and begin with the digit one. So for us the year 2000 is the end of one millennium but the beginning of the next was in 2001.
But it gets worse. When Pope Gregory tidied up the calendar on February 24th, 1582, the calendar lost eleven days. To synchronize the calendar of Dionysius with the movement of the sun, October 4th became October 15th, and to avoid having to make further adjustments a leap year was introduced. Pope Gregory might have known of the mistakes made by Dionysius but he more deeply entrenched them into the calendar.
The last dating problem comes with Bishop Ussher (1581–1656) who worked out the precise year of creation as 4004 bc . (He knew about Dionysisus getting the date of Jesus’ birth wrong.) But he also advanced the view that the earth had a total life span of six thousand years. In order to come up with this conclusion he based his calculations on all the generations mentioned in the Bible.
The outcome Ussher’s calculations was to make January 1, 2000 (or is it 2001?) the date for the end of the world. And we know how that predictions…and others like it have gone over the last two millennia.
In reality we do not know when Jesus was born—neither the year, the month, nor the day. The chronology of our western calendar is based on mythology masquerading as theology.
This is all to say that the actual day of the birth of Jesus is really irrelevant and has been deeply mythologized to fit into certain religious world views. But the date of December 25th is a good date. The pagans who celebrated the birth of their Sun Gods on the December 25th – Invictus Sol, Krishna, Mithras, Osiris-Ra, AhuraDionysius Exiguus, a monk from Russia who died about 544, was asked by Pope John I to set out the dates for Easter from the years 527 to 626. It seems that the Pope was keen to produce some order in the celebration of Easter. Dionysius decided to begin with what he considered to be the year of Jesus’ birth. He chose the year in which Rome had been founded and determined, from the evidence known to him, that Jesus had been born 753 years later.
He was almost certainly acquainted with a suggestion by Hippolytus (170–236) that the date of Jesus’ birth was December 25, but the trouble was that Hippolytus had not backed up this claim with sound arguments. Dionysius, however, had just the argument:
His contemporaries claimed that God created the earth on March 25.
It was inconceivable that the son of God could have been in any way imperfect.
Therefore Jesus must have been conceived on March 25.
This meant that he must have been born nine months later—December 25.
(Dionysius also concluded that, as a perfect being, Jesus could not have lived an incomplete life so he must have died on March 25 as well!)
December 25 was an auspicious choice. In 274, in Rome, the Emperor Aurelian declared December 25 a civic holiday in celebration of the birth of Mithras, the sun god. By 336, in that same city, Christians countered by celebrating the birth of Jesus, the son of God, on December 25.
Christians in Antioch in 375 celebrated the birth of Jesus on January 6. Christians in Alexandria did not begin to celebrate Christmas at all until 430. So until Dionysius came along there was confusion over dates, and debates raged, even over the usefulness of celebrating the birth of Jesus at all. What had been universally important for all Christians—the pre-eminent event—was the celebration of Easter.
When, in 527, he formalized the date of Jesus’ birth, Dionysius put Christmas on the map. Jesus was born, he declared, on December 25 in the Roman year 753. Dionysius then suspended time for a few days, declaring January 1, 754—New Year’s day in Rome—as the first year in a new era of world history.
With a stroke of ingenuity Dionysius had managed to shift the attention of the church from Easter to Christmas. From this point in time it seemed only logical to celebrate the birth of Jesus before his death. If Jesus’ death by crucifixion had made possible salvation for all people everywhere, so the argument went, then his birth was the sign that God was identifying with human kind by taking human form.
But Dionysius made a mistake in his calculations. Perhaps he had never read the gospel account of the birth of Jesus. In Matthew Jesus is said to have been born while Herod was still King (2:1). That would translate into 4 b.c. (or even earlier) according to the calculations of Dionysius. As a consequence, for Christians the year 2000 is not two thousand years after the birth of Jesus, but more like 2004.
That was not his only mistake. Dionysius followed the convention of his times and, as the Roman calendar moved from the year 753 to 754, he called the latter “year one” of the New World order—anno domini the year of our Lord. The concept of naught didn’t come into Europe from Arabia and India until about two hundred years later. As a result, centuries end with naught and begin with the digit one. So for us the year 2000 is the end of one millennium but it is not the beginning of the next: that will occur in 2001.
Later, when Pope Gregory tidied up the calendar on 24 February 1582, the calendar lost eleven days. To synchronise the calendar of Dionysius with the movement of the sun, October 4 became October 15, and to avoid having to make further adjustments a leap year was introduced. Pope Gregory must also have known of the mistakes made by Dionysius but all he did was to confirm them, perhaps hoping that no one would notice.
There is one other problem. Bishop Ussher (1581–1656) worked out the precise year of creation as 4004 b.c. (He knew about Dionysisus getting the date of Jesus’ birth wrong.) But he also advanced the view that the earth had a total life span of six thousand years. In order to come up with this conclusion he based his calculations on all the generations mentioned in the Bible.
The upshot of his calculations was to make January 1, 2000 (or is it 2001) the date for the end of the world! All this is sobering. Dionysius and, for that matter, Pope Gregory XIII and even Bishop Ussher have left us moderns with a strange legacy.
In reality we do not know when Jesus was born—neither the year, the month, nor the day. The chronology of our western calendar is based on mythology masquerading as theology.
The actual date of the birth of Jesus is irrelevant in my mind. The December 25th date was the birthdate of many pagan sun/ wisdom/ life/ ruling gods Mithras, Horus. Attis, Dionysus the son of Zeus, Tammuz, Hercules, Sol Invictus and Krishna are just a few.
The reason that the date was important was that was when the days got longer and the more light was brought into the world. Jesus can certainly be seen as that to be sure but the actual date and the actual story are lost to time. We must see the embellishments as just that and stick to true value and purpose – more light.
Thanks for the guest post