The Real Manger Scene
The companion chapter about the birth and boyhood of Jesus is found in Luke 2. Joseph and Mary journeyed from their home in Nazareth (where Jesus later grew up) to Bethlehem for several reasons. First of all, it is very likely that Joseph knew from the prophecy of Micah that Jesus had to be born in Bethlehem (cf. Matt. 2:4-6; Micah 5:2-3). Secondly, the whole Roman world was being taxed at that precise time by a decree from Emperor Caesar Augustus (Luke 2:1-5). Thirdly, there is every indication that this was also the time of the fall festival season. The logical time for taxes to be paid was at the week-long Jewish Feast of Tabernacles in the autumn — the highlight of the fall festivals.
Remember that "there was no room for them in the inn" (verse 7). Mass attendance at the fall feasts caused quite a housing problem in Jerusalem which spilled right on over into nearby "suburbs" like Bethlehem (about five miles from Jerusalem proper). The whole area was simply swarming with people — perhaps even up to two million in a region normally limited to about a 200,000 population. By the time Joseph and Mary arrived in Bethlehem, "stable rooms" were the only available accommodations.
Now notice the entirety of verse 7: "And she [Mary] brought forth her firstborn son [there were others born later — see Matthew 13:55], and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn." Here the actual account of Jesus' birth is described by Luke. No calendar date is given. Apparently God very carefully obscured the exact date of Christ's birth.
However, as stated before, the general time of the year is clearly indicated in verse 8: "And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field [an impossibility anywhere near December 25th], keeping watch over their flock by night."
Verses 9-12: "And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them . . . And the angel said unto them [the shepherds] . . . . For unto you is born — this day in the city of David a Savior, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger."
Two vital points quickly come to mind. First, it is stated plainly that an angel appeared to these shepherds and spoke the enunciation. It would seem very logical that God would use the same modus operandi to inform the wise men in Matthew's account, though the language there is certainly cloaked in symbol.
Secondly, the angel appeared to these shepherds on the exact date of Christ's birth (verse 11); yet Luke, the Gospel writer, does not bother to include a clarifying parenthetical remark complete with a calendar date (such parenthetical clarifications can be found in several places in the same chapter — verses 2, 4, 23, 35).
Peace on Earth?
Immediately after the enunciation, these same shepherds were startled by a large group of angels (verse 13) who were saying: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men" (verse 14). At least that's the way the King James Version has it.
But was there much peace on earth in Jesus' earthly lifetime? We read earlier of a mass killing of infants and toddlers; several attempts were made on Christ's life prior to the crucifixion.
Is there peace now? We've had sixty wars since World War II. Big nations around this world are armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons just in case we do, after all, have to fight the war that must not be fought. The truth is that there has been precious little peace on earth or good will toward men since the time Cain killed Abel.
Why, then, did a chorus of angels say such a thing at the enunciation of Christ's birth? The 1611 translation is the guilty party in this case. Almost all modern translations correct this flagrant mistranslation in the King James. The Revised Standard Version has it: "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom he [God] is pleased!" The Phillips translation renders it: "Glory to God in the highest Heaven! Peace upon earth among men of goodwill!"
The Shepherds Arrive
Continue the story in verses 15 and 16: "And-it-came-to-pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which is come to pass. . . . And they came with haste, and found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying in a manger."
There are many important differences (but not contradictions) between the two accounts in the second chapters of Matthew and Luke. One is that, unlike the wise men as explained previously, the shepherds 'immediately rushed to the scene of Christ's birth. By the time the wise men finally arrived, Joseph had already moved Jesus from the emergency accommodations of a manger into a house (Matt. 2:11).
The shepherds were apparently nearby "in the same country" (Luke 2:8); the wise men were "from the east to Jerusalem" (Matt. 2:1) — apparently quite a long distance away, as is obvious from the fact that Herod was so completely unsure of Jesus' birth date.
The biblical facts clearly show that Jesus Christ of Nazareth was not born on or anywhere near December 25th — the date of the pagan celebration called "Christmas." Further, He was born not in the winter, but in the autumn or fall of the year.
Was Christ Born "B.C."?
You may also be surprised to learn that Christ was actually born in the year 4 B.C. But how could that possibly be? How could Jesus have been born before He was born — "Before Christ"?
Think a moment! Did all the world suddenly begin to reckon time differently at the birth of Christ? Did everyone announce that from this point on, they would begin year A.D. 1 (Anno Domini, or "Year of Our Lord")? Did the whole Western world suddenly begin counting time the same way you have always counted time?
Why, of course not. Many of the facts presented in this article clearly show the obscurity of the time factors surrounding Christ's birth. Further, the Jews in Palestine were then counting time according to the regional years of their rulers (Luke 3:1). The Chinese count time differently than we do, or than do the Jews. The Mohammedans, or the adherents of Islam, reckon time from the Hegira, or the flight of Mohammed from Mecca to Medina.
