In recent Christmas seasons I have encountered a kind of deception that has been frustrating. In several articles concerning Christmas, scholars have come to the conclusion that the Christmas story is mostly “mythical” and “nonhistorical.” These two terms tend to be used interchangeably, although they actually refer to two different things. The former refers to the judgment of a literary form; the latter to a judgment of whether or not something happened in history. Since the Christmas accounts in the Bible may or may not be historical, a historical judgment concerning these accounts is therefore appropriate. In fact, such judgment is necessary. The use of “myth,” however, to describe these accounts is incorrect. As a literary form the Christmas stories are not myths; they are historical narratives. The use of the term “myth” to describe these stories confuses a judgment concerning literary form with a judgment concerning their historicity.

In these articles we are led to believe that scholars state their conclusions based on “objective historical” research involving careful and exacting historical, literary, archaeological, sociological, and anthropological investigation. The conclusions they have arrived at after such investigation are that there was no angelic visit to Mary, Jesus was not born of a virgin, no angelic host was present on the night of His birth, no wise men visited Him from the East, and so on.

What is never stated, however, is that this “objective historical” research involves a particular methodology. This methodology is technically called “the historical critical method” and is based on presuppositions, such as the principle of analogy, that predetermine certain results before the investigation ever begins.

The researcher has played with a marked deck of cards from the very beginning. As a result, many of his or her conclusions are not the result of historical, literary, sociological, or archaeological analysis at all. Rather, they were controlled and decided from the start. In fact, these conclusions were actually determined before the investigation ever began! Using the analogy of baseball, the researcher has already determined the final score before the game began and then manipulated the play to arrive at that score. He or she has decided the order of finish in a race and then told the participants they must finish in this order. In short, the presuppositions of the method predetermined the results that were “objectively” obtained.

To grasp how this can happen requires an understanding of what these scholars mean when they refer to the “historical critical method.” Although some might define this expression differently, the basic definition of this method has traditionally been as follows:

We are firmly convinced that what happens in space and time is subject to the general laws of motion, and that in this sense, as an interruption of the order of Nature, there can be no such things as “miracles.” (Adolf Harnack, What Is Christianity? [New York: Putnam, 1901], 28-29.)

Or

The historical method includes the presuppositions that history is a unity in the sense of a closed continuum of effects in which individual events are connected by the succession of cause and effect….This closedness means that the continuum of historical happenings cannot be rent by the interference of supernatural, transcendent powers and that therefore there is no “miracle” in this sense of the word. Such a miracle would be an event whose cause did not lie with history….It is in accordance with such a method as this that the science of history goes to work on all historical documents. And there cannot be any exceptions in the case of biblical texts if the latter are at all to be understood historically. (Rudolf Bultman, Existence and Faith [London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1961], 191-92.)

Although there is a great deal of discussion today about the historical critical method, in practice miracles are still seen as antithetical to historical research. Therefore, it is evident that, if one works under this historical methodology, certain conclusions are predetermined before the investigation actually begins.

A discussion of the Christmas story with scholars using this methodology might go something like this:

Questioner: I hear that you are investigating the Christmas story in the Bible.

Scholar: Yes, I plan to investigate the biblical accounts using the latest tools available to us.

Questioner: Do you have any preconceived results in mind?

Scholar: No, I do not think one should predetermine the results of historical research. One should have an open mind. It is bad research to work with an agenda. I realize that we all have a tendency to have an agenda, but I personally believe that we should resist any attempt to make the results of historical critical research fit our own desires or beliefs.

Questioner: Then I assume that you are open to the possibility that Jesus was truly born of a virgin.

Scholar: No, I never said that.

Questioner: But I thought you said one should never predetermine the results of research.

Scholar: What I meant was that you should never predetermine the results of historical critical research

Questioner: What is the difference?

Scholar: Oh, the difference is very significant. Historical critical research assumes that we live in a closed continuum of space and time. This means that miracles are excluded as a possibility.

Questioner: Then you have already predetermined certain results. After all, you have excluded the possibility of Mary having conceived as a virgin.

Scholar: Yes, that’s true.

Questioner: Then what are you seeking to investigate?

