Stay Signed In
Do you want to access your site more quickly on this computer? Check this box, and your username and password will be remembered for two weeks. Click logout to turn this off.
Stay Safe
Do not check this box if you are using a public computer. You don't want anyone seeing your personal info or messing with your site.
Do you want to access your site more quickly on this computer? Check this box, and your username and password will be remembered for two weeks. Click logout to turn this off.
Stay Safe
Do not check this box if you are using a public computer. You don't want anyone seeing your personal info or messing with your site.
1 Blessed is the one
who does not walk in step with the wicked
or stand in the way that sinners take
or sit in the company of mockers,
2 but whose delight is in the law of the LORD,
and who meditates on his law day and night.
3 That person is like a tree planted by streams of water,
which yields its fruit in season
and whose leaf does not wither—
whatever they do prospers.
4 Not so the wicked!
They are like chaff
that the wind blows away.
5 Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment,
nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous.
6 For the LORD watches over the way of the righteous,
but the way of the wicked leads to destruction.
who does not walk in step with the wicked
or stand in the way that sinners take
or sit in the company of mockers,
2 but whose delight is in the law of the LORD,
and who meditates on his law day and night.
3 That person is like a tree planted by streams of water,
which yields its fruit in season
and whose leaf does not wither—
whatever they do prospers.
4 Not so the wicked!
They are like chaff
that the wind blows away.
5 Therefore the wicked will not stand in the judgment,
nor sinners in the assembly of the righteous.
6 For the LORD watches over the way of the righteous,
but the way of the wicked leads to destruction.
Deacon George Oak
"Evangelical Holy Word" Association
534 West 123th Street
New York, NY 10099
New York, NY 10099
Links :
http://www.upennca.org
http://caps.net
http://ccda.org
http://www.christiancomedyassociation.com
http://www.cbaonline.org
http://www.cmausa.org
http://www.christianlaw.org
http://www.naccc.org
http://ncca.org
http://www.acsi.org
Bible studies
The Year Jesus Was Born
In the western hemisphere, we split time by the birth of Jesus Christ. But did he really even live? If so, when was he born?
Sometime ago, I struck up a conversation with a man who claimed that God did not exist. He was an atheist. But not just a run-of-the-mill atheist, you understand. He also insisted that Jesus Christ never existed! This fellow was hard core.
Now my atheist friend had incredible faith--blind faith, I might add. His religious fervor, in fact, would put many evangelists to shame. But the evidence that Jesus Christ invaded history is not just shut up to the testimony of the New Testament--as irrefutable as that might be! The very enemies of Christianity claimed that he lived--and that he performed miracles! Early Jewish documents such as the Mishnah and even Josephus--as well as first-century Gentile historians--such as Thallus, Serapion, and Tacitus--all testify that the one called Christ lived in Palestine and died under Pontius Pilate. As the British scholar, F. F. Bruce put it, "The historicity of Christ is as [certain]. . . as the historicity of Julius Caesar" (NT Documents, 119).
Now it logically follows that if Jesus Christ lived (need it be said?), he must have been born. The Gospels tell us that his birth was shortly before Herod the Great died. Herod's death can be fixed with certainty.
Josephus records an eclipse of the moon just before Herod passed on. This occurred on March 12th or 13th in 4 B.C. Josephus also tells us that Herod expired just before Passover. This feast took place on April 11th, in the same year, 4 B.C. From other details supplied by Josephus, we can pinpoint Herod the Great's demise as occurring between March 29th and April 4th in 4 B.C.
It might sound strange to suggest that Jesus Christ was born no later than 4 B.C. since B.C. means 'before Christ.' But our modern calendar which splits time between B.C. and A.D. was not invented until A.D. 525. At that time, Pope John the First asked a monk named Dionysius to prepare a standardized calendar for the western Church. Unfortunately, poor Dionysius missed the real B.C./A.D. division by at least four years!
Now Matthew tells us that Herod killed Bethlehem's babies two years old and under. The earliest Jesus could have been born, therefore, is 6 B.C. Through a variety of other time indicators, we can be relatively confident that the one called Messiah was born in either late 5 or early 4 B.C.
My atheist friend scoffs at such flexibility. He says, "If you don't know exactly when Jesus was born, how do you know that he really lived?" That is hardly a reasonable question! The other day I called my mother to wish her a happy birthday. "Mom, how many candles on this birthday cake?" I inquired. "I don't know, son--I don't keep track any more," she sighed. After a few minutes of pleasant conversation, we hung up.
Now, of course, I can't be certain, but I do believe that that was my mother on the other end of the phone. She can't remember how old she is (and she's neither senile nor very old), but that doesn't make her a figment of my imagination, does it? Because if she's just a phantom, then for the last three minutes, you've been reading absolutely nothing!
The Day Jesus Was Born
This coming December 25th most parents will be lying to their children about old St. Nick. Some of us will be celebrating the birth of our Savior. But was he really born on this day?
Was Jesus really born on December 25th? Virtually every month on the calendar has been proposed by biblical scholars. So why do we celebrate his birth in December?
The tradition for December 25th is actually quite ancient. Hippolytus, in the second century A.D., argued that this was Christ's birthday. Meanwhile, in the eastern Church, January 6th was the date followed.
But in the fourth century, John Chrysostom argued that December 25th was the correct date and from that day till now, the Church in the East, as well as the West, has observed the 25th of December as the official date of Christ's birth.
In modern times, the traditional date has been challenged. Modern scholars point out that when Jesus was born, shepherds were watching their sheep in the hills around Bethlehem. Luke tells us that an angel appeared to "some shepherds staying out in the fields [who were] keeping watch over their flock by night" (2:8).
Some scholars feel that the sheep were usually brought under cover from November to March; as well, they were not normally in the field at night. But there is no hard evidence for this. In fact, early Jewish sources suggest that the sheep around Bethlehem were outside year-round. So you can see, December 25th fits both tradition and the biblical narrative well. There is no sound objection to it.
Now admittedly, the sheep around Bethlehem were the exception, not the rule. But these were no ordinary sheep. They were sacrificial lambs. In the early spring they would be slaughtered at the Passover.
And God first revealed the Messiah's birth to these shepherds--shepherds who protected harmless lambs which would soon die on behalf of sinful men. Whey they saw the baby, could they have known? Might they have whispered in their hearts what John the Baptist later thundered, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!"
Now, of course, we can't be absolutely certain of the day of Christ's birth. At least, not this side of heaven. But an early winter date seems as reasonable a guess as any. And December 25th has been the frontrunner for eighteen centuries. Without more evidence, there seems no good reason to change the celebration date now.
We can blame the ancient church for a large part of our uncertainty. You see, they did not celebrate Christ's birth. At all. To them, it was insignificant. They were far more concerned with his death . . . and resurrection.
But modern man has turned that around. A baby lying in a manger is harmless, non-threatening. But a man dying on a cross--a man who claims to be God--that man is a threat! He demands our allegiance! We cannot ignore him. We must either accept him or reject him. He leaves us no middle ground.
This Christmas season, take a close look at a nativity scene once again. Remove your rose-colored glasses--smell the foul air, see the cold, shivering animals. They represent the Old Testament sacrificial system. They are emblems of death. But they are mere shadows of the Babe in their midst. He was born to die . . . that all who believe in him might live.
The Visit of the Magi
When Jesus Christ was born, men--known as magi--came from the east to worship him. Were they wise men . . . or astrologers?
Matthew begins his second chapter with these words: "Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying, 'Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star in the east, and have come to worship him.'"
Who were these wise men from the east? Matthew tells us next to nothing about them--he doesn't mention their names, nor how many there were--not even which country they came from. As mysteriously as they come on the scene, they disappear. . .
Though Matthew doesn't tell us much, over-zealous Christians throughout church history have dogmatically filled in the blanks. By the 6th century A.D., these dark strangers were given thrones and names: Gaspar, Melchior, and Balthazar were the alleged names of these alleged kings. But this has nothing to do with the biblical story: we really have no idea what their names were--nor even their number. There could have been 3 or 300 as far as we know! But one thing we do know for sure: they were not royalty. The ancient magi were reilgious and political advisors to eastern kings--but there wasn't a drop of blue blood among them.
But isn't it true that the magi were astrologers? And didn't God prescribe death to astrologers in the Old Testament? 'Not always' and 'yes' are the answers. In Deuteronomy 17, God commands his people to execute all astrologers by stoning. Jean Dixon wouldn't stand a chance in such a theocracy! The fact that she--and others like her--are so comfortably tolerated--even well respected!--in modern America ought to show us that the U.S.A. is a post-Christian country--at best . . .
But what about these ancient magi? Were they astrologers? After all, they followed a star to Bethlehem.
We might answer this in three ways: First, not all magi were astrologers, for Daniel the prophet was the chief of the magi in Nebuchadnezzar's court. Through his influence, undoubtedly many of the magi carried on their religious and political duties as worshippers of the One true God.
Second, there are some biblical scholars who believe that Isaiah predicted that a star would appear when the Messiah was born. If this interpretation is correct, then the magi who worshipped the newborn king were clearly following in Daniel's train, for he almost surely taught them from Isaiah.
Third, although a few believe that the 'star' they saw was a natural phenomenon--such as a conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter--this cannot explain how the star stood right over Bethlehem. Clearly, the 'star' was completely of supernatural origin. If so, it probably had nothing to do with astrology.
Therefore, the magi most likely did not subscribe to such superstitious folly. If so, they were truly wise men . . .
I saw a bumper sticker the other day, which read, "Wise men still seek him." Actually, that's not quite accurate. The Bible tells us that "no one seeks God, not even one." But if he has led us to himself, then we have become wise. For it is true that "wise men still worship him."
The Boys from Bethlehem
One of the most heinous atrocities in human history was the murder of Bethlehem's babies by Herod the Great. But did it really happen?
In the second chapter of Matthew's gospel, we read that when Herod the Great heard of the Messiah's birth, "he was troubled--and all Jerusalem with him." Later, when the wise men did not report back to him, he became furious and ordered all the baby boys up to two years old in and around Bethlehem to be slaughtered!
Three questions come to mind as we consider this cruel incident: First, how many babies did Herod actually kill? Second, how old was Jesus when this happened? And finally, why does no other ancient historian record this outrage? In other words, did it really happen?
