Let's turn in our Bibles now to Luke chapter 2. Gospel of Luke chapter 2. Our text today is found in verses 1 through 20, which gives to us the account of the birth of Jesus. Truly, this was an epical event in human history. Yes, an astonishing thing took place when Mary gave birth to her firstborn son. The Son of God entered the world as Jesus. Now in chapter 1 of Luke's history, the life and teaching and ministry of Christ, he has well prepared us for this event. We saw beginning in chapter 1 with the angel coming to announce the birth of Jesus' forerunner. That is John, whom we know to be John the Baptist. And Zacharias and his wife miraculously conceived. Then after that, we have the visitation of Gabriel to Mary, this young virgin maiden, betrothed maiden. And there she is told that she's going to have a son whom she is to name Jesus, and it will be by the power of the Holy Spirit that she shall conceive. Mary then goes to visit Elizabeth at the suggestion of the angel. That is that Elizabeth herself was a sign of God's power to do the impossible in the fact that she is conceived in her old age. And she goes and visits the babe in Elizabeth's womb, leaps with joy because of the child in Mary's womb. Then we move on to the song of Elizabeth, the song of Mary concerning the salvation that God will bring to this child. Then John is born at the end of the chapter, the one who will be the forerunner of the Messiah. And now we come to chapter two, and all of these things that have been spoken of in chapter one come to a climax in the infancy narratives of Luke with the birth of Jesus. Now, given the stupendous nature of this event, and the theological significance of the birth of Jesus, one is struck by the simple and straightforward brevity of Luke's account concerning the birth of Jesus. There's a couple of things I think we ought to note, though, about this. We need to realize that Luke has told us that his goal is to be a careful historian who searches out all of his sources eyewitness interviews and those who actually walked with Jesus, that he might put together an orderly account of the facts of the Messiah and his life. And what we have here in this simple account is really a proof of the fact that this is exactly what this man is doing. This is history that's recording. If you look at the apocryphal accounts that were written concerning Jesus and other historical religious figures, they're embellished and they're long and they're just actually weird, some of them. This is just so simple and straightforward. It's just shouts of authenticity. Secondly, Luke tells us that his purpose here is not to give commentary on the events but to record them as they happened. And in fact this chapter 1 or chapter 2 verses 1 to 20 account of Jesus' birth does give to us an admirable summary of those things concerning his birth. Here we're taught the time of Jesus' birth. in verses 1 and 2. Secondly, the place of Jesus' birth in verses 3 and 5. Thirdly, the circumstances of Jesus' birth in verses 6 and 7. Number four, the announcement of Jesus' birth, that is by the angels in verses 8 to 14. And then we have the witnesses of Jesus' birth described. The only witnesses that we know of who understood the significance of that event and were specifically there with that understanding in verses 15 to 20, the shepherds. Another interesting thing to notice is that the birth of Christ is not emphasized in scripture. The Old Testament is filled with messianic prophecy, hundreds of verses concerning him, but there are really only a few texts that actually speak of his birth. In the Gospels, only two of the Gospels even record the event. Mark doesn't even mention it. Luke alludes to it, but only in the sense of the fact that the Word of God was made flesh and dwelt among us, but no details concerning the birth. In the Gospel of Matthew, there are two verses devoted to it, the actual birth of Jesus. And here in Luke, we have these 20 verses dealing with this. But again, there's only actually two verses that talk about the birth specifically. But there are verses in this section that deal with it. We go to the book of Acts and the epistles and they speak little of the birth of Jesus. But there's an emphasis in the epistles and in Acts upon the heavenly origin of Christ. And the fact of the incarnation, but not of the actual birth itself. In other words, the important thing theologically is the Son of God has entered the human stream of history in the miracle of the incarnation. He is descended from heaven and he has come down to live and walk among us. None of this is to say that the birth is not important. Obviously, it is. But birth does not define a man. Your birth does not define you. It is what comes afterwards that defines you and what defines Jesus. And I would say even the birth of Jesus doesn't define him. If we want to find the definition of Jesus, it's not in these verses so much as it is in the earlier chapter one and the incarnation being described. The miracle of Jesus' incarnation took place in chapter one. There are no miracles here in chapter two. This is a normal, as we will see, a normal human physical birth. And I say these things that we might, as we come to the passage today, focus our attention on what the text actually says about the birth of Jesus and what it reveals here into us. You see, a lot of nostalgia has grown up around this. There are a lot of images in our minds concerning the birth of Christ. and so forth. But we want the biblical revelation. What does the Bible say concerning the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ. Our goal is not to think of and embellish the account nor to look at what men have made of it through the eyes of artists poets and storytellers but to look at the simple straightforward divinely inspired account that was given for our edification by the Lord through his servant Luke. So I said the number of things we're going to look at are these five. First of all, the time of Christ's birth, which is recorded in verses one and two. And it came to pass in those days that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed. Things haven't changed, have they? And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria. Here's the first thing that Luke wants us to understand as he comes to the account of his birth is the time in which it took place. He says, in those days, to begin his explanation here. And this would refer, I believe, back to chapter one. Remember, there were no chapter divisions when Luke wrote this, just a flowing narrative. He's talking about the days that he has been relating to us, these glorious days as God is in breaking into human history. He's talking about the time when Gabriel visits and the announcements and so forth and so on. In those days, And of course, leading now into the time of what we're dealing with here in Chapter 2, this is what took place. You see, there's Luke's desire to fix these events, and particularly the birth of Christ, to that which was taking place in the world at that time, particularly in the Roman Empire. Luke's gospel was directed not specifically to the Jewish people, but more specifically to the Greeks and to the Romans. And as he is with the apostles of the Gentiles, Paul, and he's writing to inform Theophilus, perhaps a Greek or Roman official, he wants him to understand that this glorious event of the birth of Christ took place in reference to this census that was taking place according to the decree of Caesar Augustus, where it says here that one had a decree from him. This is the event that Luke would have his readers identify for setting the general time when Jesus was born. Caesar Augustus is mentioned here, and this is interesting. We understand then what period of history and what the conditions were at the time of the birth of Christ. Now Caesar Augustus began life as Octavian, the grand nephew of the notable Julius Caesar. And he came to power, and we won't go through the history that led to that, but in 27 BC, the Roman Senate conferred on him the title Caesar Augustus. That is onto Octavian, who was the grand nephew of Julius Caesar. He was named Caesar Augustus. And the term Augustus means that which is majestic, sublime, or highly revered. Caesar, who was highly revered, and he truly was highly revered, by the people, and not only so much at the time when he came to power, but by the end of his reign. And he reigned 41 years to A.D. 14. So he was the one in power ruling the great and mighty Roman Empire when Jesus was born. Caesar Augustus was in many ways a gifted man, a very gifted ruler, and a wise ruler, humanly speaking. And he gave to the world a lengthy period of peace. And the time in which Jesus came into the world, in terms of warfare and turmoil among nations