A Brief Vindication of Christmas from the "Pagan Origins" Argument

I have always loved Christmas. Ever since I was a kid, I have looked forward to it all year long. I am sure many others can say the same thing. And honestly, I love almost everything about it. From the classic carols to the decorations and lights, the movies (like A Christmas Story or How the Grinch Stole Christmas), and the hot chocolate and candy canes, it really is the most wonderful time of the year! Admittedly, it is a little different now that I am an adult and not a kid anymore. But it is a singular joy watching my own kids open their presents and make their own Christmas memories.

Of course the main reason I love Christmas is because of the observance of the birth of Jesus Christ and the events surrounding it. I love to read the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke and trace out how Old Testament prophecies find their fulfillment in Jesus. It is a joy to meditate on and to sing of the truth of the Incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity:

Veiled in flesh the Godhead see,
  Hail th’ incarnate Deity!
Pleased as man with man to dwell,
  Jesus our Immanuel.

With all that said, one can excuse me if I find myself unimpressed and maybe even a little provoked many of the attempts to attack the Christmas holiday, both from the secular world and even within professing Christianity. Of course I expect the secular Babylon to hate anything to do with Jesus. I am not at all surprised that the world wants a thoroughly non-religious Christmas (not that there's anything wrong with Rudolph, Frosty, Winter Wonderlands, etc...).

But what really bothers me is when Christians eschew Christmas as somehow the fruit of pagan festivals, and thus offensive to God. Now I do believe that Christians should be able to abide by their own consciences. If any observance violates one's conscience, one should be left alone to follow where it leads, and others should respect it. But I equally have the right to disagree and to state why. And it is to that I turn. I intend to show that even if the so-called "pagan origins" of Christmastime traditions are true (and most of the time, that is debatable at best), those things can still be appropriated (or shall I say re-appropriated) for use in Christian observances. The same holds true of Easter and its unique traditions.

Now just for the sake of argument, let's assume that much of what is connected with Christmas - decorated trees, December 25, yule logs, etc. - can trace its origins to paganism. Does that therefore disqualify Christmas as a legitimate Christian celebration? The answer is a resounding no!

To prove my assertion, I appeal to Paul's teaching to the Corinthians regarding meat sold in the marketplace that had previously been offered up to idols in pagan ceremonies:

Now concerning things offered to idols: We know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffs up, but love edifies. And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know. But if anyone loves God, this one is known by Him.

Therefore concerning the eating of things offered to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no other God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many gods and many lords), yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

However, there is not in everyone that knowledge; for some, with consciousness of the idol, until now eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. But food does not commend us to God; for neither if we eat are we the better, nor if we do not eat are we the worse.

But beware lest somehow this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to those who are weak.  For if anyone sees you who have knowledge eating in an idol’s temple, will not the conscience of him who is weak be emboldened to eat those things offered to idols? And because of your knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ.Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.

1 Corinthians 8:1-13 NKJV

If any of those who do not believe invites you to dinner, and you desire to go, eat whatever is set before you, asking no question for conscience’ sake. But if anyone says to you, “This was offered to idols,” do not eat it for the sake of the one who told you, and for conscience’ sake; for “the earth is the Lord’s, and all its fullness.”“Conscience,” I say, not your own, but that of the other. For why is my liberty judged by another man’s conscience? But if I partake with thanks, why am I evil spoken of for the food over which I give thanks?

1 Corinthians 10:30 NKJV

 

As the above quoted scriptures indicate, there is only one God and all things ultimately belong to Him because He created them. He already owned those elements that have been ostensibly offered to pagan "gods". Furthermore, according to Paul, idols are really nothing anyway. There is nothing inherent in an idol, nor in that which is sacrificed to the idol that can defile something that God already owned and pronounced "good" (Genesis 1:31).

 

To apply this teaching of Paul to Christmas traditions that were supposedly borrowed from ancient pagan practices, it really doesn't matter where they originally came from. First of all, in observing Christmas, no one is celebrating or worshiping Saturn (the Roman god, not the planet), the Invincible Sun, Odin, Thor, Zeus, or any other pagan deity. Christmas is the observance of Christ. Secondly, even if there are pagan origins to yule logs, wreaths, Christmas trees, mistletoe, etc... (a point which I concede merely for the sake of argument), we know that they are "nothing at all in the world" (1 Corinthians 8:4), so they cannot by definition be defiled. It is evident therefore that God is not displeased by Christmas observance or the various traditions that have arisen over the centuries. 

