A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Examination of Christmas and the Worship of the Church Santamaeia

C

A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Examination of Christmas and the Worship of the Church

Introduction: A Celebration Without an Apostolic Command?

Among the most widely observed religious celebrations in Christianity is Christmas, traditionally commemorating the birth of Jesus Christ on December 25. For millions of professing Christians, Christmas represents a season of worship, thanksgiving, family gatherings, generosity, and reflection upon the incarnation of the Son of God.

Yet an important question deserves careful consideration: Does the Bible ever command, recommend, or even suggest that Christians establish an annual religious celebration commemorating the birth of Jesus Christ?

The answer requires a distinction between the biblical importance of Christ's birth and the religious observance subsequently established to commemorate it.

The Scriptures unquestionably declare the incarnation of Jesus Christ to be one of the greatest events in redemptive history. The eternal Word became flesh. The promised Messiah entered the world. The Son of God assumed human nature in fulfillment of God's eternal purpose of salvation.

Nevertheless, acknowledging the immeasurable importance of Christ's birth does not establish that Christians were commanded to commemorate that event by observing a particular day.

The historical record further complicates the matter. Although the New Testament records joyful responses to Christ's birth, it contains no explicit example of the apostles observing an annual festival of His nativity. Nor does it prescribe December 25, establish a Christmas service, or provide instructions for commemorating His birth through an annual ecclesiastical observance.

The question is therefore not whether the birth of Christ deserves rejoicing. It unquestionably does.

Rather, the question is whether the church possesses divine authority to establish a religious observance that Christ and His apostles did not institute.

This examination will consider the biblical accounts of Christ's birth, the distinction between rejoicing and religious observance, the significance of apostolic silence, the regulative principle of worship, the historical development of Christmas, and the contrasting interpretations offered by different Christian traditions.

1. The Angelic Announcement: Great Joy Without an Annual Festival

The clearest biblical proclamation concerning the joy associated with Christ's birth appears in Luke 2:10–11:

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

This passage establishes that Christ's birth was an occasion of extraordinary joy.

The announcement identifies the newborn child by three titles: Savior, Christ, and Lord. Each title reveals the theological importance of the event.

As Savior, Jesus came to accomplish the deliverance of His people from their sins, as Matthew 1:21 declares.

As Christ, He was the promised Messiah, fulfilling the divine promises given throughout the Old Testament.

As Lord, He possessed an authority and dignity extending far beyond the ordinary circumstances of His birth.

The angel did not announce merely the arrival of another child, but the appearance of the promised Redeemer.

Nevertheless, we must distinguish between what the angel announced and what the angel commanded.

The angel proclaimed good tidings of great joy. He did not command the shepherds to establish an annual celebration. He did not appoint a religious festival. He did not designate a recurring day for the church to observe.

The joy was directly connected to the event and its redemptive meaning.

There is no indication that the shepherds understood the angelic announcement as an instruction concerning the future religious calendar of God's people.

This distinction is fundamental.

A biblical event may be worthy of extraordinary rejoicing without becoming the subject of a divinely instituted annual religious observance.

The resurrection of Lazarus, the conversion of Saul of Tarsus, and the miraculous deliverance of Peter from prison were remarkable occasions of divine intervention. Yet the New Testament does not establish annual festivals commemorating these events.

Christ's incarnation is infinitely greater than those occurrences, but its greatness alone does not answer the separate question of whether a recurring festival was commanded.

2. The Heavenly Host Praised God at Christ's Birth

Luke 2:13–14 records:

"And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men."

This remarkable scene reveals heaven's response to the coming of Christ.

The angelic multitude glorified God because the incarnation manifested His grace, faithfulness, and redemptive purpose.

The praise was entirely appropriate.

Indeed, the incarnation deserves praise not merely once a year but throughout the entire life of the believer.

However, the participation of angels in a unique historical event does not necessarily establish a pattern of annual observance for the Christian church.

The heavenly host appeared on that occasion because of the extraordinary significance of the event itself.

There is no biblical account of the angels returning annually to commemorate the birth, nor any instruction requiring Christians to reproduce this angelic celebration on a fixed date.

This does not mean that Christians should refuse to praise God for the incarnation. On the contrary, they should continually acknowledge the grace revealed in Christ's coming.