in the Roman Empire, that was not the case. It was a period of peace, which has historically become known as the Pax Romana, the peace of Rome that came to the world. Caesar made a decree that all the world should be taxed. And this, of course, would mean the world over which Rome ruled, which was subject to a taxation. And the word tax here, the translated tax, is actually an administrative term. And it means that of a census or a registration. And the purpose of these Roman census or registration was to determine those in the empire who were responsible for military duty and also for the purpose of taxation. And so this has going out into the world. This decree has been made and Luke tells us now in verse 2 a little bit more definitely the time in which Jesus was born and it was during the census that took place at Caesar's command in Syria under the governorship of Cyrenius. It was first made or began the process began to be made. There was a 14 year cycle we find from history upon which these census were made. But the individual governors had authority in the implementing of them and the carrying out of them. But it was their responsibility to do this. Now, there are some problems with the identification of this governor, Cyrenius, and it's not our purpose to go into them at all today. If you would like to look at them, a very interesting discussion of that is found in Philip Schaff's history of the church in his first volume when he deals with the chronology of Christ. But suffice it to say that all of the data that we have concerning this and other data leads us to the fact that this was somewhere around 4 BC. The reason why it was 4 BC, later on some individual, I forget the name now, who was setting up the common era chronology, mistook his figures and came up being four years off. This is probably about the time of 4 BC. And so Christ was born during the time of the reign of Caesar Augustus, and during the period of the census in Syria, and Palestine, by the way, was under that Syrian province in the Roman government, And it was connected with this Roman governor, Cyrenius. And those in Luke day may have been able to know the year of his birth by this, which they probably did. But we're far removed from that and we cannot definitely fix that. So here's the time of Christ's birth. But there's one thing to me that is noteworthy here in the passage. And that is that Luke does not give the day or even the specific time of the year in which the Lord was born. In other words, God chose not to reveal to us the time of Christ's birth. That is the specific time. Even here, those who would have known of Cyrenius would not have been able to, except maybe within a year or so, identify the time of the birth of Christ. This is significant to me because in the Old Testament, Israel had a religious calendar. where dates and days were set, where Israel was to observe certain things. For example, the day that they came out of Egypt, the Exodus, was to be marked and it was given calendar day and date by God when they would remember the day that they were delivered from Egypt. And that, of course, was the Passover. Other dates were given concerning their religious feasts. of Tabernacle and so forth, which was 50 days after the Feast of Unleavened Bread and Passover. There was a Day of Atonement and they were to remember God's atoning grace in that great ceremony where the priests went into the holy place. And that day was clearly fixed and established. The significant thing to me is the New Testament gives us none of that. It sweeps away the dates of the Old Testament because they were types. They were pointing forward to Christ, just like the sacrifices. And once Christ came, those things no longer were in force. And what we're saying here is the church has no religious calendar. And the church calendar that has been devised with all of these different things, epiphany and Easter and go through the list, have no basis in Scripture. and no way in which their time can be fixed. They are really the invention of man. And how did they come about? The church calendar developed. These holy days came about as the result of religious syncretism. Syncretism, religious syncretism, is when one religion combines itself with elements of other religion and you get a syncretic practice. This religion, this religion coming together in a practice. And unfortunately, our forefathers in the church were given to this problem and they sought to blend into the calendar, the worship of the church, elements of paganism or Jewish elements that were of the past. And therefore, we have the church calendar today. What I'm saying is, and what's significant to me here, one of the key days in the church calendar, if not the highest day in the minds of many, is the day, supposedly, when Christ was born, December 25th, or what is known as the holy day of Christmas, the high mass said in honor of the birth of Christ. But in the Bible here, there's nothing about that. It could have easily been identified for us. We could have been told, like Israel was in the Old Testament, that on so-and-so day she'll observe the birth of the Messiah. But God in his providence did not give that to us. Well, some might say, well, we have liberty, though, to do those things because God has neither commanded nor forbidden the observance. Well, there's some truth to that. However, there was no Christian liberty for syncretism in any area. personal worship, family worship, church worship, and by the grace of God, where a nation is willing to honor God publicly in that sphere as well. Syncretism is not an area of liberty. The biblical fact is that we simply do not know what day Christ was born. December 25th has no biblical warrant. It's interesting, you would read the commentators and those who are desiring to save the day say, well, it might have happened then, it's not impossible. And I say, well, that's true. There's a chance of one in 365 that it did happen on that day. The details and tenor of the passage, however, are against the winter date, such as the requirement of travel for a census when the roads were often impassable in Palestine during the winter months because of the rains and the mud and that type of thing. and also because of the fact that we have later on the sheep in the fields. But even if it could have been winter, which some argue, there's no way to determine the actual day. Interestingly, the earliest reference in tradition to the date of Christ's birth comes to us from Clement of Alexander, one of our church fathers, and the time is approximately A.D. 180. And there it states, he states that there was debate among many of the Christians as to the day that Christ was born, and some held that it was April 21st, and some held it was April 22nd. That was the area of debate. That's the first reference in church history to the actual time of tradition of when Christ may have been born. Well, how did we then get so fixed on the day in which we have today, December 25th? This we know, it was established by the Roman church, that is the church centered in Rome, And it was during the fourth century A.D. As Philip Sheff in his church history states, before A.D. 360, on the basis of several Roman festivals, the Saturnalia, the Sigillaria, and he goes on to mention a lot of ones, three more, which were held in the latter part of December in commemoration of the golden age of liberty and equality, and in honor of the son who in the winter solstice is, as it were, born anew and begins his conquering march. End of quote. And he notes that there is no evidence through the first two centuries after Christ that there was any type of holy day celebrated in reference to the birth of Christ. In the Bible the only specific day that is mentioned concerning Christian worship is that of the Lord's Day. Which of course is built upon the fourth commandment of honoring the Sabbath. But we see specific apostolic example and sanction when we look at acts and we hear such things as as on the first day of the week when the disciples gathered together to break bread and that would break bread would mean fellowship. But even more than that the Lord's Supper their day of worship was on that day. And we also find the day Lord's Day used specifically of John the apostle when he says he was in the spirit on the Lord's Day and the church The early church saw all the holy days swept away. They had one, and it was the first day of the week. And it was in commemoration of the new creation, of the glorious resurrection of the Son of God from the dead. And throughout the entire church age in history, I believe it is God's purpose for us not to involve ourselves in church calendars and holy days, but to involve ourselves in following the New Testament apostolic example