How many babies did Herod murder? Some scholars have suggested as many as 200! But most reject such a figure. Bethlehem was a small community--almost a suburb of Jerusalem. The village itself--and the surrounding countryside--would hardly have more than 30 male infants under two. Most scholars today place the number between 20 and 30.
But that's if only the boy babies were killed. Actually, the Greek text of Matthew 2:16 could mean 'babies'--not just 'boy babies.' And psychologically, Herod's henchmen might not have bothered to check the gender of their victims. The number might be as high as 50 or 60.
Second, how old was Jesus when this occurred? According to the best chronological evidence, he could not have been more than three or four months old. He was more than likely born in the winter of 5 or 4 B.C.--Herod died in the early spring of 4 B.C. So why did Herod slay all children up to two years old? The answer to the third question might help to answer this one. . .
Third, why is this event not recorded outside the Bible? Specifically, why did Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, fail to mention it?
Josephus tells us much about Herod. The best word to describe his reign is 'overkill.' He murdered his favorite wife's father, drowned her brother--and even killed her! He executed one of his most trusted friends, his barber, and 300 military leaders--all in a day's work! Then he slew three of his sons, allegedly suspecting them of treason. Josephus tells us that "Herod inflicted such outrages upon (the Jews) as not even a beast could have done if it possessed the power to rule over men" (Antiquities of the Jews 17:310). Killing babies was not out of character for this cruel king. And killing them up to two years old--to make sure he got the baby Jesus lines up with his insane jealousy for power.
Josephus might have omitted the slaying of the babies for one of two reasons: first, he was no friend of Christianity and he left it out intentionally; or second, just before Herod died he locked up 3000 of the nation's leading citizens and gave orders that they were to be executed at the hour of his death. He wanted to make sure that there would be mourning when he died. . . Israel was so preoccupied with this that the clandestine murder of a few babies might have gone unnoticed. . .
Herod thought that he had gained a victory over the king of the Jews. Yet this was a mere foreshadowing of the victory Satan thought he had when Jesus lay dead on a Roman cross. But the empty tomb proved that that dark Friday was Satan's worst defeat!
Conclusion
We've been looking at several aspects of the birth of Jesus Christ in this short study. Now, we want to put it all together.
In the winter of 5 or 4 B.C., God invaded history by taking on the form of a man. He was born in a small town just south of Jerusalem. Bethlehem, which means 'the house of bread,' indeed became worthy of its name one lonely winter night. For there, in that town, was born the Bread of Life . . .
His mother placed the infant king in a manger--or feeding trough--because the guest room where they were to stay was occupied. The birth of this king was celebrated that night only by his mother, her husband, and a handful of shepherds. The shepherds had been in the fields around Bethlehem, guarding the lambs which would die at the next Passover. An angel appeared to them and gave them the birth announcement: "today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord" (Luke 2:11). In their simple faith, they rushed to see their newborn king.
Shortly after the birth of the Messiah, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem and inquired of king Herod where the real king of the Jews was to be born. The theologians of Herod's court knew the Scriptures well--in 'Bethlehem' they recited. Ironically, though they knew the Scriptures, they did not believe them! They did not even bother to travel the five or six miles to Bethlehem to see their Messiah.
But Herod believed the Scriptures! That is why he sent a corps of butchers to Bethlehem to slaughter innocent children, in hopes of destroying this rival to his throne. But he was too late. The magi had come and gone and Jesus was by now safe in Egypt.
And the magi believed the Scriptures. They had traveled several hundred miles to worship this Babe. They were guided to Bethlehem by a supernatural celestial phenomenon--and by the Scriptures. Apparently, their ancestors had been instructed by Daniel the prophet about the coming Messiah. . . When they saw the child, they fell down and worshiped him. This was God in the flesh. They could do no other.
And they gave him gifts--gold, frankincense, and myrrh. This was an unusual present--by any standards. The gold, of course, we all can understand--but the frankincense and myrrh were odd. Perhaps they had read Isaiah's prophecy that "nations will come to your light, and kings to your rising . . . They will bring gold and frankincense, and will bear good news. . . " (Isa. 60:3, 6). This explains the frankincense, but not the myrrh.
Now myrrh, like frankincense, was a perfume. But unlike frankincense, myrrh smelled of death. In the ancient world, it was used to embalm a corpse. Jesus himself would be embalmed with this very perfume (cf. John 19:39).
If the magi were thinking of Jesus' death when they brought the myrrh, they no doubt knew of it from Daniel's prophecy (9:24-27). In the ninth chapter of Daniel we read that the 'Messiah will be cut off' and this 'will make atonement for iniquity' and ultimately 'bring in everlasting righteousness' (9:26, 24).
Even at the birth of our Savior, the shadow of the cross is already falling over his face. . .
The theologians of Herod's court did not believe the Scriptures. They were fools. Herod believed, but disobeyed. He was a madman. The simple shepherds and the majestic magi believed in this infant Savior--and it was reckoned to them as righteousness. May we follow in their train.
In the western hemisphere, we split time by the birth of Jesus Christ. But did he really even live? If so, when was he born?
Sometime ago, I struck up a conversation with a man who claimed that God did not exist. He was an atheist. But not just a run-of-the-mill atheist, you understand. He also insisted that Jesus Christ never existed! This fellow was hard core.
Now my atheist friend had incredible faith--blind faith, I might add. His religious fervor, in fact, would put many evangelists to shame. But the evidence that Jesus Christ invaded history is not just shut up to the testimony of the New Testament--as irrefutable as that might be! The very enemies of Christianity claimed that he lived--and that he performed miracles! Early Jewish documents such as the Mishnah and even Josephus--as well as first-century Gentile historians--such as Thallus, Serapion, and Tacitus--all testify that the one called Christ lived in Palestine and died under Pontius Pilate. As the British scholar, F. F. Bruce put it, "The historicity of Christ is as [certain]. . . as the historicity of Julius Caesar" (NT Documents, 119).
Now it logically follows that if Jesus Christ lived (need it be said?), he must have been born. The Gospels tell us that his birth was shortly before Herod the Great died. Herod's death can be fixed with certainty.
Josephus records an eclipse of the moon just before Herod passed on. This occurred on March 12th or 13th in 4 B.C. Josephus also tells us that Herod expired just before Passover. This feast took place on April 11th, in the same year, 4 B.C. From other details supplied by Josephus, we can pinpoint Herod the Great's demise as occurring between March 29th and April 4th in 4 B.C.
It might sound strange to suggest that Jesus Christ was born no later than 4 B.C. since B.C. means 'before Christ.' But our modern calendar which splits time between B.C. and A.D. was not invented until A.D. 525. At that time, Pope John the First asked a monk named Dionysius to prepare a standardized calendar for the western Church. Unfortunately, poor Dionysius missed the real B.C./A.D. division by at least four years!
Now Matthew tells us that Herod killed Bethlehem's babies two years old and under. The earliest Jesus could have been born, therefore, is 6 B.C. Through a variety of other time indicators, we can be relatively confident that the one called Messiah was born in either late 5 or early 4 B.C.
My atheist friend scoffs at such flexibility. He says, "If you don't know exactly when Jesus was born, how do you know that he really lived?" That is hardly a reasonable question! The other day I called my mother to wish her a happy birthday. "Mom, how many candles on this birthday cake?" I inquired. "I don't know, son--I don't keep track any more," she sighed. After a few minutes of pleasant conversation, we hung up.
Now, of course, I can't be certain, but I do believe that that was my mother on the other end of the phone. She can't remember how old she is (and she's neither senile nor very old), but that doesn't make her a figment of my imagination, does it? Because if she's just a phantom, then for the last three minutes, you've been reading absolutely nothing!
The Day Jesus Was Born
This coming December 25th most parents will be lying to their children about old St. Nick. Some of us will be celebrating the birth of our Savior. But was he really born on this day?
Was Jesus really born on December 25th? Virtually every month on the calendar has been proposed by biblical scholars. So why do we celebrate his birth in December?
The tradition for December 25th is actually quite ancient. Hippolytus, in the second century A.D., argued that this was Christ's birthday. Meanwhile, in the eastern Church, January 6th was the date followed.
But in the fourth century, John Chrysostom argued that December 25th was the correct date and from that day till now, the Church in the East, as well as the West, has observed the 25th of December as the official date of Christ's birth.
In modern times, the traditional date has been challenged. Modern scholars point out that when Jesus was born, shepherds were watching their sheep in the hills around Bethlehem. Luke tells us that an angel appeared to "some shepherds staying out in the fields [who were] keeping watch over their flock by night" (2:8).
Some scholars feel that the sheep were usually brought under cover from November to March; as well, they were not normally in the field at night. But there is no hard evidence for this. In fact, early Jewish sources suggest that the sheep around Bethlehem were outside year-round. So you can see, December 25th fits both tradition and the biblical narrative well. There is no sound objection to it.
Now admittedly, the sheep around Bethlehem were the exception, not the rule. But these were no ordinary sheep. They were sacrificial lambs. In the early spring they would be slaughtered at the Passover.
And God first revealed the Messiah's birth to these shepherds--shepherds who protected harmless lambs which would soon die on behalf of sinful men. Whey they saw the baby, could they have known? Might they have whispered in their hearts what John the Baptist later thundered, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!"
Now, of course, we can't be absolutely certain of the day of Christ's birth. At least, not this side of heaven. But an early winter date seems as reasonable a guess as any. And December 25th has been the frontrunner for eighteen centuries. Without more evidence, there seems no good reason to change the celebration date now.
We can blame the ancient church for a large part of our uncertainty. You see, they did not celebrate Christ's birth. At all. To them, it was insignificant. They were far more concerned with his death . . . and resurrection.
But modern man has turned that around. A baby lying in a manger is harmless, non-threatening. But a man dying on a cross--a man who claims to be God--that man is a threat! He demands our allegiance! We cannot ignore him. We must either accept him or reject him. He leaves us no middle ground.
This Christmas season, take a close look at a nativity scene once again. Remove your rose-colored glasses--smell the foul air, see the cold, shivering animals. They represent the Old Testament sacrificial system. They are emblems of death. But they are mere shadows of the Babe in their midst. He was born to die . . . that all who believe in him might live.
The Visit of the Magi
When Jesus Christ was born, men--known as magi--came from the east to worship him. Were they wise men . . . or astrologers?
Matthew begins his second chapter with these words: "Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem, saying, 'Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star in the east, and have come to worship him.'"
