Most religious people celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday...an observance of the birth of Christ. Churches have Christmas plays. Nativity scenes are set up everywhere. Religious folks are often heard saying, "Keep Christ in Christmas," and, "Jesus is the reason for the season." People talk about the Christmas story in terms of the biblical account of Jesus' birth. Stars and angels sit atop Christmas trees, reminding us of the religious implications of Christmas.
But here's the question: should Christmas be celebrated as a religious holiday? Is it proper to view December 25th as a holy day? Do Christians have biblical authority to celebrate the birth of Christ as an annual holiday? The short answer--and I'll go into greater detail in this article--is no.
Before I begin, I want to clarify something. I'm not condemning Christmas trees nor am I saying that it's wrong to exchange gifts on December 25th. For many, Christmas is simply an opportunity to get together with family, and that's fine. Songs like Frosty the Snowman and Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas are cherished by many, and again, there's not a thing wrong with that. If a person wants to celebrate Christmas as a secular holiday, I'm certainly not going to object, just as I'm not going to object to celebrating the fourth of July or Labor Day. It is the religious observance of Christmas that I oppose, and here's why...
The issue is authority. As Christians, we are obligated to seek New Testament authority for all that we do. Paul tells us in Colossians 3:17, "Whatever you do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through Him." In other words, we're to do ALL THINGS according to the authority of Christ. I like the way Peter puts it in 1 Peter 4:11: "speak as the oracles of God." Speak where God speaks, and be silent where He is silent. The scriptures (written word) are able to make us "complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17). If the scriptures equipp us for EVERY good work, then we must conclude that if something is not scriptural, it is NOT a good work. I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point. Before I engage in some spiritual or religious work, I must first make sure that I have biblical authority for that work. And this is true regarding worship as well. We're to worship God in truth, or according to His revealed word (Jn. 4:24; 17:17).
Where is the authority for the religious observance of Christmas. Sure, we read about the birth of Christ in God's word. We learn that He was born in Bethlehem of the virgin Mary. He was laid in a manger, and He was visited by the shepherds and wise men. These are all biblical facts. But where did God ever command His people to celebrate these events in the form of a holiday? Furthermore, where is the biblical account of the early Christians celebrating the birth of Christ as an annual holiday? Is there ANY verse that commands, exemplifies or infers that we're to observe the Christmas holiday?
You can read the New Testament from beginning to end, and you're not going to find it. It's not there. There aren't any commands to celebrate Christmas, any examples of the early Christians celebrating it, or any inferences that it was celebrated.
You might say, "But why do we have to have specific authority? Certainly God wants us to remember His Son and that's what Christmas does! How can you condemn such a wonderful holiday?"
Yes, God wants us to remember His Son, and there is nothing wrong with studying about the birth of Christ...but when we make December 25th into a holy day, and when we turn it into a religious holiday...when the Bible has not authorized it...then we have transgressed scripture.
Do you realize that in the Old Testament, God specifically commanded holy days that the Jewish people were to observe? Read Exodus 23:10-17 and Leviticus 23. God told them what holidays to observe and He told them exactly how to observe them. But God hasn't done that in the New Testament. We do know that the early Christians met on the first day of the week to remember the death of Christ and to lay by in store (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:1-2), but no where does God command the observance of any other day.
So if Christmas did not begin in God's word, where did it begin? Where did it come from?
Christmas is not a biblical holiday, but rather a Catholic holiday. Basically, the Catholics, in an effort to convert some of the pagans, decided to mix some of the pagan and Catholic traditions.
- Regarding the day, December 25th, the pagans celebrated this day as the birthday of Mithra, the goddess of light. Because Jesus was viewed as the light of the world, they adopted this day as the new birthday of Christ. Liberius, the bishop of Rome, adopted December 25th in 354 A.D.
- The name Christmas is derived from two words, Christ and Mass from the Catholic mass.
- Santa Claus was originally St. Nicholas, the bishop of Myra and Lycia. The belief that he enters the house through the roof originated with a Norse legend that the goddess Hertha appeared in the fireplace.
- The first nativity scene was set up in 1223 A.D. by St. Frances of Assisi.
It is an irrefutable fact that Christmas is a Catholic holiday, not a biblical holiday. It is ironic that the Protestant world (which historically protested the Catholic church), has embraced this Catholic holiday.
Christians should forsake the religious observance of Christmas lest they be guilty of vain worship (Mk. 7:7-9) and acting outside of the authority of Christ (Col. 3:17). Paul said something to the Galatians that is very relevant here: "You observe days and months and seasons and years. I am afraid for you, lest I have labored for you in vain" (Gal. 4:10-11).
Some may object by citing Romans 14 where Paul places the observance of special days into the category of personal choice and liberty. Without getting too deeply into this, I'll point out one simple fact: Paul is not speaking about our right to arbitrarily invent and celebrate our own religious holy days, but rather is speaking about WEAK Christians who's conscience demanded that they observe certain days (because of their upbringing and lifestyle prior to conversion). So unless you were raised celebrating Christmas religiously and it now violates your conscience NOT to do so, this passage doesn't apply to you. Beyond that, I'm not sure that this text applies to the religious observance of days as much as it does to the physical observance of certain days (i.e. not working on the Sabbath) to appease one's conscience.