of making our holy day, if we want to use that term, being the Lord's day and giving ourselves seriously to that day and the worship. of our God. It is upon that day that we are to remember, if we're going to have a day, the birth of Christ. It is upon that day that we are to remember the elements of Christ's life and so forth. In summary, concerning this, I would, using this passage as a statement here and not just talking about the celebration of Christ's birth, But my counsel to you would be to have nothing to do with holy days and with the church calendar. Why? Because it has no command nor warrant in scripture nor no apostolic example. We who are Reformed Baptists put a lot on that when it comes to the ordinance of baptism. No apostolic example nor scriptural command to follow the practice and therefore that's just an example of how we apply that type of thing. There is no command or warning scripture concerning the observance of any day resurrection. I mean, like this particular day of the calendar year to observe the resurrection or the ascension or any of those days. They are to be constantly before us as the saints gather on the Lord's Day, focusing on the Lord Jesus Christ and the elements of his life. And so there's no scriptural warrant for such a practice. Secondly, I would counsel you not to have anything to do with these days because it's contrary to the regulative principle in worship, which tells us we are not to add to nor take away that which God has commanded in his worship. And that is set down in the law of God, the moral law in Deuteronomy chapter 12. The regulative principle says God is to be worshipped as he has instructed us and in no other way. And so I would say, let us not have anything to do with these events because of the regulative principle. Thirdly, these things are based on religious syncretism. They're not based upon scriptural revelation, but the desire of men, weak men who may have been Christian brothers, to bring together elements of pagan worship and Jewish practices into a Christian calendar. So the very basis of these things is not the Bible. but religious syncretism. And thirdly, or no, that wasn't the third, that would be the fifth. These things, the church calendar, it originates largely, if not exclusively, in Romanism, and it advances the cause of Romanism. And we as Protestants ought to have nothing to do with it. We ought to stand free of these pagan, syncristic practices. We would not do this in many of the things that the Catholics do in their robes and vestments and altars and candles, which are not in the New Testament. They either come from the syncretism of the Jewish system that has been set aside and fulfilled in Christ or pagan elements. And we would be horrified if we brought them into the churches. And yet when it comes to the religious calendar, we can somehow find it able to go on with that in a system that originates in and advances the cause. of Romanism. We here at Emanuel have not taken a position specifically on these things, and I understand that. There's liberty of conscience. By the way, when we speak of liberty of conscience, it doesn't mean that God has necessarily granted us liberty there. It's just that we're granting each other liberty there because we have not come to a consensus on it. That's what that means. It doesn't mean when we say you have liberty there doesn't mean we're saying God gives you the liberty to do that. What we're saying is we will not hold one another accountable to measures of church discipline as being a violation of scripture because we haven't come to a unity on what we should do on that. I understand that about these type of things. And it's not my purpose to berate nor condemn. It's simply my purpose as a teacher here dealing with an issue that I believe is important. To look at this passage is an example here and show that God did not give us neither day nor the day which was born nor any command or example to observe it in a specific day. I'm of the opinion that this practice has done much harm to the cause of truth and to the Christ of Scripture and that these religious holidays and holy days actually veil the true nature of the glory of the Son of God. and that we need to have nothing to do with them if we would be faithful to the Christ of Scripture and the teachings of the Bible. Again, that's my opinion. That's my application from this passage. And I give that to you in that spirit of brotherly affection and brotherly love, but also brotherly concern. And I do pray that you will weigh this and think these things through as I have shared them with you here this morning. And so the birth of Jesus, the time of his birth, all we know about it is that it took place during the reign of Caesar Augustus and that it was specifically when there was a census taken under Cyrenius, who was the governor of Syria. Beyond that, we cannot go biblically in terms of these things. Let us look now at the place of Jesus' birth and consider what is said about this in the remainder here of the sermon. We're told here in verses 3 to 5, "...and all went to be taxed, every one into his own city. And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and lineage of David, to be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child." Now it says he went up here to his own city. Now this seems to indicate this was his city of residence, which was the normal requirement for those who were to be registered for taxation or military service. By the way, the Jews were not held to the responsibility of military service within the Roman Empire, so this would have only had to do with taxation. Some believe that Herod, who was king at that time, who would have been given the duty of carrying this out in Judea by Cyrenius, desired to not stir up the people because the Jews hated census. They were very leery of them. You remember what happened the last time they did a census? Thousands of them died. When David sent Joab into the land to number the people of Israel, and the angel appeared and said, David, you greatly sinned against me. You're not the number of the people. Now what do you want? He gave him three options. And he said, I can't choose. I'll just put myself in the mercy of God. And God struck the horrible plague, and thousands died in Israel. So they didn't like census. Particularly also because this had to do with Rome. And some think that Herod was trying to appeal to tribal loyalties and ancestry and sort of veil it somewhat in the sense that you're going to go back and register at your tribal home and so forth. That may have been the case. But I think that no doubt, given all of that, still, the simplest explanation is to believe that Joseph still was connected with Bethlehem and this was considered his city. That he had property yet in Bethlehem. And it was yet considered his place of residence would have been very disruptive for people to have had to travel all over the realm to get to their ancestral cities of birth, where they go back for generations. But the normal practice was to go to their city of residence. When we learn in Matthew 2, chapter 1, and we'll turn over to Matthew 2, because this gives us the account of when the wise men came to see Jesus which was not at his birth. There's one of the things we want to make sure is not in our mind of the common images There was no wise men at the manger They came later and they're in a house in Bethlehem and they were probably there from up to at least two years Joseph and Mary remained in Bethlehem and I'm saying probably with on his own property in the house that he may have had and And then when they came back from Egypt, after they fled there at the angel's command because of Herod's design to kill the baby, they were going to come back to Bethlehem. But the angel appeared to Joseph as they were returning, it says here in chapter 2, and warned him, no, it's still dangerous. And so they decided to go to Nazareth. And that's where finally they took up their residence. But Joseph is a man of Bethlehem. Why he was in Nazareth at the time of this passage, we can only surmise. But they eventually settled there in that area. Bethlehem, the city here, was about six miles south of Jerusalem. It was the home of David's family. That's why it's called the City of David. One of the most famous men in Israel's history, ranking up there with Moses and Abraham. It says that he went there because he was of also the house and lineage of David. This is important. We saw earlier that Mary was a physical descendant of David. Here we're told that Joseph is also a physical descendant of David. And if you want to check that out, we can go to Matthew chapter 1, where it traces the spirit of God, the genealogy is given by the spirit of God through Matthew of