Who were these wise men from the east? Matthew tells us next to nothing about them--he doesn't mention their names, nor how many there were--not even which country they came from. As mysteriously as they come on the scene, they disappear. . .
Though Matthew doesn't tell us much, over-zealous Christians throughout church history have dogmatically filled in the blanks. By the 6th century A.D., these dark strangers were given thrones and names: Gaspar, Melchior, and Balthazar were the alleged names of these alleged kings. But this has nothing to do with the biblical story: we really have no idea what their names were--nor even their number. There could have been 3 or 300 as far as we know! But one thing we do know for sure: they were not royalty. The ancient magi were reilgious and political advisors to eastern kings--but there wasn't a drop of blue blood among them.
But isn't it true that the magi were astrologers? And didn't God prescribe death to astrologers in the Old Testament? 'Not always' and 'yes' are the answers. In Deuteronomy 17, God commands his people to execute all astrologers by stoning. Jean Dixon wouldn't stand a chance in such a theocracy! The fact that she--and others like her--are so comfortably tolerated--even well respected!--in modern America ought to show us that the U.S.A. is a post-Christian country--at best . . .
But what about these ancient magi? Were they astrologers? After all, they followed a star to Bethlehem.
We might answer this in three ways: First, not all magi were astrologers, for Daniel the prophet was the chief of the magi in Nebuchadnezzar's court. Through his influence, undoubtedly many of the magi carried on their religious and political duties as worshippers of the One true God.
Second, there are some biblical scholars who believe that Isaiah predicted that a star would appear when the Messiah was born. If this interpretation is correct, then the magi who worshipped the newborn king were clearly following in Daniel's train, for he almost surely taught them from Isaiah.
Third, although a few believe that the 'star' they saw was a natural phenomenon--such as a conjunction of Saturn and Jupiter--this cannot explain how the star stood right over Bethlehem. Clearly, the 'star' was completely of supernatural origin. If so, it probably had nothing to do with astrology.
Therefore, the magi most likely did not subscribe to such superstitious folly. If so, they were truly wise men . . .
I saw a bumper sticker the other day, which read, "Wise men still seek him." Actually, that's not quite accurate. The Bible tells us that "no one seeks God, not even one." But if he has led us to himself, then we have become wise. For it is true that "wise men still worship him."
The Boys from Bethlehem
One of the most heinous atrocities in human history was the murder of Bethlehem's babies by Herod the Great. But did it really happen?
In the second chapter of Matthew's gospel, we read that when Herod the Great heard of the Messiah's birth, "he was troubled--and all Jerusalem with him." Later, when the wise men did not report back to him, he became furious and ordered all the baby boys up to two years old in and around Bethlehem to be slaughtered!
Three questions come to mind as we consider this cruel incident: First, how many babies did Herod actually kill? Second, how old was Jesus when this happened? And finally, why does no other ancient historian record this outrage? In other words, did it really happen?
How many babies did Herod murder? Some scholars have suggested as many as 200! But most reject such a figure. Bethlehem was a small community--almost a suburb of Jerusalem. The village itself--and the surrounding countryside--would hardly have more than 30 male infants under two. Most scholars today place the number between 20 and 30.
But that's if only the boy babies were killed. Actually, the Greek text of Matthew 2:16 could mean 'babies'--not just 'boy babies.' And psychologically, Herod's henchmen might not have bothered to check the gender of their victims. The number might be as high as 50 or 60.
Second, how old was Jesus when this occurred? According to the best chronological evidence, he could not have been more than three or four months old. He was more than likely born in the winter of 5 or 4 B.C.--Herod died in the early spring of 4 B.C. So why did Herod slay all children up to two years old? The answer to the third question might help to answer this one. . .
Third, why is this event not recorded outside the Bible? Specifically, why did Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, fail to mention it?
Josephus tells us much about Herod. The best word to describe his reign is 'overkill.' He murdered his favorite wife's father, drowned her brother--and even killed her! He executed one of his most trusted friends, his barber, and 300 military leaders--all in a day's work! Then he slew three of his sons, allegedly suspecting them of treason. Josephus tells us that "Herod inflicted such outrages upon (the Jews) as not even a beast could have done if it possessed the power to rule over men" (Antiquities of the Jews 17:310). Killing babies was not out of character for this cruel king. And killing them up to two years old--to make sure he got the baby Jesus lines up with his insane jealousy for power.
Josephus might have omitted the slaying of the babies for one of two reasons: first, he was no friend of Christianity and he left it out intentionally; or second, just before Herod died he locked up 3000 of the nation's leading citizens and gave orders that they were to be executed at the hour of his death. He wanted to make sure that there would be mourning when he died. . . Israel was so preoccupied with this that the clandestine murder of a few babies might have gone unnoticed. . .
Herod thought that he had gained a victory over the king of the Jews. Yet this was a mere foreshadowing of the victory Satan thought he had when Jesus lay dead on a Roman cross. But the empty tomb proved that that dark Friday was Satan's worst defeat!
Conclusion
We've been looking at several aspects of the birth of Jesus Christ in this short study. Now, we want to put it all together.
In the winter of 5 or 4 B.C., God invaded history by taking on the form of a man. He was born in a small town just south of Jerusalem. Bethlehem, which means 'the house of bread,' indeed became worthy of its name one lonely winter night. For there, in that town, was born the Bread of Life . . .
His mother placed the infant king in a manger--or feeding trough--because the guest room where they were to stay was occupied. The birth of this king was celebrated that night only by his mother, her husband, and a handful of shepherds. The shepherds had been in the fields around Bethlehem, guarding the lambs which would die at the next Passover. An angel appeared to them and gave them the birth announcement: "today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord" (Luke 2:11). In their simple faith, they rushed to see their newborn king.
Shortly after the birth of the Messiah, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem and inquired of king Herod where the real king of the Jews was to be born. The theologians of Herod's court knew the Scriptures well--in 'Bethlehem' they recited. Ironically, though they knew the Scriptures, they did not believe them! They did not even bother to travel the five or six miles to Bethlehem to see their Messiah.
But Herod believed the Scriptures! That is why he sent a corps of butchers to Bethlehem to slaughter innocent children, in hopes of destroying this rival to his throne. But he was too late. The magi had come and gone and Jesus was by now safe in Egypt.
And the magi believed the Scriptures. They had traveled several hundred miles to worship this Babe. They were guided to Bethlehem by a supernatural celestial phenomenon--and by the Scriptures. Apparently, their ancestors had been instructed by Daniel the prophet about the coming Messiah. . . When they saw the child, they fell down and worshiped him. This was God in the flesh. They could do no other.
And they gave him gifts--gold, frankincense, and myrrh. This was an unusual present--by any standards. The gold, of course, we all can understand--but the frankincense and myrrh were odd. Perhaps they had read Isaiah's prophecy that "nations will come to your light, and kings to your rising . . . They will bring gold and frankincense, and will bear good news. . . " (Isa. 60:3, 6). This explains the frankincense, but not the myrrh.
Now myrrh, like frankincense, was a perfume. But unlike frankincense, myrrh smelled of death. In the ancient world, it was used to embalm a corpse. Jesus himself would be embalmed with this very perfume (cf. John 19:39).
If the magi were thinking of Jesus' death when they brought the myrrh, they no doubt knew of it from Daniel's prophecy (9:24-27). In the ninth chapter of Daniel we read that the 'Messiah will be cut off' and this 'will make atonement for iniquity' and ultimately 'bring in everlasting righteousness' (9:26, 24).
Even at the birth of our Savior, the shadow of the cross is already falling over his face. . .
The theologians of Herod's court did not believe the Scriptures. They were fools. Herod believed, but disobeyed. He was a madman. The simple shepherds and the majestic magi believed in this infant Savior--and it was reckoned to them as righteousness. May we follow in their train.
Should Christians Celebrate Christmas?
Study By: J. Hampton Keathley
Introduction
"Should Christians celebrate Christmas?" or, "How should a Christian celebrate Christmas?" These are questions of concern for many sincere believers. In fact, many believers dislike the season and have refused to celebrate it at all. A number of reasons are given, and while I might agree with some of their concerns and some of the reasons offered against the observance of Christmas, I would not necessarily agree with their conclusions.
One day I happened to catch a TV preacher denouncing the celebration of Christmas. He was saying it is pagan holiday, and that Christ could not have born in December. He used some Old Testament passages to show how the Christmas tree was idolatrous and an abomination. He quoted Jeremiah 10:2-4 which reads:
2 Thus says the LORD, "Do not learn the way of the nations, And do not be terrified by the signs of the heavens Although the nations are terrified by them; 3 For the customs of the peoples are delusion; Because it is wood cut from the forest, The work of the hands of a craftsman with a cutting tool. 4 "They decorate it with silver and with gold; They fasten it with nails and with hammers so that it will not totter.
Then he quoted Isaiah 44:14-15:
Isaiah 44:14-15 Surely he cuts cedars for himself, and takes a cypress or an oak, and raises it for himself among the trees of the forest. He plants a fir, and the rain makes it grow. 15 Then it becomes something for a man to burn, so he takes one of them and warms himself; he also makes a fire to bake bread. He also makes a god and worships it; he makes it a graven image, and falls down before it. (NASB)
Finally, he quoted Jeremiah 3:13:
Only acknowledge your iniquity, That you have transgressed against the Lord your God And have scattered your favors to the strangers under every green tree, And you have not obeyed My voice,‘ declares the Lord.
It seems that the points of reference for this preacher were to "wood cut from the forest," "they decorate it with silver and gold," "he plants a fir" (an evergreen tree), "scattered your favors . . . under every green tree," and "falls down before it." The preacher went on to say, that at Christmas people take an evergreen tree cut from the forest; they decorate it with ornaments of silver and gold, and then fall down before it when they place their presents under the tree. His conclusion was that this is idolatry.
If this weren't so sad, it would be hilarious, but sincere people hear this and become concerned. As a pastor, I have had people ask me questions such as, "Are we wrong to celebrate Christmas?" "Is this idolatry?" "What should we do about celebrating Christmas?"
It is this mentality that I will address in this study. How should believers respond to such questions and to the criticism leveled against the celebration of Christmas and the Christmas season? Is it scripturally wrong to celebrate Christmas? Is it pagan?
Everywhere we go during the season, the signs of Christmas are there with all their glitter, tinsel, lights, greenery, cards, festivities, carols, bells, Santas, manger scenes, angels, trees and presents--and the push by Madison Avenue and the gimmicks of the retailers. The Christmas season either makes or breaks many businesses.
