Christmas Is Not Pagan
This
is a paper written by Dr. Richard P. Bucher.
Part
1 - Introduction
Part
2 - Does the Bible have anything to say about Christmas?
Part
3 - When did Christians begin celebrating Christmas?
Part 4
- The date of Christmas and its customs
Part 1 - Introduction
Since
authoring the articles on the Origin of the Christmas Tree and Santa Claus two
years ago, I have received dozens of e-mail from readers who scolded me for
celebrating Christmas at all. In one form or another, some with kindness, some
with invective, they all asserted, “Don’t you know that Christmas is based on
pagan festivals and customs? Therefore to celebrate it is to embrace paganism
and to sin against God.” In most cases the e-mailers admonished me to dig
deeper into the “real” origin of Christmas. So I followed their advice - in a
way. I began searching the web for others who held this position, and found a
multitude of articles.
Consider
the following quotations as examples. In his “Is Christmas Christian?,” Michael
Schneider states:
This
may be a shocking thought to some: but after wrestling with the question for
several years now, searching the scriptures and church history, I have come to
the conclusion that there is nothing Christian about Christmas; that in its present
observance, as well as in its origin, Christmas is basically and essentially
pagan.
What
I’m saying, then, is that the real Christmas has always been pagan, and to make
it a Christian celebration is to try to add Christ or biblical elements to an
essentially pagan holiday.
Rick
Meisel echoes this sentiment in “Tis the Season for Pagan Worship”:
What
many in Christendom have been celebrating—Christmas—is a thoroughly pagan
holiday—in its origin, in its trappings, and in all its traditions.
The
modern conservative cry to put Christ back into Christmas is absurd. Jesus
Christ was never in Christmas.
I
carefully read these and other articles and books because I wanted to know the
basis for their argumentation. What I found is that, though there are minor
differences, they all make the same basic argument and recycle the same reasons
why Christmas is pagan [by “pagan” the various authors mean “non-Christian
religions.”].
Their
argument is this: “Christmas is obviously pagan because:
There is neither Biblical
command or precedent for it;
Christians did not observe
it until the time of Constantine (after 313 AD); only then did the Church of
Rome introduce it;
The Date of Christmas and
its many customs all come from pagan sources;
When Christians observe
Christmas in any way they are participating in paganism.”
It is my
position that Christmas is certainly not pagan, though many customs have
gravitated to Christmas that have pagan origins. Therefore, in this article I
would like to respond to those that argue that Christmas is pagan. I will
attempt to show that though at times their facts are correct, in most cases
their logic is not, which causes them to make false assumptions and conclusions
repeatedly.
Before
proceeding, however, one more observation. Most of those who argue for the
pagan nature of Christmas appear to be sincere Christians who want to base
everything they believe and do on the Bible. They are not fanatics. They
believe in and value the incarnation and birth of Jesus Christ. It is simply their
belief that the annual celebration of Christmas past and present is pagan and
therefore the Christian should have no part in it.
In fact,
if the “Christmas is pagan” crowd merely presented their argument as “opinion,”
there would be no urgent need to respond. But it is the fact that they condemn
Christmas observers as guilty of idolatry and, and in some cases, suggest that
Christians who do Christmas are risking their salvation that is just too much.
For in so doing they are binding Christian consciences and robbing Christians
of their God-given freedom, making unnecessary matters necessary. More on this
later. Now on to the analysis
Part 2 - Does the Bible have anything
to say about Christmas?
The Arguments Put Forth By Those Who Oppose Christmas
The first
part of the argument that the anti-Christmas literature makes is:
(1) Christmas is obviously pagan because there is neither Biblical command nor precedent for celebrating Christ’s birth.
This is
often stated in the literature. Characteristic of this argument are these
comments in “Tis the Season for Pagan Worship”:
There
is no Biblical warrant, precedent, nor precept for remembrance of the day of
Christ’s birth as a day of special religious celebration. This is not to say
that we shouldn’t remember Christ’s birth and its significance, but for
religious commemorations or celebrations, we must have Biblical command or
precedent!
Someone
says, “I know Christmas is of pagan origin, but I still think it’s not wrong
for a church to have a special time for honoring Christ’s birth.” But since
when did Protestants believe that Christians have the right to add to the
Bible? Is the church a legislative body? Are we to follow the Bible in our
faith and practice, or the thinking of fallible men? If we have the right to
add a special holy day to the Christian economy, then we can add 10,000 other
things. Then we will be no better than the false cults and the Roman Catholics
who follow heathen traditions!