Joseph's lineage. And he was the direct descendant of David and the man who could have and should have been on the throne of Israel. He should have been the king. He was qualified to be the king. They were subject people. They were under Caesar Augustus. And therefore, he's a he's a he's a carpenter. It shows the fortunes to which David's house have fallen at this point, where the man who could claim to sit on the throne at Jerusalem, Joseph, is a humble, unknown, common carpenter in the land of Nazareth. And now he's coming to his ancestral home. An amazing thought. Luke here, unlike Matthew, does not note something significant about the Bethlehem birth, and that is Micah 5.2. In Micah 5.2, the prophet predicted from whom the king, the deliverer of Israel, would come, the son of David, and would be from Bethlehem, that small little town. And that prophecy is recorded in Matthew 2, verses 5 and 6 as well, when the wise men come to Jerusalem and they want to know where is he who was born king of the Jews? Herod asked the religious teachers and leaders and scholars to come in and they quote to him the Micah passage, and that's where it's supposed to be. The Messiah is to come from Bethlehem. The interesting thing we ought to note here is that in the province of God, Joseph is brought to this place, his ancestral home, perhaps his place of residence, but the event that made him come there, because it was not the time that he would normally have been traveling because of his wife's condition, God brought them there through a census ordered by Caesar Augustus and carried out by Cyrenius and those men, little knowing that these events were fulfilling biblical prophecy. For here, the word of God is fulfilled. They are brought to this place where otherwise they would have stayed in Nazareth. The journey was about 90 miles and it was not an easy journey. Late in her pregnancy, great with child, Mary made this trip. It also says here that this was his espoused wife in the passage in verse five. He'd be taxed with Mary, his espoused wife. Now, from Matthew, we know that when Mary returned from her visit with Elizabeth, we're putting these two gospels together. He was minded to put her away because of her pregnancy. She must have been unfaithful to me. Even though Mary may have spoken to him, somehow he just couldn't couldn't gather it all in. And I'm just going to put her away. because she has been unfaithful to me in this stage of betrothal. But the angel appears, says, no, no, Joseph, marry her. This child is the Messiah. And so he obeys and he marries her. And that is before the birth. But the reason why I believe Luke says the espoused here is because even though they have now been joined in marriage, it has not been consummated between them through the marital physical intimacy. And so even though they are now legally married, they are still operating on an espousal basis. And we see the godliness, the self-control and so forth that is exhibited here in this. But that's probably why it says here they're a spouse-wife. Now the circumstances of Jesus' birth were given in verses 6 and 7. And so it was that while they were there, the days were accomplished. that she should be delivered. And she brought forth her firstborn son and wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger, because there was no room for them in the inn." The birth of Jesus described here. Extremely simple. Two verses tell us what took place. And there's three things I want you to note here. It was a normal birth. It was Mary's first birth, her firstborn son. And it was a birth in humble, very humble surroundings. As I said earlier, the miraculous took place at the conception. We have here the statement that when the days were accomplished that she should be delivered. The normal period of gestation. The miracle had took place at the conception, the virgin conception, but from that point on it was a natural human pregnancy. And she carried the child throughout the term, the normal term. And Jesus grew and developed in his mother's womb. for those nine months. He truly is a man. He is one with us. He came into the world the same way you and I did in terms of the gestation in his mother's womb. There were no complications at his birth, as we're told here. The ideas that came through in a normal, natural delivery without problems. Did Mary have a midwife? We're not told. Perhaps she did. But that is not spoken of here in the passage. Furthermore, if you read this, nothing spectacular took place here at this birth. Nothing at all. It was the labor of a mother, the normal labor of a mother, with an anxious husband no doubt nearby, and then the sounds of a newborn baby. Nothing else. Very common. Very normal. In fact, like any of the births that we have been through here, husbands and wives that have children, And fathers who've witnessed that, and of course mothers, it's just a normal birth. No fanfare. No attendance in terms of any kind of angelic attendance or anything like that. He was born like you and I. As I read through this, I came to this point and said, blessed Mary, you've done your work. And what a trial it had been to her from not necessarily the physical. But the emotional and the, no doubt, even her own beloved Joseph didn't believe her. Wanted to put her away. What about others? Yet this courageous, godly woman. You've done your work, Mary. You've done it well. You brought forth this son that will change all of human history. Secondly, we see this birth was Mary's first child. It says that it was her first born son, verse 7. And that's an interesting note because in Israel the firstborn son had religious significance based on the events of the Passover where God claimed the firstborn son was his. But also it had the idea in the Old Testament law of being what we call the primogenitor, the inheritor of the father's estate, the chief inheritor. And of course, being the legal son of the man who had legal claim to the throne of Israel, that is Joseph, as the primogenitor, he had the legal claim to the throne of David. And this also tells us, by the way, the firstborn son that Mary had others, which we know from scripture revelation that she did. She was not a perpetual virgin as the myth goes. The Bible teaches us that she had other children after the birth of Jesus. Thirdly, this birth was in humble surroundings. This really stands out in the passage. Look at this. She was born, verse 7, firstborn son. She wrapped him in swaddling clothes. Swaddling clothes referred, a couple different descriptions of them. One is it was sort of like a rectangle that on its edges had long strips of cloth. You'd wrap the child in the blanket, as it were, and then wrap the cloths around. Others believe that this was long strips of cloths that were used to wrap babies. In my research, I came across the point that some believe that it helped ensure the correct and early development of the children's limbs in those days. And the writer commented then that this is just a good example of the parental love and care that was being lavished upon this child from the beginning by Mary and Joseph. And you can be sure that was the whole course of her mothering to Jesus. Like I said, Mary, you completed your work. Yeah, but now you've just begun it too. Isn't that how you feel, mothers? Ah, the baby's born, just a little. But now my work's really begun. in terms of raising the child, but Mary was just little tiny glimpses in the Bible, but I think she loved this boy and she cared for him and she was responsible with Joseph. We don't know how long Joseph lived, but they were responsible to raise, to care and to protect this precious child. And she carried it out right from the very beginning, evidenced in the wrapping of the child in swaddling clothes. And then it says she laid him in a manger, or could we say a feed trough. an animal feed trough, a box that holds hay or feed for cattle or horses. There was no fancy crib or bassinet there, but it was a feed trough in which she laid him. And then we're told this, because, now she laid him in a manger because, that's why she did it, there was no room for them in the inn. Now, there's been a lot written and spoken of and conjectured about this one. you know, rude innkeepers and all of this kind of stuff. And I just, as I thought about this, we really ought not to be so hard on the people of Bethlehem, nor the innkeepers there, because we gotta look at the word say. First of all, the word room here literally means place. And it not only can refer to a spatal situation where there's a place or an abode or a room, but it also had the idea of a favorable place or circumstance for doing that which you decided to do. The word in here means a lodging place. It is not the more technical word that's used