The important distinction concerns the establishment of religious ordinances.

There is a difference between praising God for what He has accomplished and instituting an annual act of corporate worship as a religious obligation.

The former is unmistakably biblical. The authorization of the latter is the point under examination.

3. The Shepherds Glorified and Praised God

Luke 2:20 declares:

"And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things that they had heard and seen, as it was told unto them."

The shepherds responded to the revelation of Christ's birth with praise.

Their conduct provides an unmistakable example of believers rejoicing in the coming of the Savior.

Some Christians appeal to this passage as evidence that celebrating Christ's birth is entirely appropriate.

There is a measure of truth in that argument. Nothing in the passage suggests that rejoicing over the birth of Jesus is improper.

Indeed, refusing to acknowledge the glory of the incarnation would be contrary to the spirit of the passage.

However, the text says nothing about creating an annual religious holiday.

The shepherds praised God because they had just witnessed the fulfillment of the angelic announcement. Their rejoicing was a spontaneous response to divine revelation.

The passage does not report that they returned to Bethlehem every year to celebrate the anniversary.

Neither does it indicate that they instructed others to establish such a practice.

Consequently, the passage establishes the propriety of rejoicing in Christ's birth but does not demonstrate the divine institution of Christmas.

This distinction between an appropriate spiritual response and an obligatory religious ceremony appears repeatedly throughout Scripture.

4. The Wise Men Worshiped Christ, but Did Not Establish Christmas

Matthew 2:1–11 records the visit of the wise men from the East.

Matthew 2:11 states:

"And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh."

The wise men recognized the extraordinary significance of the child and honored Him with gifts.

Their actions have frequently been associated with Christmas traditions, particularly the giving of presents.

However, several distinctions must be observed.

First, the wise men gave their gifts to Christ Himself. The passage does not describe an exchange of presents among family members or friends.

Second, Matthew does not say that their visit occurred on the actual day of Christ's birth. The wise men entered a house and encountered the young child. The precise interval between the birth and their arrival is not stated.

Third, their actions were not presented as an annual ceremony.

Fourth, nothing in the passage instructs Christians to commemorate their visit through a recurring religious observance.

Their gifts expressed honor toward the Messiah.

Their worship recognized the dignity of the child.

But their example does not establish a religious calendar.

The distinction becomes particularly important when later traditions are defended by appealing to biblical incidents that do not actually contain the practices being justified.

A historical narrative may illuminate the significance of an event without authorizing every subsequent custom associated with that event.

5. Mary Treasured the Events Surrounding Christ's Birth

Luke 2:19 records:

"But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart."

Mary's response differs from the public praise of the shepherds.

She contemplated the events and preserved their significance within her heart.

The passage offers an example of profound personal reflection upon God's works.

Certainly, Christians may follow the general example of thoughtful meditation upon the incarnation.

The apostle Paul later declared:

"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh." — 1 Timothy 3:16

The precise wording of this verse differs among Greek textual traditions, but its confession concerns the revelation of Christ and the mystery of godliness.

Meditation upon the incarnation is therefore entirely consistent with Christian faith.

Yet private meditation upon a divine event is not identical with establishing an annual ecclesiastical festival.

Mary's example supports the continual contemplation of God's redemptive purposes without supplying a command concerning Christmas.

6. The New Testament Explicitly Commands Remembrance of Christ's Death

One of the strongest arguments employed by Christians who reject Christmas as an instituted holy day concerns the contrast between the birth of Christ and His death.

Although the New Testament provides no explicit command to celebrate Christ's birth annually, it records a direct command to commemorate His death through the Lord's Supper.

In Luke 22:19, Jesus declared:

"This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me."

Paul repeats and explains the institution in 1 Corinthians 11:23–26.

Verse 26 states:

"For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come."

Here we encounter something significantly different from the narratives of Christ's birth.

The Lord Himself instituted an ordinance.

He specified its essential elements.

He connected its observance with remembrance of His death.

He directed His disciples to continue the practice.

The apostle Paul subsequently instructed the churches concerning its proper administration.

The Lord's Supper therefore rests upon explicit divine institution rather than later ecclesiastical tradition.

It should also be observed that Christ did not establish the Lord's Supper as an annual observance restricted to the anniversary of His crucifixion. The New Testament does not prescribe one universal frequency, but Paul clearly describes a continuing ordinance.