Notice
though, that we are commanded to remember Him in His death (but no special day
was specified for this either)--“Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for
you; this DO in remembrance of Me” (Luke 22:18,19; 1 Cor. 11:23-26). To
commemorate His death is Scriptural. Any day of the year will do. To
commemorate His birth is non-Scriptural, even extra-Scriptural (Deut. 4:2;
12:32; Prov. 30:6; Rev. 22:19), whether one chooses December 25th or
any other day.
Later the
same author favorably quotes a 1871 sermon by Charles Haddon Spurgeon:
We
have no superstitious regard for times and seasons. Certainly we do not believe
in the present ecclesiastical arrangement called Christmas . . . because we
find no Scriptural warrant whatever for observing any day as the birthday of
the Saviour; and consequently, its observance is a superstition, because [it’s]
not of divine authority.
Now it is
certainly true that the Bible does not command the celebration of Christ’s
birth in specific words, and I won’t pretend that there is. Is it not true,
however, that Matthew and Luke included their accounts of Christ’s birth, at
least in part to be read in worship? As the people responded to such readings
of God’s Word in worship with their praise, were they not celebrating Christ’s
birth? Moreover, it is well known that the portions of New Testament were from
a very early period incorporated into the worship of the Church (e.g., the
Magnificat, Mary’s song of praise in Luke 1:46-55; and the Benedictus in Luke
1:68-79); it is also well known that portions of the New Testament contain
hymns or confessions used already in the Apostolic age (e.g., Phil. 2:6-11; 1
Tim. 3:16).
More to
the point, however, does the silence of Scripture make celebrating Christ’s
birth wrong? Is it true that when it comes to religious celebrations, the Bible
must specifically give command or precedent? Is it true that creating a
Christian festival is the same as adding to Scripture?
The answer
to all these questions is a resounding, “No!” To say that Christians are
forbidden to create a special day for worship unless it is specifically
commanded in the Scriptures is ludicrous. Where did they get this idea?
Actually there is a word for this: biblicism. Biblicism is the legalistic error
that Christians can only do what the Bible specifically says to do. This led
some of the radical reformers in the Sixteenth Century to rid their churches of
organs, crosses, clergy vestments, and many other things because the Bible did
not command such things.
Have these
authors never heard of Christian freedom? Yes, the doctrine of the Christian
Church must be based only on Scripture alone and we dare not add to or subtract
from it. But in matters that do not involve doctrine, in matters that are
neither commanded nor forbidden, Christians have freedom in the Church to do or
say, add or create, or subtract and delete anything—unless, as I said, it
clearly contradicts an essential teaching of the Christian faith, or is found
by the majority not to be edifying.
This, by
the way, is the meaning of our Lord’s words in Mark, which these anti-Christmas
writers love to quote: “You lay aside the commandment of God, and hold fast the
tradition of men . . . making the Word of God of no effect through your
tradition” (Mark 7:8,13). Jesus was not scolding the Pharisees because they had
traditions. He was scolding them because (1) their man-made traditions
contradicted the commandment of God and (2) they told those who didn’t follow
their traditions that they were sinning, thus making them necessary matters of
conscience.
Does
annually celebrating Christ’s birth contradict a commandment of God or violate
an essential teaching of the Bible? Not at all. Do Pastors tell their
parishioners that if they do not observe Christmas they are sinning? If they
do, they are wrong. Since we are not commanded to celebrate Christ’s birth
annually, we are not sinning if we choose not to. But neither are we sinning if
we choose to observe it. It should not be made a matter of conscience, a matter
of sin, in either case.
Now some
within the anti-Christmas camp would respond by saying, “Ah, but there is a
passage that commands us not observe special holy days. It is wrong to
celebrate Christmas because the Bible commands us not to observe “days, months,
seasons, and years” in Gal. 4:9-11.
Thus, we
find in “Is Christmas Christian?”:
Paul
wrote to the Galatians in dismay, “Ye observe days, and months, and times, and
years! I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain” (Gal.
4:10-11). He wasn’t condemning them for observing those institutions commanded
by God, but for observing those of man’s making, contrary to God’s law.
Actually,
the “days, months, and times, and years” to which Paul referred were Jewish
holy days, about which the vast majority of Biblical commentators agree. When
this passage is placed in the context of the entire letter to the Galatians,
this becomes obvious. The Galatians were being taught by Jewish-Christian false
teachers that faith in Jesus Christ was not enough to be justified before God,
that they also had to be circumcised and follow the Law of Moses. Paul focuses
on this issue in 5:2-4:
Behold
I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no
benefit to you. 3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision,
that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. 4 You have been severed from
Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.