Should we play the part of Scrooge and say, "bah humbug!"? Should we call attention to the fact that certain of our Christmas traditions such as the yule log, the decorated tree, and mistletoe each have their roots in pagan festivals? Should we assert that celebrateChristmas is to promote paganism and materialism and thus is just not the biblical thing to do?
I personally do not agree with that conclusion. In this short study, we will take a look at some of the arguments and issues and consider some of the biblical options open to us as believers.
Arguments Against
the Celebration of Christmas
Argument Number 1: Christmas is Commercialized and Materialistic
It is said that because the birth of Christ has been commercialized and secularized the real meaning of the season been lost. For the most part this is true. Even the story about the birth of Christ is often distorted, mocked, or misrepresented. The meaning of Christmas is said to be the spirit of giving. However, the giving of the Son of God who became the babe of the cradle that He might become the man of the cross and one day reign on earth with the crown is forgotten, rejected, or ignored.
Answers and Considerations:
If we use this argument as a legitimate reason for discarding the entire celebration of Christ's birth at Christmas, it would follow that we would end up having to throw out everything--even our Bibles and our wives or husbands. Why? Because Satan and man distort and ruins everything in life--the Bible, sex, marriage, the church, food--everything. Name one thing that Satan doesn't ruin. We don't throw things out just because the world misuses or distorts them.
In 1 Thessalonians 5:22 Paul says, "abstain from every form of evil" (NASB). Because of the translation of the KJV, "every appearance of evil," some have taken this to apply to anything that even looks like it might be evil. As the NASB translation make clear, however, Paul's meaning is "to abstain from every genuine form of evil," not what might simply appear to be evil. We are to abstain from what is genuinely evil or wrong according to the index of the Word of God. To abstain from the mere appearance of evil would seem to contradict what the Apostle says in the second passage important to this discussion.
In Titus 1:15 the Apostle also warns against those who see evil in almost anything and condemn it. For these people, a lot of things have the appearance of evil, but purity is first of all a matter of the mind and conscience, not merely the external. "To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled." (NASB).
Just because the world distorts something, that does not make it evil if we avoid the distortions and use it as God intended or in a way that does not go contrary to God's character and holiness. A good illustration is the beauty of sexual love within the bonds of marriage.
Argument Number 2: Scripture Doesn't Authorize It
The argument is that since we are not clearly authorized by the Bible to celebrate the birth of Christ during such a season, we should have no celebrations or even special services to commemorate the birth of Christ. On the other hand, Scripture does tell us to remember His death in the ordinance of the Lord's Supper, and we celebrate His resurrection by assembling on the first day of the week, but there is no precedent for celebrating His birth.
Answers and Considerations:
This is what we could legitimately call hyperliteralism in the use of Scripture. Such an approach completely misses the spirit and intent of the Bible. Hyperliteralism (or letterism) is an intense devotion to the details of the Bible in such a way that one misses the spirit and essential thrust of a passage. Mountains are made out of mole hills and the truth is missed. One is busy counting the number of letters in a sentence rather than listening to its instruction.
If we applied this argument consistently, we would need to discontinue the use of overheads, musical instruments, hymnals, chorus books, the church building, pews, Sunday school, Christian schools, and many other things. Further, there could be no special services or seasons to commemorate things God has done as with Thanksgiving or a dedication service for a new building. Why? Because the only illustrations of such things are found in the Old Testament and not the New Testament. If the New Testament had clearly spoken on this matter, this argument would be correct because the New Testament does take priority over the Old Testament. However, since it has not, the argument from silence is not sufficient reason.
Some would argue that the New Testament has not been silent, and this is the third argument we need to consider.
Argument Number 3: Scripture Forbids It
Colossians 2:16-17 Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day-- 17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.
Using this passage, it is claimed that Scripture actually warns and forbids the observance of any special months, seasons, days or religious festivals.
Answers and Considerations:
What Colossians 2:16-17 forbids is the celebration of religious seasons or holy days when they have been prescribed as religious duty and necessary for holiness or spirituality.
In this passage, the Apostle is talking about the Old Testament festivals which were shadows of the person and work of Christ--but Christ has now come. To continue to celebrate them is to dishonor the fact of His coming, or to act as though He were not enough for salvation or spirituality. Note what the Apostle says, "let no one act as your judge in regard to . . ." He is saying don't let anyone tell you these things are requirements for fellowship with God. They were only shadows of the person and work of Christ, and He has not only come and fulfilled those shadows, but He is totally sufficient.
Colossians 2:16 and 17 in no way forbids believers from commemorating something such as the birth of Christ if it is done out of love, devotion, and the joy the season gives when used as a way of focusing on the Savior and not as a religious duty. The issue is not the observance, but the reason, the attitudes and the spirit in which it is done.
Furthermore, I believe there is scriptural precedent for commemorating and remembering the birth of Christ. This is in keeping with the events that occurred around the time of Christ's birth These include:
1. The appearance of the angel of the Lord with the glory of the Lord to announce the birth of Christ to the shepherds (Lk. 2:10-12).
2. The response of the angels at the announcement of Christ's birth (Lk. 2:13-14).
3. The actions of the shepherds who left their flocks to go and see which was nothing short of a celebration (Lk. 2:15-20).
4. And the arrival of the men from the east bearing gifts as much as a year to two years later (Matt. 2:1-12).
There is, of course, the New Testament precedent for believers meeting together on Sunday. In essence this is a celebration of the Lord's resurrection. The early church automatically did this, but Scripture does not command us to do so. In fact, the early church at first met daily and took the Lord's Supper daily, but we don't do that today. Why not? Because these are not binding. We are not under the Law. Believers meet on Sunday because of its significance and because the early church set a precedent for it, but it was never commanded in the Bible. Believers did it out of love and adoration for the risen Savior.
The point is this: If the early church could celebrate the resurrection without a specific command from God, only the spirit of legalism or the letter of the law would forbid the celebration of Christ's birth as a special season of joy and adoration. Ultimately, the issue is not the season, its the attitude and reason behind it and the distortion of it. Let's not throw out the baby with the wash.
Argument Number 4: Christmas Traditions are from Paganism
Another argument against the celebration of Christmas as it has been done for years is the claim that many of the traditions found in the celebration of Christmas were brought over into Christianity from pagan practices. These include the yule log, the tree, special feasts or meals, and mistletoe. How can we justify these things? Isn't it just like celebrating Halloween? A number of Old Testament passages are sometimes used to condemn the use of Christmas trees such as: Jeremiah 10:2-5; Isaiah 40:19-20; 44:14-17. (See verses in introduction above.)
Answers and Considerations:
Some Historical Facts about our Traditions
The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible says:
Gradually a number of prevailing practices of the nations into which Christianity came were assimilated and were combined with the religious ceremonies surrounding Christmas. The assimilation of such practices generally represented efforts by Christians to transform or absorb otherwise pagan practices.
The Feast of Saturnalia in early Rome, for example, was celebrated for 7 days from the 17th to the 24th of December and was marked by a spirit of merriment, gift giving to children and other forms of entertainment. Gradually, early Christians replaced the pagan feast with the celebration of Christmas; but many of the traditions of this observance were assimilated and remain to this day a part of the observance of Christmas. Other nations, the Scandinavians, Germans, French, English and others, have left their mark . . . as well (pp. 804, 805).
Concerning these ancient elements, The Christian Encyclopedia says:
Various symbolic elements of the pagan celebration, such as the lighting of candles, evergreen decorations, and the giving of gifts, were adapted to Christian signification. Later as Christianity spread into northern Europe, the Celtic, Teutonic, and Slavic winter festivals contributed holly, mistletoe, the Christmas tree, bonfires, and similar items.
Finally, Unger's Bible Dictionary adds:
The giving of presents was a Roman custom; while the yule tree and yule log are remnants of old Teutonic nature worship. Gradually the festival sank into mere revelry . . . . The custom was forbidden by an act of parliament in 1555; And the reformation brought in a refinement in the celebration of Christmas by emphasizing it Christian elements.
But what about passages like Jeremiah 10? Some believe this condemns the celebration of Christmas and especially the use of the Christmas tree. Is Jeremiah telling us to avoid the customs of the nations? No. Jeremiah 10 is a denunciation of the making and worship of idols and not the decoration of evergreen trees in the home.
This passage is not a categorical denial of all the customs of the nations. It is only a command to avoid those customs that are contrary to the revelation of God to Israel. There were many customs that Israel and the nations had in common that were not wrong.
This passage in Jeremiah and others like it in Isaiah had to do with idolatry. First, Jeremiah warns against astrological worship--the worship of the sun, moon, and the stars. Second, he warns against going into the forest to cut down trees to be carved into an idol in some form whether human or animal, and then worshipped and prayed to for guidance, for protection, and blessing (cf. Isa. 44:14-17).
Some have tried to tie the reference to the green tree in Jeremiah 3:6, 13 to the reference in 10:3f to further justify condemnation of the Christmas tree, but this refers to the idolatrous groves of trees used as a place for idol worship and revelry.
Issues Facing Us Today
(1) The pagan associations were lost long ago
The names of the days of our week also had their origin in pagan beliefs. Thursday originally stood for the Germanic god of the sky or of thunder. Tuesday stood for Tiw, the god of war. And Wednesday is derived from Woden, the chief god in Germanic mythology. Sunday and Monday were related somehow to the worship of the sun and the moon. Saturday is from Saturnus, or Saturn, and Friday comes from Fria, the goddess of love.
All of these ancient meanings with their beliefs and associations were lost long ago. When Friday roles around we don't think about Fria, the goddess of love. On Saturday we don't think about it as Saturn's day, but as our day off! The same applies to the traditions of Christmas. If one observed the days of the week or the Christmas season with their ancient associations in mind, certainly it would be wrong. But many of these things, as with our Sunday, have been given Christian connotations.
The evergreen tree is a symbol of the eternal life which Christ, the Son of God, offers to man via another tree, the cross (Rev. 2:7; 22:2, 14).
The presents under the tree can remind us of God's gift and our need to give of ourselves to others as those who have received God's gift of life through Christ.
Even without seeking special significance in the traditions of Christmas, you could still celebrate this season for the joy and family fun the season can bring.