Nevertheless, the contrast remains important.

The remembrance of Christ's death possesses explicit apostolic authorization.

An annual festival commemorating His birth does not possess the same kind of authorization.

For Christians committed to the principle that church worship requires divine appointment, this difference is decisive.

7. Did Jesus Ever Command His Disciples to Celebrate His Birthday?

The four Gospels record many instructions given by Jesus Christ to His disciples.

He taught them how to pray.

He commanded them to love one another.

He instructed them concerning baptism.

He instituted the Lord's Supper.

He commissioned them to preach the gospel.

He taught them concerning righteousness, forgiveness, charity, discipline, and obedience.

Yet nowhere in these extensive teachings does Jesus direct His followers to celebrate His birthday.

This silence is particularly notable because the Gospels explicitly preserve the circumstances of His birth.

Matthew and Luke understood the incarnation to be immensely important. Their accounts contain genealogies, angelic announcements, fulfilled prophecies, and extraordinary events surrounding the arrival of the Messiah.

Nevertheless, neither evangelist introduces an annual feast of the nativity.

Nor does Jesus subsequently establish such a celebration during His earthly ministry.

An important qualification is necessary.

The absence of an explicit command does not, by itself, prove that every voluntary remembrance of Christ's birth is sinful.

That conclusion depends upon a broader theological principle concerning the authority of Scripture and the regulation of worship.

Some Christians believe that religious practices not expressly forbidden are permissible if they are consistent with biblical teaching.

Others maintain that every distinct element of corporate worship must rest upon divine authorization.

The disagreement over Christmas therefore involves not merely the absence of a command but competing understandings of biblical authority.

8. The Apostles Never Instructed the Churches to Celebrate Christmas

The book of Acts describes the growth of the Christian church following the resurrection and ascension of Jesus Christ.

The apostles preached the gospel, baptized converts, organized congregations, appointed elders, administered discipline, and taught believers to observe the commandments of Christ.

Acts 2:42 records:

"And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

These activities characterize the worship and fellowship of the earliest Christian congregations.

Yet Acts never describes a church gathering annually to commemorate the birth of Jesus.

Neither does it identify December 25 or another date as an appointed Christian festival.

The apostolic epistles contain numerous instructions about worship.

Paul regulates the conduct of public assemblies in 1 Corinthians 11–14.

He discusses prayer, teaching, and orderly worship.

He warns against false worship and religious practices that obscure the sufficiency of Christ.

Yet nowhere does Paul instruct the churches to celebrate the nativity.

Peter, James, John, and Jude likewise provide no such command.

The absence of an annual Christmas observance from the apostolic writings does not establish that early Christians never privately reflected upon the anniversary of Jesus' birth. The sources simply do not provide that information.

What can be stated with confidence is that the New Testament contains no explicit apostolic institution of Christmas.

For traditions that require positive biblical authority for religious festivals, this silence carries substantial theological weight.

9. Romans 14:5–6 and the Observance of Special Days

One of the most frequently cited biblical defenses of voluntary Christmas observance appears in Romans 14:5–6:

"One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord."

This passage raises an important question: Does Paul permit Christians to observe religious days according to conscience?

Some Christians argue that the passage establishes liberty concerning the religious observance of particular days.

According to this interpretation, a believer who sets aside December 25 to give thanks for the incarnation may do so unto the Lord, provided that the practice is not imposed upon others as a divine requirement.

Likewise, a believer who chooses not to observe Christmas should not be condemned.

This understanding emphasizes Christian liberty and the prohibition against judging brethren in matters not expressly settled by Scripture.

However, other interpreters dispute whether Romans 14 supplies authority for establishing new ecclesiastical festivals.

The immediate context concerns disputes among believers regarding days and dietary practices, apparently reflecting Jewish religious customs or related matters of conscience.

The apostle is addressing how Christians should treat one another amid such disagreements.

He is not explicitly discussing the institution of new celebrations commemorating events in the life of Christ.

Those committed to the regulative principle of worship therefore distinguish between personal liberty concerning days and the corporate institution of religious observances.

In their judgment, Romans 14 does not authorize church officers to appoint an annual holy day and treat it as part of the church's prescribed worship.