later on. Luke 10-14, remember that the Samaritan took the man to. That's the more technical term for an inn where for hire you are able to have a room. That's not the word that's used here. In fact, this is the word that's used and we read it in Mark already this morning. This is the upper room, the guest room. And so there's no indication here necessarily this was a public inn. It may have been a guest room where Joseph came, and whether he could arrange ahead of time or not, we don't know, but maybe his friends he had in the town. And they went there in the guest room and they said, sure, you can have the guest room. You can go into the guest room. But there was other people there. They went up there. They looked around. Mary's ready to have a baby. And I don't know about you, but from one of my experiences, a woman doesn't necessarily like to have a baby in the middle of a crowded room. She might be able to lay there and sleep there, and there's no indication whatsoever that somebody said, ah, no, there's no place for you in a pregnant lady. But that Joseph and Mary made their own choice and said, listen, there's no favorable place here to have a baby. Let's seek a quiet location. And that quiet location turned to be the place where a animal trough was, leading us to think that it probably was either in the courtyard there, where the stalls were, where the animals were kept, or in actual structure of some sort. The church tradition is that Jesus, this was a cave, and the Church of the Holy Nativity in Bethlehem is built over a cave, a grotto, as you call it, a cave, and that is supposedly a strong tradition that goes way back. That was the actual place where Jesus was born. Of course, no one can be sure of that, but that it was some kind of a place where mangers were or feed troughs. And so, The picture is in extremely humble surroundings upon the birth of Jesus. It speaks here of poverty. Mary and Joseph were poor. It speaks of obscurity. No one even knows what's happening and they would dare not even begin to try to explain it to anybody that's happening. Poverty and obscurity. Now, why did this happen? Look at Second Corinthians, eight, nine. Why was the birth like this? We could spend quite a bit of time on this, but I just want to mention a couple of verses. There's something here that. We must see. Second Corinthians, eight and chapter eight and verse nine, Second Corinthians, eight, nine, for, you know, the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he was rich, This is speaking of His existence as the Son of God, the pre-existence of Christ, as the glory-filled Creator God to whom all things belong. The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, infinitely rich. Yet for your sakes He became poor. He left it all to come and walk among us as a common man claiming no special privileges so that you and I could identify with our Savior. And this extreme poverty and obscurity is the picture of the emptying of Himself of the Lord Jesus Christ and coming down to heaven. For your sakes He became poor that ye through His poverty might be made rich. This is an object lesson. These things were not necessary theologically, for salvation for you and I. But it's an object lesson of the extreme humility and condensation of Jesus. It involves such a condensation that even you and I would consider it a condensation for our child or for ourselves to be born in a stable area and be put in a feed trough. Again, it wasn't necessary that it happened that way. But it's just an object lesson to illustrate what Paul is trying to get across here theologically. And another passage is that of Philippians 2. Philippians 2, verse 5, Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God. The idea of robbery is the idea of grasping. Robbers are grasping. And the point is he did not consider something to be held on to. to continue in this manifestation that he's always been in for eternity as the co-regent of the universe. He decided to step down from that position in effect, in a sense, but made himself of no reputation. Took upon himself the form of a servant, just came as a servant, common servant. He was made in the likeness of man and being found in the fashion of a man, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. And that humbling began when he laid aside his heavenly glory and riches in position to come to be born of this Jewish maiden on earth and to make this so clear in the condensation we have his birth in humility. And this is the mark of this man's life. I like what Barclay says in his commentary about this. He says, all through these readings, we must have been thinking of the rough simplicity of the birth of the Son of God. We might have expected that if he had been born into this world at all, it would have been a palace or a mansion. There was a European monarch who worried his court by often disappearing and walking incognito among his people. When he was asked not to do so for security's sake, he answered, I cannot rule my people unless I know how they live. It is the great thought of the Christian faith that we have a God who knows the life we live. Because he too lived it and claimed no special advantage over common men. Wow. I must move on. The announcement of the birth of Christ in verses 8 to 14. There were in the same country, the shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flocks by night. And lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them. And they were sore afraid. 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 Savior, who is Christ the Lord. And there shall be a sign unto you, that you shall find a babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger. 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, goodwill toward men. Though there was humble surroundings around his birth, an event so glorious had to be announced. But to whom should it be spoken? That's the question. To kings. No, don't speak of the kings. Herod tells us what happens when kings hear about it. When he was told of it, he put to death all the sons in the air because he didn't want any challenge to his rule. Should we tell the religious leaders of Israel about it? No, we better not do that, for they themselves will later show their animosity when they themselves seek his death and stand before the Roman governor and say, crucify him. Shall we tell all Israel, no, they are a fickle people and they are not prepared for such news? Then to whom shall we speak it? That may have been the dialogue between the angels and the Lord. I don't know. To whom shall we speak it? To those humble, devout shepherds on that hill. Go tell them. They will receive it. And you know, I think the fact that these men were chosen is because similar, even though it's not said about them, so I can't be certain about this, but their response, the reason it was spoken to them, the response that they give tells me like verse 25 of this chapter, they were like Simeon. They were just and devout men waiting for the consolation of Israel. And these men, again, unnoticed, unimportant in the world, received the announcement that nobody else received. Caesar wasn't told it. Cyrenius wasn't told it. Herod wasn't told it. Found out later through men, but these men received this incredible honor. Again, showing how, again, here's the act of parable. We learned about it when Mary gave her magnificat, that He will rise, raise up those who are lowly to positions of glory and honor and importance. And those who are mighty, He will put down. And so here again, it's acted out. This is an act of parable, what Jesus is going to do. He's going to make the shepherds, who were a despised class in Israel, by the way, They were too busy, they couldn't keep all the ceremonial regulations of the Pharisees and they were considered unclean. In fact, they were considered as men who were not even worthy to give testimony in a court of law. Despised men lifted up to the honor and privilege of being the only people on earth who received this angelic announcement. And the angel of the Lord comes. The other interesting thing about it as it comes to these men is where they were abiding with their flocks in the region of Bethlehem. According to the Mishnah, the Jewish authorities in the temple kept flocks in and around Jerusalem and particularly in the Bethlehem area so that there would always be a steady supply for the sacrifices. And there's a very good chance that these men were watching over one of those sacrificial And this is only a thought that can't be proved, but how appropriate it would be that the birth of the one who would be called the Lamb of God, the one who would actually make all that unnecessary, no more lambs to be slaughtered, it would be to a group watching over such a flock that his