The
problem was not that the Galatians were observing holy days and seasons. It is
that they were being taught that such observances were necessary for their
salvation, a complete contradiction of the Gospel that we are saved by grace
alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ. Similarly, to observe Christmas
because you believe to not do so would be sinful is wrong and you would fall
under Paul’s exhortation in Gal. 4 & 5. But to observe Christmas in your
Christian freedom, because you choose to, not because you have to, is
completely permitted before God.
In some of
the literature in question, we are also informed that the Sixteenth Century reformers
rejected Christmas because it was pagan, as did the Puritans in the
Seventeenth. Moreover, it is stated that it wasn’t until the Nineteenth Century
that Christmas was observed in Protestant denominations. The idea is, if these
Bible-believing scholars rejected Christmas, shouldn’t we?
So, for
example, we read in “Is Christmas Christian?”
It
was for this very reason that in Calvin’s Geneva you could have been fined or
imprisoned for celebrating Christmas. It was at the request of the Westminster
Assembly that the English Parliament in 1644 passed an act forbidding the
observance of Christmas, calling it a heathen holiday
.
. . When the Puritans came to America they passed similar laws. The early New
Englanders worked steadily through December 25, 1620, in studied neglect of the
day. About 40 years later the General Court of Massachusetts decreed punishment
for those who kept the season: “...anyone who is found observing, by abstinence
from labor, feasting, or any other way, any such days as Christmas Day, shall
pay for every such offense five shillings.”
It
was not until the 19th century that Christmas had any religious
significance in Protestant churches. Even as late as 1900, Christmas services
were not held in Southern Presbyterian churches. The pcus General Assembly of
1899 declared: “There is no warrant in Scripture for the observance of
Christmas and Easter as holydays (sic), rather the contrary (see Gal. 4:9-11;
Col. 2:16-21), and such observance is contrary to the principles of the
Reformed faith, conducive to will-worship, and not in harmony with the
simplicity of the gospel of Jesus Christ.”
There is
an element of truth in the above statements. It is true that many of the
Reformation churches rejected or outlawed the celebration of Christmas, as did
the Puritans, and some Protestant denominations after them. It is disingenuous,
however, to claim that they did so because they believed Christmas to be pagan.
Rather, as their statements show, they refused to observe Christmas because (1)
they believed that Scripture forbade special holy days; (2) they perceived
Christmas to be “Roman Catholic” based on non-Scriptural tradition; and (3)
they rejected Christ-mass because they considered the Church of Rome’s mass to
be contrary to the Gospel.
That reformation
movements strove to distance themselves from the Pope and the Church of Rome is
not at all surprising. The whole point of the Sixteenth Century Reformation was
to “reform” the abuses and errors in the Christian Church of their day, which
in Europe was the Church of Rome. With the resurgence of Biblical scholarship
and Biblical authority, these reformers began to see that there were a
multitude of teachings and practices in the Church of Rome that were “doctrines
of men,” that were not found in or supported by the Word of God. In their zeal
for Biblical truth, however, many of these groups tried to remove all doctrines
of men and everything that smacked of the Church of Rome, including Christmas
and other major holy days, ceremonies, and fasts.
But not
all reformers took this approach. In fact, the original reformer, the one who
launched the Reformation, Martin Luther, did not. Luther, and the reformation
that followed him, only discarded those human teachings and traditions that
directly contradicted the Gospel and the Scriptures. All other traditions
within the Roman Church were retained if they were found to be helpful and
edifying. For Luther, the doctrines of men became problematic when they made
matters of conscience out of things that were not articles of faith, such as
food, drink, clothing, and days. According to Luther:
We
do not condemn the doctrines of men just because they are the doctrines of men,
for we would gladly put up with them. But we condemn them because they are
contrary to the gospel and the Scriptures. While the Scriptures liberate
consciences and forbid that they be taken captive by the doctrines of men,
these doctrines of men captivate the conscience anyhow (A Reply to the Texts,
LW 35:153; WA 10II:91).
For this
reason Luther retained many things in the Roman Church that did not contradict
the Gospel, such as the liturgical calendar, some holy days, and yes,
Christmas. In fact, Luther wrote many beautiful Christmas sermons (which you
can read at www.ultranet.com/~tlclcms/mlserms.html) and hymns.