Scholar: Well, one of the big issues would be to seek to understand how the story of the Virgin Birth originated.

Questioner: But it could not have originated through an actual virgin birth?

Scholar: That’s right. It couldn’t have.

Questioner: Oh!

It is not surprising that those using this methodology conclude that Jesus was not born of a virgin. Their methodology has predetermined this. In the process, they often come up with interesting information about the time and place of Jesus’ birth. But is it not deceitful, when the “results” of such investigations are published, that nothing is said about the fact that these results were predetermined long before the investigation ever began? Since most readers are not aware that the presuppositions brought to the investigation predetermined its outcome, there is deceitfulness at work in all this.

It is tragic that many people who read these articles believe the denial of the Virgin Birth and other miracles found in them is the result of careful investigation of the biblical accounts. In fact, the denial of this miracle has preceded any investigation and actually predetermined many of the results of the investigation.

I would like to suggest that henceforth at the very beginning of any such article that the author state his or her presuppositions concerning historical investigation. Is he or she open to the supernatural or closed? An author might state at the very beginning, “As a writer, I have taken a stand in which I believe that God, if he/she exists, cannot or does not intervene in the closed continuum of time and space in which we live. My method in studying the biblical texts does not allow room for the supernatural. Therefore, I presuppose before any investigation of the Christmas story that Jesus was not born of a virgin. Here, then, are the results of my investigation.”

Needless to say, most readers would treat such an article about the Christmas “myth” quite differently.

Dr. Robert H. Stein is the author of eleven books, among which are: The Method and Message of Jesus’ Teachings (Westminster, 1994); Luke (Broadmann, 1992); A Guide for Interpreting the Bible (Baker, 1994); and Jesus the Messiah (InterVarsity, 1996).

Christmas has forgotten Christ. For many, celebrating Jesus’ birth has little to do with Christmas, and even many Christians don’t know how to “put Christ back into Christmas.” I believe we can overcome the commercialism and paganism with the Good News — “God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). Below I have used a C–H–R–I–S–T–M–A–S acronym to explain how to honor Jesus Christ this Christmas.

C, the first letter in Christmas, stands for the person who alone gives any day eternal significance: Christ our Lord. It is easy to shove Christ aside on this holiday, but we should celebrate the birth of Jesus, whose very name means “the Lord is salvation” and whose title, “Christ,” points to His role as the Redeemer of humankind. If Jesus is not Christ in your life, celebrating the birth of an obscure Jewish carpenter’s son is meaningless to you.

H stands for history. The birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ are not myths or fantasy, but are historical realities. That God became man in Jesus Christ is an actual, testable historical event. Christmas reminds us that Christ is not just a warm feeling in our hearts, or an imaginary therapist enabling us to face life’s traumas.

We don’t know the exact day of the year Jesus was born.¹ We do know, however, that the December 25 date was advocated as early as about A.D. 220.² The church may have chosen to celebrate on December 25 as a triumph of Christianity over paganism because it came right after the Roman holiday of Saturnalia, one of the popular pagan winter solstice holidays (December 17-24).

R stands for rejoice, an appropriate response in recognition of what Christ has done. Favorite Christmas hymns show that rejoicing has always been an integral part of Christmas. We should rejoice because Christ came, not because of a nice present or a week off! We should rejoice like the psalmist, who said: “Come, let us rejoice in him” (Ps. 66:6).

I stands for the Incarnation, describing that glorious event in which God became man. Christ is not only eternal God (John 1:1), but at a time in history He became man as well (John 1:14). Matthew’s gospel says, “The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel — which means, God with us” (Matt. 1:23).

S stands for St. Nicholas, the fourth century bishop of Myra, a Christian whose story — embellished by years of telling — nevertheless exemplifies Christian faithfulness and charity. Christmas should remind us of the faithfulness of God, without which we have no hope of redemption through His greatest gift, His Son (John 3:16). Little historical knowledge is available concerning St. Nicholas,³ commonly called by his German/English equivalent, Santa Claus. But he is known for kindness to children in need, and for his commitment to Christ through persecution and martyrdom. Many traditions associated with Santa Claus are objectionable — especially that he is all-knowing or able to be present everywhere. However, the themes of faithfulness and charity are biblical and honor Jesus Christ.