I would like to suggest that believers can capitalize on the Christmas season as a family tradition and as a learning experience much like the Old Testament Passover was to be used by Israel. It all depends on the spirit and attitude in which it is done. We can be very negative and critical, or we can be positive and use the season as a time to remember and commemorate the birth of the Savior. We can use it as a time to demonstrate love for others in a special way, and to be together as a family like we do on Thanksgiving, the Fourth of July, or New Years. We can make something evil out of it or something good.
(2) Facts of Scripture Concerning the Celebration of Christmas
In view of what we have seen, the Bible is silent from the standpoint of our Christmas traditions. However, because of our freedom in Christ under grace, we are at liberty to celebrate Christmas. The important point is that the Bible simply does not condemn the celebration of Christmas even in the traditional form and we have liberty in Christ to choose to do so.
Scripture does, however, set down principles which should affect the way we celebrate it. These principles warn and protect us from the distortions we find in the world.
Today in many companies and offices, Christmas is celebrated with wild, drunken parties where there is no regard for the reason for the season--the birth of the Savior of the World. It becomes just a time of merriment and a time to tie one on.
Today people often spend lavishly on gifts and go deeply in debt. They buy things they can't afford, which nobody needs, and sometimes can't even identify. The response is "Hey, thanks. What is it?"
Children get caught up with the gifts and the toys and lose sight of the Savior--or never hear about the Lord as God's gift of His Son that we might have life.
Through the Christmas message, Parents often fail to teach the spirit of giving as an outworking of one's relationship with God through faith in Christ, God's gift to the world.
Finally, some may observe the season as they would observe lent, as a religious holy day that must be observed to gain points with God, or to become more spiritual.
But it doesn't have to be like this. Even the gift aspect can be done in such a way that it is instructive, meaningful, in keeping with one's budget, and in keeping with biblical teaching concerning Christian stewardship.
(3) Ancient traditions are often distortions of original revelation
Many of the customs of Christmas originated in ancient Babylonian paganism and were related in various ways to the mother-child cult. But an important concept is often missed here.
Originally, many of the ideas of these pagan practices may have had their roots in the truth of the Old Testament or divine revelation from God as:
In Genesis 3:15, we have the promise of the Savior through the seed of a woman.
In Isaiah 7:14, we have the promise that this Savior will come through the virgin birth.
A number of passages use the symbol of a tree to point to the promise of life through the Messiah. Genesis 2:9: 3:17, 22; Revelation 2:7; 22:2, 14 all speak of a tree of life, some historic, some prophetic. Isaiah 4:2; 11:1; 60:21; Jeremiah 23:5; 33:15 and Zechariah 3:8; 6:12 all speak of the branch of the Lord as the work of God.
These verses form a whole line of prophecies concerning the branch of the Lord, the shoot, that would spring forth and become a tree of life both to Israel and the nations. So, when we come to the New Testament, we find reference to a tree of life that is available to believers in Christ.
In view of these Old Testament prophecies, I believe four things are evident:
These ancient customs of the nations were originally introduced into the religious life of the nations by Satan to distort the original promises and truth of God which these customs would portray. For instance, in the mother-child cult of ancient Babylon, the mother was the primary object of worship, not her son. This was a distortion of the promise of Genesis 3:15.
These customs came from a basic need in man (one built in by God) for the truth and need of a Savior. The practices, though in perverted form, did portray a deliverer, the provision of eternal life, the gift of God through the seed of a woman, a divine branch from heaven as the means of reconciliation to God.
The principle is that these customs cast surprising light on the revelation of God's grace as they originally came from God in the beginning of human history. As with the story of the flood, the temptation, and the fall of man, they all became perverted from that which we find in the inspired Word. However, in many cases, they did point to original revelation from God and maybe even customs that were originally pure.
Today, our Christmas traditions have lost their original pagan significance or connotations. In some cases, the distortions were corrected by the reformers over two hundred years ago, but they did not see fit to condemn the celebration of Christmas.
(4) The celebration of Christmas falls under the category of doubtful things.
It is argued that since Scripture does not clearly rule out the celebration of Christmas; its celebration falls under the category of debatable or doubtful things covered by the principles of Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 and 9. In summary, these passages teach us the following principles:
Every believer must become convinced in his or her own mind (Rom. 14:5).
We must not judge or look upon other with contempt who do not come to the same conclusion that we do (Rom. 14:3, 4, 13).
Just as there is nothing evil in meat sacrificed to idols, so there is nothing inherently evil in the traditional Christmas with the tree, presents, carols, and decorations. Such things become what people make them by their attitudes and beliefs (Rom. 14:22-23; 1 Cor. 8:4-8; 10:19).
The ultimate issue is our attitude, the reasons, and how if one decides to celebrate the Christmas season in some fashion.
(5) Some Options to Consider
If you have doubts or misgivings, do away with any observance of the Christmas season all together. But do not become a Scrooge and look down on those who do celebrate it (Rom. 14:-5).
Cut out some or all of the traditional elements like the tree, presents, etc., but spend the season reflecting on the birth of the Savior through the Word and the singing of carols.
Keep the season's traditions--the tree, presents, and decorations--but divorce them of any religious tones. Use this part of the season simply as a family tradition for fun and family togetherness. But remember the birth of Christ through carols, reading the Christmas story, and times with other members of the body of Christ.
Keep the Christmas traditions and use them to illustrate and focus on the truth of Jesus Christ. (1) The tree speaks of the Lord and the eternal life which He gives; (2) The presents speak of God's love and gift to us of His Son and of our love for one another. Make the emphasis more on giving rather than receiving. (3) The mistletoe speaks of the gift of God's righteous branch, and the kiss or hug stands for kissing the Son in faith--an expression of faith in Christ as God's means of salvation and reconciliation (Psalm 2).
The problem is that many believers are already carnal or marginal in their spiritual life and they get caught up in the rat race and secularization of the season. People spend far more than they can afford. They seek relief from their burdens and seek happiness in the glitter and merry making of the holidays, rather than in the person of God's Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. They look for the season to give joy, rather than the Person of the season. They expect from the season what only God can give. As a result, depression and suicide reaches its peak during the Christmas season and immediately following it.
Argument Number 5: Uncertainty of the Date of Christ's Birth
As one who has specialized in biblical chronology, Dr. Harold W. Hoehner, professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, wrote:
Jesus Christ entered into the history of our world, Christianity, therefore, has historical basis. The backbone of history is chronology. Whereas history is a systematic account of events in relation to a nation, institution, science, or art; chronology is a science of time. It seeks to establish and arrange the dates of past events in their proper sequence. Thus chronology serves as a necessary framework upon which the events of history may be fitted (BIB SAC, Vol. 130, # 520, Oct.-Dec., 1973, p. 338).
The argument is that Christ could not have been born on December 25 or even in the winter, so the entire celebration is wrong, even the time of the year.
Answers and Considerations:
By considering the chronological notes in Scripture such as Luke 2:1, "it seems that the evidence would lead one to conclude that Christ's birth occurred sometime in the winter of 5/4 B.C." (Hoehner, p. 350). Our concern here is not with the year, but with the month Christ was born--or at least the time of year, i.e., winter or spring. Is a winter date out of the question? Is it possible or maybe even probable?
1. Hoehner points out that the traditional date for the birth of Christ as December 25th dates back to as early as Hippolytus (A..D. 165-235). In the Eastern church January 6th was the date used for Christ's birth. But this is still a winter date and not far removed from December 25th.
2. Chrysostom (A..D. 345-407) in 386 stated that December 25th is the correct date and hence it became the official date for Christ's birth except in the Eastern church which still retained January 6th.
3. One of the main objections has been that sheep were usually taken into enclosures from November through March and were not out in the fields at night. However, this is not as conclusive as it sounds for the following reasons: (a) It could have been a mild winter. (b) It is not at all certain that sheep were always brought into enclosures during the winter months. (c) It is true that during the winter months sheep were brought in from the wilderness, but remember, Luke tells us the shepherds were near Bethlehem rather than in the wilderness. This indicates, if anything, the nativity was in the winter months. (d) The Mishnah tells us the shepherds around Bethlehem were outside all year and those worthy of the Passover were nearby in the fields at least 30 days before the feast which could be as early as February (one of the coldest, rainiest months of the year). So December is a very reasonable date.
James Kelso, an archaeologist who spent a number of years living in Palestine and who has done extensive research there says this:
The best season for the shepherds of Bethlehem is the winter when heavy rains bring up a luscious crop of new grass. After the rains the once-barren, brown desert earth is suddenly a field of brilliant green. One year when excavating at New Testament Jericho, I lived in Jerusalem and drove through this area twice every day. At one single point along the road, I could see at times as many as five shepherds with their flocks on one hillside. One shepherd stayed with his flock at the same point for three weeks, so lush was the grass. But as soon as the rains stopped in the spring, the land quickly took on its normal desert look once again.
Since there seem to have been a number of shepherds who came to see the Christ child, December or January would be the most likely months (James Kelso, An Archaeologist Looks At The Gospels, p. 23-24).
Argument Number 6: The Timing of the Magi's Arrival
It has been claimed the Magi could not have arrived in Bethlehem at the time of Christ's birth. It would have taken months to travel to Bethlehem from the East. The family was living in a house when the Magi arrived, and Herod had children killed up to two years old when he heard about the child.
While none of this really affects whether one should celebrate Christmas, this argument is often used to throw further doubt and contempt for the entire tradition of celebrating Christmas.
Answers and Considerations:
The argument concerning the time required to travel from the East assumes a great deal. It assumes they were in the East when the star was seen, or even that God had not revealed information to them which could have caused them to begin their journey before the star was seen.
Let me just quote Hoehner from BIB SAC again (Vol. 130, # 520, p. 349).
The question arises whether Matthew is speaking of the same time as Luke or a later time. Madison attempts to demonstrate that the Magi visited Christ when He was about two years of age by noting that the Lukan narrative uses the term brephos (2:12) which is used to refer to an unborn, a newborn child, or an infant whereas Matthew uses the words paidion (2:8, 9,11, 13, 14, 20, 21) and pais (2:16) which are used of a child that is at least one year old rather than an infant. The fact that the wise men came to the house (in Matthew's account) rather than a manger (in Luke's account) would also indicate that Jesus was older when Herod slew the children. Thus Luke is talking about the time of Christ's birth whereas Matthew is talking about two years after Christ's birth.