This was
followed by the Lutheran Church. In one of their official confessions of faith,
The Augsburg Confession of 1530, it states:
Concerning
church regulations made by human beings, it is taught to keep those that may be
kept without sin and that serve to maintain peace and good order in the church,
such as specific celebrations, festivals, etc. However, people are also
instructed not to burden consciences with them as if such things were necessary
for salvation (Augsburg Confession, XV, Book of Concord. Kolb-Wengert edition).
Though at
this time the Lutherans abolished numerous saints’ days, they kept other
festivals, such as Christmas, because they saw them as wonderful opportunities
to teach about events in the life of Christ. What the Lutherans did reject was
the Church’s of Rome’s version of the mass, which made the Lord’s Supper into a
re-sacrificing of Christ in order to merit God’s favor. They also wanted to see
unChristian legends and songs removed from the Church’s celebration of
Christmas. And they repeatedly stated that it was not sinful to fail to observe
Christmas (See Instructions to Visitors, LW 40:298-299).
Part 3 - When did Christians begin celebrating Christmas?
The Arguments Put Forth By Those Who Oppose Christmas
Argument
2: The first Christians never observed the celebration of Christ’s birth until
emperor Constantine in 313 AD officially tolerated Christians.
The real
argument here is that when the church was “pure” during the first three hundred
years, Christmas was never celebrated. Only when the church became corrupt,
during and after the time of Constantine, did the Roman Church adopt
Christianity based on pagan ideas. In this scheme, Constantine is depicted as
someone that willingly mixed Christianity with paganism.
As an example of this we read in “Is Christmas Christian?”
There
is no indication in the New Testament that the early Christians observed
Christmas at all. It can be demonstrated in church history that, for probably
the first 300 years after the birth of Christ, Christians knew nothing of
Christmas celebration. It was only as the Church began to drift from apostolic
doctrine and practice into corruption that Christmas began.
In
313 A.D. the Roman Emperor Constantine supposedly adopted the Christian faith
and declared it to be the official religion of his realm. His embracing the
Christian Church proved detrimental to true Christianity. Constantine retained
the traditional pagan titles, and his coins still bore the figures and names of
the old Roman gods.
The
Church became “the Roman Catholic Church” and its method became compromise with
paganism.
And “Tis
the Season for Pagan Worship” chimes in:
The
fact of the matter is this—the early church did not celebrate Christ’s birth,
but such celebration only came into the church with the “Christianization” of
pagan rites as Catholicism was made the state religion by Constantine in the
fourth century A.D.
First, it
shows a total ignorance of early Church history to imagine that after the
apostles there was a time that the church was “pure.” One only has to read the
church fathers and other church documents to discover that in many places the
Church began to drift from apostolic doctrine and practice almost from the
beginning. As early as the late First Century, there arose legalistic and
rigorist mindset in the church that seemed to almost forget the Biblical
teaching of grace. Scattered throughout the empire were churches calling
themselves Christian which were in fact gnostics, who used both the Scriptures
and their own sacred literature side by side. From the time of the apostles
there were countless false teachers and teachings that invaded the church, and
in many cases leading entire regions astray. The followers of the false
teacher, Marcion (85-160), for example, filled the Roman empire with hundreds
of congregations by the end of the Second Century. There certainly was an
orthodox Church, but it was anything but pure, in the sense of, “without any
error.” These early Christians were beset with as many temptations and errant
philosophies from the world as Christians today are.
Second,
the implication that Constantine was a “pagan” emperor in disguise, because he
“retained the traditional pagan titles, and his coins still bore the figures
and names of the old Roman gods.” needs clarification and correction. There is
a distinct difference between the Constantine from 312-323 and the Constantine
from 324 and after. In 312 he became the emperor of the western part of the
empire, while Licinius became emperor of the east. About this period of
312-323, the noted W. H. C. Frend observed:
And
what of Constantine during these years? The evidence points to a consistent if
stormy progress toward accepting the Christian God as the one to whom exclusive
service must be given . . . However, until his preparations for his final
campaign by 323, he did not abandon his allegiance to the Sun god, even though
he regarded himself as a servant of the Christian God . . . For twelve years
the two allegiances were held in uneasy tension until the “God of Battles”
claimed his own . . . The liberation of Rome was attributed to the Sun on a
Medallion struck at the time. Soli Invicto Comiti continued to dominate the
coinage. While other Western issues show the Sun’s orb resting on an altar. The
protection of the gods of the empire did not disappear from the coins until
after c. 319. (W. H. C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity, Fortress Press, 1985,
484).