The disagreement cannot be settled merely by quoting Romans 14:5.

The essential question is whether Paul's teaching about personal conscience extends to the creation of new ecclesiastical religious observances.

10. Galatians 4:9–11 and Paul's Concern About Religious Calendars

Paul expresses concern about the observance of religious days in Galatians 4:9–11:

"But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain."

At first glance, this passage appears to provide a sweeping condemnation of religious calendars.

However, the context must be considered.

Paul is addressing the danger of returning to religious bondage and embracing practices that compromise the freedom and sufficiency of salvation in Christ.

The Galatian controversy involved the relationship between Gentile believers, the Mosaic law, circumcision, and justification.

Paul was not specifically discussing Christmas, a festival that developed later.

Consequently, it would be historically inaccurate to claim that Galatians 4 directly condemns Christmas by name.

Nevertheless, the passage establishes a serious theological concern.

Religious observances can become spiritually dangerous when they are treated as necessary conditions of acceptance before God or when they obscure the sufficiency of Christ.

Christians who oppose compulsory observance of Christmas often appeal to this principle.

If an annual festival becomes an obligation imposed upon the conscience, they argue, it risks recreating the kind of religious bondage against which Paul warned.

Other Christians respond that a voluntary celebration of the incarnation does not necessarily involve such bondage.

The difference again concerns whether the day is treated as optional remembrance, divinely mandated worship, or a human tradition imposed upon the church.

11. Colossians 2:16–23 and Humanly Established Religious Practices

Colossians 2:16 states:

"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days."

Paul continues by describing such observances as shadows in relation to Christ.

The passage is sometimes used to defend liberty concerning Christmas.

If Christians are not to be judged concerning holy days, it is argued, believers should be free either to observe or to abstain.

However, the passage also warns against religious practices grounded in human regulations.

Colossians 2:22–23 speaks of commandments and doctrines of men and of practices possessing an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed worship.

The older English expression will worship in verse 23 is particularly important in historic Protestant discussions.

The Greek term ethelothrēskeia conveys the notion of self-chosen or self-imposed religious practice.

Some Reformed theologians interpreted this warning as evidence that humanly invented worship is unacceptable before God.

Others understand Paul's criticism more specifically as directed against the ascetic and religious errors troubling the Colossian church.

The passage should not be treated as a simple proof text that settles every modern dispute about Christmas.

Nevertheless, it demonstrates that Paul distinguished genuine Christian devotion from religious practices that can appear impressive while resting upon human invention rather than divine truth.

That distinction remains directly relevant to the theological controversy over ecclesiastical holy days.

12. Deuteronomy 12:32 and the Regulation of Worship

Deuteronomy 12:32 declares:

"What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it."

In its original setting, this command concerns Israel's covenantal worship and the rejection of Canaanite religious practices.

The surrounding passage forbids Israel from adopting the worship customs of surrounding nations.

Deuteronomy 12:30 warns against seeking to worship the Lord in the manner that other peoples worshiped their gods.

This principle became highly influential in the Protestant Reformation.

Many Reformed theologians argued that God's people must not invent religious ceremonies according to personal preference or cultural tradition.

Rather, worship must be governed by divine revelation.

The application to Christmas follows this reasoning:

If God has appointed the proper ordinances of His church, human beings lack authority to institute additional religious holy days as though they possessed divine sanction.

Critics of this application contend that Deuteronomy 12 addresses Israel's particular covenantal obligations and does not prohibit every later Christian custom.

They also distinguish between creating new acts of worship and choosing an occasion on which to perform already authorized acts such as prayer, preaching, and singing.

This distinction is important.

A congregation may gather on an unusual date for preaching without necessarily declaring that date sacred.

The theological controversy arises when a particular day is invested with religious authority that Scripture itself has not assigned to it.

13. The Regulative Principle of Worship

The debate concerning Christmas becomes especially significant when examined through the regulative principle of worship.

This principle holds that the church must worship God according to His revealed will rather than according to religious practices devised by human beings.

The principle has historically been associated with substantial portions of Reformed Protestantism, including Presbyterian, Puritan, and Particular Baptist traditions.

The Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 21, section 1, states that the acceptable way of worshiping God is instituted by Himself and limited by His revealed will.