T stands for tradition, the stories and customs associated with Christmas. Christmas traditions are of three types: (1) those strictly non-Christian, inappropriate for Christians; (2) those that were initially pagan but were changed to affirm the gospel; and (3) those developed within the church.⁴ One inappropriate tradition from early pagan mid-winter festivals is drunkenness and immorality. The drunken Christmas party may reflect Rome’s ancient Saturnalia, but has nothing to do with celebration of Christ’s birth.

Some Christians think the Christmas tree is a pagan tradition forbidden by Jeremiah 10:2-4. However, the Jeremiah passage is not about trees dedicated to one day of the year (Christmas); rather, it refers to permanent, all-year-round idols carved out of wood and covered with gold and silver. The Christmas tree actually symbolizes that Jesus brings us eternal life (the evergreen) and is the light of the world (lights or candles).

Likewise, boughs of holly with red berries and green leaves represent Christ’s shed blood on the cross and eternal life. Even the candy cane/shepherd’s crook represents Jesus as our Shepherd. While tradition is no substitute for dynamic personal faith, it enhances our appreciation of Christ’s birth.

M stands for the magi, or wise men, directed by God to find and worship Christ. We shouldn’t forget that no one is wealthy enough, powerful enough, or far enough away that he or she should not bow before Jesus Christ, the King of kings and Lord of lords (1 Tim. 6:15).

A stands for advent, a word referring to Christ’s coming. Christ came once in Bethlehem — as an infant who grew to manhood, died for our sins, and rose again the third day. Christians eagerly look forward to His Second Coming — “the blessed hope” (Titus 2:13). Many churches conduct advent services for the four weeks prior to Christmas, encouraging Christians to look forward to the birthday of Christ and also to His Second Coming.

S stands for salvation, made possible by the coming of Christ. The gospel story is so simple we often forget it, but so profound it affects every individual. We are all sinners, separated from God, with absolutely no way to reach God except He reached down to us through His Son. With the coming of Christmas comes recognition that because He came, He died, and because He died and lives again, we also may live (Rom. 6:8; 8:11).

Christmas is not primarily a celebration of human life, although each human life is valuable; not primarily a celebration of peace and love, although peace and love are noble. The center and circumference of Christmas should be the celebration of the birth of our Lord: “I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord” (Luke 2:10-11).

(Based upon the article originally printed in the From the President column of the Christian Research Newsletter, Volume 5: Number 5, 1992)

NOTES

¹He may have been born in the fall, based on information in the Bible on the birth of John the Baptist and his father Zacharias’s priestly schedule (1 Chron. 24:10; Luke 1:5, 9, 23-24, 26, 36, 56).

²See Harold W. Hoehner’s Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977), 25-26.

³When I use the term saint, I am not implying that only extraordinary Christians are “saints.” Verses such as Psalm 30:4, Romans 8:27, and Ephesians 6:16 declare that all believers are saints. Nicholas is, however, an excellent example and role model of a “saint.”

⁴See Clement A. Miles, Christmas Customs and Traditions, (New York: Dover Publications, n.d.).

After I became a born-again Christian, I welcomed the opportunity not only to recapture the spirit of the season, but also truly to appreciate, for the first time, its spiritual significance. I did enjoy a couple of meaningful Christmases. Then I started witnessing to Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Time and again the Witnesses would cite the Trinity and Christmas as clear proof that “Christendom” had lapsed into paganism. The Trinity I could answer for biblically, but Christmas was harder to defend. It was certainly not a holy day instituted in the Bible. And pre-Christian, pagan Rome had indeed observed the Day of the Invincible Sun on December 25. In fact, in many ancient cultures, customs and festivities later associated with Christmas (e.g., Yule logs, mistletoe, and even the giving of gifts) were observed in honor of the sun god’s resurgence at the winter solstice.

I never totally abandoned Christmas — it’s not easy for a Christian to reject a holiday that celebrates the birth of his Lord. But the pagan connections troubled me, and my observance of the day became halfhearted.