Christmas is a wonderful season filled with rich traditions. It has stood the test of time. In its very essence, it honors and glorifies the Lord Jesus Christ. Christians should certainly use their consciences to determine to what degree they celebrate, but I agree with Ebenezer Scrooge's nephew Fred:

 

"There are many things from which I might have derived good, by which I have not profited, I dare say...Christmas among the rest. But I am sure I have always thought of Christmas time, when it has come round -- apart from the veneration due to its sacred name and origin, if anything belonging to it can be apart from that -- as a good time: a kind, forgiving, charitable, pleasant time: the only time I know of, in the long calendar of the year, when men and women seem by one consent to open their shut-up hearts freely, and to think of people below them as if they really were fellow-passengers to the grave, and not another race of creatures bound on other journeys. And therefore, Uncle, though it has never put a scrap of gold or silver in my pocket, I believe that it has done me good, and will do me good; and I say, God bless it!"

  -Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol

Jesus and His Apostles: Button Pushers

Nobody would dispute that the Lord Jesus was a prolific preacher and teacher. We read in the Gospels that Jesus "went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease among the people" (Matthew 4:23 NKJV). Later, Jesus is daily in the Temple teaching (Luke 19:47). Jesus was often called "rabbi" by his followers, which means "teacher" (John 1:38). In the same way, after Jesus had been raised from the dead and after he had ascended to Heaven, the earliest Church "continued steadfastly in the apostle' doctrine..." (Acts 2:42).

 

So teaching was a big part of the ministries of both the Lord and the Apostles. But what concerns me today is not so much how prolific their teaching ministries were, but how provocative their teaching could be at times! Let me put it another way. In the Scriptures, there are occasions where both Jesus and the Apostles deliberately and self-consciously said things that they know full well will incite an emotional, and often a hostile, reaction.

 

Allow me to cite but a few examples and then briefly enter into some application. In John 6, Jesus is teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum after having fed the 5,000. To summarize, the people were fed and the next day they find Jesus across the Sea of Tiberias and they ask him when and how he got there. Jesus replied, "Most assuredly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw the signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled (John 6:26). In other words, Jesus says they just want another free lunch. Jesus is already calling out the impure motivations of the people and doing so quite tersely.

 

But it goes beyond that. Jesus goes on to teach the people that he is the true bread that came down from Heaven (6:35; 6:51), and that in order to have eternal life, they must eat his flesh and drink his blood (6:53-58)! Now the Jews had strict laws against consuming blood (Genesis 9:4; Deuteronomy 12:23), and certainly cannibalism was a no-no. But of course Jesus was speaking figuratively of faith in him as the sole source of eternal life. Nevertheless, he knew that his words would be offensive to the people as a whole, but he still uttered them. In the context of John 6, I understand Jesus to be separating the elect whom God had given him with those who were not his sheep. But my primary point here is that Jesus spoke something that he knew would generate a strong reaction, and he said it anyway. And sure enough, most of the people don't like it: On hearing it, many of his disciples said, "This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?" (6:60).

 

Jesus does much the same in both John 8 and John 10. In both chapters, during disputes with the Jewish religious leaders, Jesus specifically and unmistakably claims deity. In the first occurrence, Jesus states, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad" (8:56)  Then the Jewish leaders question Jesus about his cryptic statement: "Then the Jews said to Him, 'You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?' Jesus said to them, 'Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM' (8:57-58) The Jewish leaders tried to stone him, but Jesus was able to escape. But it seems clear that Jesus was well aware of how his words would be received. Yet he fearlessly spoke them anyway!

 

Again, two chapters later, Jesus makes a deliberately provocative statement, unmistakably claiming full deity: "My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all, no one can snatch them out of my Father's hand. I and the Father are one." (John 10:27-30). And once again, the Jewish authorities react as one might expect, they picked up stones to stone him... (10:31). What follows is Jesus's defense of his deity. But to say it again, Jesus surely knew that his words would elicit such a visceral response. But that didn't stop him.

 

Jesus does so again at his trial. Jesus will once again claim full deity before the Sanhedrin when asked point blank if he is the Messiah, the Son of God: "Again the high priest asked him, 'Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed One?' 'I am,' said Jesus. 'And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.' The high priest tore his clothes. 'Why do we need any more witnesses?' he asked. 'You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?' They all condemned him as worthy of death" (Mark 14:61b-64). Jesus knew what he was saying. he knew the reaction he would receive. And he said it despite it all.

 

But it not only the Lord who doesn't hesitate to speak plainly and provocatively. When one turns to the book of Acts, one finds the Apostles similarly saying deliberately edgy and instigating things, knowing full well that the response will likely be one of rejection. At the beginning of Acts 4, Peter and John are arrested in the Temple following the healing of the crippled man at the Beautiful Gate. But what was it that caused Peter and John to be arrested? Was it that they healed a cripple? Was it because they had gathered a crowd and were preaching? No. It wasn't that. Was it that they proclaimed Jesus as the Messiah? We are getting closer. What really provoked the Temple authorities was the specific content of their preaching: "The priests and the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to Peter and John while they were speaking to the people. They were greatly disturbed because the apostles were teaching the people, proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead" (Acts 4:1-2). Don't you think Peter and John knew that preaching about the resurrection from the dead literally on the home turf of the Sadducees (who denied any doctrine of a physical resurrection) was bound to get them in trouble? They knew it and did it anyway.

