The Christmas narratives open with a repeated command that is easy to sentimentalize and just as easy to misunderstand. “Do not fear” is spoken to Zechariah, to Mary, to Joseph, and to the shepherds. This repetition does not signal a new religious ethic, nor does it suggest that God has changed what He requires from humanity. From the beginning, the covenant relationship has always rested on believing loyalty. Trust, allegiance, and obedience grounded in confidence in God’s character define faith both before and after the incarnation.
What Christmas does is not replace fear-based religion with loyalty-based faith. It exposes fear-based religion as something God never authorized. The incarnation removes fear as a legitimate framework for relating to God by making His character unmistakably clear.
Believing Loyalty Has Always Been the Requirement
Scripture does not present fear as the engine of faithful obedience. Abraham trusts Yahweh and is counted righteous before the Law is given. Israel is redeemed from Egypt before Sinai, establishing that covenant obedience flows from deliverance rather than threat. The prophets consistently call Israel back to faithfulness, not to panic or appeasement.
Even “fear of the Lord” language in the Hebrew Scriptures refers to proper recognition of authority and covenant allegiance, not terror. Fear-driven compliance appears repeatedly as a failure of faith, not its fulfillment. Christmas does not introduce believing loyalty. It clarifies it by removing persistent misrepresentations of God’s nature.
Fear-Based Religion in the Ancient Near Eastern World
The religious systems of the ancient Near East were structured around instability and threat. The gods were powerful but unreliable. Divine favor could be lost without explanation, and divine wrath could fall without warning. Ritual existed to prevent disaster, sacrifice to avert harm, and obedience to reduce exposure to divine anger. Religious life was organized around avoiding punishment rather than trusting character.
This model was widely assumed across the ancient world. Divine power was something to be managed, not trusted. Proximity to the gods increased risk rather than security. Worship was fundamentally defensive.
Israel’s covenant with Yahweh stood apart from this structure. Yahweh bound Himself by promise, revealed His name, and acted consistently within covenant terms. Yet Israel repeatedly drifted toward the surrounding religious assumptions, treating Yahweh as though He functioned like the gods of the nations. The prophets confront this distortion relentlessly, not by redefining obedience, but by insisting that Yahweh is not a god who must be appeased to prevent arbitrary harm. The ANE background does not explain what God required. It explains the religious framework Scripture consistently rejects.
“Do Not Fear” as Theological Correction
When angels announce the birth of Jesus, “do not fear” is not spoken because fear had previously been an acceptable response to God. It is spoken because fear no longer fits the situation. The incarnation does not reduce God’s authority or expectations. It removes the false religious framework in which fear appeared appropriate.
God does not say, “Do not fear because obedience no longer matters.” He says, in effect, “Do not fear because you now see who I am.” The command addresses a category error. Believing loyalty remains required. What is removed is the assumption that God relates to His people through threat.
Incarnation Removes Fear as a Legitimate Religious Posture
A God who enters history as a child cannot be treated as unpredictable or hostile in the manner of the gods of the nations. Christmas places God within human history in a way that is accessible, visible, and continuous with His prior covenant faithfulness.
This does not soften judgment or lower accountability. It sharpens it. When God’s character is clearly revealed, fear can no longer function as reverence. Loyalty is no longer negotiated under uncertainty. It is either given or withheld.
Mary obeys because she trusts the promise. Joseph obeys because he believes the message. The shepherds obey because they have witnessed the sign. None of them obeys because they are threatened. Their response reflects covenant loyalty, not defensive religiosity.
Fear That Remains Is Judged
Fear does not disappear entirely from the Christmas narratives, but it is clearly divided. Herod fears loss of power. Religious authorities fear disruption. These fears are not reassured or affirmed. They produce violence and resistance and are treated as evidence of opposition to God’s purposes.
Fear directed toward preserving status, control, or authority stands exposed. Fear rooted in misunderstanding God is corrected. Christmas does not universalize comfort. It draws a line between faithful loyalty and hostile resistance.
What Christmas Ultimately Reveals
Christmas reveals that fear-based religion was never compatible with covenant faithfulness. It belonged to a different religious system altogether. By entering history, God exposes that system without adopting it, replacing it, or negotiating with it.
Believing loyalty remains the measure of faith, just as it always has been. What changes is that fear can no longer claim legitimacy as a religious stance toward God. When God is with His people, fear ceases to be reverence and becomes refusal.
Conclusion
Christmas does not announce a new demand. It announces the removal of a false religious framework. God has always required believing loyalty rather than threat-driven compliance. By entering history, God makes that requirement unmistakably clear.
“Do not fear” is not emotional reassurance. It is a theological judgment. Fear-based religion is exposed, not revised. Loyalty has always been the point. Christmas makes that unavoidable.
Discussion Questions
- How does the repeated command “do not fear” in the Christmas narratives function as a correction of false religious assumptions rather than an introduction of a new requirement?
- In what ways does the structure of ancient Near Eastern religion help explain why fear-based approaches to God were common, even though Scripture consistently rejects them?
- How does the incarnation clarify what “fear of the Lord” means and what it does not mean within covenant relationship?
- Why does the Christmas narrative reassure some forms of fear while judging others, particularly in the contrast between figures like Mary and Herod?
- How does understanding Christmas as the exposure of fear-based religion reshape common assumptions about obedience, judgment, and loyalty in biblical faith?
Want to Know More
- John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old Testament
A standard reference for understanding how ANE religious systems functioned, especially how the gods were perceived as unstable and how ritual was used to avert danger rather than express trust. Essential for the background to fear-based religion without psychologizing it. - Michael S. Heiser, The Unseen Realm
Provides crucial context for understanding the biblical worldview in contrast to the religious systems of the surrounding nations, including how Yahweh’s covenantal self-disclosure differs fundamentally from pagan divine unpredictability. - Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism
Examines how Israel’s understanding of Yahweh developed in contrast to the gods of the ANE, with careful attention to covenant, divine character, and the rejection of capricious divine behavior. Useful for framing why fear-based religion is consistently challenged in Scripture. - N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God
Situates the incarnation within Israel’s long covenant story and shows how Jesus embodies Yahweh’s faithfulness in history, clarifying loyalty, obedience, and judgment rather than redefining them. - John Barclay, Paul and the Gift
While focused on Paul, this work is invaluable for understanding how divine grace functions without coercion or threat, reinforcing the continuity of covenant loyalty and the rejection of transactional religion.
About the Author
