Consider parallels with Psalms:
Mat 27:45,46 and Mar 15:34 // Psa 22:1.
Then, later, Joh 19:30 // Psa 22:31.
Therefore, Jesus must have recited all of Psa 22 on the cross.
Were these the very last words of Christ on the cross?
What about Luk 23:46 // Psa 31:5?
Did Jesus recite ALL of Psa 22:1 through Psa 31:5 while on the cross?
Consider: Psa 23:4; 26:2,6; 27:2,3,5,6; 29:3-5 (storm and darkness of Mat 27:45?); Psa 30:5,9,11; 31:5a…
And, finally (3 days later!)… Psa 31:5b!
General considerations:
Most of the present historical anniversaries that the world keeps are ghostly hangovers from the time when the Mother of Harlots held undisputed sway over “times and seasons,” and the “bodies and souls of men.” AND many of them were borrowed by the Catholic Church from paganism.
Many, of course, are now only unfamiliar names to most of us: Candlemass, Epiphany, St. Stephen’s, Michaelmass, All Saints, Whitsuntide, Shrove Tuesday, Ash Wednesday, Plough Monday, Twelfth Night, and scores of others. But some still remain prominent, as grim relics of an age of gross and incredible superstition.
“SAINT” VALENTINE, for instance, was a romantically-minded bishop of the third century, martyred (at least according to legend) for performing “christian” marriages against the laws of the Emperor.
“SAINT” PATRICK converted Ireland to Catholicism and immortalized the shamrock by using it to demonstrate the superstition of the triple unity of the “Trinity”.
EASTER is named from a pagan Saxon goddess of spring. Many ancient heathen nations revered the egg as the symbol of the beginning of life: it is from Teuton mythology that rabbit-laid eggs appear among Easter superstitions. Dressing up in new clothes for Easter goes back to Constantine’s time. The Encyclopedia Britannica says —
“The name Easter is a survival from the old Teutonic mythology. It is derived from Eostre or Ostara, the Anglo-Saxon goddess of spring… There is no indication of the observance of the Easter festival in the New Testament, or in the writings of the apostolic Fathers. The sanctity of special times was an idea absent from the minds of the first Christians.”
HALLOWEEN: Of this, the Encyclopedia Britannica says —
“Hallowe’en long antedates Christianity. History shows that the main celebrations of Hallowe’en were purely Druidical [ancient Britain]. The Druids believed in the calling together of certain wicked souls on Hallowe’en by Saman, lord of death. Upon the Druidic ceremonies were grafted some of the characteristics of the Roman festival in honor of Pomona [pagan Italian goddess of fruits and gardens] held about November 1st, in which nuts and apples, representing the winter store of fruits, played an important part.”
And this became the Roman Catholic “All Hallows”, or “Festival of All Saints,” and was so passed on to a besotted world. The Encyclopedia Americana says —
“Hallowe’en is associated in the popular imagination with the prevalence of supernatural influences, and is clearly a RELIC OF PAGAN TIMES.”
CHRIST-MASS, too, we find is fundamentally of “religious” origin (if superstitious paganism can be called “religion”), but it is FAR from exclusively, or even principally, “Christian.” Most of its innumerable customs, traditions, and superstitions are of pagan origin. But the mystery-working of the Catholic Church has greatly complicated them by the addition of priests and madonnas and holy waters, and signs of the cross.
We must recognize the whole corrupt Babylonian system as a total unit, all equally part of the same Apostasy. The better we perceive, the less we will desire to have any part in heathen customs. When, by study, we come to perceive fully, we shall be shocked and revolted at the idea of having anything to do with it. We shall find it repulsive. We shall want to get as far away from it as we possibly can. Anyone who GROWS in the Truth must inevitably come to this conviction. The tragedy is that many never grow.
We find, above all things, that “Christ-Mass” has come to us in its present form as basically and primarily a Roman Catholic institution. To this great system of iniquity it owes its consolidation, establishment, permanence and popularity.
THE TIME OF THE YEAR
For the period of the year in which it is held, it is indebted to pagan sources. This time of the year — following the harvest, and centering about the winter solstice (shortest day of the year), when the days again begin to lengthen — has almost universally been a period of festivity and religious significance in the northern hemisphere ages before the spread of Christianity.
Regarding the date, most commentators agree that from many points of view, no date could be more unlikely to be that of Christ’s birth. There is no month in the year in which respectable ecclesiastical authorities have not confidently placed the birth of Jesus. The date is undeniably pagan: even Catholic authorities admit that. The Encyclopedia Britannica (1949, article “Christmas”) says —
“CHRISTMAS (the ‘Mass of Christ’) … Clement of Alexandria (about 200 AD) mentions several speculations on the date of Christ’s birth, and condemns them as superstitious… The exact day and year of Christ’s birth have never been satisfactorily settled. When the Fathers of the Church in AD 340 decided upon a date to celebrate the event, they wisely (!) chose the day of the Winter Solstice, which was firmly fixed in the minds of the people, and which was their MOST IMPORTANT FESTIVAL.”
The Encyclopedia Americana (1946, article “Christmas”) says the same —
“CHRISTMAS, the ‘Mass of Christ’… In the 5th century the Western Church ordered it to be celebrated forever on the day of the old Roman feast of the Birth of Sol (the Sun)… Among the German and Celtic tribes, the Winter Solstice was considered an important point of the year, and they held their chief festival of Yule to commemorate the return of the burning-wheel (the sun).”
And Everyman’s Encyclopedia says —
“CHRISTMAS (the Mass of Christ)… It is certain that the time now fixed could not by any possibility have been the period of Jesus’ birth. The choice of this season was probably due to the general recognition that the Winter Solstice was the turning point of the year.”
THE PAGAN FOUNDATIONS
It was during the period of the ascendancy of the Roman Empire that Christ-Mass originated. Consequently we find that pagan Roman customs played the major part in fixing its date and characteristics. Its general season, however, was later found to coincide with important religious superstitions of the north European barbarians (who also worshipped the Sun and marked the Solstice), and this too played a large part in its development. Alfred Hottes, Christmas Fact and Fancy —
“The roots of Christmas observance go deeply into the folklore of the Druids, Scandinavians, Egyptians and Romans.”
The Chambers Encyclopedia records —
“Many of the beliefs and usages of the Old Germans, and also of the Romans, relating to this period, passed over from heathenism to Christianity.”
R.J. Campbell, in The Story of Christmas, declares —
“There are not a few popular observances associated with the Christmas season which have NOTHING TO DO with the Christian religion and the birth of Jesus. Most of these observances are older than Christianity, and some of them — it must be confessed — are NOT OF VERY ELEVATED ORIGIN.”
William Auld, in Christmas Traditions, notes —
“There are the green garlands, the marvelous trees, the mystic fire and lights, and customs many…still clustering about the great midwinter feast — all of which descend to us from the PAGAN CHILDHOOD OF THE RACE.”
T.G. Crippen, in Christmas and Christmas Lore, confesses —
“The Feast of the Nativity rather incorporated than supplanted various heathen festivals. It was therefore only natural that RELICS OF HEATHEN PRACTICE should survive as traditional customs.”
The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics confirms this —
“MOST of the Christian customs [related to Christmas] now prevailing in Europe, or recorded from former times, are HEATHEN customs which have been absorbed or tolerated by the Church. The Christian feast has inherited these customs from two sources: Roman and Teutonic PAGANISM.”