However, the distinction is not so clear-cut as Madison would have one to believe. The term padion is used of infants (Luke 1:59:, 66, 76; John 16:21; Heb. 11:23) and brephos is used of a young child (2 Tim. 3;15). The word pais is used in the N.T. of a child six out of twenty-four times (the other eighteen occurrences speak of a servant). In the O.T. the meaning "servant" is almost unanimous. In Matthew 2:16 pais would fall into the same age category as paidion since the latter term is used nine times in the same context. Furthermore, to say that Jesus was no longer an infant because the magi visited Him in a house rather than a stable is quite weak. Certainly they would have moved to a house as soon as it was possible. Indeed the tone of Matthew 2:1 is that the Magi visited Christ soon after His birth. That Herod killed children up to two years old was only to be sure he got Jesus. This is not out of character with Herod. Therefore, the slaying of the children soon after Christ's birth is tenable.
Please note what Charles Ryrie has to say on Matthew 2:11 in his Study Bible, p. 1447.
into the house . . . the Child. These words need not indicate that the wise men came some time after the birth of Christ. The family would naturally have moved into a house as quickly as possible after Jesus was born, and "child" can mean a newborn (John 16:21). We do not know how many wise men there were, gold and frankincense and myrrh. These were gifts worthy of a king. The early church fathers understood the gold to be symbolic of Christ's deity; the frankincense, of His purity; and the myrrh, of His death (since it was used for embalming).
Argument Number 7: Christmas means "Christ's Mass"
The name Christmas is objected to because it means Christ's Mass. This is supposed to be a reference to the Roman Catholic ritual involving the Eucharist or the Lord's Supper. Roman Catholic tradition holds that by the priest's consecration the bread and the wine are changed into the literal body and blood of Christ; that this consecration is a new offering of Christ's sacrifice, and that by partaking of the elements the communicant receives saving and sanctifying grace from God.
Answers and Considerations:
Christ + mass, can also mean "a large number or quantity." It can also mean simply a mass of religious services in commemoration of the birth of Christ. In other words, mass stands for festival involving a number of religious activities, and is not a reference to the Roman Catholic ritual of the Eucharist.
Further, even if the term originally referred to the Roman Catholic ritual of the Eucharist, it long ago lost that connotation and is really not an issue.
Argument Number 8: What about Santa Claus?
Christmas can involve children in the belief of Santa Claus, a mythical figure, which detracts from the person of Christ. The objection is that the emphasis is turned from Jesus Christ to Santa Claus as the giver of gifts for good behavior rather than God's gift of His Son by grace through faith.
Furthermore, young children sometimes confuse Santa with Jesus Christ since "he knows when you've been sleeping, he knows when you're awake, he knows if you've been bad or good, . . .
The idea of gifts for good behavior can connote a "reward for good deeds" mentality which is opposed to God's gift of His Son through faith. Scripture does promise rewards for obedience.
Answers and Considerations:
The Santa Clause idea originated with a man by the name of St. Nicholas who was the Bishop of Myra in Lycia in the area of present day Turkey. He went about, often at night, giving gifts to poor and needy children. He later became the patron saint of children in the Roman Catholic Church. From here the story grew and became legend in country after country with various details were deleted and added as the legend of St. Nick grew.
So, how should believers handle it? Santa may be taken as a fairy tale idea like Alice in Wonderland, or Jack and the Bean Stalk. Children normally understand that Alice in Wonderland is only make believe--a fairy tale. However, for many children Santa is real. In many ways it is probably harmless. But because of the confusion between Santa and Christ, parents need to be careful in their use of this part of Christmas.
We also need to remember that Scripture does promise rewards for godly behavior or faithfulness for believers in Christ. Salvation is a gift through faith alone in Christ alone, but crowns, metonomy for rewards, are promised for faithful and obedient living (1 Pet. 5:4).
Conclusion
As with all of these doubtful things, each family needs to make up their own minds. In my opinion parents can explain the traditions and have fun with them, but make sure your children understand the historical roots and use these things to teach the truth behind the traditions.
Study By: J. Hampton Keathley
Introduction
"Should Christians celebrate Christmas?" or, "How should a Christian celebrate Christmas?" These are questions of concern for many sincere believers. In fact, many believers dislike the season and have refused to celebrate it at all. A number of reasons are given, and while I might agree with some of their concerns and some of the reasons offered against the observance of Christmas, I would not necessarily agree with their conclusions.
One day I happened to catch a TV preacher denouncing the celebration of Christmas. He was saying it is pagan holiday, and that Christ could not have born in December. He used some Old Testament passages to show how the Christmas tree was idolatrous and an abomination. He quoted Jeremiah 10:2-4 which reads:
2 Thus says the LORD, "Do not learn the way of the nations, And do not be terrified by the signs of the heavens Although the nations are terrified by them; 3 For the customs of the peoples are delusion; Because it is wood cut from the forest, The work of the hands of a craftsman with a cutting tool. 4 "They decorate it with silver and with gold; They fasten it with nails and with hammers so that it will not totter.
Then he quoted Isaiah 44:14-15:
Isaiah 44:14-15 Surely he cuts cedars for himself, and takes a cypress or an oak, and raises it for himself among the trees of the forest. He plants a fir, and the rain makes it grow. 15 Then it becomes something for a man to burn, so he takes one of them and warms himself; he also makes a fire to bake bread. He also makes a god and worships it; he makes it a graven image, and falls down before it. (NASB)
Finally, he quoted Jeremiah 3:13:
Only acknowledge your iniquity, That you have transgressed against the Lord your God And have scattered your favors to the strangers under every green tree, And you have not obeyed My voice,‘ declares the Lord.
It seems that the points of reference for this preacher were to "wood cut from the forest," "they decorate it with silver and gold," "he plants a fir" (an evergreen tree), "scattered your favors . . . under every green tree," and "falls down before it." The preacher went on to say, that at Christmas people take an evergreen tree cut from the forest; they decorate it with ornaments of silver and gold, and then fall down before it when they place their presents under the tree. His conclusion was that this is idolatry.
If this weren't so sad, it would be hilarious, but sincere people hear this and become concerned. As a pastor, I have had people ask me questions such as, "Are we wrong to celebrate Christmas?" "Is this idolatry?" "What should we do about celebrating Christmas?"
It is this mentality that I will address in this study. How should believers respond to such questions and to the criticism leveled against the celebration of Christmas and the Christmas season? Is it scripturally wrong to celebrate Christmas? Is it pagan?
Everywhere we go during the season, the signs of Christmas are there with all their glitter, tinsel, lights, greenery, cards, festivities, carols, bells, Santas, manger scenes, angels, trees and presents--and the push by Madison Avenue and the gimmicks of the retailers. The Christmas season either makes or breaks many businesses.
Should we play the part of Scrooge and say, "bah humbug!"? Should we call attention to the fact that certain of our Christmas traditions such as the yule log, the decorated tree, and mistletoe each have their roots in pagan festivals? Should we assert that celebrateChristmas is to promote paganism and materialism and thus is just not the biblical thing to do?
I personally do not agree with that conclusion. In this short study, we will take a look at some of the arguments and issues and consider some of the biblical options open to us as believers.
Arguments Against
the Celebration of Christmas
Argument Number 1: Christmas is Commercialized and Materialistic
It is said that because the birth of Christ has been commercialized and secularized the real meaning of the season been lost. For the most part this is true. Even the story about the birth of Christ is often distorted, mocked, or misrepresented. The meaning of Christmas is said to be the spirit of giving. However, the giving of the Son of God who became the babe of the cradle that He might become the man of the cross and one day reign on earth with the crown is forgotten, rejected, or ignored.
Answers and Considerations:
If we use this argument as a legitimate reason for discarding the entire celebration of Christ's birth at Christmas, it would follow that we would end up having to throw out everything--even our Bibles and our wives or husbands. Why? Because Satan and man distort and ruins everything in life--the Bible, sex, marriage, the church, food--everything. Name one thing that Satan doesn't ruin. We don't throw things out just because the world misuses or distorts them.
In 1 Thessalonians 5:22 Paul says, "abstain from every form of evil" (NASB). Because of the translation of the KJV, "every appearance of evil," some have taken this to apply to anything that even looks like it might be evil. As the NASB translation make clear, however, Paul's meaning is "to abstain from every genuine form of evil," not what might simply appear to be evil. We are to abstain from what is genuinely evil or wrong according to the index of the Word of God. To abstain from the mere appearance of evil would seem to contradict what the Apostle says in the second passage important to this discussion.
In Titus 1:15 the Apostle also warns against those who see evil in almost anything and condemn it. For these people, a lot of things have the appearance of evil, but purity is first of all a matter of the mind and conscience, not merely the external. "To the pure, all things are pure; but to those who are defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled." (NASB).
Just because the world distorts something, that does not make it evil if we avoid the distortions and use it as God intended or in a way that does not go contrary to God's character and holiness. A good illustration is the beauty of sexual love within the bonds of marriage.
Argument Number 2: Scripture Doesn't Authorize It
The argument is that since we are not clearly authorized by the Bible to celebrate the birth of Christ during such a season, we should have no celebrations or even special services to commemorate the birth of Christ. On the other hand, Scripture does tell us to remember His death in the ordinance of the Lord's Supper, and we celebrate His resurrection by assembling on the first day of the week, but there is no precedent for celebrating His birth.
Answers and Considerations:
This is what we could legitimately call hyperliteralism in the use of Scripture. Such an approach completely misses the spirit and intent of the Bible. Hyperliteralism (or letterism) is an intense devotion to the details of the Bible in such a way that one misses the spirit and essential thrust of a passage. Mountains are made out of mole hills and the truth is missed. One is busy counting the number of letters in a sentence rather than listening to its instruction.
If we applied this argument consistently, we would need to discontinue the use of overheads, musical instruments, hymnals, chorus books, the church building, pews, Sunday school, Christian schools, and many other things. Further, there could be no special services or seasons to commemorate things God has done as with Thanksgiving or a dedication service for a new building. Why? Because the only illustrations of such things are found in the Old Testament and not the New Testament. If the New Testament had clearly spoken on this matter, this argument would be correct because the New Testament does take priority over the Old Testament. However, since it has not, the argument from silence is not sufficient reason.
Some would argue that the New Testament has not been silent, and this is the third argument we need to consider.
Argument Number 3: Scripture Forbids It
Colossians 2:16-17 Therefore let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day-- 17 things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.
Using this passage, it is claimed that Scripture actually warns and forbids the observance of any special months, seasons, days or religious festivals.