The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 expresses substantially the same principle in chapter 22.

According to this understanding, sincerity alone does not justify a religious practice.

An action may be performed with good intentions and nevertheless lack divine authorization.

This principle is commonly illustrated through several biblical accounts.

In Leviticus 10:1–2, Nadab and Abihu offered unauthorized fire before the Lord and suffered divine judgment.

In 1 Samuel 15:22, Samuel declared that obedience is better than sacrifice.

In Matthew 15:9, Jesus condemned worship associated with human commandments:

"But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."

Advocates of the regulative principle argue that these passages demonstrate the seriousness of introducing human inventions into divine worship.

The specific application to Christmas is straightforward.

Christ commanded baptism.

Christ instituted the Lord's Supper.

The apostles instructed churches concerning preaching, prayer, singing, and other aspects of congregational worship.

But neither Christ nor His apostles appointed an annual festival of His nativity.

Therefore, under a strict application of the regulative principle, Christmas cannot be imposed as an ordinance of the Christian church.

Some advocates of this principle go further and reject church-sponsored Christmas services altogether, even when participation is voluntary.

Others distinguish between an invented holy day and an ordinary worship service in which the incarnation happens to be the subject of preaching.

These differences should not be ignored.

14. The Old School Baptist Understanding

The historic Old School or Primitive Baptist tradition generally placed considerable emphasis upon the sufficiency of Scripture and the simplicity of apostolic worship.

Its rejection of religious innovations was related to a broader conviction that the church should not be remodeled according to popular religious movements or human preferences.

Old School Baptists opposed practices they believed lacked New Testament authority.

Their controversies concerning missionary societies, theological seminaries, Sunday schools, and other religious institutions reflected disputes over the biblical government and practices of the church.

Not every Primitive Baptist congregation adopted identical positions concerning Christmas, and individual practices have varied.

Nevertheless, a strict Old School Baptist approach naturally raises objections to the establishment of Christmas as a church holy day.

The reasoning is not that the incarnation lacks theological importance.

Indeed, Old School Baptists have historically affirmed the absolute necessity of Christ's incarnation for the salvation of His people.

The eternal Son of God assumed true humanity, lived in perfect obedience, suffered, died, and rose again for those whom the Father had given Him.

Without the incarnation, there could be no obedience of the God-man, no sacrificial death upon the cross, and no resurrection of the incarnate Redeemer.

Yet recognizing the necessity of the incarnation does not establish an annual religious ordinance.

The Old School Baptist objection concerns the authority by which such an ordinance would be created.

If the apostles did not observe or command Christmas, why should later generations treat it as an appointed part of Christian worship?

A further distinction concerns individual Christians who participate in family gatherings or cultural customs during the Christmas season.

Such conduct is not necessarily identical with requiring the church to observe December 25 as a sacred day.

Old School Baptist positions on these personal customs have varied, and it would be historically inaccurate to impose one uniform rule upon every congregation and believer.

Nevertheless, the principle remains that the church has no authority to make binding religious laws where Christ has given none.

15. The Historical Development of Christmas

The historical development of Christmas provides important context for the biblical discussion.

The New Testament does not identify the calendar date of Jesus' birth.

Early Christians proposed or calculated different dates for the nativity.

The earliest surviving Christian writings do not provide evidence of a universally established annual Christmas festival during the apostolic period.

By the fourth century, however, December 25 was being observed as the feast of Christ's nativity in Rome.

The Roman Chronography of 354 preserves a calendar tradition generally understood to reflect a December 25 observance already present by the year 336.

The historical explanation for the selection of December 25 remains debated.

One theory connects the date with Roman winter festivals or celebrations associated with the unconquered sun.

Another explanation emphasizes Christian chronological calculations linking the conception of Christ with March 25 and placing His birth nine months later.

Some scholars regard the evidence as compatible with multiple influences.

It is therefore too simplistic to assert that Christmas was conclusively copied from one particular pagan festival.

At the same time, the existence of later Christian explanations does not transform December 25 into a biblically commanded holy day.

The historical fact remains that the date and its ecclesiastical celebration emerged in postapostolic Christianity.

By the time of the great medieval churches, Christmas had become an established part of the Christian liturgical year.

Following the Reformation, many Protestants retained the observance.