And the Catholic Encyclopedia (note the source) admits —
“There is NO DOUBT that the original Christian nuclei attracted PAGAN accretions.”
The Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia similarly says —
“There were non-Christian elements present in the origin of Christmas. The giving of presents was a Roman custom. The Yule-tree [modern ‘Christmas Tree’] and the Yule-log are remnants of old Teutonic NATURE WORSHIP.” All these sources, bet it noted, are friends of Christmas. They are not exposing its corrupt background: they are rather glorying in it. They regard its heathen-Catholic origin as a delightful and intriguing asset. We find exactly the same picture in standard, independent reference books. The Encyclopedia Britannica says —
“Many current customs date back to pre-Christian origins: among them are Christmas decorations. The Romans ornamented their temples and homes with green boughs and flowers for the Saturnalia [Dec. 17-23] … The Druids gathered mistletoe and hung it in their homes; the Saxons used holly and ivy.”
The Everyman’s Encyclopedia declares —
“The practice of decorating churches is pagan in its origin.” And this is from the Encyclopedia Americana —
“The holly, the mistletoe, the Yule log and the wassail bowl are relics of pre-Christian times…The Christmas tree has been traced back to the Romans.”
ORIGINALLY BABYLONIAN
Alexander Hislop, in his monumental Two Babylons, goes even further back —
“The Christmas tree, now so common among us, was equally common in pagan Rome and pagan Egypt… The festivals of the Roman Church are innumerable, but five of the most important may be singled out for elucidation, viz:
CHRISTMAS, Lady-day, Easter, the Nativity of St. John, and the Feast of the Assumption. Each and all of these can be proved to be Babylonian.
“It is admitted by the most learned and candid writers of all parties that, within the Christian Church, no such festival as Christmas was ever heard of till the third century, and that not till the fourth century was far advanced did it gain much observance…
“This tendency on the part of Christians to meet Paganism half way was very early developed. We find Tertullian, even in his day, about the year 230, bitterly lamenting the inconsistency of the disciples of Christ in this respect, and contrasting it with the strict fidelity of the pagans to their own superstitions. ‘By us’, he says, ‘the feasts of January, the Brumalia, and the Matronalia are now frequented, gifts are carried to and fro, and sports and banquets are celebrated with uproar. Oh, how much more faithful are the heathen to their religion, who take special care to adopt no solemnity from the Christians.’
“Upright men (continues Hislop) strove to stem the tide, but in spite of all their efforts the Apostasy went on till the Church, with the exception of a small remnant, was submerged under pagan superstition… THAT CHRISTMAS WAS ORIGINALLY A PAGAN FESTIVAL IS BEYOND ALL DOUBT.”
SATURNALIA: CLIMAX OF ROME’S YEAR
This period of the year was one of great festivity for the pagan Romans. First came the celebrated Saturnalia, beginning Dec. 17. This feast of the god Saturn, the Roman deity of seed and sowing, finds much mention in all commentaries on Christ-Mass. One says —
“The Roman Saturnalia was characterized by processions, singing, lighting candles, adorning houses with laurels and green trees, giving presents.” Again from the Religious Encyclopedia —
“The Saturnalia provided the model for most of the merry customs of Christmas. The time was one of general mirth. All classes exchanged gifts, the commonest being candles and dolls. Christmas inherited the general merriment: games, giving of gifts, abundance of sweetmeats, and — as to the more ceremonious elements — the burning of candles.”
The Encyclopedia Britannica relates similarly —
“Christmas customs are an evolution from times that long antedated the Christian period: a descent from seasonal, pagan, religious, and national practices … The god Saturn’s great festival was the Saturnalia. Business, public and private, was at a standstill, schools closed, presents were exchanged, the traditional ones being candles and dolls.”
Likewise the Encyclopedia Americana —
“At the commencement of this festival, a great number of candles were lighted in the temple of Saturn… no business was transacted, schools kept holiday, law courts were closed. Jests and freedom everywhere prevailed, and all ceased from their various occupations.”
Campbell, in The Story of Christmas, further says —
“The Romans adopted from earlier folk-customs the rituals which appear in their Saturnalia which have been CARRIED OVER INTO THE OBSERVANCE OF MODERN CHRISTMAS. There was giving of presents, feasting, drinking, and decorating with evergreens.”
Auld says again, in his Christmas Traditions —
“Much of the spirit of this old Roman festival of the Saturnalia passed into Christmas celebration. The early Puritans, witnessing the jolly antics of grotesque fools (the ‘Lords of Merry Disport’), never had any doubt in the matter… That transient [that is, shallow and passing] feeling which blossoms at Christmastime OWES AS MUCH TO THE KIND GOD SATURN as to the loving Son of Man… This is the Christmas which — mixed with a LITTLE, sentimental Christianity, lies so pleasantly in the genial pages of Dickens.”
BUFFOONERY AND BLASPHEMY
A major feature of the pagan Saturnalia festival was the reversal of all order and dignities: a mock turning everything upside-down. This was carried to great lengths at Christmastime in the Church in the Middle Ages. In England it was customary to appoint a “Lord of Mirule” or “Abbot of Unreason” who presided over the blasphemous foolery. The Encyclopedia Britannica says —
“Merrymaking came to have a share in Christmas observance, even while emphasis was on the religious phase… A Lord of Misrule and his jester directed the revels, and kept them uproarious.”
The Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia adds this —
“In England an ‘Abbot of Misrule’ was chosen in every large household; in Scotland, and ‘Abbot of Unreason’. During the term of the festival he was the master of the house.”
We discover, with shock and surprise, that it was quite customary for even the clergy to let down all barriers of restraint within the Church itself at the Christmas season. Crippen relates (which seems almost unbelievable) —
“At Vespers [the evening prayers], at the end of the Magnificat [hymn of praise to God], the whole service was turned into burlesque. Dice were cast, and black puddings [blood sausage] were eaten, on the alter, ludicrous songs were sung, and old leather was burned as mock incense. In some places an ass was led into the Church, in whose honor a mock hymn was chanted, with a bray for a refrain.”
The Encyclopedia Americana confirms this, saying —
“On St. Nicholas’ Day, a ‘Boy Bishop’ was elected, who exercised a burlesque episcopal jurisdiction, and parodied ecclesiastical functions and ceremonies.”
Such is the height and stability and value of a religion grounded on sentiment and superstition. Auld adds —
“All through the Middle Ages the two rivers of RIOT and RELIGION flowed together.”
SIGALLARIA AND BRUMALIA
Following the Saturnalia in Rome was the Sigallaria, or Doll Festival, another obvious link with modern Christmas. Then on the great day, December 25th itself, came the Brumalia (from bruma: “shortest day”) — the religious observance of the sun-worshipers. This was known also as Natalis Solus Invicti: the “Birth of the Unconquerable Sun” — the date when the day began again to lengthen. It is significant that the Catholic Encyclopedia itself says —
“The well known solar feast of Natalis Invicti, celebrated on Dec. 25, has a strong claim for the responsibility of our Christmas date.”
On this point, the Encyclopedia Americana says —
“In the fifth century the Western Church ordered Christmas to be celebrated forever on the day of the old Roman feast of the birth of Sol.” And Everyman’s Encyclopedia declares —
“The observance which especially influenced the Christian Church was probably the Roman festival of the Winter Solstice, celebrated on Dec. 25.”
