The birth of our Savior, Jesus Christ, as recorded in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, is a profound event surrounded by significant details. Contrary to common assumptions, His birth did not occur in winter. Evidence suggests that Jesus was likely begotten around the end of December and born near the end of September or in early October of the following year, around the time of the Feast of Trumpets in 4 BC. This timing aligns with the fall harvest and the Roman registration decreed by Caesar Augustus, which was typically conducted after the harvest when people had funds to pay the tax. Further supporting this timeframe, the presence of shepherds in the fields at night, as described in Luke's account, indicates a season outside of the rainy winter months in Palestine, which span from late October to early April, with the harshest weather between December and February. Shepherds would not have kept their flocks out in such cold and wet conditions, nor would they have chosen to endure it themselves. Thus, the announcement of His birth to the shepherds under the night sky points to a milder time of year, consistent with late September or early October.

The Nativity, the birth of Jesus Christ, is recounted in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, yet neither provides a specific date for His birth. Honest and objective scholars acknowledge that a winter date, particularly in December, is among the least likely times for this event. In Palestine, December marks the start of the rainy season, and shepherds would have ceased leaving their flocks in the fields at night well before then, likely a month or two earlier. The majority opinion suggests that Jesus' birth occurred in the autumn, possibly around the fall festivals of Trumpets or Tabernacles. These biblical details challenge the traditional timing of Christmas, revealing a discrepancy between historical evidence and the commonly celebrated winter date.

We are approaching the time when the world celebrates the supposed birth of Jesus Christ on December 25. For those in the church of God who do not observe Christmas, this difference often draws curiosity and questions about why we do not keep it. If we state that Christ was not born on December 25, we must be prepared to provide evidence. Luke's Gospel offers clues about the time of Jesus' birth, though no specific date or season is named. Luke, a well-regarded historian, provides a sound, orderly account of events that helps determine the general time of His birth. In Luke 1:5 through 2:8, a chronological sequence begins with Zacharias, a priest of the course of Abijah, who was visited by the angel Gabriel while serving in the Temple. Gabriel announced that Zacharias and his wife Elizabeth would have a son named John. In the sixth month of Elizabeth's pregnancy, Gabriel visited Mary, informing her that she would conceive and bear a son named Jesus. Mary then visited Elizabeth and stayed until the latter's ninth month, indicating Jesus was born approximately six months after John. Historical details in Luke's account, combined with the timing of the course of Abijah, suggest that John was conceived in the first half of 5 BC, placing Jesus' birth sometime in 4 BC. This evidence points away from a December 25 date and destroys the foundation of the Christmas holiday. Knowing the true timing of His birth renews faith in the accuracy of God's Word and equips us to provide common-sense reasons for our beliefs in a world of compromise and confusion. We must study and follow what is true to avoid being fooled by counterfeit traditions.

The celebration of Christmas on December 25 is rooted in historical inaccuracies concerning the birth of Jesus Christ. It is evident that He was not born during the winter solstice, as this timing aligns with the Roman festival of Saturnalia, which was merged with a celebration of His birth in the early fourth century to ease the transition of new converts to Christianity. A thorough search of the Bible reveals no command or suggestion to commemorate the Savior's birth, highlighting a significant discrepancy in the traditional practice of Christmas. Furthermore, the Bible does not specify the exact date of His birth, with the most plausible deduction pointing to autumn rather than winter. This raises questions about the validity of celebrating His birth on a day that does not correspond to historical or biblical evidence.

Jesus Christ was not born in the winter season, as evidenced by the presence of shepherds abiding in the fields, keeping watch over their flocks by night when He was born. In Judea, shepherds always brought their flocks in from the mountainsides and fields by mid-October to protect them from the cold, rainy season that followed. The Bible itself indicates that winter was a rainy time, unsuitable for shepherds to remain in open fields at night. Ancient Jewish custom was to send sheep out to the fields about the time of Passover in early spring and bring them home at the start of the first rain in October or November. Since the shepherds had not yet brought their flocks home, it suggests that October had not commenced, and therefore, our Lord could not have been born on December 25th, nor later than September, as the flocks were still in the fields by night. This feeding of flocks by night in the fields serves as a chronological fact that challenges the notion of a December nativity. The exact date of Jesus' birth remains entirely unknown, and if God had intended for us to observe and celebrate Christ's birthday, He would not have so completely hidden the precise date.

The birth of Jesus Christ, the One who gave up His divine prerogatives to become flesh, occurred in Bethlehem of Judea, where Mary, a virgin betrothed to Joseph, delivered Him in a stable or grotto. She wrapped Him in swaddling cloths and laid Him in a manger, as angels had announced. Shepherds soon arrived from the fields to witness His birth, spreading the word and praising God. Later, wise men from the East came, offering gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh, and worshipping Him. However, the timing of His birth was not in winter. Late fall and winter in Palestine bring rain and cold, and shepherds typically bring their flocks in from the fields by October at the latest. Additionally, details surrounding John the Baptist's conception and birth further indicate that a winter birth for our Savior is unlikely. At best, this time of year might align with the time of Jesus' begettal by the Father.

