The question of whether Christians may rightly celebrate Christmas does not turn on whether Scripture commands the observance of Christ’s birth on a specific date; it turns instead on how Scripture understands remembrance, sacred time, and the freedom of believers to mark God’s saving acts without adding law where none was given. The New Testament does not prescribe a feast day for the nativity, but neither does it prohibit the church from remembering it, and that distinction is foundational.
From the beginning, Scripture presents remembrance as a legitimate and even necessary part of faith. God repeatedly commands Israel to remember what He has done, not merely through spontaneous recollection, but through appointed times, feasts, and recurring acts that anchor memory in practice. These observances were not always tied to precise chronological certainty, but to theological meaning, because what mattered was not the exactness of the date, but the faithfulness of the confession. When Christians later remembered the birth of Jesus Christ, they did so within that same Biblical pattern: marking divine action in history so that it would not fade into abstraction.
The New Testament itself models this approach. Luke opens his Gospel by grounding the birth of Christ in real history, naming rulers, places, and circumstances, not to provide a calendar, but to affirm that the incarnation occurred in time and space. Matthew does the same, emphasizing fulfillment rather than chronology. Neither writer gives a date, because the theological claim did not require one. Christ was born. God became man. That fact, not its timestamp, carried salvific weight.
Scripture also affirms freedom in the observance of days. The Apostle Paul addresses disputes over sacred times directly, instructing believers not to bind one another’s conscience where God has not spoken. He acknowledges that some regard certain days as significant, while others do not, and he treats both positions as permissible when exercised in faith and gratitude toward God. The principle is clear: the observance of a day does not justify or condemn, provided it is not imposed as a requirement for righteousness.
This framework is crucial for understanding Christmas. Celebrating the birth of Christ on December 25th is not an attempt to add to Scripture, nor is it a claim that salvation depends on calendar observance. It is an act of remembrance chosen by the church, exercised within the freedom Scripture allows, and directed toward thanksgiving rather than obligation.
Early Christian tradition supports this understanding. When believers began marking the nativity, they did so without claiming divine command for the date itself. Instead, they treated the observance as a confession made in time: God entered the world, took on flesh, and did so for the salvation of humanity. December 25th functioned as a shared point of memory, not as a new law.
It is also important to note what Scripture does not do. It never condemns the remembrance of Christ’s birth. It never warns against honoring the incarnation. It never suggests that marking God’s acts in history is inherently pagan or corrupt. What Scripture consistently opposes is false worship, idolatry, and the elevation of human tradition to the level of divine command. Christmas, rightly understood, does none of these things. It points away from itself and toward Christ.
The frequent claim that Christmas is invalid because it is not commanded misunderstands Biblical authority. Scripture does not require explicit command for every faithful practice. Churches meet on Sundays without an explicit command naming the day. Believers preach sermons without prescribed outlines. Hymns are written without apostolic authorization. All of these exist within the freedom Scripture grants, so long as they align with truth and do not bind conscience.
When Christmas is celebrated as remembrance rather than requirement, it fits squarely within this Biblical pattern. It becomes a confession that Christ truly came in the flesh, that God acted in history, and that redemption began not at the cross alone, but at the incarnation itself.
Tradition, in this sense, does not replace Scripture; it serves it. Early Christian reasoning about December 25th did not claim certainty where none existed, but coherence where theology demanded reflection. By linking conception and crucifixion, by anchoring the incarnation within redemption history, the church sought to express unity of purpose rather than calendar precision.
Ultimately, Christmas endures not because of the day on which it falls, but because of the truth it proclaims. Christians celebrate not a date, but a declaration: the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Whether marked on December 25th or remembered quietly in the heart, that confession remains central to the faith.
Celebrating Christmas on this day is Biblically permissible because Scripture allows remembrance, honors freedom, and centers worship on Christ rather than regulation. When done rightly, Christmas does not compete with the Gospel; it announces it.
Appalachian Post 
Leave a comment