The Paganism of Christmas Part 1

To many, Christmas is a special time of celebration, a time of family, a time of “peace on earth and good will toward men.”  Christmas is a season set aside to remember and honor the birth of our Saviour Jesus Christ. However, others look upon the Christmas season with great suspicion. They believe that it is not possible that Jesus Christ was born on (or around) December 25^th. They believe and teach that Christmas was originally a pagan festival in honor to the Sun god. This anti-Christmas position teaches that any involvement in the Christmas season is sinful.

As Christians seeking to serve the Lord in holiness, when we hear that a custom or holiday may be of pagan origins, it is easy to assume that particular custom is bad. Is Christmas simply an ancient pagan festival to which the name of Christ has been falsely attached? The anti-Christmas position rejects the Christmas holiday on these five basic points.

1.      Christmas is the “mass of Christ;” “mass” is a service in honor of the dead.

2.      The early church did not celebrate the birth of Christ.

3.      Jesus Christ was not born in the winter or Dec. 25^th.

4.      Christmas was originally a pagan holiday.

5.      Jeremiah chapter ten condemns the Christmas tree.

1.      Christmas is the “mass of Christ”

                The anti-Christmas position teaches that the word “mass” i.e. the Roman Catholic service is a “service in honor of the dead.” Thus, “Christ – mass” is a service in honor of a “dead Christ.” However, this is NOT the proper definition of “mass.”  Even in Catholic terminology, “mass is a memorial in which the death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ are sacramentally reenacted” (Encyclopedia Britannica, “mass”). The word “mass” is not a bad word. “Mass” comes from the Latin “missa” which was originally linked with the “dismissal” of a service. The Latin word missa was carried over into Old English as maesse, possibly through the German mese for "assembly." The term "mass" later became used to describe the liturgy, receiving of sacraments, and the entire church service by both Catholics and Protestants alike. The word "Christmas" actually come from the Old English Christes maeses (first used around 1038) and was not used as one word until the mid 14th century.

2.      The early church did not celebrate the birth of Christ.

It is true that there is no record in the New Testament of the apostles celebrating the birth of Jesus Christ. However, does this make celebrating Christ’s birth wrong? We have no record in the New Testament of the apostles performing a wedding ceremony, baby dedication, or holding a “tent-revival,” but this does not make these things wrong. It is often argued, "Show me one Scripture where the apostles celebrated Christmas." If this argument were valid, then by the same token we could argue against the observance of birthdays - "Show me one Scripture where the apostles celebrated a birthday." Then we could make the absurd connection (like Jehovah's Witnesses) that the birthday cake originated from the pagan practice of making  "cakes to the queen of heaven" (Jer.7:18). This is what is known as reductio ad absurdum, or disproving a statement by showing that it inevitably leads to a ridiculous, impractical, or absurd conclusion.

The early church believed, based on Luke 3:23, that Jesus was baptized on His thirtieth birthday, which they taught was January 6^th. They called this celebration of His birth and baptism Epiphany, meaning “manifestation.” The earliest evidence of this festival is recorded by Clement of Alexandria (Stromata i., 21) circa 190 AD. Therefore, the celebration of the “birth of Christ” is a much older “holy day” than some believe. The fact that there is no direct Apostolic “command” to celebrate Christ’s birth does not make it sinful to observe Christmas. Many of the Jewish “holy days” (holidays) were observed out of custom, and not command (ex. Judges 11:40; Ester 9:19). Even Jesus, himself, observed the Jewish holy day of “Hanukkah” (John 10:22-23); a “holy day” that is not commanded within the Old Testament Law.

In the early church, there arose a sect of the Gnostics, the Adoptianist heresy, who believed that Jesus became the “Christ” at his baptism, that this was when God was “manifested” in the flesh. Therefore to emphasize that Jesus was “Christ from His birth,” it was decided to set aside a day to honor His birth alone (James Hasting, Religious Encyclopedia, “Christmas”). Research was done to determine the correct date of Christ’s birth.

John Chrysostom claimed that December 25^th was supported by the actual census/tax records of the Holy Family when they registered in Bethlehem. Chrysostom records (Homil. Diem Natal., 2; PL, 49, 552ff) that Cyril bishop of Jerusalem (348-386), requested Julius, bishop of Rome, to examine the official records of the Roman census brought from Jerusalem to Rome by the Jews in the time of Titus (circa 70 A.D.) to determine the correct date of Christ’s birth. Julius sent to Cyril a calculation in favor of December 25^th.

3. Jesus Christ was not born in the winter or Dec. 25^th.

            The real “clue” as to the time of the birth of Christ is found in Luke 1:5. According to this passage, Zacharias worked in the temple during the “course of Abia.” About six months later (Luke 1:26) Mary conceived by the Holy Ghost the Christ child. Nine to ten months later, the Christ child was born. The “course of Abia” was the eighth course of the twenty-four divisions or courses of priest that ministered in the temple (1 Chron. 24:7-19). Each course ministered from Sabbath to Sabbath, twice a year. If it can be determined which week the “course of Abia” fell, then we could calculate the time of the birth of Christ.

            The anti-Christmas position claims that the “course of Abia” (Luke 1:5) fell on the first week of June (S. Hancock, tract What’s Wrong with Christmas). This would then place the conception of Mary in December; and the birth of Christ in September, around the time of the Feast of Tabernacles. This, however, is neither historically nor factually true. Titus destroyed the temple in Jerusalem during the first week of August 70 AD (Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, p.705). According to Jewish tradition, as recorded in the Talmud (Ta’anith 29a) and Josephus (War VI, 4, 1, 5) the priestly “course of Jehoiarib” was on duty at this time. This was the first of the twenty-four courses. Counting out the courses, Sabbath to Sabbath, calculates that the “course of Abia,” to which Zacharias belonged, would have been serving during the first week of October. This would place the conception of Mary in early March; and the birth of Christ in LATE DECEMBER!  This is a conclusion based upon historical facts.

            Another objection to a winter date for the birth of Christ is the fact that the shepherds were watching over their flock “by night” (Luke 2:8). The anti-Christmas position claims that winter nights in Palestine are “very piercing” and the flocks were usually brought home by October 15^th (Alexander Hislop, Two Babylons, p. 91). However, Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, p. 187, shows from passages in the Mishna that there were flocks that “lay out all the year round,” and states, “There is no adequate reason for questioning the historical accuracy of this date (Dec. 25^th). The objections generally made rest on grounds, which seem to me historically untenable.” Evidence that some shepherds did face cold weather may be seen in Jacob’s complaint to Laban that he had suffered from frost by night (Gen. 31:40).

            The Bible does not tell us the exact date of Christ’s birth. However, there is no historical reason for us to not celebrate His birth on December 25^th.