The Controversy over Christmas

History

Numerous controversies have arisen over Christmas. Some of the objections to Christmas are well grounded, while others have no historical merit. A minority of Reformed Protestants have historically objected to any celebration of the birth of Jesus,¹ while others have objected to one or more of the following: the name “Christmas,”² the date of December 25,³ certain Christmas activities (such as kissing under the mistletoe,⁴ wassailing,⁵ Santa Claus handing out gifts,⁶ etc), certain Christmas decorations (such as the Christmas tree,⁷ Yule log,⁸ Yule Ham,⁹ mistletoe, holly wreaths, etc), certain compromises in the history of this festival,¹⁰ and/or the alleged pagan origin of this ancient festival. While it is clear that pagan practices have crept into the celebration of Christ’s birth over the centuries, I will argue that the early church originally celebrated Hanukkah, Passover and Pentecost in Jewish style just like the apostles did,¹¹ with no imitation of the pagan festivals whatsoever.

The earliest records we have show that the church celebrated festivals prior to 100AD.¹² Though Hislop quotes Tertullian as an opponent of festivals in 230 AD,¹³ he takes Tertullian completely out of context. Tertullian was vigorously contrasting Christians, who “celebrate their festal days with a good conscience, instead of with the common wantonness” of the pagans.¹⁴ But clearly the Christians had “festal days.” It was not Christian feasts per se that he was opposed to, but pagan feasts, and adoption of pagan practices. He said, “we do not celebrate along with you the holidays of the Caesars in a manner forbidden alike by modesty, decency, and purity, […] affording opportunities for licentiousness.”¹⁵ However, in contrast to the festal days he rejected, Tertullian defends the festivals of Passover and Pentecost as being joyous feast days.¹⁶ Again in chapter 23 he speaks of the proper celebration of Resurrection Day and Pentecost. We will later trace the early celebration of the birthday of Jesus in the church, but these quotes should be sufficient to show that Hislop has grossly misrepresented Tertullian. Many fathers who supported the festival of Christ’s birth in the first few centuries vigorously opposed pagan accretions, but they had no problem with celebrating Jewish festivals that had been Christianized.

Though there was a very early controversy over the right day on which to celebrate Passover,¹⁷ the earliest controversy that attached to the festival of Christ’s birth came in 194-205 AD. Interestingly, the controversy did not revolve around the celebration itself (which apparently was present much earlier),¹⁸ but around the correct date to celebrate His birth. Hippolytus (about 205 AD) said that Jesus was born on December 25,¹⁹ and Clement of Alexandria (writing 194 AD) gave supporting evidence when he gave the date of January 6 as the time of Christ’s baptism. Since Jesus was baptized around the time of his birthday (Luke 3:23), this too would argue for a winter date for Christ’s birth. But the controversy came because some others had been suggesting alternative dates for Christ’s birth.²⁰ Nevertheless, there is clear testimony to the celebration of the birth of Jesus going back to at least 200 AD, and possibly much earlier (see footnote 18). It will be argued later that the confusion over January 6 and December 25 can be partly explained by the difference in the Julian and Gregorian calendars.²¹ But it appears that there was widespread celebration of the birth of Jesus in 200 AD just as there was widespread celebration of at least two other Jewish festivals.

It was not until the Reformation that major opposition to celebrating the birth of Jesus arose among a minority. The general position of the Presbyterian Church in Scotland and of the American Puritans was to totally do away with Christmas.²² They were not content with John Calvin’s reforms of Christmas and Easter,²³ but demanded entire abrogation of the festivals. Calvin,²⁴ Turretin,²⁵ Bullinger,²⁶ Beza,²⁷ and other Reformed leaders²⁸ considered the position of the Scotch Presbyterians to be legalistic. I would not personally want to go that far, having great respect for those who oppose all participation in festivals. There are still some churches and at least three Reformed denominations in North America that totally abstain from these festivals on religious grounds. Nor is this an insignificant issue. Those who abstain from celebrations usually do so for two main reasons: fear of syncretism with pagan worship and fear of violating the regulative principle of worship. Such fear should not be scorned but should be praised since these issues of sola Scriptura²⁹ and Soli Deo Gloria³⁰ are at the heart of the Reformed faith.