Answers and Considerations:
What Colossians 2:16-17 forbids is the celebration of religious seasons or holy days when they have been prescribed as religious duty and necessary for holiness or spirituality.
In this passage, the Apostle is talking about the Old Testament festivals which were shadows of the person and work of Christ--but Christ has now come. To continue to celebrate them is to dishonor the fact of His coming, or to act as though He were not enough for salvation or spirituality. Note what the Apostle says, "let no one act as your judge in regard to . . ." He is saying don't let anyone tell you these things are requirements for fellowship with God. They were only shadows of the person and work of Christ, and He has not only come and fulfilled those shadows, but He is totally sufficient.
Colossians 2:16 and 17 in no way forbids believers from commemorating something such as the birth of Christ if it is done out of love, devotion, and the joy the season gives when used as a way of focusing on the Savior and not as a religious duty. The issue is not the observance, but the reason, the attitudes and the spirit in which it is done.
Furthermore, I believe there is scriptural precedent for commemorating and remembering the birth of Christ. This is in keeping with the events that occurred around the time of Christ's birth These include:
1. The appearance of the angel of the Lord with the glory of the Lord to announce the birth of Christ to the shepherds (Lk. 2:10-12).
2. The response of the angels at the announcement of Christ's birth (Lk. 2:13-14).
3. The actions of the shepherds who left their flocks to go and see which was nothing short of a celebration (Lk. 2:15-20).
4. And the arrival of the men from the east bearing gifts as much as a year to two years later (Matt. 2:1-12).
There is, of course, the New Testament precedent for believers meeting together on Sunday. In essence this is a celebration of the Lord's resurrection. The early church automatically did this, but Scripture does not command us to do so. In fact, the early church at first met daily and took the Lord's Supper daily, but we don't do that today. Why not? Because these are not binding. We are not under the Law. Believers meet on Sunday because of its significance and because the early church set a precedent for it, but it was never commanded in the Bible. Believers did it out of love and adoration for the risen Savior.
The point is this: If the early church could celebrate the resurrection without a specific command from God, only the spirit of legalism or the letter of the law would forbid the celebration of Christ's birth as a special season of joy and adoration. Ultimately, the issue is not the season, its the attitude and reason behind it and the distortion of it. Let's not throw out the baby with the wash.
Argument Number 4: Christmas Traditions are from Paganism
Another argument against the celebration of Christmas as it has been done for years is the claim that many of the traditions found in the celebration of Christmas were brought over into Christianity from pagan practices. These include the yule log, the tree, special feasts or meals, and mistletoe. How can we justify these things? Isn't it just like celebrating Halloween? A number of Old Testament passages are sometimes used to condemn the use of Christmas trees such as: Jeremiah 10:2-5; Isaiah 40:19-20; 44:14-17. (See verses in introduction above.)
Answers and Considerations:
Some Historical Facts about our Traditions
The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible says:
Gradually a number of prevailing practices of the nations into which Christianity came were assimilated and were combined with the religious ceremonies surrounding Christmas. The assimilation of such practices generally represented efforts by Christians to transform or absorb otherwise pagan practices.
The Feast of Saturnalia in early Rome, for example, was celebrated for 7 days from the 17th to the 24th of December and was marked by a spirit of merriment, gift giving to children and other forms of entertainment. Gradually, early Christians replaced the pagan feast with the celebration of Christmas; but many of the traditions of this observance were assimilated and remain to this day a part of the observance of Christmas. Other nations, the Scandinavians, Germans, French, English and others, have left their mark . . . as well (pp. 804, 805).
Concerning these ancient elements, The Christian Encyclopedia says:
Various symbolic elements of the pagan celebration, such as the lighting of candles, evergreen decorations, and the giving of gifts, were adapted to Christian signification. Later as Christianity spread into northern Europe, the Celtic, Teutonic, and Slavic winter festivals contributed holly, mistletoe, the Christmas tree, bonfires, and similar items.
Finally, Unger's Bible Dictionary adds:
The giving of presents was a Roman custom; while the yule tree and yule log are remnants of old Teutonic nature worship. Gradually the festival sank into mere revelry . . . . The custom was forbidden by an act of parliament in 1555; And the reformation brought in a refinement in the celebration of Christmas by emphasizing it Christian elements.
But what about passages like Jeremiah 10? Some believe this condemns the celebration of Christmas and especially the use of the Christmas tree. Is Jeremiah telling us to avoid the customs of the nations? No. Jeremiah 10 is a denunciation of the making and worship of idols and not the decoration of evergreen trees in the home.
This passage is not a categorical denial of all the customs of the nations. It is only a command to avoid those customs that are contrary to the revelation of God to Israel. There were many customs that Israel and the nations had in common that were not wrong.
This passage in Jeremiah and others like it in Isaiah had to do with idolatry. First, Jeremiah warns against astrological worship--the worship of the sun, moon, and the stars. Second, he warns against going into the forest to cut down trees to be carved into an idol in some form whether human or animal, and then worshipped and prayed to for guidance, for protection, and blessing (cf. Isa. 44:14-17).
Some have tried to tie the reference to the green tree in Jeremiah 3:6, 13 to the reference in 10:3f to further justify condemnation of the Christmas tree, but this refers to the idolatrous groves of trees used as a place for idol worship and revelry.
Issues Facing Us Today
(1) The pagan associations were lost long ago
The names of the days of our week also had their origin in pagan beliefs. Thursday originally stood for the Germanic god of the sky or of thunder. Tuesday stood for Tiw, the god of war. And Wednesday is derived from Woden, the chief god in Germanic mythology. Sunday and Monday were related somehow to the worship of the sun and the moon. Saturday is from Saturnus, or Saturn, and Friday comes from Fria, the goddess of love.
All of these ancient meanings with their beliefs and associations were lost long ago. When Friday roles around we don't think about Fria, the goddess of love. On Saturday we don't think about it as Saturn's day, but as our day off! The same applies to the traditions of Christmas. If one observed the days of the week or the Christmas season with their ancient associations in mind, certainly it would be wrong. But many of these things, as with our Sunday, have been given Christian connotations.
The evergreen tree is a symbol of the eternal life which Christ, the Son of God, offers to man via another tree, the cross (Rev. 2:7; 22:2, 14).
The presents under the tree can remind us of God's gift and our need to give of ourselves to others as those who have received God's gift of life through Christ.
Even without seeking special significance in the traditions of Christmas, you could still celebrate this season for the joy and family fun the season can bring.
I would like to suggest that believers can capitalize on the Christmas season as a family tradition and as a learning experience much like the Old Testament Passover was to be used by Israel. It all depends on the spirit and attitude in which it is done. We can be very negative and critical, or we can be positive and use the season as a time to remember and commemorate the birth of the Savior. We can use it as a time to demonstrate love for others in a special way, and to be together as a family like we do on Thanksgiving, the Fourth of July, or New Years. We can make something evil out of it or something good.
(2) Facts of Scripture Concerning the Celebration of Christmas
In view of what we have seen, the Bible is silent from the standpoint of our Christmas traditions. However, because of our freedom in Christ under grace, we are at liberty to celebrate Christmas. The important point is that the Bible simply does not condemn the celebration of Christmas even in the traditional form and we have liberty in Christ to choose to do so.
Scripture does, however, set down principles which should affect the way we celebrate it. These principles warn and protect us from the distortions we find in the world.
Today in many companies and offices, Christmas is celebrated with wild, drunken parties where there is no regard for the reason for the season--the birth of the Savior of the World. It becomes just a time of merriment and a time to tie one on.
Today people often spend lavishly on gifts and go deeply in debt. They buy things they can't afford, which nobody needs, and sometimes can't even identify. The response is "Hey, thanks. What is it?"
Children get caught up with the gifts and the toys and lose sight of the Savior--or never hear about the Lord as God's gift of His Son that we might have life.
Through the Christmas message, Parents often fail to teach the spirit of giving as an outworking of one's relationship with God through faith in Christ, God's gift to the world.
Finally, some may observe the season as they would observe lent, as a religious holy day that must be observed to gain points with God, or to become more spiritual.
But it doesn't have to be like this. Even the gift aspect can be done in such a way that it is instructive, meaningful, in keeping with one's budget, and in keeping with biblical teaching concerning Christian stewardship.
(3) Ancient traditions are often distortions of original revelation
Many of the customs of Christmas originated in ancient Babylonian paganism and were related in various ways to the mother-child cult. But an important concept is often missed here.
Originally, many of the ideas of these pagan practices may have had their roots in the truth of the Old Testament or divine revelation from God as:
In Genesis 3:15, we have the promise of the Savior through the seed of a woman.
In Isaiah 7:14, we have the promise that this Savior will come through the virgin birth.
A number of passages use the symbol of a tree to point to the promise of life through the Messiah. Genesis 2:9: 3:17, 22; Revelation 2:7; 22:2, 14 all speak of a tree of life, some historic, some prophetic. Isaiah 4:2; 11:1; 60:21; Jeremiah 23:5; 33:15 and Zechariah 3:8; 6:12 all speak of the branch of the Lord as the work of God.
These verses form a whole line of prophecies concerning the branch of the Lord, the shoot, that would spring forth and become a tree of life both to Israel and the nations. So, when we come to the New Testament, we find reference to a tree of life that is available to believers in Christ.
In view of these Old Testament prophecies, I believe four things are evident:
These ancient customs of the nations were originally introduced into the religious life of the nations by Satan to distort the original promises and truth of God which these customs would portray. For instance, in the mother-child cult of ancient Babylon, the mother was the primary object of worship, not her son. This was a distortion of the promise of Genesis 3:15.
These customs came from a basic need in man (one built in by God) for the truth and need of a Savior. The practices, though in perverted form, did portray a deliverer, the provision of eternal life, the gift of God through the seed of a woman, a divine branch from heaven as the means of reconciliation to God.
The principle is that these customs cast surprising light on the revelation of God's grace as they originally came from God in the beginning of human history. As with the story of the flood, the temptation, and the fall of man, they all became perverted from that which we find in the inspired Word. However, in many cases, they did point to original revelation from God and maybe even customs that were originally pure.
Today, our Christmas traditions have lost their original pagan significance or connotations. In some cases, the distortions were corrected by the reformers over two hundred years ago, but they did not see fit to condemn the celebration of Christmas.
(4) The celebration of Christmas falls under the category of doubtful things.