birth was announced. And the glory here, the bright light speaks of the glory of God. They are God's messengers. They come with his glory and authority. The glory is God and it shines through his messengers. And they announced this wonderful thing. In verse 10, the angel says, don't be afraid, I bring you good tidings of great joy. It's like he's piling up here. These angels, if we can use this terminology, are excited about their mission. Peter tells us the great things of redemption, they have their attention, they want to look into those things. They wonder at this. They know the Son of God has left heaven's glory in this virgin birth. And they are just thrilled that they have the opportunity to go and say, I have got the best news you have ever heard. The word good news here is the word that's used for gospel. The same word that's translated gospel in the New Testament. I bring you the gospel. That's not what he's talking about specifically here. It just means good news, but we translate it gospel. of great joy, good news of great joy. Wow. The sense is, I am going to bring to you good news that will give great joy. And here's what it is. And that joy will be to all people. Four, here's the explanation. He announces this birth. That Christ has been born, that is the message of great joy. He says, concerning this birth, it is today, born to you this day in the city of David. That's the place. It's born in the city of David, connecting this birth of David and Bethlehem. It is also the birth of a savior. And this one is the Messiah. That's the word Christ, the anointed one, anointed for God's service, the especially anointed one, even as the priests were anointed and the kings were anointed. So Jesus was anointed, separated to God as the Messiah, and it's the birth of the Lord. And I want to talk about those titles and stuff in just a minute. And in verse 12, they give a sign, this shall be the sign to you, a suggestion that you ought to follow this up, but these men don't need a suggestion. But think about it as they would begin to contemplate, what a sign! Christ the Lord! The Messiah has been born. He's in the city of David. Regal overtones. And here's where you can find him. He's in a feed trough. And then the angels joined together in praise to God in verses 13 and 14. A great moment in redemptive history has come. God is to be glorified, they say. Glory to God for sending his son to save men from sin. God in the highest, probably referring to the fact that he is in heaven, in the highest realm. It could mean the most high God, but it probably means God in the highest because the contrast then is with what's happening on earth. May God receive glory in heaven and may men on earth receive peace. Peace. The word peace has that idea of wholeness, wholesomeness, well-being. It's used in the New Testament of the summary of the whole messianic salvation. In Acts 10.36, Peter says, we came and preached peace unto you. This peace is first with God. This peace is second. Men can have it with themselves, a peaceful conscience. It is third, peace with others, healing of broken relationships. Fourth, it is an all-round peace, all-round wholeness and well-being. This is what Christ brings and a goodwill toward men. But probably this should be translated this, to men, upon whom the divine favor rests. Because peace is only going to come upon men who are humble and men of faith, and that is upon whom the divine favor rests. Humble believing men will have peace. Proud, sinful, unrepentant men will not have much peace because the Messiah has come. But Keener, in his background commentary on the New Testament, points out something very interesting here. That all of this here was in contrast to Caesar, who was mentioned. who claimed at that time in history divine honors and supreme kingship. The very word good news, euangelion, the Greek word, was particularly used by the Romans and the pagans in celebration of the cult of the emperor. When you spoke of the emperor, it was good news to the world. Why? For he is the savior of men. And it was particularly used, according to Keener, in celebration of his birthday. Pagans celebrated publicly the birthdays of their deities, we're told by Keener. And so the good news, that was used in that very term, the celebration of the cult of the emperor, particularly his birthday. Secondly, the emperor, Caesar, was hailed as savior and lord in the Roman world. Specifically, those titles were given to him, that he was savior and he was lord. Thirdly, choirs were used, earthly choirs were used in emperor worship. And here we have this heavenly angelic group or choir. And furthermore, one of the great proud boasts of Rome was they had given peace to the world. The Pax Romana. But Jesus, Keener says in conclusion, but Jesus' birth in a lowly manger distinguishes the true king from the Roman emperor, whose loyalists in Luke's day would have bristled and perhaps responded violently to the implicit comparison. End of quote. And so there's more here, perhaps, than meets the eye. The terminology in the ancient world, which we're not used to, this was all terminology applied to Caesar Augustus. But the true king, to whom Caesar Augustus must bow someday, was the one being born. The witnesses to Jesus' birth are these shepherds who receive this news with great joy. And they say in verse 15, And it came to pass, as the angels were gone away from them into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, Let us now go even unto Bethlehem, and see this thing which has come to pass, which the Lord hath made known unto us. And they came with haste, and they found Mary and Joseph in the bag lying in a manger. And when they had seen it, they made known abroad the saying which was told them concerning the child. And all they that heard it wondered at those things which were told them by the shepherd. But Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her heart. And the shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, as it was told to them. Now the text here is very emphatic. In verse 15, They say, let us go even unto Bethlehem, this is very emphatic, and see those things. And verse 16, and they went with haste. It's like as soon as the angels departed, they went into this plan and activity. Let us go, we've got to go see this event. And they were just overcome with joy and excitement. And they hurry into Bethlehem. Who knows how many children were born that night. It was a small place that was filled with people there to be registered by the Roman officials. But maybe a couple, few, who knows, children and they inquired around, where's the baby in the feed trough? Do you guys have too much to? They're all excited too. Where's the baby in the feed trough? What's going on? But they were excited and they found it finally. And they were just overcome. And they're the only witnesses that we know of to what happened. Now, there may have been people who knew a baby was born. There may have been a midwife who even assisted. But these were the only ones who had divine information of what was happening and in faith witnessed it. The rest, I say, Mary and Joseph wouldn't have said a word to them. It was not the time to get into the discussion of the fact, hey, you know, this is the Son of God here. No, these men came and they witnessed it, these humble shepherds. And that says that they went out and they told people about this. The news was something that could not be kept in. The news of the coming of the Messiah, the news of this, they spoke to those around, which of course is an obvious example to what followers of Jesus are to be doing, speaking to others concerning the glory of the coming of Christ. And the other people, they had a momentary wonder about what was going on, but it says, verse 19, Mary kept all these things and pondered them in her heart. She treasured them up. What things? All the things that's been happening in this young girl's life has been turned upside down. The visit of the angel. Gabriel. The visit to Elizabeth. And the babe leaping in the womb and her blessing and now the shepherds coming and telling them exactly what had just happened. She kept these things in her heart and they fortified her and comforted her and strengthened her for the days ahead. And so we see in this passage Luke's simple, straightforward, yet profound and sufficiently comprehensive declaration concerning the birth of the Lord Jesus Christ. We see in the passage here the time of his birth, the place of his birth, the circumstances of his birth, the announcement of the birth and the only witnesses to the birth. May God minister to us. Father in heaven, we thank you that we could join together this day in the study of thy holy and precious word. May we meditate long and deep on