Then came the Kalends of January, and finally the Juvenalia (Children’s Festival), both of which have contributed their share to the modern Christ-mass. With very odd logic, but typical of the thinking of the flesh, Crippen remarks —
“Surely it was well that all these should be COMBINED IN ONE GREAT CHRISTIAN FEAST, and their ancient significance transferred in the light of the Gospel. Many customs obtained a new lease of life. In Egypt, as in Rome, the new festival would coincide with the birthday of the Sun-God. And the northern barbarians would find it practically coincident with their own Yule. It seems to have been the festival of the god Thor.”
Again from Auld —
“After the barbarians were Christianized, all the customs and SUPERSTITIONS which had belonged from time immemorial to their own Yuletide began to CLUSTER ABOUT CHRISTMAS. When the season calls up in the mind crackling fires on the hearth, lighted candles, rooms adorned with evergreens, bright berries and flowers, feast and frolic — these are the GENUINE PAGAN ELEMENTS.”
WHEN THE CATHOLICS INVENTED CHRISTMAS
Regarding the period when Catholicism originated Christmas, the Catholic Encyclopedia says it was NOT among the early festivals of the Church, because Ireneus and Tertullian, at the end of the second century, omit it from their list of feasts. The first evidence of any observance of the birth of Christ (says this same authority) appears about 200 AD in Egypt. It was not earlier than 330 AD that Dec. 25 was chosen by any “Pope”, and it was not universally accepted till long after that — for the position and authority of the “Pope” was then still far from established. In the Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, we are told —
“From the beginning of the fourth century, when the restless searchings of the nature and persons of Christ drove men’s minds into many singular errors, the Eastern Church began to feel the importance of emphasizing the actual birth of Christ by a separate festival…The date once fixed, Christmas gradually became one of the three great annual festivals of the Church.”
And from the Abbott-Conant Dictionary of Religious Knowledge —
“Christmas seems to have first appeared in the Roman Church after the middle of the fourth century. At a somewhat later period it spread into Eastern Asia. It was not received with equal readiness by all the churches. Some denounced it as an innovation… It was not till the sixth century that anything like unanimity prevailed as to the day to be observed.
“The manner in which this festival came to be observed in the Romish Church, and through it to the other churches, is as follows: In this season of the year, a series of heathen festivals occurred, the celebration of which was in many ways closely interwoven with the whole civil and social life of the Romans.
“These festivals had an import which easily admitted of being spiritualized, and transformed into a Christian sense. First came the Saturnalia, which represented the Golden Age, and abolished for a while the distinction of ranks.
“Then came the custom, peculiar to this season, of making presents, afterwards transferred to the Christmas festival.
“After the Saturnalia came the Festival of Infants [Juvenalia], at which the children were presented with images.
“Next came a festival still more analogous to Christmas, that of the shortest day [Brumalia], the Winter Solstice, the Birthday of the New Sun, about to return once more toward the earth… Hence the celebration of the Nativity of Christ was transferred to December 25.
“In the Romish Church, Christmas is a very high festival.”
HOW THE EARLY CHRISTIANS FELT
Regarding the attitude of early Christians toward such things, Auld says —
“As for the first believers, they had NOT THE SLIGHTEST INTEREST IN ANYTHING OF THE KIND. Hope in the Lord’s imminent return from heaven in great power and glory was the flame that fired their devotion.”
In the book, The Customs of Mankind, we read —
“Christmas was originally a festival of the Winter Solstice. It was customary to hold great feasts in honor of the HEATHEN GODS. The early teachers of Christianity PROHIBITED THESE FESTIVALS as unsuited to the character of Christ. Yet the symbols and customs of the old festivals are adapted to the new, and so we find Christmas patterned with many customs of pagan origin.
“To the mind of the Puritans, Christmas smelled to heaven of idolatry… The Puritans abolished Christmas as a hateful relic of Popery.”
Tertullian — who wrote (says Encyclopedia Britannica) “in a period when a LAX SPIRIT OF CONFORMITY had seized the churches”: about 200 AD — says regarding decorating with evergreens and ceremonial candles —
“Let those who have no Light, light their lamps, let them affix to their posts laurels. YOU [Christians] are the Light of the World, a tree ever green. If you have renounced temples, make not your own gate a temple [by heathen wreaths].”
Crippen says —
“At the time of persecution, Christians were detected by NOT decorating their houses at the Saturnalia.”
Some conformed to the heathen customs to avoid suspicion, and to appear like their neighbors, so they would not be looked on as odd and different. This practice was strongly condemned by the early church. And Campbell relates —
“There can be no doubt that [some of] the early Christians also frequently shared in the frolics of their heathen neighbors; and the fathers of the Church had considerable difficulty in prevailing on their members to refrain from such unedifying pastimes.
“The early Christians discouraged the use of evergreen decorations in Christian homes and assemblies, because their display had long been associated with heathen festivals. Bishop Martin of Braga forbade the use of all greenery and ‘other dangerous Kalend customs’.”
Crippen remarks —
“So long as heathenism was in full vigor, the ancient Christians were puritanically jealous of anything that might seem like coquetting with idolatry. But when heathenism was declining, there was a disposition to adopt its customs. What had been heathenish became rich with Christian (!) symbol.”
Note that last statement. Auld too betrays the same perverted outlook —
“The use of evergreens is one of the happy (!) contributions which PAGANISM made to the Christian festival. At first the Church frowned upon this intrusion of paganism into the sacred season. But altogether, the ancient Church was wisely tolerant (!) in her attitude to heathen IDEAS and customs … hence the curious and interesting MIXTURES of IDEAS — pagan and Christian — which became charmingly (!) entwisted.”
After unsuccessfully fighting the adoption of pagan customs, says Campbell —
“The clergy endeavored to transform the heathen revels into amusements which — if not really more spiritual in character — had at least the merit of recognizing the authority of the Church.”
The Encyclopedia Britannica confirms this —
“As Christianity spread among the peoples of pagan lands, many of the practices of the Winter Solstice were blended with those of Christianity, because of the liberal ruling of Pope Gregory I and the cooperation of the missionaries.”
That is, instead of teaching the converts to abandon their old superstitions, and to start a clean new life solely according to the Way of God, the Church found it more practical and profitable to give the old superstitions new names, and mix Christianity with paganism.
And such was the slow but deadly course by which what was originally the faithful and holy Ecclesia of Christ exchanged purity for pleasure, and the friendship and Way of God for the friendship and ways of the world.
REFORMATION… THEN DECLENSION
In times of reformation, and attempted return to Bible ways, there have been periodic revolutions against these heathen corruptions, but they have not endured. In 529 AD, the Emperor Justinian decreed that no one should work on the Catholic festival of Christmas. At the Reformation, one thousand years later, the revulsion against the Catholic superstitions was such that laws were made against not working on Christ-mass. Crippen says —
“The leaders of the Reformation in Scotland thought the Roman Church was too bad to be mended. In their view, it must be ended, and a new beginning made strictly on the model of the New Testament.
“Now certainly the New Testament MADE NO MENTION OF ECCLESIASTICAL FESTIVALS. So the new beginning included the sweeping of them all away. On Dec. 26, 1583, the Glasgow Kirk Session put 5 persons to public penance for keeping the ‘superstitious day called YULE’.”
The early Puritan settlers of America were of the same mind. Christmas, they declared, “smelt to heaven of idolatry,” and they abolished it as a “relic of Popery” [and it certainly is] . In Massachusetts in 1659, a law was passed that-
“Whosoever shall be found observing any such day as Christmas, either by forbearing of labor, feasting, or in any other way, shall be fined 5 shillings.”