It is argued that since Scripture does not clearly rule out the celebration of Christmas; its celebration falls under the category of debatable or doubtful things covered by the principles of Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8 and 9. In summary, these passages teach us the following principles:
Every believer must become convinced in his or her own mind (Rom. 14:5).
We must not judge or look upon other with contempt who do not come to the same conclusion that we do (Rom. 14:3, 4, 13).
Just as there is nothing evil in meat sacrificed to idols, so there is nothing inherently evil in the traditional Christmas with the tree, presents, carols, and decorations. Such things become what people make them by their attitudes and beliefs (Rom. 14:22-23; 1 Cor. 8:4-8; 10:19).
The ultimate issue is our attitude, the reasons, and how if one decides to celebrate the Christmas season in some fashion.
(5) Some Options to Consider
If you have doubts or misgivings, do away with any observance of the Christmas season all together. But do not become a Scrooge and look down on those who do celebrate it (Rom. 14:-5).
Cut out some or all of the traditional elements like the tree, presents, etc., but spend the season reflecting on the birth of the Savior through the Word and the singing of carols.
Keep the season's traditions--the tree, presents, and decorations--but divorce them of any religious tones. Use this part of the season simply as a family tradition for fun and family togetherness. But remember the birth of Christ through carols, reading the Christmas story, and times with other members of the body of Christ.
Keep the Christmas traditions and use them to illustrate and focus on the truth of Jesus Christ. (1) The tree speaks of the Lord and the eternal life which He gives; (2) The presents speak of God's love and gift to us of His Son and of our love for one another. Make the emphasis more on giving rather than receiving. (3) The mistletoe speaks of the gift of God's righteous branch, and the kiss or hug stands for kissing the Son in faith--an expression of faith in Christ as God's means of salvation and reconciliation (Psalm 2).
The problem is that many believers are already carnal or marginal in their spiritual life and they get caught up in the rat race and secularization of the season. People spend far more than they can afford. They seek relief from their burdens and seek happiness in the glitter and merry making of the holidays, rather than in the person of God's Son, the Lord Jesus Christ. They look for the season to give joy, rather than the Person of the season. They expect from the season what only God can give. As a result, depression and suicide reaches its peak during the Christmas season and immediately following it.
Argument Number 5: Uncertainty of the Date of Christ's Birth
As one who has specialized in biblical chronology, Dr. Harold W. Hoehner, professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, wrote:
Jesus Christ entered into the history of our world, Christianity, therefore, has historical basis. The backbone of history is chronology. Whereas history is a systematic account of events in relation to a nation, institution, science, or art; chronology is a science of time. It seeks to establish and arrange the dates of past events in their proper sequence. Thus chronology serves as a necessary framework upon which the events of history may be fitted (BIB SAC, Vol. 130, # 520, Oct.-Dec., 1973, p. 338).
The argument is that Christ could not have been born on December 25 or even in the winter, so the entire celebration is wrong, even the time of the year.
Answers and Considerations:
By considering the chronological notes in Scripture such as Luke 2:1, "it seems that the evidence would lead one to conclude that Christ's birth occurred sometime in the winter of 5/4 B.C." (Hoehner, p. 350). Our concern here is not with the year, but with the month Christ was born--or at least the time of year, i.e., winter or spring. Is a winter date out of the question? Is it possible or maybe even probable?
1. Hoehner points out that the traditional date for the birth of Christ as December 25th dates back to as early as Hippolytus (A..D. 165-235). In the Eastern church January 6th was the date used for Christ's birth. But this is still a winter date and not far removed from December 25th.
2. Chrysostom (A..D. 345-407) in 386 stated that December 25th is the correct date and hence it became the official date for Christ's birth except in the Eastern church which still retained January 6th.
3. One of the main objections has been that sheep were usually taken into enclosures from November through March and were not out in the fields at night. However, this is not as conclusive as it sounds for the following reasons: (a) It could have been a mild winter. (b) It is not at all certain that sheep were always brought into enclosures during the winter months. (c) It is true that during the winter months sheep were brought in from the wilderness, but remember, Luke tells us the shepherds were near Bethlehem rather than in the wilderness. This indicates, if anything, the nativity was in the winter months. (d) The Mishnah tells us the shepherds around Bethlehem were outside all year and those worthy of the Passover were nearby in the fields at least 30 days before the feast which could be as early as February (one of the coldest, rainiest months of the year). So December is a very reasonable date.
James Kelso, an archaeologist who spent a number of years living in Palestine and who has done extensive research there says this:
The best season for the shepherds of Bethlehem is the winter when heavy rains bring up a luscious crop of new grass. After the rains the once-barren, brown desert earth is suddenly a field of brilliant green. One year when excavating at New Testament Jericho, I lived in Jerusalem and drove through this area twice every day. At one single point along the road, I could see at times as many as five shepherds with their flocks on one hillside. One shepherd stayed with his flock at the same point for three weeks, so lush was the grass. But as soon as the rains stopped in the spring, the land quickly took on its normal desert look once again.
Since there seem to have been a number of shepherds who came to see the Christ child, December or January would be the most likely months (James Kelso, An Archaeologist Looks At The Gospels, p. 23-24).
Argument Number 6: The Timing of the Magi's Arrival
It has been claimed the Magi could not have arrived in Bethlehem at the time of Christ's birth. It would have taken months to travel to Bethlehem from the East. The family was living in a house when the Magi arrived, and Herod had children killed up to two years old when he heard about the child.
While none of this really affects whether one should celebrate Christmas, this argument is often used to throw further doubt and contempt for the entire tradition of celebrating Christmas.
Answers and Considerations:
The argument concerning the time required to travel from the East assumes a great deal. It assumes they were in the East when the star was seen, or even that God had not revealed information to them which could have caused them to begin their journey before the star was seen.
Let me just quote Hoehner from BIB SAC again (Vol. 130, # 520, p. 349).
The question arises whether Matthew is speaking of the same time as Luke or a later time. Madison attempts to demonstrate that the Magi visited Christ when He was about two years of age by noting that the Lukan narrative uses the term brephos (2:12) which is used to refer to an unborn, a newborn child, or an infant whereas Matthew uses the words paidion (2:8, 9,11, 13, 14, 20, 21) and pais (2:16) which are used of a child that is at least one year old rather than an infant. The fact that the wise men came to the house (in Matthew's account) rather than a manger (in Luke's account) would also indicate that Jesus was older when Herod slew the children. Thus Luke is talking about the time of Christ's birth whereas Matthew is talking about two years after Christ's birth.
However, the distinction is not so clear-cut as Madison would have one to believe. The term padion is used of infants (Luke 1:59:, 66, 76; John 16:21; Heb. 11:23) and brephos is used of a young child (2 Tim. 3;15). The word pais is used in the N.T. of a child six out of twenty-four times (the other eighteen occurrences speak of a servant). In the O.T. the meaning "servant" is almost unanimous. In Matthew 2:16 pais would fall into the same age category as paidion since the latter term is used nine times in the same context. Furthermore, to say that Jesus was no longer an infant because the magi visited Him in a house rather than a stable is quite weak. Certainly they would have moved to a house as soon as it was possible. Indeed the tone of Matthew 2:1 is that the Magi visited Christ soon after His birth. That Herod killed children up to two years old was only to be sure he got Jesus. This is not out of character with Herod. Therefore, the slaying of the children soon after Christ's birth is tenable.
Please note what Charles Ryrie has to say on Matthew 2:11 in his Study Bible, p. 1447.
into the house . . . the Child. These words need not indicate that the wise men came some time after the birth of Christ. The family would naturally have moved into a house as quickly as possible after Jesus was born, and "child" can mean a newborn (John 16:21). We do not know how many wise men there were, gold and frankincense and myrrh. These were gifts worthy of a king. The early church fathers understood the gold to be symbolic of Christ's deity; the frankincense, of His purity; and the myrrh, of His death (since it was used for embalming).
Argument Number 7: Christmas means "Christ's Mass"
The name Christmas is objected to because it means Christ's Mass. This is supposed to be a reference to the Roman Catholic ritual involving the Eucharist or the Lord's Supper. Roman Catholic tradition holds that by the priest's consecration the bread and the wine are changed into the literal body and blood of Christ; that this consecration is a new offering of Christ's sacrifice, and that by partaking of the elements the communicant receives saving and sanctifying grace from God.
Answers and Considerations:
Christ + mass, can also mean "a large number or quantity." It can also mean simply a mass of religious services in commemoration of the birth of Christ. In other words, mass stands for festival involving a number of religious activities, and is not a reference to the Roman Catholic ritual of the Eucharist.
Further, even if the term originally referred to the Roman Catholic ritual of the Eucharist, it long ago lost that connotation and is really not an issue.
Argument Number 8: What about Santa Claus?
Christmas can involve children in the belief of Santa Claus, a mythical figure, which detracts from the person of Christ. The objection is that the emphasis is turned from Jesus Christ to Santa Claus as the giver of gifts for good behavior rather than God's gift of His Son by grace through faith.
Furthermore, young children sometimes confuse Santa with Jesus Christ since "he knows when you've been sleeping, he knows when you're awake, he knows if you've been bad or good, . . .
The idea of gifts for good behavior can connote a "reward for good deeds" mentality which is opposed to God's gift of His Son through faith. Scripture does promise rewards for obedience.
Answers and Considerations:
The Santa Clause idea originated with a man by the name of St. Nicholas who was the Bishop of Myra in Lycia in the area of present day Turkey. He went about, often at night, giving gifts to poor and needy children. He later became the patron saint of children in the Roman Catholic Church. From here the story grew and became legend in country after country with various details were deleted and added as the legend of St. Nick grew.
So, how should believers handle it? Santa may be taken as a fairy tale idea like Alice in Wonderland, or Jack and the Bean Stalk. Children normally understand that Alice in Wonderland is only make believe--a fairy tale. However, for many children Santa is real. In many ways it is probably harmless. But because of the confusion between Santa and Christ, parents need to be careful in their use of this part of Christmas.
We also need to remember that Scripture does promise rewards for godly behavior or faithfulness for believers in Christ. Salvation is a gift through faith alone in Christ alone, but crowns, metonomy for rewards, are promised for faithful and obedient living (1 Pet. 5:4).
Conclusion
As with all of these doubtful things, each family needs to make up their own minds. In my opinion parents can explain the traditions and have fun with them, but make sure your children understand the historical roots and use these things to teach the truth behind the traditions.