the glory of the passage. May we receive edification and instruction from our time together in this exercise of teaching and preaching. May your name be glorified. May Christ be exalted. We pray this in his holy name. Amen. OK. OK. Now we will open up the service for a chance for the men to give comments or questions concerning today's message on the birth of Christ. Gary. Yes, Bill, I appreciated your message this morning and appreciate your willingness to share your convictions there on the celebrating Christmas. You said a couple of things about there being no religious calendar in the church. My question was, Easter, what we call Easter, which is a celebration of the resurrection, is that not the correct date? Because it was on the Passover, and the Passover, of course, is still marked on the calendar. As opposed to Christmas, which I fully agree with you, there's absolutely no way to know when that was and probably was not at the time that we celebrated. Would not Easter be on the correct date? It may be. You're not certain about that though. No, I wouldn't be certain. I might have to do some more chronological thinking on that matter. However, the point is this. The New Testament gives us no instruction or command to observe the Passover or that we are to observe the Passover events every Lord's Day, in my opinion, the Lord's Supper. We were to think of the Passover and that event on a regular basis. Right, and I'm not disagreeing with that at all. No, I think you could say that this ties in with at least the current Jewish calendar. I don't know what flips and flops have taken place in history over that in terms of the difficulties of chronology and counting 360 day lunar years or this year. That's what I mean. I don't know that we can be 100% sure on that when that took place. But that did take place. My contrast would be that was given to Israel as a specific date and time that was to be observed in that period of infancy. They needed these religious feasts and that type of stuff as part of their means of grace. We no longer need those things. And though you may be able to historically be able to set the time of the death and crucifixion of Christ would have been what we call the spring. Yeah, I would say yeah. But it doesn't change the regulative principle nor the concept of religious character. And I wouldn't have been in my opinion. The other thing I wanted to mention was I just recently was reviewing the history of the time the period in the Roman Empire under Octavian and find it really fascinating. Of course that was a very the circumstances leading up to Octavian's crowning his emperor were very providential to us in looking forward to Christ, which I'm guessing. That would have been quite a. What, 30 years or so before Christ was born, but the. The issue there was Mark Anthony was completely a patcher. Mark Anthony and Cleopatra were competing with Octavian for the the supremacy in the Roman Empire. And Octavian was clearly the underdog. He was only in his 20s at the time, I believe. And he was not the politician. He was not as well known as Mark Anthony. However, we can thank God that in his providence, he did prevail. And it also then culminated with Mark Anthony and Cleopatra's suicide. Yes. If you're familiar with that. Yeah. Octavian was he was pagan for sure. And so we speak about it from that perspective. But he was a great man and probably the best emperor that Rome had. And it was God's providence because it brought about this this outward sense of peace that made the conditions right for the spread of the gospel. The roads being opened, the seas being opened, the apostles going forth into the lands, and you just see it as God's providence creating this time of peace in terms of military conflict, the world being connected through Rome's roads and all that, and God had raised up Augustus Caesar for that role. Thank you, God. The providence of God shines through in this passage, as it does in all of Scripture. Myron. One of the things that I so appreciate appreciate about this congregation is the ability to disagree in certain areas where that has been granted to us in a in a constitutional way. I find that a great blessing. Very important for a church and having peace. It is over. Well the other thing that I find is that it and It provides the opportunity for good dialogue regarding those, especially when they're given in the right spirit. And I really thank you for the spirit in which you gave them. And certainly the few comments I would like to make regarding that would be given in the same spirit for myself, as I've also considered this subject of the observance of of the remembrance of the Lord's of the Lord's birth. Is that the practice for me is not one in the sense of a religious holy day or in the sense of a high masses as some would have would have put it but simply as a day of remembrance a day of of. a glorious thing that happened a long time ago and it's a special time of remembrance and celebration. I do think that you would agree with me in that sense that the regulative principle of worship does not forbid days of remembrance and celebration. There would be examples throughout the scripture of occasions that would have happened things that would have happened that then were set in perpetuity as days of remembrance and celebration. Purim would be one, the overthrow or the victory of the Maccabees would be another. I don't have the verses right with me in the New Testament, but I think even Christ himself observed some of those days of celebration. For my own You know, since then, I would argue that there would be a possibility, at least, in Christian freedom for a day of celebration in remembrance of, not in any sense equating it to the Lord's Day as a day of worship, but in a sense of celebration and rejoicing. You mentioned the syncretistic portions of it, and there's where I'm not quite as clear, and I'm wondering if you can perhaps define the issue of syncretism for me. For example, if we look at two possibilities, one is that here's a day when This was worship. There was false idol worship. We take this same day and now instead we worship this. It's not necessarily incorporating elements of, but it is a turning in the direction where instead of worshiping the sun, we now worship the true son of God. Would you define that also as syncretism? Or is syncretism more defined in the way of incorporation of a lot of elements? For example, you know, I used to bow down to an idol. I still bow down to an idol, but now I call the idol Jehovah. Right, right. I would be curious to know of your definition there of syncretism. Maybe it encompasses both. Well, the the date, for example, it comes out of paganism. The very choice of the day was made, as far as we can understand historically, definitively by church officials to coincide with that day. And that the purpose was not to then turn the day into an exclusively Christian thing. They brought over the elements as well. There was a time of giving gifts, for example, which is central in our... that goes back to the Satragnalia type thing. That was the celebration of the birth of their of their deity. In fact, the very idea of celebrating the birth of a deity is a pagan aspect that was done. They did have days when their gods were created on that day. That was the day their gods were born. So these were very important. It's like the beginning of the god. But Jesus' birthday is not his beginning. It's not his ending. It's just one, in one way, in the process of things, just one event that has its significance within that process, but it's not a special day That is to be remembered as the whole idea of remembering birthdays of gods or that type of thing. So even that whole idea of remembering the birthday, I think, comes from paganism. It is a special day type thing. Furthermore, the elements that are brought in to our, usually, our Christmas celebrations, if you want to take the time, you usually can trace that almost every one of them goes back to some sort of pagan element within them. and that when they were originally done, they were ways in which the church could bring in, as it were, the surrounding world, making them comfortable with their conversion to Christianity. I don't know if that's exactly the way I would put that, but it was often the way in which they did that, and so forth. In Deuteronomy chapter 12, Israel has said, when you go to the land of Canaan, You don't use any of the forms or places or anything that was used by the Canaanites to worship their God. You tear down their altars, you burn their groves, you just wipe it all out. We don't want to have any connection between the worship of Jehovah with anything that has Canaanite backgrounds. And so they were to only worship him precisely