 

So far we have seen that Jesus, Peter, and John each were not shy about deliberately and fearlessly stating the hard truth, knowing certainly that because of it they weren't likely to win friends and influence people. But what about Paul? Do we find Paul audaciously saying things that were sure to get him into trouble? Indeed we do. I want to highlight three instances.

 

In the first instance, Paul is preaching to the Athenian philosophers in Athens. Toward the end he makes mention of something which he knew the Greeks were not going to like. But Paul throws caution to the wind and openly declares: "'For [God] has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.'" When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, 'We want to hear you again on this subject.'" (Acts 17:31-32). Much like the Jewish Sadducees, the Greeks had an aversion to the idea of a bodily resurrection. That is why some of them "sneered" as the NIV puts it. The KJV and ESV have "mocked", while the NRSV has "scoffed". But either way, it was not a pleasant reaction, and Paul no doubt knew he had pushed a button.

 

But if you think that is bad, just wait until Paul is arrested in Jerusalem. Paul is arrested in the Temple because some Jews recognized Paul and thought that he was bringing Greeks into the Temple. After being rescued by the Romans, Paul makes a defense before his own Jewish people. After detailing his vision of the Lord Jesus on the Damascus Road, Paul recounts a vision in which the Lord appeared to him in that very Temple in which Paul was standing. Paul boldly states the words of Jesus to him, "I will send you far away to the Gentiles" (Acts 22:21). All was well with Paul's speech until then: "And they listened to him until this word, and then they raised their voices and said, 'Away with such a fellow from the earth, for he is not fit to live!'" (Acts 22:22). And note that Paul says this right after the Jews had rioted because of how his attitude towards the gentiles was perceived. Don't you think Paul knew that saying this would infuriate the mob (and it isn't difficult to infuriate a mob)? Yeah. He knew. We can be safely assured of it. But Paul's commitment to the truth outweighed his sense of personal safety.

 

One final example and then I'll get into some application. After Paul's arrest in Jerusalem, he is brought before the Sanhedrin. At a climactic point, the text says this: "But when Paul perceived that part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, 'Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged!' And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducess; and the assembly was divided. For Sadducees say that there is no resurrection - and no angel or spirit; but the Pharisees confess both" (Acts 23:6). Paul was completely aware of the vast theological differences between the Sadducees and the Pharisees. The dissension between them which arose after Paul's statement was calculated. He knew what he was doing. He knew what button to push and he pushed it. And I suspect that he did it because the truth of the resurrection of the dead was too important a truth to ignore for the sake of political correctness.

 

So what can we make of all this? Why does it matter? For one, I believe it matters because as I said just above, the truth of the Gospel must take priority over political correctness. Most of the time, the Gospel is best served by observing social protocol so as not to cause undue offense. But there are occasions where stating the truth plainly is more vital than keeping the peace.

 

Another point of application that can be made is this. Sometimes the only point of bearing witness for Jesus is just simply to bear witness for Jesus, even when you know that you will experience rejection. Sometimes the impression is given that leading the other person to faith in Christ is the ultimate end goal. But actually it's not. Bringing glory to God is the highest end of evangelism. God will take care himself who comes to him by faith. Sometimes, but not always, it is just simply better to state the naked truth and forget the consequences. I also sometimes observe that many Christians and ministries are trying to establish some kind of goodwill between Jerusalem and Babylon before introducing Christ into the equation, apparently thinking that softening non-believers up will somehow make them more receptive to the Gospel. 

I agree that kindness, meekness, and gentleness are hallmarks of Christian conduct. That's hardly controversial. Nevertheless, the Christian message will in the end confront the non-believer in his or her sin and demand a response. Gentleness, humility, holy living, good works, and even powerful demonstrations of the Holy Spirit are all good and necessary attendants to the Gospel message and can increase receptivity. But at the end of the day, the Gospel must stand on its own in the mind of the non-believer, who needs a work of grace to respond in faith to Jesus.

 

But here's a note of caution. In the scriptural examples I gave above, either Jesus or his Apostles were put on the spot. In other words, they didn't just show up in some random place at a random time with bullhorns, banners, and sandwich board signs. Either a miracle or some outward event was happening right in front of them and the Lord or his Apostles had no choice but to speak plainly. In such a situation, straight talk is the best policy. But in most other contexts, great care should be taken to speak the truth with tact, gentleness, and patience. The Gospel is meant to be spoken out loud. Wisdom, the surrounding context, and your audience will usually determine how to best go about speaking it. Amen. 

Learning Theological Terms: Heresiarch

This is another post in a series of blogs that I started last year on exploring some theological terminology within Christianity. Today I'll be briefly unpacking the term heresiarch.