In their earlier, sounder days, when they valued the Bible as the Word of God, and were trying to be guided by it, the Presbyterians and Baptists were similarly opposed to these superstitious observances, on the same grounds, but they have long since drifted back to the “ways of the heathen.” In England in 1644, at a time of respect for the Word, and of revulsion against Catholicism, the observance of Christmas was forbidden by an act of Parliament.
WHEN THE CATHOLICS INVENTED CHRISTMAS
Regarding the period when Catholicism originated Christmas, the Catholic Encyclopedia says it was NOT among the early festivals of the Church, because Ireneus and Tertullian, at the end of the second century, omit it from their list of feasts. The first evidence of any observance of the birth of Christ (says this same authority) appears about 200 AD in Egypt. It was not earlier than 330 AD that Dec. 25 was chosen by any “Pope”, and it was not universally accepted till long after that — for the position and authority of the “Pope” was then still far from established. In the Schaff-Herzog Religious Encyclopedia, we are told —
“From the beginning of the fourth century, when the restless searchings of the nature and persons of Christ drove men’s minds into many singular errors, the Eastern Church began to feel the importance of emphasizing the actual birth of Christ by a separate festival…The date once fixed, Christmas gradually became one of the three great annual festivals of the Church.”
And from the Abbott-Conant Dictionary of Religious Knowledge —
“Christmas seems to have first appeared in the Roman Church after the middle of the fourth century. At a somewhat later period it spread into Eastern Asia. It was not received with equal readiness by all the churches. Some denounced it as an innovation… It was not till the sixth century that anything like unanimity prevailed as to the day to be observed.
“The manner in which this festival came to be observed in the Romish Church, and through it to the other churches, is as follows: In this season of the year, a series of heathen festivals occurred, the celebration of which was in many ways closely interwoven with the whole civil and social life of the Romans.
“These festivals had an import which easily admitted of being spiritualized, and transformed into a Christian sense. First came the Saturnalia, which represented the Golden Age, and abolished for a while the distinction of ranks.
“Then came the custom, peculiar to this season, of making presents, afterwards transferred to the Christmas festival.
“After the Saturnalia came the Festival of Infants [Juvenalia], at which the children were presented with images.
“Next came a festival still more analogous to Christmas, that of the shortest day [Brumalia], the Winter Solstice, the Birthday of the New Sun, about to return once more toward the earth… Hence the celebration of the Nativity of Christ was transferred to December 25.
“In the Romish Church, Christmas is a very high festival.”
HOW THE EARLY CHRISTIANS FELT
Regarding the attitude of early Christians toward such things, Auld says —
“As for the first believers, they had NOT THE SLIGHTEST INTEREST IN ANYTHING OF THE KIND. Hope in the Lord’s imminent return from heaven in great power and glory was the flame that fired their devotion.”
In the book, The Customs of Mankind, we read —
“Christmas was originally a festival of the Winter Solstice. It was customary to hold great feasts in honor of the HEATHEN GODS. The early teachers of Christianity PROHIBITED THESE FESTIVALS as unsuited to the character of Christ. Yet the symbols and customs of the old festivals are adapted to the new, and so we find Christmas patterned with many customs of pagan origin.
“To the mind of the Puritans, Christmas smelled to heaven of idolatry… The Puritans abolished Christmas as a hateful relic of Popery.”
Tertullian — who wrote (says Encyclopedia Britannica) “in a period when a LAX SPIRIT OF CONFORMITY had seized the churches”: about 200 AD — says regarding decorating with evergreens and ceremonial candles —
“Let those who have no Light, light their lamps, let them affix to their posts laurels. YOU [Christians] are the Light of the World, a tree ever green. If you have renounced temples, make not your own gate a temple [by heathen wreaths].”
Crippen says —
“At the time of persecution, Christians were detected by NOT decorating their houses at the Saturnalia.”
Some conformed to the heathen customs to avoid suspicion, and to appear like their neighbors, so they would not be looked on as odd and different. This practice was strongly condemned by the early church. And Campbell relates —
“There can be no doubt that [some of] the early Christians also frequently shared in the frolics of their heathen neighbors; and the fathers of the Church had considerable difficulty in prevailing on their members to refrain from such unedifying pastimes. The early Christians discouraged the use of evergreen decorations in Christian homes and assemblies, because their display had long been associated with heathen festivals. Bishop Martin of Braga forbade the use of all greenery and ‘other dangerous Kalend customs’.”
Crippen remarks —
“So long as heathenism was in full vigor, the ancient Christians were puritanically jealous of anything that might seem like coquetting with idolatry. But when heathenism was declining, there was a disposition to adopt its customs. What had been heathenish became rich with Christian (!) symbol.”
Note that last statement. Auld too betrays the same perverted outlook —
“The use of evergreens is one of the happy (!) contributions which PAGANISM made to the Christian festival. At first the Church frowned upon this intrusion of paganism into the sacred season. But altogether, the ancient Church was wisely tolerant (!) in her attitude to heathen IDEAS and customs … hence the curious and interesting MIXTURES of IDEAS — pagan and Christian — which became charmingly (!) entwisted.”
After unsuccessfully fighting the adoption of pagan customs, says Campbell —
“The clergy endeavored to transform the heathen revels into amusements which — if not really more spiritual in character — had at least the merit of recognizing the authority of the Church.”
The Encyclopedia Britannica confirms this —
“As Christianity spread among the peoples of pagan lands, many of the practices of the Winter Solstice were blended with those of Christianity, because of the liberal ruling of Pope Gregory I and the cooperation of the missionaries.”
That is, instead of teaching the converts to abandon their old superstitions, and to start a clean new life solely according to the Way of God, the Church found it more practical and profitable to give the old superstitions new names, and mix Christianity with paganism. And such was the slow but deadly course by which what was originally the faithful and holy Ecclesia of Christ exchanged purity for pleasure, and the friendship and Way of God for the friendship and ways of the world.
REFORMATION .. THEN DECLENSION
In times of reformation, and attempted return to Bible ways, there have been periodic revolutions against these heathen corruptions, but they have not endured. In 529 AD, the Emperor Justinian decreed that no one should work on the Catholic festival of Christmas. At the Reformation, one thousand years later, the revulsion against the Catholic superstitions was such that laws were made against not working on Christ-mass. Crippen says —
“The leaders of the Reformation in Scotland thought the Roman Church was too bad to be mended. In their view, it must be ended, and a new beginning made strictly on the model of the New Testament. Now certainly the New Testament MADE NO MENTION OF ECCLESIASTICAL FESTIVALS. So the new beginning included the sweeping of them all away. On Dec. 26, 1583, the Glasgow Kirk Session put 5 persons to public penance for keeping the ‘superstitious day called YULE’.”
The early Puritan settlers of America were of the same mind. Christmas, they declared, “smelt to heaven of idolatry,” and they abolished it as a “relic of Popery” [and it certainly is]. In Massachusetts in 1659, a law was passed that-
“Whosoever shall be found observing any such day as Christmas, either by forbearing of labor, feasting, or in any other way, shall be fined 5 shillings.” In their earlier, sounder days, when they valued the Bible as the Word of God, and were trying to be guided by it, the Presbyterians and Baptists were similarly opposed to these superstitious observances, on the same grounds, but they have long since drifted back to the “ways of the heathen.” In England in 1644, at a time of respect for the Word, and of revulsion against Catholicism, the observance of Christmas was forbidden by an act of Parliament.