Eventually, however, I came to the conclusion that just as pagans and pagan temples can be converted and sanctified to Christian service, so too can pagan holidays and even some of the traditions associated with them (those that are not inherently immoral or idolatrous). The critical issue is: What significance do we currently attach to previously pagan practices? (See 1 Cor. 8:4–7; 10:25–31.)

Since Christmas is not legislated in the Bible, it should not be considered essential to Christian practice. Christians do not need to defend it to Jehovah’s Witnesses and other cultists with the same zeal with which they would defend the doctrines of the Trinity or eternal punishment. In fact, it would even be acceptable if a sincere Christian told a Jehovah’s Witness, “If you don’t want to observe Christmas, that’s fine. I myself do not observe it.” But that same Christian would have no business judging those Christians who do partake in the holiday.

Christmas is a good example of what Paul had in mind when he wrote: “One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. He who regards one day as special, does so to the Lord….You, then, why do you judge your brother? Or why do you look down on your brother? For we will all stand before God’s judgment seat” (Rom. 14:5-6, 10; NIV).

Should Christians celebrate Christmas? A number of unorthodox new religions which profess to follow Christ insist that Christmas is a pagan festival to be shunned by all true Christians. Probably the most notable of these religions is the Jehovah’s Witnesses, who publish stinging attacks on the celebration of Christmas year after year. Other religions that take the same position include the World Wide Church of God (led by Herbert W. Armstrong) and the Assemblies of Yahweh.

However, these unorthodox religious groups are not alone in their condemnation of this most popular of religious holidays. Many evangelical Christians also believe that Christmas is a pagan celebration dressed up in “Christian clothes.” While many Christians mark Christmas as a special day to worship Christ and give thanks for His entrance into the world, they reject anything to do with Santa Claus, Christmas trees, exchanging gifts, and the like.

Are there biblical grounds for rejecting all or part of Christmas? What should be the attitude of Christians in this matter? That is the question before us. The answer given here is that while certain elements of Christmas tradition are essentially pagan and should not be indulged at that time of year, Christmas itself and many of the traditions associated with it may be celebrated by Christians with a clear conscience. Those who are inclined to reject out of hand such a position might be interested to know that at one time this writer would have agreed with them. A closer examination of the issues involved, however, leads to a different conclusion.

Should Christians celebrate Christmas- Celebrating Jesus’ Birthday

The most basic and common argument brought against Christmas is that it is not found in the Bible. Many Christians, as well as groups like the Jehovah’s Witnesses, feel that because Christmas is not mentioned in scripture, it is therefore not to be observed. In fact, the Witnesses argue that since the only people in the Bible who celebrated their own birthdays were Pharoah (Gen. 40:20-22) and Herod (Matt. 14:6-10), God takes a dim view of celebrating birthdays in general. Therefore, they feel, God would hardly approve of celebrating Jesus’ birthday.

In answer to these arguments, a few things need to be said. First of all, the fact is that the Bible says nothing against the practice of celebrating birthdays. What was bad in the cases of Pharoah and Herod was not that they celebrated their birthdays, but that they did evil things on their birthdays (Pharoah killed his chief baker, and Herod killed John the Baptist). Second, what the Bible does not forbid, either explicitly or by implication from some moral principle, is permissible to the Christian, as long as it is edifying (Rom. 13:10; 14:1-23; 1 Cor. 6:12; 10:23; Col. 2:20-23; etc.). Therefore, since the Bible does not forbid birthdays, and they do not violate any biblical principle, there is no biblical basis for rejecting birthdays. For the same reason, there is no biblical reason to reject entirely the idea of celebrating Jesus’ birthday.

Should Christians celebrate Christmas- December 25

Another common objection to Christmas relates to observing December 25 as the birthday of Christ. It is frequently urged that Christ could not have been born in December (usually because the shepherds would supposedly not have had their flocks in the fields at night in that month), so that December 25 could not have been his birthday. It is also pointed out that December 25 was the date of a pagan festival in the Roman Empire in the fourth century, when Christmas began to be widely celebrated on that day.