After 324
all this changed. In 324 Constantine defeated Licinius at the Battle of
Chrysopolis, and he became sole ruler of the Roman empire. Now his ardor for
Christianity new no bounds. In fact, so disgusted was he by the paganism of
Rome, that he moved the capital of the empire to Byzantium, finishing it in
330, and renaming it Constantinople. He forbade pagan sacrifices and he decreed
that there were to be no idolatrous worship and no pagan festivals of any kind.
Thus,
there is no evidence that the “pagan” Constantine was somehow responsible for
combining the celebration of Christ’s birth with paganism by moving it to Dec.
25. If anything, the evidence shows a Constantine who became so committed to
the Christian faith that he was steadily moving toward disallowing all
paganism.
It is also
an anachronism that during the time of Constantine, that the “Church became the
Roman Catholic Church,” or that “Catholicism was made the state religion by
Constantine in the 4th Century.” Actually it was Theodosius I who
decreed that Christianity was the official religion of the empire in 379. There
was no “Roman Catholic Church” in the Fourth Century. That name only came into
existence after the Sixteenth Century Reformation. It is true that Theodosius
made “Catholicism” the state religion, if by “Catholicism” one means true
Christians over against heretics. The see of Rome was highly honored, but held
no special position of superiority at that time.
Thirdly,
while it is true that Christmas (the birth of Christ) was not listed as one of
the chief Christian festivals in the first two centuries of the Church’s
existence, it is not exactly true that the first Christians never observed the
birth of Christ until the time of Constantine. Actually there is evidence of
the feast being celebrated in Egypt prior to 200 A.D. The Church father Clement
of Alexandria tells us that certain theologians had claimed to have determined
not only the year of the Lord’s birth but also the day; that it took place in
the 28th year of Augustus and on the 25th day of Pachon
(May 20) (Stromata, I, 21). He also added that others said that he was born on
the 24th or 25th of Pharmuthi (April 19 or 20). Another
piece of evidence is De Paschae Computus of 243, which states that Christ was
born on March 28, because, it says, this was the day that the sun was created.
Clement also tells us that other Christians were in the custom of celebrating
the Baptism of Christ (his Epiphany) on the 15th day of Tubi and
others on the 11th of the same month (Jan. 10 or 6). This is
significant because it became customary in many places for Christians to
celebrate both Christ’s epiphany and his birth at the same – a practice of the
Armenian Church to this day.
Part 4 - The date of Christmas and its customs
The Arguments Put Forth By Those Who Oppose Christmas
(3) The date of Christmas (December 25), and its many customs all come from pagan sources. Therefore Christmas is pagan.
It is when
the “Christmas is pagan” literature examines the origin of the dating of
Christmas on Dec. 25, that the anti-Christmas advocates become convinced that
Christmas is wholly pagan. This is their strongest argument. The argument goes
like this: Since no one knows when Jesus was born, where did the Church get the
idea of celebrating it on Dec. 25? From the pagans who had several festivals
the time of the winter solstice which honored pagan gods. Where did the pagans
at the time of the Roman empire get the idea? It came from the paganism of
ancient Babylon, a paganism begun by Nimrod and his wife.
One
example of this argument is “Are Christianity and Christmas Compatible?” by
Adam Wiemers:
Why
is Christmas celebrated on Dec. 25th? The answer is rather
surprising.
Just
a little research reveals that Christmas was actually adapted from a Roman
celebration called Saturnalia. The Encyclopedia Romana* explains that “at the
time of the winter solstice (December 25 in the Julian calendar), Saturnus, the
god of seed and sowing, was honored with a festival.” The encyclopedia goes on
to state that “the Saturnalia did continue to be celebrated as Brumalia (from
“bruma,” winter solstice) down to the Christian era, when, by the middle of the
fourth century AD, its rituals had become absorbed in the celebration of
Christmas.”
Isn’t
that alarming? The very ways that Christmas is celebrated are directly borrowed
from a festival to a god of the Romans!
This is
only partially true. It is certainly well known that the Bible does not tell us
the exact date of Christ’s birth. As we saw in the previous section, Christians
have been trying to pinpoint that date since the early centuries of the Church.
Nevertheless, no one can say for certain which date is accurate.
The
Romans, like many other cultures at the time of the winter solstice, had
various festivals. Saturnalia, was a festival that honored Saturn, the god of
agriculture, from Dec. 17-24. It was the most popular festival of the year and
did involve merrymaking, gift-giving, relaxed morality, and temporary freedom
for slaves, who were allowed to do and speak whatever they wanted. But not
unlike many of our Christmas feasts today, by the early Fourth Century, the
religious aspect of Saturnalia had faded, and the secular merrymaking had come
to the fore. It is not likely, however, that Christians chose Dec. 25 to
celebrate Christ’s birth on the basis of Saturnalia.