Others rejected it as an unauthorized ecclesiastical festival.

The disagreement reflected fundamentally different understandings of the church's authority to establish religious ceremonies.

16. The Reformers and Puritans Disagreed About Christmas

The Protestant Reformers did not adopt one uniform position concerning Christmas.

Martin Luther and Lutheran churches generally retained Christmas as a celebration of Christ's nativity.

They regarded such commemorations as capable of serving Christian teaching and devotion when kept free from superstition and false doctrines.

The Reformed tradition developed a more critical approach in certain regions.

John Calvin's own position and pastoral practice require careful historical qualification, but the Genevan reform movement significantly reduced the inherited calendar of obligatory religious festivals.

The English and Scottish Puritan traditions often displayed even stronger opposition.

Many Puritans regarded Christmas as a human invention lacking scriptural authorization.

They rejected the idea that ecclesiastical authority could establish recurring sacred days beyond those appointed by God.

In seventeenth-century England, Parliament directed the discontinuance of several traditional festivals, including Christmas, within the wider Puritan reform of public worship.

The Westminster Directory for the Public Worship of God, adopted in 1645, rejected the observance of festival days commonly called holy days as lacking warrant in the Word of God.

This historical resistance was not primarily a rejection of the incarnation.

It was a rejection of human authority to establish sacred festivals.

For many Puritans, the Christian Lord's Day already possessed the proper divine foundation for regular congregational worship.

The institution of additional annual holy days was therefore considered unnecessary and unauthorized.

This history demonstrates that opposition to Christmas has deep roots within orthodox Protestantism and cannot simply be dismissed as indifference toward the birth of Christ.

17. Is Christmas a Pagan Celebration?

The accusation that Christmas is pagan requires greater care than is sometimes given to it.

Certain customs now associated with Christmas have complicated historical origins.

Evergreen decorations, winter feasting, gift exchanges, candles, and other seasonal traditions developed through numerous cultural influences.

Some practices resemble customs known in pre-Christian societies.

Others emerged within Christian communities or acquired new meanings over time.

It is historically unsound to assume that every Christmas custom originated directly in pagan worship.

Likewise, it is unsound to insist that all contemporary Christmas practices descend unchanged from apostolic Christianity.

The modern celebration represents a combination of ecclesiastical, cultural, commercial, and family traditions developed over many centuries.

However, from the standpoint of the regulative principle, the precise origin of every custom is not the decisive question.

Even if December 25 had no pagan associations whatsoever, the biblical issue would remain.

Did Christ command His church to observe the day?

Did the apostles establish the festival?

Does the New Testament provide authority for treating the anniversary of Christ's birth as a recurring holy day?

If these questions cannot be answered affirmatively, the strict regulative argument against an ecclesiastically instituted Christmas remains intact.

Conversely, Christians who understand the church to possess authority to appoint optional commemorations do not necessarily regard the absence of a specific biblical command as prohibitive.

Thus, historical debates over pagan origins and theological debates over scriptural authority should be distinguished.

18. Is It Wrong to Preach About Christ's Birth in December?

An especially important distinction concerns preaching about the incarnation.

The New Testament commands the preaching of Christ.

Paul declared in 1 Corinthians 2:2:

"For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified."

Preaching Christ necessarily includes the truth of His incarnation.

The Savior who died upon the cross was the eternal Son who became flesh.

His humanity was essential to His mediatorial work.

A minister who preaches from Matthew 1, Luke 2, John 1, or Philippians 2 is proclaiming central doctrines of Christianity.

Nothing in Scripture prohibits preaching these truths during December.

A minister could preach concerning the incarnation on December 25, July 10, or any other day.

The theological issue is whether the choice of date transforms the preaching into a specially instituted religious festival.

A congregation gathering on a particular occasion for ordinary preaching does not necessarily declare that the day itself possesses sacred authority.

This distinction deserves serious attention.

Preaching about Christ's birth is an authorized Christian activity because preaching the gospel is divinely commanded.

Establishing a new holy day is a separate matter.

The two should not be confused.

A church may therefore reject Christmas as a religious institution without refusing to proclaim the incarnation during the Christmas season.

19. Should Christians Celebrate the Incarnation Every Day?

The incarnation is not merely a historical event to be remembered occasionally.