It is true that there seems to be no evidence for December 25 as the actual birthday of Christ. On the other hand, it has been shown that such a date is not impossible, as is so commonly supposed.1 Nevertheless, it may be granted that it is highly improbable that Christ was actually born on December 25. Does this fact invalidate Christmas? No. It is not essential to the celebration of someone’s birth that it be commemorated on the same date as his birth. Americans commemorate Washington’s and Lincoln’s birthday on the third Monday of February, even though Washington’s was February 22. If it were to become certain that Christ was actually born on say, April 30, should we then celebrate Christmas on that day? While there would be nothing wrong with such a change, it would not be necessary. The intent or purpose is what matters, not the actual date.

But what of the fact that December 25 was the date of a pagan festival? Does this not prove that Christmas is pagan? No, it does not. Instead, it proves that Christmas was established as a rival celebration to the pagan festival. That is, what Christians did was to say, “Rather than celebrate in immorality the birth of Mithra, a false god who was never really born and who cannot save you, let us celebrate in joyful righteousness the birth of Jesus, the true God incarnate who is the Savior of the world.”

Sometimes it is urged that to take a pagan festival and try to “Christianize” it is folly. However, God Himself did exactly that in the Old Testament. Historical evidence shows conclusively that some of the feasts given to Israel by God through Moses were originally pagan agricultural festivals, which were filled with idolatrous imagery and practices.2 What God did, in effect, was to establish feasts which would replace the pagan festivals without adopting any of the idolatry or immorality associated with them. It would appear, then, that in principle there is nothing wrong with doing so in the case of Christmas.

Should Christians celebrate Christmas- Santa Claus

Perhaps the thing that bothers Christians about Christmas more than anything else is the Santa Claus tradition. Objections to this tradition include the following (1) Santa Claus is a mythical figure endowed with godlike attributes, including omniscience and omnipotence; (2) when children learn that Santa Claus is not real, they lose faith in their parents’ word and in supernatural beings; (3) Santa Claus distracts children from Christ; (4) the Santa Claus story teaches children to be materialistic. In the face of such weighty objections, can anything good be said about Santa Claus?

Before examining each of these objections, let it be noted that Christmas can be celebrated without Santa Claus. Take Santa out of Christmas and Christmas remains intact. Take Christ out of Christmas, however, and all that remains is a pagan festival. Whatever our individual differences however best to handle Santa Claus with our children may be, as Christians we should be able to agree on this much.

1. There is no doubt that Santa Claus in its present form is a fairy tale or myth. However, there really was a Santa Claus. The name “Santa Claus” is an Anglicized form of the Dutch Sinter Klaas, which in turn meant “Saint Nicholas.” Nicholas was a Christian bishop in the fourth century about whom we know little for sure. He apparently attended the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325, and a very strong tradition suggests that he did show unusual kindness toward children. While the red-suited old man in a sled pulled by flying reindeer is a myth, the story of a children-loving old man who brought them gifts probably is not — and in many countries, that is all there is to “Santa Claus.”

Telling children that Santa can see them at all times and that he knows if they have been bad or good, etc., is wrong. Parents should not tell their children the Santa Claus story as if it were literal truth. However, children under seven or eight years of age can play “let’s pretend” and derive just as much fun from it as if they thought it was real. Indeed, at that age they are learning the difference between make-believe and reality. Much younger children will be fascinated by presents that are discovered Christmas morning under the tree that they are told are from “Santa,” but they will not draw any conclusions about the reality of Santa Claus from those discoveries.

2. When children learn that Santa Claus is not real, this will upset them only if they have been told by their parents that he really exists and does all that he is purported to do. Therefore, children should be told that Santa is make-believe as soon as they are old enough to ask questions about reality. Rather than a stumbling block to belief in the supernatural, Santa can be a stepping stone. Tell your children that while Santa Claus is make-believe, God and Jesus are not. Tell them that while Santa can only bring things that parents can buy or make, Jesus can give them things no one else can — a friend who is always with them, forgiveness of the bad things they do, life in a wonderful place with God forever, etc.

3. Follow the suggestions above, and Santa Claus will not be a distraction from Christ. Tell your children that the reason “Santa” gives gifts is because God gave us the wonderful gift of Jesus.