SANTA CLAUS — CHRISTMAS TREE
The name “Santa Claus” is clearly recognizable as derived from the good Bishop “Saint Nicholas,” patron saint of beggars and thieves. In the Middle Ages, thieves were known as “clerks of St. Nicholas.” In Europe he travels about in all his bishop’s regalia riding a white horse (which he inherited through amalgamation with Scandinavian mythology from the god Wodin, who was engaged in exactly the same activities at that period of the year). His descent down the chimney is traceable to similar habits of the Norse goddess Hertha. Auld writes about St. Nicholas-
“The names and attributes of the mysterious purveyors of gifts disclose a most CONFUSED MIXTURE OF PAGAN AND CHRISTIAN NOTIONS. All kinds of bugbears and bogies figure in the European Christmas. By their names they suggest a loose connection with St. Nicholas, but by their activities they betray unmistakable relationship with the weird beings of pagan mythology.”
We have seen how the Christmas tree is traced clearly to ancient paganism. Virgil, the Roman poet, speaks of decorating pine trees in honor of Bacchus, the god of drinking and revelry. Hislop connects similar customs with Egyptian cults. And — in a strange, latter day reversal — pagan Russia has borrowed back the pagan “Christmas”‘ tree. The Moscow News reports that Moscow alone has 10,000 of such trees. Colored pictures show these “New Year”‘ trees, with all their tinsel and bright baubles and lights, to be indistinguishable from “Christmas” trees, except there are no “Christian” symbols, and the crowning Star at the top is red. And Russia’s genial “Grandfather Frost” associated with these trees, with his jolly face, and bushy white beard, and suit of red: who can distinguish him from St. Nick? He is St. Nick, stripped of his adopted Catholicism, and returned to his pagan origin. Mistletoe, of course, is well-known as inherited — and introduced into Christmas — from the Druid priesthood of ancient heathen Britain. For centuries the Church forbade its use because of the superstitions attached to it. It was so sacred a talisman that enemies meeting beneath it laid down their arms. (The world still has a relic of this heathen superstition).
Miscellaneous Christmas superstitions are far too numerous to mention. Campbell, in summing up, comes surprising close to the truth —
“There is really NOTHING IN COMMON between the mystery of the Word made flesh for man’s salvation, and the orgies of eating and drinking and horseplay associated with the paganism of pre-Christian times, and PERPETUATED AT THE CHRISTMAS SEASON in our own as well as earlier generations.
“There’s goodwill in both, but one is CARNAL, and the other SPIRITUAL.”
How do we — called out to be holy sons and daughters of the Lord — stand in relation to these confused and corrupt Catholic-Pagan things of the world? Admittedly, it all appeals powerfully to the flesh. It is “pretty”, it is exciting, it is the popular way of the crowd, it is pleasant to the senses. It is all tinsel, and hoopla, and music, and glistening stars, and twinkling lights. It has everything that attracts the shallow, juvenile, fleshly mind. The Christmas songs and Christmas stories are concocted and executed by consummate actors for the fullest emotional effect. Doubtless the children of Israel, indulging in the “pretty” Canaanite religious customs, said to themselves (or in self-excuse to others), “There really isn’t any harm. Of course I do not really mean it in a religious way. It really means nothing to me, and it is all so pretty and pleasant. I really serve the Lord, but I just like a little fun and relaxation. Why do we have to be so different?”
There is absolutely nothing scriptural about Christ-mass. Nothing like it, or leading to it, or justifying it, is ever mentioned in the Bible, or even in early “Christian” records. We have seen that it is a “religious,” blasphemous Catholic-Pagan abomination. Why should holy brethren and sisters of Christ ever want to have anything to do with such things of the Apostasy? Surely we desire holiness!
We cannot really say what part of this fleshly mixture — the Pagan part or the Catholic part — is the more objectionable to God, but either one alone should be enough to keep a child of God from having anything to do with it.
(In large part, from GVG)
Surely, in our quest for deeper understanding of the man Jesus and his message, something is to be learned from the people with whom he frequently came in contact. It is fair to say that these were not usually such as would have graced the finer synagogues of his day; nor, we might add, would their modern counterparts be immediately welcome in many of our ecclesial halls. This comes across rather impressively in catalogue form:
By contrast with all of the above, we find the Lord, so kind and gentle on most occasions, becoming openly aggressive in censuring the moral defilement of those who were most scrupulous to avoid legal defilement. Surely, we are tempted to think, this very “religious” (even if misguided) class deserved more diplomatic treatment at his hands. But no figure of speech was too drastic for Christ to use: They were whited sepulchres, full of dead men’s bones (Mat 23:27,28; Luk 11:44); cups clean on the outside, but filled with extortion and rapacity (Mat 23:25; Luk 11:39). The reason? It may be said there are many, for the list of charges against the Pharisees is long and varied (Mat 23:3-7,16-18,25-29,34), but certainly one reason is this: that it is dangerous to find satisfaction in any physical separation from “defilement”. “I thank thee, God, that I am not as other men” (Luk 18:11) is no basis on which to build one’s faith.
To go about preoccupied with the “sins” of others, ever mindful of how their shortcomings may reflect upon us by association, is to fight a “paper tiger”, while the true enemy goes free. “Let a man examine himself” (1Co 11:28). Those things which are outside the man cannot defile him, but that which comes out of the man, from a self-righteous heart, defiles the man (Mar 7:18,20).
How far are we really removed from the foolish prejudices and traditions of the Pharisees? Have we altogether reversed Christ’s standards, downplaying his emphasis on moral defilement — in a slow drift into the world’s thinking — and seeking to cover our inadequacies by an undue concern for legal “defilement”? We vicariously associate, through television and other media, with the worst the “world” has to offer by way of movie “stars”, sports “heroes”, and rock musicians; and, unconsciously perhaps, we absorb the spirit of this licentious and materialistic age. Then we dress in our finest clothes and drive our new automobiles to places of worship on Sunday morning, where we meticulously draw our “skirts” about us and withhold the Bread and Wine from someone who is just slightly too “sinful” or not quite well enough “informed” for our standards (‘We thank thee, Lord, that we are not like these other men’), and somehow we feel that in this we are doing God service.
We must be careful that the means by which all believers are commanded to remember the Lord’s death until he returns does not become a ritual, with supposed efficacy in the object itself, by which we establish our “purity” in a negative sense. “Negative holiness” can save no man. Neither can the proximity of a “sinner”, even one so close as to partake of the same cup, endanger our “fellowship” with one who was ever and always the friend of “sinners”, who embraced lepers and lunatics, harlots and dead bodies — yet in the best sense was still “holy, harmless, and undefiled” (Heb 7:26).
An exhortation delivered on the final day of an American Bible School.
“And when the cloud was taken up from the tabernacle, then after that the children of Israel journeyed… at the commandment of the Lord the children of Israel journeyed” (Num 9:17,18).
Brothers and sisters, for this past week we have been resting and refreshing ourselves in the presence of the Lord. We have pitched our tents together as the camp of Israel in this place. But now, as we knew it would, the time has finally come for us to go. The “cloud” has been taken up from the tabernacle, and once more we must begin our journey.
How often have we heard it said, “Oh, if only the Bible School could go on forever!” If only we just didn’t have to leave here, but could remain in this quiet, secluded place indefinitely.
Peter’s Dilemma
Peter said much the same thing one time. Once he climbed a mountain with Jesus, and there he beheld him speaking with Moses and Elijah. Peter was overcome with emotion:
“Master, it is good for us to be here!” And he was right!