as God commanded, not adding to nor taking away. And I believe the Regular Principle is unique in that way because men are synchristic by nature. We tend to want to worship God as we want to worship Him. And mostly that worship is usually appealing to the flesh. And as far as I know, the Christmas celebrations are almost all fleshly based. I'm not saying nobody on Christmas can't pray to God. I'm talking about all the events and things that surround it. The decorations, the lights, the gifts, the feasting, and all of that type of thing. And that those things are not set forth in the scripture as being something that is to be used in connection with the remembrance of the birth of Christ, which we're not even supposed to specifically remember on a day anyway, according to my view. So that's what I'm sort of speaking about here. Same thing with Easter and the practices and so forth. An interesting book on the subject is Alexander Hislop, The Two Babylons, where he goes back with meticulous research pointing out how the worship of Rome has incorporated pretty much pagan, just with a Christian veneer. The mass, another thing, the Madonna view of the child and the mother comes out of paganism. That was a very big thing, because again, you had this mother goddess who bore this son who was to rule, and so the picture of a mother holding a baby, even with the so-called halo over the head, he shows pictures and woodcuts from ancient pagan religions and so forth like that. So that's what I mean by syncretism. If someone, decides that they would like to take a day within their family and to read the scriptures concerning this, pray, think about the birth of Christ. I mean, you know, what's what's that? I mean, that's not syncretism. That's not that's not really the issue that's at stake here. It's a particular day that goes back centuries and the connections and so forth with it. And, you know, it's not just that. One of the interesting things historically, from what I understand, is that Martin Luther actually revived some of the practices in terms of really calling for a celebration and making a much bigger thing out of it, which again is just an interesting point. They're godly men. Good men have differed over this. And I understand that, you know, as I come to this passage and look at this, I feel it's an issue that I've never really said much about in this congregation. And I thought it was appropriate to address this and what I think is the biblical teaching on this. But it's for you to judge and to consider these things, whether they be so. Again, I appreciate the spirit in which they were given. I appreciate the questions and comments. Michael. Thank you. I'd hate for this issue to overshadow what was really an excellent message here on the first 20 verses of Luke 2. One of the best Christmas sermons I've ever heard. What did you say? I did have two brief questions. One is this view of of the celebration of religious holidays. Does that apply to every holiday in the in the traditional reform view. Would there be a problem with celebrating Thanksgiving or Memorial Day or what for the July or is it just those that have religious significance of some sort. Well let me just. Yeah that's one question. Let me just say this the first of all I would before approaching the issues of your second of your question. First, I say is that my main tension is concerning the religious calendars that are established to become the very basis of the life and worship of the church. And we're not there here, you know, at all. But a lot of churches, they are guided in what they preach on and what they do and what they think and what they sing and everything by a calendar that covers the whole year. So what I'm saying is the New Testament gives us nothing. The Old Testament wasn't quite as even as the church calendar is, but that is, we do not have a church calendar. We do not have holy days assigned to us anywhere in the Bible. And we as Christians, in terms of our ministry and worship to God, be it private, family, and church, we are not to, this is my view, we are not to follow the church calendar. And I just want to share the reasons why. They have no basis in the scripture to do that. Now, you talked about public days of Thanksgiving in terms of a civil community. Now, of course, Israel was a unique covenantal community. We are not a covenanting nation at this point. The state specifically denies the authority of Christ or ignores it, whichever way you'd like to put that. So I'm not very comfortable at all with any of the stuff that goes on today. I think it's blasphemy. I think our civil religion today is the epitome of syncretism. When 9-1-1, we have Muslims and Buddhists and you name it, all getting together to pray to God. I want nothing of it. I would encourage you to have nothing to do with it. So in that sense, I think our day in these presidential proclamations, even stuff like that, I don't want anything to do with them. Even the National Day of Prayer. If the National Day of Prayer is we're going to pray to God in the name of the only sovereign reigning king and mediator of men, the Lord Jesus Christ, then I might give thought to it. But it's a synchristic religion in America. And what even our leaders believe is, you know, we'll invite a Muslim in to pray during that day, and everybody just pray to their God. I don't want anything to do with it. So, syncretism doesn't work in the civil sphere. Now, if you have a proclamation that is perhaps an occasional one, a great military victory, a great achievement by the nation, an occasional thing where the magistrates say, we're going to set aside a day of Thanksgiving, or we have a national calamity, and they call for setting aside. This is in principle. If it's to Christ, through Christ, I don't have any problem with that. Establishing, though, a national holy calendar of that seeks to regulate the lives and worship of God's people. Anyway, that's a few thoughts. I could go on. I've probably said enough. Secondly, I don't know if you have what you need right now to answer this, but as Covenant analysts, we have to insist that what in the Old Testament we are no longer to observe has to be told us about in the New Testament. So I'm curious because I've never actually heard anyone say where in the New Testament we are. No, we are no longer obligated to observe any of the Old Testament days or feasts. And I don't know, do you know what the texts are or how they're drawn out? Well, there's a number of number of passages that I would think of. I want to come to my mind with Colossians 2 that's talking about will worship and that famous word that's used by so many in the Reformed community about improper worship. But he says in verse 15, having spoiled principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in that. Therefore let no man therefore judge you in meat or drink or in respect of the holy day or of the new moon or of the Sabbath days. That's plural in Greek, Sabbaths. There was different Sabbaths that were established in the Old Testament and all of that kind of thing. And so that is the passage. They were pretty explicit by an apostle. Nobody judge you about not keeping those days. You're not bound to those days. Christ, they are shadow. Verse 17, which are shadow of things to come, the bodies of Christ. So that would be would be the prime one, a prime New Testament passage, also the one in Romans. Fourteen about some observing one day, others observing another day and this and that, and There he allows for delicacy of conscience concerning the observance, I think. Contextually, he's talking about the Jewish days. And the contrast there is between people like Paul and himself who understand that those days no longer are binding on Christians, but there's others who do think they're binding and they should keep that. And there was that period of time. One of the greatest things about 1870 was it ended the whole Jewish system. Judaism was buried. And the church was finally completely divorced. Because up until 1870, Christians were going to the temple. They were participating in temple worship to some degree. They were observing the Jewish days and all of that. The Lord made it very definitive that he was finished with Judaism and the whole system when he judged it. Instead of men realizing it theologically and closing down the temple, as it were, God had to bury it. And when he did, that made the divorce complete. Hebrews would come into pass as well, the Day of Atonement, and all those things were part of the religious calendar there. They've been fulfilled. Is that your three questions? Oh, two. I believe our time is up. Thank you, men, and thank you each for your kind attention. We will conclude our service now with our offering and a song.