4. On the contrary, the Santa Claus story is best told when it is used to encourage children to be selfless and giving. For an example of how to teach your inquiring child about Santa Claus, see the book, Santa Are You for Real? by Harold Myra (Thomas Nelson, 1977).

Should Christians celebrate Christmas- Christmas Trees

One of the few elements of the traditional celebration of Christmas, which those opposed to it claim is spoken of in Scripture, is the Christmas tree. Specifically, it is thought that in Jeremiah 10:2-4 God explicitly condemned Christmas trees:

Thus says the LORD…
“For the customs of the people are delusion,
Because it is wood cut from the forest,
The work of the hands of a craftsman with a cutting tool.
They decorate it with silver and with gold,
They fasten it with nails and with hammers
So that it will not totter.”

There certainly is a resemblance between the thing described in Jeremiah 10 and the Christmas tree. Resemblance, however, does not equal identity. What Jeremiah described was an idol — a representation of a false god — as the next verse shows (Jer. 10:5):

“Like a scarecrow in a field are they,
And they cannot speak;
They must be carried,
Because they cannot walk!

Do not fear them,
For they can do no harm,
Neither can they do any good.”

The parallel passage in Isaiah 40:18-20 makes it clear that the sort of thing Jeremiah 10 has in mind is an actual objection of worship:

To whom then will you liken God?
Or what likeness will you compare with Him?

As for the idol, a craftsman cast it,
A goldsmith plates it with gold,
And a silversmith fashions chains of silver.
He who is too impoverished for such an offering
Selects a tree that does not rot.
He seeks out for himself a skilled craftsman
To prepare an idol that will not totter.

Thus, the resemblance is merely superficial. The Christmas tree does not originate from pagan worship of trees (which was practiced), but from two explicitly Christian symbols in medieval western Germany. The Encyclopedia Britannica3 explains as follows:

The modern Christmas tree, though originated in western Germany. The main prop of a popular medieval play about Adam and Eve was a fire tree hung with apples (Paradise tree) representing the Garden of Eden. The Germans set up a “Paradise tree” in their homes on December 24, the religious feast day of Adam and Eve. They hung wafers on it (symbolizing the host, the Christian sign of redemption); the hosts eventually became cookies of various shapes. Candles, too, were often added as a symbol of Christ. In the same room, during the Christmas season, was the Christmas pyramid, a triangular construction of wood, with shelves to hold Christmas figurines, decorated with evergreens, candles, and a star. By the 16th century, the Christmas pyramid and Paradise tree had merged, becoming the Christmas tree.

Once again, there is nothing essential about the Christmas tree to the celebration of Christmas. Like the modern Santa Claus myth, it is a relatively recent tradition; people celebrated Christmas for centuries without the tree and without the semi-divine resident of the North Pole. What is essential to Christmas is Christ. Yet that does not mean that we must throw Santa and the tree out altogether. In this matter we have Christian liberty to adopt these traditions and use them to teach our children about Christ, or to celebrate Christ’s birth without them. For that matter, there is no compulsion to celebrate His birthday at all, since it is not commanded of us in Scripture. Nevertheless, it would be strange indeed if someone saved by the Son of God would not rejoice in thinking of the day that His incarnation was first manifested to the world on that holy night.

NOTES

1. Harold W. Hoehner, Chronological Aspects of the Life of Christ (Zondervan, 1977).

2. The New Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropaedia Vol. 4 (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1981), p. 601.

3. The New Encyclopedia Britannica: Micropaedia, Vol. II (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1981), p.

THE MEANING OF CHRISTMAS- “Good Will Toward Men”
In our secularized culture, non-Christians have reinterpreted the “true meaning of Christmas” to be “good will toward men.” By that expression they mean that people should get along with one another, have good feelings toward one another, and be nice to one another. It is this humanistic interpretation of Christmas that is celebrated in such holiday films as It’s a Wonderful Life and White Christmas.

THE MEANING OF CHRISTMAS- Human Longing for Love
Not to appreciate the human longing for love, happiness, and goodness expressed in these films would be dreadful indeed. Human beings, Christians and non-Christians alike, have a tremendous capacity for feeling, and Christmas brings that capacity to open expression with an intensity unmatched the rest of the year. Rather than condemning these expressions of human emotion, Christians ought to acknowledge them and feel free even to enjoy and participate in them.