This week we have stood on the “mountain” with Jesus and the Apostle Paul and Elijah and Joshua the captain of Israel. And it has been good for us to be here with Jesus, to catch a glimpse of the glory that is his, and that will be Peter’s and Paul’s and ours also.
But it would not have been good for Peter and James and John to build three tabernacles and camp indefinitely on that mountain. There was work to do, down on the plains. They had to come down from the mountain, to leave that private place of sweet fellowship with God, and to go out into the world again.
If Peter had remained on that mountain, contemplating that glorious vision, the Jews assembled at Jerusalem would never have heard his words, “Repent and be baptized!”
If Peter had remained on that mountain, the lame man would have lain daily at the gate of the Temple until he died, never having felt the powerful hand of healing.
If Peter had remained on that mountain, Cornelius and his house would never have heard the gospel call, and the door of hope would never have been flung open to the Gentiles.
Why We Must Leave
Brothers, and sisters, if we all remained here, how many of our families and friends would never have a chance to enjoy the same privilege that we have had this week, this “feast of fat things”? How good it would be, not that we remain here, but rather that we leave here with a firm resolve that, if Christ remain away, we will try our best to bring someone new back to this wonderful place next year!!
And there is another reason why we cannot remain on this spiritual “mountain”, why we cannot continue to pitch our tents in peace around the tabernacle of the Lord: Peter had to come down off the mountain in order to follow Jesus in the way. He had to leave that wonderful retreat in order to fail, and in that failure to find greater strength through the forgiveness of sins that only his Master could provide. Peter had to go back into the world before he could meet the resurrected Christ, before he could be a partaker of his Lord’s sufferings so that he might be a partaker of his glory.
And the children of Israel had to resume their wilderness trek if they, and their children, and their children’s children were to have any hope of reaching the Promised Land with Joshua.
Disciples of Christ are not made by sitting in the peaceful shade, but by struggling along the “rugged pathway”. Here, in this place, we may be well-instructed. But only out there, in the bustle and turmoil and frustrations of the world about us, can we become by experience true disciples. Only out there can we begin to put into practice, and to prove the efficacy of, the lessons we have learned this week.
And, besides, why shouldn’t we continue our journey? … because, for all we know, just over the next hill, or around the next bend, we might find ourselves in the presence of Christ, in God’s Kingdom. “The Bridegroom cometh”; we must go out to meet him!!
“The Lord is my Shepherd “
We read that God “made His own people to go forth like sheep, and guided them in the wilderness like a flock… and led them on safely, so that they feared not” (Psa 78:52,53). His pillar of cloud and fire led them on through a dangerous land, and through treacherous enemies, on their way toward the Kingdom. It is here and now, as we prepare to leave this place of peace and spiritual plenty, and resume our “wilderness journey”, that the familiar words of Psalm 23 can be to us most meaningful:
“The Lord is my shepherd…”
not just “our” shepherd collectively, but “mine” individually. Each one of us might say these words. Wherever I go, He will be there to guide me. Though all men forsake me, “and days are dark and friends are few”, yet the Lord will shepherd me. And even when I stumble and fall — especially then — He will be there to lift me up and set my feet on the path.
“I shall not want…”
True, I may lack many things that I would naturally desire, but I will lack nothing that I really need for my spiritual development. All things have been provided for my salvation, and even the lack of some things have been designed by God for my ultimate benefit (Rom 8:28). And though I have “nothing” now, as the world might count treasure, yet in Paul’s words “I possess all things” because the Lord of heaven and earth is my Shepherd, my Guide and my Savior.
“He maketh me to lie down in green pastures; He leadeth me beside the still waters; He restoreth my soul…”
Here we have rested and drunk of still waters; our “soul”, our “inner man” has been refreshed and strengthened. But now we must stand again. Now we must follow Christ in the path of righteousness. Now we must walk through the valley of the shadow of death, so that we can learn to trust in God rather than ourselves, and so that we can (as did Paul) rejoice in deliverances past, present, and future (2Co 1:9,10). When our problems are small, then we are scarcely even conscious of our need for a Savior. But when those problems, and the doubts and fears that accompany them, mount up in our lives… then we can seek — and find!! — a Savior who will bless us abundantly above all we might ever imagine. Then he will be a Savior who is as great as our trials, who delights to bless us in a myriad of ways, and whose strength finds perfection only along side our weakness.
If our lives were altogether pleasant… if there were never trials, or illnesses, or pain, or failure, or death… would we still desire the Kingdom? Why should we? It follows therefore that God tries us because He loves us. It is the mercy of God that leads us out of our idleness and into the valley of tears. For it is there only, in the “world”, that we can truly find God. It is through “tribulation” — trial, pressure, stress — that we must enter the Kingdom (Acts 14:22). These “stresses” and “pressures” are the “rod” and “staff” of the Divine Shepherd, which discipline and even “hurt” us, yet at the same time strengthen and direct us in the right paths. And thereby are we “comforted”.
Even in the dreary wilderness, with the “wild beasts”, our Shepherd prepares us a table, as He did for our fathers who came out of Egypt — causing waters to run down like rivers and raining down manna from heaven (Psalm 78:16,24). We must not complain or doubt. We must never ask, as did they, “Can God provide a table in this wilderness?” (v 19). He can, and He does! Here before us on this table are the emblems of a body dedicated and blood poured out. Here as sheep we feed on the pasture provided by the Good Shepherd. And even while the beasts of prey circle menacingly, and the shadows lengthen, we are fed in hope, the words echoing in our ears:
“Fear not, little flock, it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom.”
What comfort there is, what encouragement, in these words! They keep in our minds the beautiful vision of our destination. The cloud has been taken up from the tabernacle. Let us arise! Let us pack our bags and gather our children about us. Let us renew our journey through the wilderness.
Out of 25 occurrences of “nephele”, all but three plainly mean the Cloud of the Shekinah Glory. The student should work his way through the entire list. Acts 1:9 and 1Th 4:17 are specially instructive.
But there are three of the twenty-five which do not so readily conform to this general usage:
In 2Pe 2:17, false teachers are referred to as “clouds carried with a tempest”. Jud 1:12 (ref to the above) calls them “clouds without water”. In each of these instances the Shekinah Glory idea is not out of sight. Here were men claiming divine authority for their message (as Ezekiel with his Eze 1), but in fact they were not borne along by the Holy Spirit (2Pe 1:19) but by a tempest, sweeping them away to their own destruction. Differently, Jude’s “clouds without water” implies that these men brought no true Holy Spirit blessing.
But what is to be said about the words of Jesus?: “When ye see a cloud rise out of the west, straightway ye say, There cometh a shower; and so it is.” Besides the simple literal meaning, a commonplace experience in the Holy Land, Jesus may have meant allusion to the Holy of Holies at the western end of the sanctuary enclosure (cp Psa 103:12) — the Shekinah Glory of God appearing there would be the certain herald of heavenly blessing: “a shower”.
It is important to observe that the “so great cloud of witnesses” (Heb 12:1), referring to the multitude of the faithful in Heb 11, uses a different word: “nephos”. Thus, it is not permissible to use this passage to interpret 1Th 4:17.
Author: Paul
Time: AD 61
Summary: The letter to Colosse was written in response to heresy that had been brought to Paul’s attention. The major errors that had crept into the church seemed to have been: (1) the exaltation of angels or other “elemental spirits”; (2) the emphasis on ascetic or liturgical practices thought to produce spirituality; and (3) claims to a special knowledge beyond that found in the Gospel of Christ. Paul states that these are philosophies based on human tradition and are therefore worthless. He teaches love, humility, submission to authority, and finally prayer to establish a believer in the wisdom of God.