It remains central to the believer's understanding of salvation.

John 1:14 declares:

"And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

This passage reveals the astonishing mystery that the eternal Word assumed human nature.

Philippians 2:6–8 describes Christ's humiliation and obedience, culminating in His death upon the cross.

Galatians 4:4–5 declares:

"But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons."

These passages do not prescribe an annual commemoration.

They explain the redemptive significance of Christ's coming.

The incarnation belongs to the entirety of Christian faith.

Every prayer offered through Christ presupposes His mediatorial work.

Every proclamation of His death presupposes that He truly became man.

Every confession of His resurrection assumes that the same Jesus who was born, suffered, and died was raised bodily from the dead.

Therefore, Christians should not regard the incarnation as a doctrine requiring attention only during one season of the year.

The greatness of the incarnation exceeds any religious calendar.

Indeed, one may reasonably argue that the continual proclamation of Christ's person and work is more faithful to the New Testament emphasis than concentrating attention upon His birth during a single annual festival.

This does not automatically make voluntary annual remembrance wrong. It does, however, remind us that the Christian obligation to praise God for Christ's coming is permanent rather than seasonal.

20. The Difference Between Christian Liberty and Religious Obligation

The controversy over Christmas ultimately requires distinguishing between three separate propositions.

First, Christians are commanded to believe in Jesus Christ and acknowledge the truth of His incarnation.

Second, Christians may rejoice in the incarnation and give thanks to God for sending His Son.

Third, Christians are commanded to establish an annual ecclesiastical festival commemorating the nativity.

The first two propositions possess clear biblical support.

The third does not appear as an explicit command in the New Testament.

Christians differ concerning what follows from that absence.

Those who hold that whatever Scripture does not forbid may be permitted often conclude that a voluntary Christmas celebration is acceptable.

Those who hold the strict regulative principle argue that the church must not introduce religious observances without positive biblical authority.

Both approaches may affirm the deity of Christ, His true humanity, His virgin birth, and His redemptive work.

The disagreement concerns the limits of ecclesiastical authority and the proper application of biblical commands.

It is therefore possible for Christians to agree completely about the theological significance of Christ's birth while disagreeing about Christmas.

Such disagreement should be approached with precision rather than caricature.

Christians who reject Christmas are not necessarily denying the glory of the incarnation.

Christians who observe Christmas are not necessarily treating human traditions as conditions of salvation.

Each position must be evaluated according to the actual arguments advanced by its defenders.

21. Can the Church Make a Day Holy?

The central issue may be expressed as a question concerning religious authority.

Can the church establish a day as holy when God has not appointed it?

In the Old Testament, God explicitly established certain festivals for Israel.

The Passover, Feast of Weeks, and Feast of Tabernacles possessed divine authorization under the Mosaic covenant.

Their observance was not left to human invention.

The law specified the occasions and the responsibilities associated with them.

In the New Testament, Christ establishes His church under the new covenant.

The question becomes whether ecclesiastical authorities may create additional recurring religious observances as obligations for Christian congregations.

Those committed to a strict regulative principle answer negatively.

They maintain that only God may establish binding religious ordinances.

Human church authorities may arrange practical circumstances of worship, but they may not create new sacred institutions.

This reasoning distinguishes between deciding when a congregation will meet and declaring that a particular calendar date possesses religious holiness.

A church may organize a gathering on a weekday for preaching or prayer.

That practical decision does not necessarily create a holy day.

But when December 25 is treated as a divinely significant annual religious requirement, a different claim is being made.

The church is effectively assigning religious authority to a date not established by Scripture.

Other Christian traditions distinguish between holy days instituted by God and church-appointed commemorations that remain subordinate to Scripture.

They argue that the latter can serve Christian instruction without claiming the same authority as divine ordinances.

The debate therefore concerns the extent of legitimate church authority, not simply whether Christ's birth is worthy of remembrance.

22. The Danger of Confusing Tradition with Divine Commandment

One of the recurring dangers in religious history is the gradual elevation of human tradition into divine obligation.

A practice may begin as a voluntary custom.

Over time, it may become widely accepted.

Eventually, participation may be regarded as evidence of religious faithfulness, while refusal is treated as spiritual deficiency.

This progression deserves careful scrutiny.

Jesus warned against the elevation of human commandments in Matthew 15:9.