The celebration of Jesus Christ's birth on December 25 originated as a means of aligning with the pagan Roman festivals of Saturnalia and Brumalia, which occurred near the winter solstice. This timing was selected for convenience rather than any historical basis, as no biblical or early evidence supports a December date for the event. Shepherds remained in the fields at night during the birth, a practice incompatible with the cold and wet conditions of late December in the region, when flocks were customarily moved into protective folds by autumn. Available indications instead place the birth in the fall of 4 BC, possibly coinciding with one of the annual feast days. Had God intended His people to observe the occasion, clear instructions and a precise date would have been provided in the same manner as the commands recorded in Leviticus 23 for the true holy days. No such directive appears anywhere in Scripture. Jesus, the apostles, and the early church observed only the weekly Sabbath and the festivals outlined in Leviticus 23, with repeated New Testament references confirming these practices while making no mention of any birth commemoration. The absence of any biblical command or apostolic example underscores that December 25 holds no scriptural validity, and adherence to the commanded holy days instead brings the promised blessings of obedience.

Jesus Christ was most likely born in the fall. Counting back nine months from that time places the conception in winter, on Kislev 24, when the power of the Most High overshadowed Mary and caused her to conceive the Messiah. This date aligns with the second Kislev 24 prophecy in Haggai, which identifies the ultimate fulfillment of Zerubbabel's role as Jesus Christ, the perfect governor and ruler from the Davidic line. Zerubbabel was called God's servant, chosen by God, and received God's seal, just as Jesus Christ was. God set His seal on Zerubbabel and, more importantly, on his descendant the Messiah. The imagery of Haggai 2:19 supports this timing through a play on words. The question whether the seed remains in the barn uses a term elsewhere rendered child or posterity, and Zerubbabel's name itself means seed of Babylon or planted in Babylon. When God promised Abraham that in his seed all nations would be blessed, the reference pointed to Jesus Christ. The verse describes a moment after planting but before fruit appears, which corresponds to a Child conceived yet unborn. Through that Child the blessing of cleansing and leadership would reach Judah, Israel, the church, and ultimately the world. God chose the bleakest season of short days and long nights to announce that from this day forward He would bless, a blessing whose highest expression would come through the perfect leadership, work, and cleansing sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Christmas did not occur in the dead of winter. Shepherds and their flocks would have deserted the fields at that season. The wise men arrived sometime later, when Jesus was a child rather than an infant, and they presented gifts solely because they recognized Him as King, not to mark His birth or to distribute presents among family and friends. No biblical record shows the early church observing the date of His birth, and no divine command authorizes such a practice. Instead, Scripture directs believers to commemorate His death each year at Passover. These facts expose Christmas as a tradition containing no truth beyond the bare statement that the Son of God was born of a woman. The celebration therefore constitutes aimless conduct inherited from human forefathers, offered without regard for whether it aligns with the requirement to worship in spirit and truth.

esus Christ's actual birth date remains unknown but occurred sometime in autumn rather than December. It notes that early Christian writers such as Origen recorded no scriptural precedent for observing the day of Christ's birth, contrasting this with pagan Roman festivals of Saturnalia and Brumalia that fell between December 17 and 25. Historical sources indicate that December 25 was originally the Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, the birth of the invincible sun, a date later reassigned by the Roman church in the fourth and fifth centuries to mark the winter solstice and the birth of the sun god. This reassignment allowed pagan winter-solstice rites to continue under a Christian label once Emperor Constantine shifted Sunday observance. The unknown autumn date precludes any scriptural warrant for a December celebration. Attempts to justify the date by claiming Christ does not care about timing ignore the requirement to worship in spirit and in truth. Mixing pagan customs with the worship of God produces spiritual confusion, suppresses truth, and leads participants to exchange God's commands for human traditions that cannot profit.

Mainstream depictions of Jesus Christ's birth inaccurately place the event in winter, as seen in widespread nativity scenes that contradict the Bible's clear statements on the timing. These images persist because mainstream Christianity relies on visual representations rather than the text-based truths of God's Word, a practice that directly violates the second commandment's prohibition against making any carved image or likeness for worship. The commandment establishes language, specifically God's Word, as the sole physical medium through which He reveals Himself, highlighting a fundamental contrast between images and language in conveying meaning. Images function through concrete, physical objects that limit understanding to sensory experience, whereas language operates abstractly, enabling comprehension of attributes and realities beyond direct observation. Applied to the nativity, visual scenes convey only that Jesus Christ was born in a barn to a man and woman visited by three guests, omitting essential truths such as His identity as the divine Son of God, His conception by God the Father through the virgin Mary, and His fulfillment of messianic prophecy. This reduction of spiritual significance to a physical level exemplifies the broader danger of images, which diminish God by confining His attributes of love, mercy, and power to human sensory categories and thereby creating idols rather than representing the true God. The same principle appears in depictions of the crucifixion, which portray Jesus Christ merely as a suffering man instead of the living propitiation for sins who grants eternal life. Such practices reflect an arrogance that ignores the second commandment, lowers God to a humanly conceived level, and erodes proper respect for His authority among those called as sons and daughters in the body of Christ.