In the so-called "Christian" world, we are now supposedly living in the year One Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy-five After Christ. But are we really?
A Pagan Calendar
Believe it or not, our whole method of counting time is completely pagan. All your plans, your calendar markings, your "dates" with friends have always been set according to pagan, heathen days and seasons.
Did you ever analyze the very names of days? Sunday is the chief day of the professing Christian world — or the day specially dedicated to the sun god, not the Son of God! Monday is the second day of the week, and the day of the moon god. In other languages, such as in some of the Romance tongues, the word lunes (having the same Latin root as our word "lunar") is used. When you use the term "looney," referring to someone who is crazy, you are actually reverting to an ancient superstition that people became "moonstruck" or went crazy because of the influence of the moon. The remainder of the days of the week all have similar origins.
But what about the months? The very same thing has happened. The Romans, and then the professing Christian world, adapted the same old pagan calendar, calling the names of the months not after the divinely revealed pattern of the Bible, but after the god "Janus" or "Juno," or in honor of a pagan emperor, such as Julius or Augustus.
Even the Years Are Wrong
But what about today's date? Are we really living in the One Thousand Nine Hundred Seventy-fifth year since Christ's birth? No, we are not! Actually, until about September of 1976, we will have been living in the 1979th year since the birth of Christ.
Let's understand. God did not instruct man regarding the manner of reckoning time according to A.D. or B.C. This is a devising of man's. The present-day method of calculating years and epochs was first established by Dionysius the Little (a Roman Catholic abbot who lived in the sixth century) and began to be used only in parts of Italy — not reaching France until the eighth century.
The Florentines continued to use a totally different method of reckoning the passage of years, until even as late as the eighteenth century. Further, different peoples, according to location and religion, began the years on different dates, and in different months. It was Dionysius who began assigning the years prior to Christ as those Ante Christum (in English, "Before Christ"), and those following the supposed date of His birth as Anno Domini or "Year of Our Lord."
Dionysius' method of dividing the years with the supposed time of the birth of Christ has led to countless difficulties. For instance, astronomers, counting either backward or forward,
insert a year "0" between A.D. 1 and 1 B.C. Chronologers and historians do not. Isn't it a little confusing to use two totally different systems, the one the exact opposite of the other, when reckoning time? Not only do historians and chronologers resort to a double manner of reckoning, but they must also remember that the cycles of the leap years are totally different in the years "B.C."
Was Dionysius able to be completely objective? Was he completely honest with himself — driven only by the intellectual and philosophical pursuit of new knowledge and truth? Or was he striving to see how he could devise a method which would blend the pagan customs with the "Christian" ones?
To this Hislop replies: "The instrument in accomplishing this amalgamation was the abbot Dionysius the Little, to whom also we owe it, as modern chronologers have demonstrated, that the date of the Christian era, or the birth of Christ Himself was moved four years from the true time." (Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons, p. 105, emphasis mine)
These ancient chronologers did not lose four years, as some have feared. They just misplaced Christ's date of birth by pushing it forward four years on the calendar they had already devised.
The Real Jesus
Perhaps many of the above points surrounding the birth of your Savior are relatively minor ones when compared to the major truths concerning salvation and entrance into the Kingdom of God. But if there are so many misunderstandings, untruths, myths and diametric opposites extant in the religious world about even His birth, how many are there concerning the really important things about the life and teachings of Jesus Christ?
They are legion! And that is absolutely true whether you are talking about the person of Christ or His teachings. When people hear the phonetic sound of the name "Jesus," a mismash of hazy concepts about a false Jesus that never existed comes. into their minds. It would take a "ton" of articles to even begin to clear up all the pagan traditions, false ideas and deliberate distortions about Jesus Christ of Nazareth.
Fortunately, we publish a couple of booklets that will help get you much farther down the road to understanding the real Christ and what He did and did not teach. Write for your free copies of The Real Jesus and What Is a Real Christian?
The first booklet proves that Jesus did not have long hair; did not break the laws of the land; was subject to civil authorities; was not "anti-establishment," sometimes hobnobbed with the upper crust of society; was a "family" man with brothers and sisters as well as a mother and legal father. It also clearly shows that Jesus did have as many as two houses in different cities; was definitely not a vagabond who always slept out-of-doors; did pay taxes; and looked like any normal Jew of His day. Be sure to write immediately for this challenging booklet entitled The Real Jesus.
The other booklet — What Is a Real Christian? — shows the great yawning chasm between what Jesus really taught and what the Western world of religion "perceives" Him to have taught. It begins with the clearest and most fundamental of Christ's teachings in the "Sermon on the Mount" and proceeds from there to such basic subjects as repentance and water baptism.
You owe it to yourself to request these two attractively printed, color cover booklets. Even our longer reprint articles are of necessity limited in what they can cover by lack of space. But you can get a thorough, much more complete understanding of any of these vital biblical topics by simply requesting and reading these many, many booklets that we send out by the multiple thousands every single year.