Christmas According to Matthew, Luke, and Obama


ACRU Staff


December 15, 2014

This column by ACRU Senior Legal Analyst Jan LaRue was published December 15, 2014 on The American Thinker website.

After expounding repeatedly about who or what is Islamic, President Obama continues to assume the role of America’s theologian in chief by giving us his twist on the Greatest Story Ever Told.

Obama injected his private interpretation into the Christmas story to bolster support of his executive amnesty for millions of illegal aliens. As reported by Charlie Spiering of, Obama told an audience of amnesty advocates at a town hall meeting in Nashville, Tenn. on Dec. 9:

“If we’re serious about the Christmas season, now is the time to reflect on those who are strangers in our midst and remember what it was like to be a stranger.… As I said the day that I announced these executive actions that we were once strangers too, and part of what my faith teaches me is to look upon the stranger as part of myself. And during this Christmas season that’s a good place to start.” Mary and Joseph were not excluded from Bethlehem’s inn because they were poor “strangers,” much less illegal aliens. The inn was fully occupied. It would have been unthinkable to remove guests the innkeeper had already accepted and give their room to others. He made room such as he had, and there’s no mention of him charging Mary and Joseph.

Luke tells us that they went from Nazareth to Bethlehem to be registered because it was Joseph’s hometown as a member of the “house and family of David.” They were citizens of Israel subjected to a decree by the Roman emperor Caesar Augustus who ordered a census in order to impose taxation on the whole world.

Now there’s a ruler after Obama’s heart.

Since he has no qualms about playing fast and loose with the Bible, it’s not hard to understand why Obama treats the Constitution as a mere thing of wax.

Obama may have been inspired by other Democrats who employ an erratic exegesis of Scripture in order to justify their political ideology. Take Hillary Clinton, please:

When Clinton was a U.S. senator from New York, she told a press conference on March 22, 2006, that “Jesus Himself” would be judged a criminal under a “mean-spirited” GOP immigration proposal. Said Clinton:

“It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures. This bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus Himself.”

Literally? Maybe Clinton should exegete Merriam-Webster before taking on Scripture.

Secretary of State John Kerry waxed theological on Sept. 14, regarding climate change:

“Confronting climate change is, in the long run, one of the greatest challenges that we face, and you can see this duty or responsibility laid out in the Scriptures clearly beginning in Genesis. And Muslim majority countries are among the most vulnerable.”

The late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), in his relentless pursuit of political advantage, posited this insight on the Nativity from the Senate floor in December 2005:

“Rather than debate whether the word ‘Christmas’ should appear in our stores and on our greeting cards, shouldn’t we be living out the hope that came from the first Christmas and do more for our fellow citizens than greater tax breaks for the rich and greater hardship for the poor and everyone else?”

There you have it. Mary and Joseph’s real mission in Bethlehem was to protest Herod’s wealth and the lack of affordable housing for the poor. Why else would a woman several months pregnant take a back-numbing donkey ride of 60-80 miles? The real hope of Christmas isn’t Jesus saving us from our sins — it is politicians saving us from the rich.

Obama also reminded the audience that the Christmas season was about a “soon to be mother” and “a husband of modest means” who were looking for a place to stay, but there was no room at the inn.

If Obama read the Christmas narratives rather than reading his politics into them, he would also realize that Mary was a mother as soon as Jesus was conceived. She wasn’t a “soon to be mother.” According to Matthew:

Now the birth of Jesus Christ was as follows: when His mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit. And Joseph her husband, being a righteous man and not wanting to disgrace her, planned to send her away secretly. But when he had considered this, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream, saying, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. She will bear a Son; and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.” Now all this took place to fulfill what was spoken by the Lord through the prophet: “Behold, the virgin shall be with child and shall bear a Son, and they shall call His name Immanuel,” which translated means, “God with us.”

In 2008, Obama admitted as a presidential candidate that he didn’t know from a “theological perspective or scientific perspective” when a baby “gets civil rights.” He said it was above his “pay grade.”

Since he’s willing to comment on the Christmas narrative, somebody should ask Obama about this part of the Christmas story as told by Matthew:

“Then when Herod saw that he had been tricked by the magi, he became very enraged, and sent and slew all the male children who were in Bethlehem and all its vicinity, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had determined from the magi. Then what had been spoken through Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled:”

Obama is unrelenting in his support of abortion and partial-birth abortion and in his opposition to both state and federal versions of the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act.”

I’d like to know if Obama thinks Herod acted above his pay grade.



Join ACRU Patriot 1776 club

Related articles