THE MEANING OF CHRISTMAS- The True Meaning of Christmas
But Christians should also recognize, and help non-Christians to see as well, that the true meaning of Christmas lies elsewhere. When the angels announcing Christ’s birth sang about “good will toward men” [Luke 2:14], they were not singing about people showing good will toward other people, but about God showing good will toward men. The point is that in Christmas God acted in a magnificent way to show goodness and love toward us. By becoming a human being, dying on the cross for our sins, and rising from the dead, Jesus Christ overcame for us sin and the grave. In short, Jesus was born to overcome the very things that left unchecked would destroy the human spirit of love, tenderness, and selflessness celebrated by secularists at Christmas. Because Jesus Christ came to earth in Bethlehem, it’s a wonderful life both now and forever for those who believe in Him and through Him experience God’s good will toward them. On the true meaning of Christmas, that’s the CRI perspective. I’m Hank Hanegraaff.

CHRISTMAS PRESENTS- Origins
The giving of gifts at Christmas is a custom which developed in imitation of the wise men, or Magi, who gave gifts to Christ [Matt. 2:11]. It is sometimes said, notably by the Jehovah’s Witnesses, that this biblical event is irrelevant to Christmas gift-giving. For one thing, they claim, the word “Magi” should be translated “astrologers,” and clearly God would not lead people to Christ through astrology. This claim is at best a half-truth: the Magi were trained not only in astrology but also in all of the arts and sciences of their culture, so that the translation “wise men” is actually much more accurate than “astrologers.” Besides, the Bible makes it very clear that the wise men were led by God, both by the star which led them to Christ [Matt. 2:9], and by the warning which they received in a dream not to go back to Herod, since it was given to protect Christ’s life [Matt. 2:11].

CHRISTMAS PRESENTS- Misunderstandings
Jehovah’s Witnesses also point out that the wise men gave gifts to Christ, and they did not give gifts to one another. But that misses the point altogether. The now risen, glorified Jesus doesn’t need anything in the first place; but if we give to others Jesus Christ considers that as good as giving to Him [Matt. 25:31-46].

CHRISTMAS PRESENTS- The Commercialism Behind the Gift
For most people the really troublesome aspects of Christmas gift-giving is the commercialism attached to it and the pressure it often puts on people to give gifts to people because it’s expected rather than freely given out of love. And you know, all of us can identify with that. But these are abuses and therefore do not invalidate the practice itself. What you ought to do is adopt sensible, biblically-based principles to guide your giving, and stick to them. Whatever you decide to give, give cheerfully, and use Christmas gifts to remind yourself and your loved ones of Jesus Christ, God’s incomparable gift to us. On Christmas gift-giving, that’s the CRI perspective. I’m Hank Hanegraaff.

ARE CHRISTMAS TREES IDOLATROUS?- Christmas Trees in Jeremiah?
Sometimes it is said that Christmas trees are condemned in Jeremiah 10, verses 2 – 4, where God says, “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. They decorate it with silver and gold, they fasten it with nails and a hammer so that it will not totter.”

ARE CHRISTMAS TREES IDOLATROUS?- The Reality
Although this may sound like a reference to Christmas trees, it really is not. In this passage God is condemning idols which are carved out of wood and used as objects of worship; thus, in the very next verse God ridicules the idols because they cannot talk and cannot walk! Obviously, this criticism is not aimed at Christmas trees at all.

ARE CHRISTMAS TREES IDOLATROUS?- The Real Origin of Christmas Trees
The fact of the matter is that the Christmas tree originated in Christian Germany about two thousand years after Jeremiah’s criticisms of wooden idols. It originated from two Christian symbols found in homes at Christmas time. The first was a “Paradise tree,” an evergreen which was hung with apples which represented the tree of life in the Garden of Eden. The second symbol was a “Christmas pyramid.” This of course was a triangular shelf holding Christmas figurines and decorated with a star. By about the 16th century these two symbols had been combined into the Christian Christmas tree.