In brief, a heresiarch is a term for the person who originates and/or popularizes a heresy, or a false teaching. It is not a flattering description. It is related to the terms heresy and heretic. Another term for a heresiarch is "arch-heretic".

The New Testament repeatedly warns the Church of the reality of false teachers, false apostles, false prophets, etc... and exhorts her to be diligent and on her guard against these liars:

Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even  from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. (Acts 20:29-30 NIV)

The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. Such teachings will come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron... (1 Timothy 4:1-2 NIV)

But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

These examples could be multiplied. Other scriptures also warn about the danger of false teachers and false prophets (Matthew 7:15-20; 1 John 4:1-6; Jude 4). 

Interestingly, while the end result is much the same, I feel that it is necessary to distinguish between false teachers and false prophets. False teachers bring false doctrines, often fallaciously based on texts of Scripture that they twist to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16). They attack sound doctrine and in place they pervert the truth to suit their own desires. False prophets will usually do the same but they will claim exalted experiences like prophetic utterances, dreams, visions, and miraculous phenomena. 

So now that we know what we're dealing with, are there examples of heresiarchs today and throughout church history? Sadly yes. Below are but a few examples:

1. Cerinthus was a heresiarch who popularized the gnostic teaching that Jesus was a man upon whom the "Christ" spirit descended at his baptism and who promptly left him just before the crucifixion. 

2. Marcion taught a similar gnostic heresy that claimed that Jesus Christ was only a phantasm who did not truly possess a physical body.

3.  Arius was a bishop in the fourth century who taught that Jesus Christ was a created being and thus less than God Almighty.

4. In the modern era, Joseph Smith founded the Mormon Church. He produced false Scriptures, claimed that he had had visions of God, and that Jesus was the firstborn child of God and his wife, Satan was the second born, and everyone else on earth came later. 

5. Charles Taze Russell founded the Jehovah's Witnesses

6. Gregory Boyd has been the lead advocate for the heresy of "Open Theism".

7. The late Rachel Held Evans was a champion of so-called "Progressive Christianity". 

These are just a few examples. The New Testament leads us to expect that false teachers, false prophets, and false apostles will proliferate throughout the present era. The answer for Christians is to be ever diligent and ever discerning towards those who teach, prophesy, or otherwise minister in the Church. Amen. 

Why Was it Necessary that Jesus was Buried?

I admit, this is a question that I have sometimes wondered about. Why does the New Testament sometimes stress the burial of Jesus Christ? How does that contribute to my redemption? Understanding the death and resurrection of Jesus as necessary to my salvation is comparatively easy. But why must Jesus be buried, other than that is just what people do with dead people? I mean of course He was buried! What else would you do with a dead body? Cremation was not common back then in Jewish culture. In fact, I am fairly sure it was unheard of.

But what I mean is that it looks like the New Testament - almost in passing - will point out that Jesus was buried and where. For example, 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 reads:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures...

Likewise, each of the four Gospels emphasizes that Jesus was buried in a tomb belonging to Joseph of Arimathea, and that certain women observed the place where Jesus was laid (Matthew 27:57-61; Mark 15:42-47; Luke 23:50-56; John 19:38-42). Even the Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah's death account for His burial as well (Isaiah 53:9).

So what should we make of the fact that Jesus was buried, other than what was normal to do for dead bodies? I have some thoughts on this. There's nothing earth-shattering. I don't have anything that will change the face of New Testament studies. In fact, I am sure that many others before me have studied this and come to sound conclusions. But as I have pondered this problem in my own head, here is what I have come up with. 

Firstly, Jesus had to be buried to show that He really was dead. The Romans were cruel, but not so cruel as to bury someone alive! In fact, why go to all the trouble of crucifying someone if you're just going to leave the job half finished and bury them alive? Part of the point of crucifixion generally speaking was to leave the victim hanging on the cross for as long as possible (often for days) to prolong their suffering and simultaneously to humiliate them as they die slowly, naked and exposed. Jesus was really and truly dead. In fact, He died much more quickly than most victims of crucifixion, a fact that surprised Pontius Pilate (Mark 15:44). Jesus was buried to show that He was dead. As Dickens put it, "as dead as a door nail".

But secondly, I think that Jesus was buried to prove the reality of His resurrection. Jesus did not merely "swoon" or pass out as some skeptics in the past and present have suggested. And Jesus was not resuscitated as might happen to victims of cardiac arrest. He was dead. He was buried. He was in the grave for three days (by Jewish reckoning); long enough to be shown to be truly dead, but not long enough to decompose and see decay (Psalm 16:10). 

Jesus was buried in a specific place under specific circumstances in order to fulfill Scripture (see the Isaiah passage referenced above), show that He was truly dead, and to prove the reality of His bodily resurrection. Amen.