The Regulative Principle of Worship

I too oppose syncretism in any form (Rom. 12:1; 1 Cor. 3:10-15; 2 Cor. 4:5; 6:14-18) and uphold the regulative principle of worship - that all of Scripture, and only Scripture is to regulate our worship (Deut. 4:2; Rev. 22:18,19; Prov. 30:5,6; Is. 8:20; Mark 7:7-13; Matt. 15:6-9; Col. 2:20-23; Matt. 28:19ff.).³¹ Though my studies of Scripture have convinced me that celebrating the incarnation of Christ on December 25 is consistent with these principles and very appropriate, I appreciate the concern expressed by those of differing views and am constrained by Scripture to give them liberty concerning the “day” (Rom. 14:5-6) as they should do to me once they see that I am in no way embracing the pagan celebration of Yule Day or Saturnalia on December 25. This book is defending liberty to celebrate the birth of Jesus. The great reformer, Turretin, expresses my position well when he says,

The question is not whether anniversary days may be selected on which either the nativity, or circumcision, or passion, or ascension of Christ, and similar mysteries of redemption, may be commemorated, or even on which the memory of some remarkable blessing may be celebrated. For this the orthodox think should be left to the liberty of the church. Hence some devote certain days to such festivity, not from necessity of faith, but from the counsel of prudence to excite more to piety and devotion. However, others, using their liberty, retain the Lord’s day alone, and in it, at stated times, celebrate the memory of the mysteries of Christ […] we deny that those days are in themselves more holy than others; rather all are equal. If any sanctity is attributed to them, it does not belong to the time and the day, but to the divine worship. Thus, the observance of them among those who retain it, is only of positive right and ecclesiastical appointment; not, however, necessary from a divine precept.³²

Satan the Great Imitator

We do need to deal with the fact that pagans have celebrated a festival on December 25 as well. In the minds of many, this argues strongly that we should distance ourselves from Christmas. But the question we need to consider is this: “Who imitated whom?” We know from Scripture that Satan is a skilled imitator of God (Exodus 7:11-12,22; 8:6-7,17-18; 2 Thes. 2:9), that he knows the Scriptures (Matt. 4:6; Mark 4:15), and that he even knows present and future information about God and man that has not necessarily been revealed to men (Job 1:6-12; 2:1-6; I Kings 22:19-22). Therefore it is no surprise to us that, when God instituted sacrifices (Gen. 3:21; 4:4), Satan followed suit (Gen. 4:3-5) and continued to do so before (2 Kings 23:11; Is. 65:4; 66:3,17; Ex. 8:10; etc.) and after Christ’s coming (1 Cor. 10:20; Rev. 2:14,20). The fact that pagans offered sacrifices did not invalidate the godly giving of sacrifices. The issue was a question of who imitated whom. The same can be said of the universal phenomena of circumcision, baptisms, incense, tongues, prophecies, prayers, healings, etc. Just because false religions practiced these things did not mean that Israel had to abandon them.

Who Imitated Whom?

The start of the conspiracy theory

More to the point of Christmas, “Which celebration of December 25 came first? Did the Christians imitate the pagans, or did the pagans imitate the Christians?” Ever since the writings of Paul Ernst Jablonski (1693-1757), it has been assumed that Christians borrowed the celebration of December 25 from the Roman Saturnalia, and that they began to do so after Constantine converted to Christianity in 312 AD. Hislop’s book, The Two Babylons, reasserts much of Jablonski’s research, and almost all modern literature against Christmas celebration relies heavily on Rev. Hislop’s book.