The
earliest extant record of Christ’s birth being observed on December 25 is the
Chronography in 354 A.D. This document was based upon a calendar that dated it
to about 336 (Herman Wegman, Christian Worship in East and West, New York:
Pueblo Publishing, 1985, 103).The Chronography was a document of the Church of
Rome that listed the various martyrs’ feasts for the year. By the time that
Chrysostom was Bishop of Constantinople (398-404), Christ’s birth was being
observed on Dec. 25 throughout Christendom, though the Church in Armenia
observed it on January 6.
But how
did it happen that the early Christians began observing Christmas on December
25? Why this date? There are two theories about why December 25 was chosen.
(1) The first theory holds that after careful
research, Julius (337-352), Bishop of Rome, determined that Christ had been
born on December 25; or at least he determined that December 25 was the best
authenticated date in the Tradition. John Chrystostom states this in one of his
writings (John Chrysostom, Homil. Diem Natal., 2; PL, 49, 552ff.). Chrysostom
claims that Julius, after he had been requested by Cyril of Jerusalem, had the
official records of the Roman census examined and determined that December 25
was the correct date. As Weiser points out, however, there is no evidence to
back this up; in fact, “it was expressly stated in Rome that the actual date of
the Saviour’s birth was unknown and that different traditions prevailed in
different parts of the world” (F. Weiser, Handbook of Christian Feasts and
Customs - New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Company, 1958, 61.).
(2) The second theory states that the Church of
Rome deliberately chose December 25 as the date of Christ’s birth to turn
people away from a pagan feast that was observed at the same time. Since the
time of the Roman emperor Elagabulus (218-222), the god Sol Invictus (he
Unconquered Sun god), had been one of the chief deities worshiped by the
Romans. When emperor Aurelian (270-275) came to power, he sought to restore the
worship of the Sun god to prominence and make him the chief deity. In the last
years of his reign, Sol was hailed as “The Lord of the Roman Empire.” Sol, along,
with Jupiter, appeared on the coins Aurelian had minted. In 274, the emperor
built a magnificent temple to Sun god, and established a new college of
senators which he named “the priests of the Sun god.” Finally, December 25 was
observed as “the birthday of the Sun god” (natalis solis invicti). Because the
Sun god was identifed with Mithra, a popular Persian god that also was viewed
as the Sun god, pagan celebrations occurred throughout the empire on Dec. 25
(see Clement A. Miles, Christmas, New York: Frederick A. Stokes Company, 1912,
23). The Church at Rome seems to have chosen this date to counteract this pagan
feast of the sun god and turn people instead to the “Sun of Righteousness with
healing in His wings” (Malachi 4:2; Luke 1:78). Or put another way, Julius
chose December 25 so that the Son of God rather than the Sun god would be
worshiped. Though there no direct evidence that proves that the Church of Rome
deliberately chose December 25 so that Christ’s birth would replace “the
birthday of the sun,” we do have sermons from fathers of the church who soon
after this used this line of reasoning. For example, Augustine (354-430) in his
sermon 202 and Leo the Great (440-461 -- PL 54 Sources chrtiennes 22) gives
this line of reasoning.
Therefore,
the second theory seems to be the probable one. December 25 was chosen not
because it had somehow been proven from extra-biblical sources that Christ was
definitely born on December 25. Rather the date was chosen to counteract a very
popular pagan holiday that already had been occurring on this date.
Given what
we learned about emperor Constantine in the previous section, it is likely that
his embracing of Christianity and example influenced the Church of Rome in
doing what they did. But there is no evidence of Constantine’s direct
involvement.
Now does
the fact that the Church of Rome chose the same date to celebrate Christ’s
birth as a popular pagan festival mean that “Christmas is based on a pagan
festival” or that “Christmas is pagan”? I don’t think so! What kind of
reasoning is that? It simply means that they chose the same day - why, we don’t
exactly know. Perhaps they chose it to keep Christians from taking part in the
pagan festivities, or perhaps to entice pagans to join the Christian faith. If
a group of Christians chose to celebrate Christ’s birth on Halloween or on some
well known Satanic day, would it be fair or right to accuse them of basing
Christ’s birth on paganism, so that from then on Christmas would be forever
pagan? Of course not! In this case the Christians might be doing this to give
themselves something Christian to celebrate on the day. Is that wrong? Placing
a Christian feast on a well known non-Christian day does not make the Christian
feast non-Christian. They are merely sharing the day. We worship our God on
Sunday, which in Roman times, was the day dedicated to the Sun-god. Does that
make our worship on Sunday pagan? Perhaps we should worship on Saturday. But
that day in Roman times was named in honor of the god Saturn. Would that make
our festivals on Saturday pagan? Of course not. But this is the kind of faulty
logic used by the “Christmas is pagan” crowd.