Key verse: “See, to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ” (Col 2:8).
Outline
Rather than concluding that ‘the judgment’ cannot be taken literally (because of time constraints), perhaps the meaning of time will be collapsed around the Lord’s return. Thus, the descriptions of the judgment can still be taken on a literal level. For example, we are taught that we must each appear personally before the Lord Jesus at the judgment, and have some kind of two-way dialogue with him (Rom 14:10; 1Co 4:5; 2Co 5:10; 2Ti 4:1). If we must each appear personally before the Lord Jesus, we have two options: (1) Either time is collapsed so that we all appear before Christ individually — in what might seem to outsiders to be the merest moment of time, or (2) We appear before him in real time, in which case there must be some kind of queue, and a period of several months at least. (Some have suggested a number of years — up to 40! — for such an individual judgment.) This “judgment in real time” creates many Biblical and practical problems: ie, (1) where will thousands of waiting responsible be housed, and fed?; (2) will they be “mortal”, or in danger of dying again?; (3) will they be able to sin?; (4) will they be able to repent?… to pray?…; etc.
Thus “judgment in real time” ought to be rejected in favor of the idea that the meaning of time will be collapsed at the Lord’s coming.
Indeed, it seems that the whole process of resurrection, gathering, judgment and immortalization may take place in a split second, although it will seem far longer. If we could break this split second into real time, there would be: (a) emergence from the grave, (b) judgment involving a period of time, (c) then the righteous being grouped at Christ’s right hand, and (d) finally they would all be immortalized together.
“Come… inherit the Kingdom” is spoken to the whole group of sheep; we will be immortalized together, at the same time. If we are all judged individually in real time, this is impossible. Some would be immortalized months or years before others.
This collapsing of time at the Lord’s return would explain why “the resurrection” is sometimes used as a description of the whole process of resurrection, judgment and immortality. This was how Paul saw it (Rom 8:11; 1Co 15:42-44,52; Heb 11:35). Likewise he saw the trumpet blast as the signal of both the call to judgment (1Th 4:17) and also the moment of glorification (1Co 15:52).
A collapsing of time would also mean that the place of judgment is irrelevant. There are practical problems with the idea of judgment either in Jerusalem or Sinai. If it all happens in real time, Christ would come, raise the responsible dead, take us to (perhaps) Jerusalem, assemble us there for several months or years, and one by one grant us immortality. There seems no space for this in the Biblical description of events on the Last Days. Christ comes with the saints to save Israel from their enemies. Unless there is a secret coming of Christ to gather and judge the saints, after which he is revealed to the world, then this just isn’t possible. And the idea of a secret coming of the Lord of glory just cannot be reconciled with the clear descriptions of his coming in the New Testament. The coming of Christ in glory with the saints to establish the Kingdom is the coming of Christ.
Depending how one reads the Heb text of Zec 14:6,7, this idea of collapsed time at the Lord’s return is Biblical: “It shall come to pass in that day, that it shall not be clear in some places, and dark in other places of the world; but the day shall be one, in the knowledge of the LORD, not day, nor night… at evening time it shall be light” (AV mg).
This collapsing of time would also explain why it is impossible to construct a chronology of events in real time for the coming of Christ; the various prophecies of the Last Days just don’t seem to fit together in chronological sequence. If indeed time is collapsed, this would enable all these prophecies to come true, but not in real time. The events around Christ’s return were prefigured by those at the time of Joshua’s conquest of the land. Some of the records of his campaigns require a huge amount to have been achieved by his soldiers within a short time. “The sun stood still” may well mean that time was collapsed (Jos 10:12,13; cp Isa 28:21).
To appreciate God’s timeless perspective is one of the fundamental battles of faith; what God said has happened (our redemption is the supreme example). The ‘gap’ between His fiat and its fulfillment is only a perception of time-bound mortals. In the Kingdom, eternal life will be life without time, without these ‘gaps’, rather than life that ‘lasts’ for unending time. Understandably, given our nature, we tend to see the events of the Lord’s coming, and the Kingdom itself, from a far-too-real time-perspective. We find it hard to escape the paradigm of time, and therefore we often attempt to force God’s timeless revelation (e.g., concerning the events associated with the judgment) into our time-bound view.
An interesting possible corroboration is found in the KJV of Rev 10:6,7, where the mighty angel of God stands upon the sea and the earth and swears that “there should be time no longer (the NIV reads: ‘no more delay’)… but… the mystery of God should be finished.” And Peter, when speaking of the time leading up to the return of Christ, tells us, “With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day” (2Pe 3:8). Even now, our standard references of time are meaningless to God, because He supersedes time! In the words of Isaiah, He “inhabiteth eternity” (Isa 57:15, KJV). How much more evident will it be to us in the future when Christ returns, that God and His family exist above and outside and beyond the reach of time!
So… as a side point: it might be noted that, for the glorified saints, the reward will not only be living forever, but also escaping time altogether!
[This article is a follow-up to one written by AH, which appeared in The Christadelphian Watchman (edited by GB and NF), Sept 1995 (see Article, Judgment seat, unresolved problem).It includes correspondence from DH, originally published under “Judgment seat: a response” in The Watchman, Nov 1995 — as well as additional thoughts by GB.]
On Writing: “There is a tendency to condemn an author as shallow or superficial if his writings are perfectly clear. And conversely, a writer will sometimes gain a reputation for profundity simply because no one can quite make out what he means.”
On Faith: “Unless a man is prepared to affirm that he knows nothing, believes nothing, and harbours no opinions, unless he is prepared is prepared to condense all his positive belief into one solitary affirmation of his own ignorance, he must of necessity be in some sense a man of faith.”
On Doctrine: “We frequently hear men say that they do not attach much importance to doctrine; they concentrate attention on the living of a good life. Such sentiment only emanates from a very shallow brain. It is as if a child should enter a garden, and seeing the gardener planting bulbs, should say, ‘I do not care for those ugly bulbs, I like the beautiful flowers.’ The living of a good life without a foundation of good doctrine is impossible, just as it is impossible to grow flowers without roots.”
On Societal Pressure: “It is always difficult to resist fashions, whether in clothes or theology, and when we think we are quite unmoved by the stream, it often only means we are lagging a little way behind.”
On Evolution and Morality: “When a modern thinker accepts the doctrine of evolution and repudiates revelation, how can he give us an authoritative moral code?”
On Sin: “The depth of a man’s guilt is determined, not by reference to the degree of harm he does to other men, but by the degree of deliberateness with which the law is violated. In other words, sins of presumption are always worse than ‘sins of infirmity.'”
On Disciplining Children: “Nothing could be more demoralizing than for children to be taught that disobedience did not signify [ie, count] so long as no evident harm was done. Yet how often we see parents taking a course which will inevitably give this impression. A child is perhaps meddling with some ornaments which should not be touched. The mother commands him to leave them alone, and comes away. The mandate has to be repeated several times, perhaps with threats, and it may be some kind of bribe. The child is not punished though richly deserving. But now, on the other hand, suppose that, without any deliberate disobedience of this nature, the child turning to come away at the first command, chances to break one of the most precious of the ornaments. The parent becomes a perfect fury, and the erring child is punished with the utmost severity.”