Problem 1

There are two major problems with this pagan-origin-of-Christmas thesis: First, the most recent research has demonstrated that Rome started celebrating December 25 with sun-worship long after Christians had already set apart that date.³³ The earliest reference that we have to “the birthday of the undefeated Sun” (Dies Natalis Solis Invicti) being on December 25 is in 354 AD.³⁴ This is one hundred and fifty years after the first undisputed December 25 dating for the birth of Jesus! It is true that the 354 AD inscription presumes an earlier celebration. But so does the earliest reference to celebration of the birth of Jesus on December 25. It is also true that many scholars assume that the Roman Emperor Aurelian may have established December 25 when he sought to institute the cult of Sol Invictus in 274 AD. However, this is merely an assumption, and an interesting archeological inscription from the reign of Lucius Septimus Severus dates the birthday of the Sun God to December 19.³⁵ This means that a later emperor must have changed the date to December 25 for some reason. It is that reason for the change that is most intriguing.

For the sake of argument, let us assume that the earliest possible date for the Roman pagan celebration of December 25 is 274 AD. This is still almost three quarters of a century removed from the earliest uncontested Christian reference to the birth of Jesus being on December 25. Who is copying whom? It is extremely unlikely that Christianity (still an illegal persecuted religion) would imitate its persecutors. Since the Emperor Aurelian was desperately trying to consolidate all religions under Rome, and since Christianity was fast becoming the largest religion in Rome, William Tighe says that it “was almost certainly an attempt to create a pagan alternative to a date that was already of some significance to Roman Christians.”³⁶ Tighe, Associate Professor of History at Muhlenberg College in Allentown, Pennsylvania, came to the conclusion that “the ‘pagan origins of Christmas’ [idea] is a myth without historical substance.”³⁷ My own research has led me to the same conclusion.

If it is objected that two Roman temples of the sun existed in the first century, it should be immediately asked, “What is the date of their festivals to the Sun?” And the answer is, “August.” Talley and Tighe argue that even with Mithraism and other eastern cults, the festivals were not on December 25 prior to Aurelian’s initiative, and no written record can be found for this date prior to 354 AD. This is a fatal blow to the theory that Christians borrowed December 25 because of pagan syncretism. The evidence seems to favor the opposite conclusion.

Problem 2

The second major problem with this thesis is that it fails to account for Hanukkah, the Jewish festival that fell on December 25 in 5 B.C. (the year Christ was born). If Christians borrowed their celebration of December 25 from the pagans, whom did the Jews borrow their celebration from? It is impossible to credibly argue that the Maccabean freedom fighters borrowed anything from the pagans. They were willing to lay down their lives and be tortured and killed rather than to compromise on the slightest deviation from the law.³⁸ 4 Maccabees 18:5 says, “in no way whatever was he [Antiochus] able to compel the Israelites to become pagans and to abandon their ancestral customs.” The Maccabees were purists who allowed not the slightest degree of syncretism with paganism. Their cry was, “Far be it from us to desert the law and the ordinances” (1 Macc. 2:21). It is clear that there was no borrowing of December 25 (or rather the Jewish lunar equivalent of Chislev 25) from the pagans. It is also clear that the festival of Hanukkah went back to at least the third century BC.³⁹ This deals a second deathblow to the pagan-origin-of-December-25-thesis. It simply will not work when it is tested against the Jewish celebration of December 25.⁴⁰

Satan’s great strategy

Instead, what happened is that Satan used his “Plan B.” “Plan A” is to destroy God’s people with persecution. When that cannot be accomplished, he imitates God’s plan and seeks to confuse God’s people by mixing counterfeit with real. Satan is the great conspirator. When God instituted a Sabbath in the Garden of Eden, Satan followed suit. Every major religion in the world has its equivalent to a Sabbath day. When God established sacrifices with Abel after the Fall, Satan followed suit and sacrifices became universal. When God established circumcision, Satan sought to obliterate this distinction by having other nations practice circumcision. When God established a temple, so did Satan. If the pagan day proves anything, it is that Satan has set up a competing day on a competing calendar. Just as a counterfeit dollar presupposes a real dollar, and Satan’s many other counterfeits presuppose the real thing, why can’t a pagan day of December 25 (especially when celebrated under so many religions and cults - i.e., not a coincidence) presuppose a “real” day of December 25?