Some may object by citing Romans 14 where Paul places the observance of special days into the category of personal choice and liberty. Without getting too deeply into this, I'll point out one simple fact: Paul is not speaking about our right to arbitrarily invent and celebrate our own religious holy days, but rather is speaking about WEAK Christians who's conscience demanded that they observe certain days (because of their upbringing and lifestyle prior to conversion). So unless you were raised celebrating Christmas religiously and it now violates your conscience NOT to do so, this passage doesn't apply to you. Beyond that, I'm not sure that this text applies to the religious observance of days as much as it does to the physical observance of certain days (i.e. not working on the Sabbath) to appease one's conscience.
Again, I'm not telling you that you have to tear down your Christmas tree, or that you have to rip the shiny lights of your house (you probably won't do that anyways till at least April). I'm not condemning Christmas gifts or Christmas songs. Neither am I condemning the remembrance of the birth of Christ; we ought to study and meditate upon His birth, His life, and His death regularly! But I do hope that you'll consider the things I've written about the religious aspect of Christmas.
I have always thought that 2 Tim 3:16-17 might be a cherished misinterpretation. I have a hard time believing that Paul was referring to the New Testament there since much of the New Testament was not even written when that Epistle was penned.
ReplyDeleteRegarding this:
"It is ironic that the Protestant world (which historically protested the Catholic church), has embraced this Catholic holiday."
(Ignoring all genealogical fallacies) This is because many protestants (Lutherans, Wesleyans etc) do not share the same hermeneutic that you do.
I agree that Paul, in 2 Tim. 3:15, is speaking of the Old Testament scriptures by which Timothy was raised, but in verses 16-17 he is making a general point about the value of ALL scripture. If the New Testament is the written word of God, which it is (1 Cor. 14:37; Eph. 3:3-4; 1 Thess. 2:13), then the New Testament qualifies as being scripture, hence the application of 2 Tim. 3:16-17 to the New Testament.
ReplyDeleteAgain, Paul is not speaking specifically of the New Testament in 2 Tim. 3:16-17, but he is making a general point about all scripture, and the NT is scripture.
Regarding your last point, I agree. Because Protestants do not seek book, chapter and verse for all that they do, they do not see anything wrong with the religious observance of Christmas. That is precisely why I wrote this article, and that is why I stressed authority.
Yes, but for other protestants who do not share your hermeneutic, wouldn't make more sense to defend the hermeneutic first before writing articles/arguments that assume it?
ReplyDeleteI still disagree with you on 2 Tim 3:16-17, as it is anachronistic; but that's for another time.
Are you saying that I must devote every article to defending "my hermeneutic?" Can I never write articles on specific doctrinal issues? The fact is, I always make it a point to defend "my hermeneutic" in every article I write on doctrinal issues, but I still address the issues.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, most religious people are not going to read this article and say, "Hmm, I don't agree with Casey's hermeneutic, so I don't agree with his article." There are going to be some honest-minded folks out there who are going to really be prompted to think and deliberate when they read these articles, and those are the ones I'm trying to reach.
And regarding 2 Timothy 3:16-17, explain what you mean by anachronistic.
"Are you saying that I must devote every article to defending "my hermeneutic?" Can I never write articles on specific doctrinal issues? The fact is, I always make it a point to defend "my hermeneutic" in every article I write on doctrinal issues, but I still address the issues."
ReplyDeleteI am saying that if you hope to persuade those who disagree with on fundamental levels, you will eventually have to defend it.
"Furthermore, most religious people are not going to read this article and say, "Hmm, I don't agree with Casey's hermeneutic, so I don't agree with his article." There are going to be some honest-minded folks out there who are going to really be prompted to think and deliberate when they read these articles, and those are the ones I'm trying to reach."
Certainly, but chances are, if they don't disagree with your hermeneutic, they won't follow your thinking anywhere else. Unless they agree with you already. IOW, you could be preaching to the Choir.
"And regarding 2 Timothy 3:16-17, explain what you mean by anachronistic."
You have to admit you are super imposing the PRESENT definition of "scripture" onto Paul's statement made in the PAST. It would be like if I read memoir from 1812 in which someone said "The United States is again at war with Great Britain" and I decided that when that person was talking about the "United States" it included California, Alaska, and Hawaii.
I have defended "my hermeneutic" in past articles. In fact, I've devoted many articles to the principle of authority and in almost every article I write I say something about it. I don't know what I need to do to, in your mind, sufficiently address authority. Read Colossians 3:17 and 1 Peter 4:11. Read the story of Nadab and Abihu in Leviticus 11 or the store of Moses striking the rock in Numbers 20. I've dealt with all of this before and I'm sure I'll deal with it again in the future.
ReplyDeleteRegarding 2 Timothy 3:16-17, I firmly believe that Paul is making a generic statement about scripture and thus we can rightly apply the passage to the NT scriptures. Let me ask you this, do you believe that the New Testament is scripture? If so, why then does it not fit the description of 2 Tim. 3:16-17?