It gets
worse. The “Christmas is pagan” argument typically asks a further question:
Where did the Romans get their pagan festivals at the time of the winter
solstice? Answer: From the paganism of ancient Babylon, which was initiated by
Nimrod and his wife, Semiramus. A classic example of this argument is found in
a tract by the World Wide Church of God entitled, “The Plain Truth About Christmas,”
here quoted at some length.
But
if we got Christmas from the Roman Catholics, and they got it from paganism,
where did the pagans get it? Where, when, and what as its real origin? It is a
chief custom of the corrupt system denounced all through Bible prophecies and
teachings under the name of Babylon. And it started and originated in the
original Babylon of ancient Nimrod! Yes, it stems from roots whose beginning
was shortly this side of the Flood! Nimrod, grandson of Ham, son of Noah, was
the real founder of the Babylonish system that has gripped the world ever since
. . . . Nimrod built the tower of Babel, the original Babylon, ancient Nineveh,
and many other cities. He organized this world’s first kingdom. The name
Nimrod, in Hebrew, is derived from “Marad,” meaning “he rebelled.” . . . Nimrod
was so evil, it is said he married his own mother, whose name was Semiramis.
After Nimrod’s untimely death, his so-called mother-wife, Semiramis, propagated
the evil doctrine of the survival of Nimrod as a spirit being. She claimed a
full-grown evergreen tree sprang overnight from a dead tree stump, which
symbolized the springing forth unto new life the dead Nimrod. On each
anniversary of his birth, she claimed, Nimrod would visit the evergreen tree
and leave gifts upon it. December 25th was the birthday of Nimrod.
This is the real origin of the Christmas tree. Through her scheming and
designing, Semiramis became the Babylonian “Queen of Heaven,” and Nimrod, under
various names, became the “divine son of heaven.” Through the generations, in
this idolatrous worship, Nimrod also became the false Messiah, son of Baal the
Sun-god. In this false Babylonish system, the “Mother and Child” (Semiramis and
Nimrod reborn) became chief objects of worship. This worship of “Mother and
Child” spread over the world. The names varied in different countries and
languages. In Egypt it was Isis and Osiris. In Asia, Cybele and Deoius. . . .
Thus, during the fourth and fifth centuries, when the pagans of the Roman world
were “accepting” the new popular “Christianity” by the hundreds of thousands,
carrying their old pagan customs and beliefs along with them, merely cloaking
them with Christian-sounding names . . . . The real origin of Christmas goes
back to ancient Babylon. It is bound up in the organized apostasy which has
gripped a deceived world these many centuries! In Egypt, it was always believed
that the son of Isis (Egyptian name for “Queen of Heaven”) was born December 25th.
Paganism celebrated this famous birthday over most of the known world for
centuries before the birth of Christ. December 25th is not the
birthday of Jesus the true Christ!
So goes
the argument, which is repeated by many different anti-Christmas authors. Where
in the world did such an argument come from? This was the thesis of Alexander
Hislop, who in the Nineteenth Century wrote a book entitled, “The Two Babylons:
Or the Papal Worship Proved to be the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife.” It was
Hislop’s thesis that the Roman Catholic Church was a direct descendent of the
paganism of Nimrod and ancient Babylon. One of his arguments was that some of
the chief holy days of the Roman Catholic Church, such as Christmas, prove this
to be so. The stamp of Hislop’s thesis is found all over most of the
anti-Christmas literature that I’ve seen. But is his argument sound?
Hardly. I
have no doubt that Hislop consulted a vast amount of sources in writing his
book. This is obvious in reading it. But some of its key arguments are flawed.
He makes many philological leaps of faith to prove his points. For example, his
entire argument rests on making the Babylonian “Ninus” the same person as the
Biblical “Nimrod.” (Nimrod is mentioned in only three places in the Scriptures,
Gen. 10:8-12, 1 Chr. 1:10, and Micah 5:6). Only then can he claim that the wife
of Nimrod was Semiramis, and that both were worshiped as divine mother and son,
etc. Hislop himself recognizes how important this is, in this very interesting
sentence:
Now,
assuming that Ninus is Nimrod, the way in which that assumption explains what
is otherwise inexplicable in the statements of ancient history greatly confirms
the truth of the assumption itself (The Two Babylons, 25).