ARE CHRISTMAS TREES IDOLATROUS?- Conclusion
Thus, the Christmas tree is a thoroughly Christian symbol, and Christians ought not to feel guilty for having one of them in their home. On the other hand, the Christmas tree is not essential to Christmas, and Christians may, of course, do without it if they choose to. If you see a Christmas tree in the home of a non-Christian friend or a relative, you might take the opportunity to point to it as the symbol of the fact that Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem so that they might have eternal life. On Christmas trees, that’s the CRI perspective. I’m Hank Hanegraaff.

SANTA CLAUS- A Nonessential
Santa Claus is not essential or even very important to Christmas. I mean you can take Santa out of Christmas and Christmas remains intact. However, you cannot take Christ out of Christmas, because all that you would have left is a pagan festival. So, whatever else we might say about Santa Claus, let’s remember that he is not what Christmas is all about.

SANTA CLAUS- The Man
Now, while Santa Claus in its present form is a fairy tale, there really was a Santa Claus. His name, “Santa Claus” is an Anglicized form of the Dutch Sinter Klaas, which in turn means “Saint Nicholas.” Nicholas was a Christian bishop in the fourth century who apparently attended the Council of Nicea and supported the doctrine of the Trinity. The tradition that he was especially kind toward children, even giving them gifts, is very likely based on fact. Thus Christians might justifiably look to the real Saint Nicholas as a hero of the Christian faith.

SANTA CLAUS- The Myth
Of course, the story that Santa Claus lives at the North Pole in a toy factory, that he sees children at all times and knows whether they’ve been bad or good, and that he flies in a sled pulled by flying reindeer, is of course, a myth and should be treated as such. Christian parents can take two approaches to this Santa Claus story. As a make-believe story with a moral they can tell their small children the parts of the story that are harmless (such as the flying reindeer) and reject the other parts that are objectionable (such as Santa being all-knowing, or Santa being omniscient). Or parents can reject the whole story and have absolutely nothing to do with it. In any case, Christians should not allow Santa Claus to eclipse Christ as the reason for the season. On Santa Claus, that’s the CRI Perspective. I’m Hank Hanegraaff.

THE CHRISTIAN AND CHRISTMAS- Pagan Myths and Practices
The best arguments against Christmas are the pagan myths and practices that have attached themselves like so many barnacles to a ship. But just as you don’t abandon a ship simply because it’s got some barnacles on it, you don’t need to abandon Christmas because non-Christians abuse it.

THE CHRISTIAN AND CHRISTMAS- No Violation of Biblical Principles
The Bible neither commands nor condemns Christmas. Nor is there any biblical principle violated by the celebration of Christ’s birthday. Scripture clearly teaches that anything is permitted as long as it does not violate biblical principles, and as long as it is done in faith, with love, and in a manner that edifies (Rom. 13:10; 14:4-5, 23; 1 Cor. 6:12; 10:23; Col. 2:20-22).

THE CHRISTIAN AND CHRISTMAS- What Day WAS Jesus Born on?
Often we are told that celebrating Christ’s birthday on December 25th is very wrong, for two reasons. The first is that Christ was probably not even born on December 25th. That’s probably true, but so what? We don’t know on what day Jesus Christ was actually born, but what does it really matter? What matters is that we are commemorating the birth of the Savior of the world.

THE CHRISTIAN AND CHRISTMAS- Pagan Festivals
The second objection is more weighty — when Christmas was originally instituted, December 25th was a pagan festival which commemorated the birthday of a false god. While this is a historical fact, what is often overlooked by the church is its intent in choosing December 25th in the first place. The church was not Christianizing a pagan festival, but was establishing the celebration of the birth of Christ as a rival celebration. Today the world has all but forgotten about the pagan gods of Greece and Rome, but at least a billion people on planet earth today consider themselves to be followers of Jesus Christ.

THE CHRISTIAN AND CHRISTMAS- Conclusion
Well, over the next few days I’m going to be discussing what Christians should think of such traditional aspects of Christmas as Santa Claus and Christmas trees. But remember, there is nothing wrong with celebrating the birth of the Savior of the world, I think it’s great. On Christmas, that’s the CRI perspective. I’m Hank Hanegraaff.