Paul warned against bondage to religious practices that compromised Christian liberty.

The New Testament repeatedly emphasizes the authority of Christ over His church.

Accordingly, no Christian should be condemned merely because he refuses to observe December 25 as a religious holiday.

No explicit command of Christ requires such observance.

Likewise, debates over voluntary commemorations should be distinguished from the more serious question of practices imposed as necessary for salvation or acceptable worship.

The central principle is that human tradition must never be granted the authority of divine revelation.

This concern extends beyond Christmas.

It applies whenever churches introduce religious obligations without sufficient scriptural warrant.

A practice does not become divinely authorized merely because it is old, popular, emotionally meaningful, or widely accepted.

The test of religious authority must remain the Word of God.

Conclusion: The Incarnation Is Divine; Christmas Is an Ecclesiastical Tradition

The biblical evidence supports several conclusions.

The birth of Jesus Christ was an event of immeasurable importance.

The angels rejoiced.

The shepherds glorified God.

The wise men honored the child.

Mary treasured the extraordinary events surrounding His coming.

The New Testament repeatedly proclaims the incarnation as essential to the accomplishment of redemption.

Nevertheless, the Scriptures do not command Christians to establish an annual festival celebrating Christ's birth.

Jesus did not appoint such an observance.

The apostles did not prescribe it.

No New Testament congregation is explicitly described as celebrating Christmas.

December 25 is not identified in Scripture as the date of Christ's birth.

The historical festival developed within the postapostolic church.

Christians who defend voluntary Christmas observance appeal to principles of Christian liberty, thanksgiving, and the church's ability to appoint occasions for remembering biblical events.

Christians who reject its ecclesiastical observance appeal to the absence of divine institution and the conviction that the worship of God must be governed exclusively by His revealed will.

From a strict Old School Baptist understanding of apostolic worship, the conclusion is that the church has no biblical authority to establish Christmas as an obligatory religious holy day.

Yet that conclusion must never be confused with indifference toward the incarnation.

The Christian who does not observe Christmas may nevertheless rejoice with greater intensity in the coming of the Redeemer than one who celebrates the day with elaborate ceremony.

The proper measure of devotion is not participation in a religious festival but faith in Jesus Christ and obedience to His Word.

The incarnation is too glorious to be confined to December 25.

The birth of Christ should direct the believer's thoughts toward the eternal purpose of God, the fulfillment of His promises, the obedience of His Son, and the redemption accomplished through the cross.

The same Christ who lay in the manger was crucified at Calvary, arose from the dead, ascended into heaven, and now reigns at the right hand of God.

His glory does not depend upon an annual commemoration.

His church possesses something infinitely greater than a humanly appointed religious calendar: the abiding truth of the gospel.

The question is not whether Christ's birth should fill our hearts with joy. The Scriptures answer that question unmistakably. The question is whether human beings may transform that joy into a religious institution and require the church to observe what Christ Himself never commanded.

And on that point, the distinction between divine revelation and human tradition must never be forgotten.

Selected Biblical Passages for Further Study

Luke 1:26–38; Luke 2:1–20; Matthew 1:18–25; Matthew 2:1–12; John 1:1–14; Galatians 4:4–5; Philippians 2:5–11; 1 Timothy 3:16; Luke 22:19–20; 1 Corinthians 11:23–26; Romans 14:1–6; Galatians 4:9–11; Colossians 2:16–23; Deuteronomy 12:29–32; Leviticus 10:1–3; Matthew 15:1–9.

Selected Historical and Theological Bibliography

Bradshaw, Paul F., and Maxwell E. Johnson. The Origins of Feasts, Fasts and Seasons in Early Christianity. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2011.

Duchesne, Louis. Christian Worship: Its Origin and Evolution. Translated by M. L. McClure. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1903.

Hutton, Ronald. The Stations of the Sun: A History of the Ritual Year in Britain. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996.

Johnson, Maxwell E. Between Memory and Hope: Readings on the Liturgical Year. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2000.

Westminster Assembly. The Directory for the Publick Worship of God. 1645.

The Westminster Confession of Faith. 1646, chapter 21.

The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith. 1677/1689, chapter 22.

White, James F. Introduction to Christian Worship. 3rd ed. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2000.