Got that?
The point is that this turns out to be a big assumption. In other ancient
literature, the father of Ninus was Bel, and it is said that he built the city
of Nineveh. The Bible on the other hand says that Nimrod built Nineveh, and
that Cush was his father. The way in which Hislop attempts to reconcile this
contradiction is a truly remarkable example of literary gymnastics that is
hardly convincing. He argues that Bel is the same as Hermes/Mercury, and the
same as Janus/Chaos, which is the same as Cush. Right. (See for yourself by
reading the “The Two Babylons,” 25-29).
It is
possible that Nimrod, the grandson of Cush, led people into pagan worship. But
the argument that all paganism, and especially that all pagan festivals at the
time of the winter solstice, can be traced back to Nimrod, just doesn’t hold.
To say it is a scholarly stretch is an understatement. Yet most of the
“Christmas is pagan” literature bases its arguments on Hislop’s thesis.
Isn’t it
more likely, that many primitive cultures and religions would choose to
celebrate the birth of their gods at a time when the sun began to grow
stronger, and thus be reborn? Isn’t it much more likely that this is the reason
that so many pagan religions have festivals at the time of the winter solstice?
I’ll let you decide which thesis is stronger.
The last
part of the third anti-Christmas argument to be considered is that the origin
of the customs were pagan and therefore Christmas is pagan. It is well known
that most of the customs of Christmas were also observed in pagan culture and
religion. Lights and mistletoe, trees and gift-giving, merry-making and
revelry, yule logs and holly, and yes, Santa Claus, all found use or expression
in ancient pagan religion and culture (The reader is encouraged to read my
articles on “The Origin of the Christmas Tree,” “The Origin of Santa Claus and
the Christan Response,” and the “Christian Customs FAQ.”).
But is
similarity the same as dependence or derivation? In other words, just because
we use similar customs does it mean in every case that these are directly
derived from pagan religions? Cultures all over the world have used lights and
trees, gift-giving and revelry for their celebrations. Why is it assumed that
because Christians use these things at Christmas that they have taken them
directly from paganism? If it is discovered that pagans drank milk or hugged
their families at their pagan festivals, does that mean that if Christians do
so, they are engaging in paganism? But this is the kind of logic used by the
anti-Christmas crowd.
Of course
some Christmas customs are certainly taken from paganism. The use of the word
yule and the various customs associated with it, for example, come from pagan
culture. The word probably came the Anglo-Saxon geol, which meant “feast.” It
is thought that among the Anglo-Saxons, the time of the winter solstice was a
time of a great feast.
But so
what? Is everything that was once used by paganism centuries ago, now off
limits when Christians apply them to Christmas or other Christian festivals?
Are we prepared to strictly apply that to everything we do? Why can’t we use
some of the same words, symbols or customs, which long ago ceased to be used in
the worship of false gods? We need to remember that before pagans coopted them
centuries ago, God had given many of the things used in custom, as good gifts
to be enjoyed by his people. Why then can Christians not redeem these good
gifts for their use as they celebrate Christmas? In my opinion, it is
sufficient to point out to people the origin of these customs, and distinguish
these “winter customs” from the true Christmas celebration, which has to do
with the birth of God’s Son, Jesus Christ. In my perfect world, people would
call all of those customs “winter customs” or “holiday customs” rather than
“Christmas customs.” “Christmas” would only be used to refer to the Christian
holy day that remembers Christ’s birth. But I don’t see that happening any time
soon.
We cannot
and should not stop the peoples of the world from celebrating at the time of
the winter solstice. There is obviously something in us that makes us want and
need to celebrate at this time of the year. Therefore we should not be
surprised that at this time of the year even non-Christians are celebrating
“Christmas,” that is, using many of the customs now called Christmas customs.
I have not
written this essay to condemn the “Christmas is pagan” crowd. And I certainly
haven’t written it to convince them that they must celebrate Christmas.
Christians have never been commanded to celebrate Christ’s birth annually.
Therefore they are free to do so or not do so. I have written this essay,
however, to those dear Christians who have been falsely taught that celebrating
Christmas is celebrating paganism, and they are wracked with guilt because of
it. My message to them is: you are doing nothing wrong to celebrate the birth
of God’s Son; in fact, praising and thanking God for the gift of His Son is
beautiful worship in the sight of God. There is also nothing wrong with using
some of the winter customs, provided you keep them in perspective and don’t
allow them to bury the celebration of Christ’s birth.
May all
who read this, have a truly joyous Christmas celebration.
No comments:
Post a Comment