On Self Examination: “This work is necessarily an individual matter, and herein lies the difficulty. A man is his own accuser, his own defender, and his own judge. With the most complete facilities for knowing the full measure of his guilt, he unites a most unjudicial bias in favor of the accused. He perhaps possesses all the knowledge necessary to draw up an unanswerable indictment; but his talent is mainly employed to find extenuating circumstances. He has all the skills of a defending counsel to raise a false issue, but lacks the impartiality of a judge to expose the pretense.”
On Feigned Purity: “Close observers of mankind always feel rather suspicious of those who make a profession of superhuman purity. When frail human nature pretends to have grown more refined than God originally made it, we generally find that the profession is a mere cloak to cover exceptional depravity. Those who have been most successful in subduing the flesh have always been the most honest in describing it.”
On Intentions: “We shall not have the praise of God simply for good thoughts which we have instantly dismissed, neither shall we be condemned for evil thoughts, which we have instantly repudiated. But a solid intention to perform a good work is counted for well doing, even though circumstances should prevent the consummation; and, on the other hand, a deliberate harbouring of evil thoughts is counted for sin, even though lack of opportunity prevents the sinful act.”
On Motives: “It is possible for even the noblest work to be spoiled by an improper motive at the foundation. We have no right to judge the motives of others, but it is a duty to judge our own.”
On Joy: “The most genuine joy is to be found among the servants of God, and the most complete misery and discontent is to be found among the most thorough servants of sin.”
On Suffering: “The whole history of mankind does not constitute a fraction of eternity. The realisation of this fact helps us to see something of God’s point of view, and we can understand why that which seems like the most awful suffering to us can be described as a ‘light affliction which endureth but for a moment.'”
On Our Thoughts: “Every deliberate act is the outcome of deliberate thought, and it therefore follows that control of thought must be the mainspring of every virtue right up to that bridling of the tongue which is placed by an apostle as the supreme test of a man.”
On Doubt: “To summarize the difference between ancient and modern doubt, we may suggest that in olden time men saw superhuman beings in every shadow, and so in time of trial they supposed that their God was only one of many. But in modern times men seek a prosaic and ordinary explanation for everything, and so in time of trial even [the one true] God is explained away.”
(Islip Collyer)
It seems clear that man is by nature a fighting animal. Wars recur between nations as soon as the people have recovered sufficient strength, and have had time partly to forget the horrors of the last struggle. The men who succeed in business are the men who love the fight of it. Politicians turn their disagreements into fights with as much unfairness and injustice as in actual warfare. Even games are all struggles, and most men cannot understand the pure pleasures of artistic achievement without any contest as to who wins.
This being the natural tendency of the flesh it is not surprising that the same fighting spirit is found in connection with religion. It need occasion no surprise if men who do not fight either with guns or fists, and who take no part in the struggles of politicians, are apt to be especially violent. It is certainly true that religious disputes have often resulted in a bitterness and uncharitableness more sinful than the errors which caused the strife to begin.
It is important therefore for us to remember the principles laid down in scripture for our guidance in these matters. If brethren could saturate their minds with the perfectly clear principles stated and reiterated in the Word, it might put an end to nearly all the destructive disputing, merely by the removal of all unnecessary provocation.
The first point to emphasize is the fact that strife and debate are treated as essentially evil things. Thus in writing to the Corinthians the apostle took the fact that there was envying, strife and division in the Church, as clear evidence that the members were still carnal minded: “For ye are yet carnal; for whereas there is among you envying and strife and division are ye not carnal and walk as men?” (1Co 3:3).
In writing to the Galatians the same apostle includes strife in a list of evil things summarising the works of the flesh: “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (Gal 5:19-21).
TruIy the word strife appears here in a terrible list of evils with a terrible penalty threatened. We do well to make a very critical examination of our own conduct to make sure that any variance, wrath and strife existing in the ecclesias now, shall not be aggravated by any wrong action or wrong words of ours.
In writing to Timothy the apostle Paul again denounces strife. He refers to the evils which come from strife of words and perverse disputings (1Ti 6:3-5). Then in the second letter he gives this positive instruction: “But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes; and the servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, in meekness instructing those who oppose themselves” (2Ti 3:23-25).
If anyone should raise the question how we can avoid strife in view of the wrong attitude taken by others, we surely have the answer in this positive instruction. If we are convinced that those who oppose us are doing wrong and that in faithfulness to the Truth we must contend with them, we have ready to hand a splendid test of our discipleship. We have an opportunity to be gentle, patient and meek in instructing those who oppose themselves. If these qualities could be cultivated all round it might soon be found that there was no need for any further argument. Wrongdoing would accept the necessary reproof and wrong thinking would be corrected. The apostolic method would remove all the fuel that feeds the destructive fire. The railing, striving and impatient disputing, the personal hits and retorts of the carnal mind, continuously add fuel to the fires of wrath until even some who try to obey the teaching of the Word may perish in the flames.
The apostle Paul gave us example as well as precept. After the position of the Gentiles had been determined there was still much prejudice among the Jews, causing difficulty for disciples who feared the criticism of men. The apostle Peter was at fault in withdrawing himself from some of the Gentile believers apparently as a concession to the prejudices of certain Jews who had recently come to him. The apostle Paul “withstood him to the face.” Fortunately we are told what he said: “If thou being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?”
Here was the essence of the argument forcibly but gently expressed. It truly showed an aptitude for teaching and meekly instructing, and it had the right effect.
It would have been possible to have brought a formidable indictment against the apostle Peter if one had cared to use carnal methods. He might have been reminded that he at one time had spoken against the idea of Christ dying at all, and had called forth a rebuke from the Master. At a later period he used the sword and had to be reproved again. Later still he forsook the Lord and denied him even with an oath. If in addition to the undoubted facts of Peter’s weakness all derogatory reports regarding him and his associations had been collected, it might have seemed to the fleshly mind a crushing blow to the influence of Peter and all his connections.
We simply cannot imagine the apostle Paul using such methods. He was ever ready to remember his own dark past but not that of others. When it was necessary to reprove the brethren he did so with gentleness and patience. Though he had authority such as none of us possess, he “besought them by the mercies of God” (Rom 12:1). He “besought them” to follow him (1Co 4:16). He besought them by the meekness and gentleness of Christ (2Co 10:1). He said: “I will very gladly spend and be spent for you, though the more abundantly I love you the less I be loved” (2Co 12:15).
This was in writing to an ecclesia which was very faulty, and against which a very formidable accusation might have been made.
The whole tenor of the apostle’s teaching is as outlined in the fifth and sixth chapters of the letter to the Galatians. We must overcome the flesh and all its works; we must bring forth the fruit of the spirit; but we must at the same time remember that we are all sinners who can only be saved through grace. Those who are spiritually minded must thus be ready to restore offenders in the spirit of meekness; considering themselves lest they also be tempted; bearing one another’s burdens, and so fulfilling the law of Christ (Gal 6:1,2).
There is further instruction regarding necessary controversy in the writing of the apostle Peter: “Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous: not rendering evil for evil or railing for railing: but contrariwise, blessing” (1Pe 3:8,9). “Be ready to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” (1Pe 3:15).
“All of you be subject one to another and be clothed with humility” (1Pe 5:5).
Such instructions require emphasis in time of controversy, for then it is that we are in the greatest danger of forgetting them. We may be stung by an unfair criticism and we think of a crushing reply. The flesh would call it a righteous reproof, but Scripture calls it rendering railing for railing.
We are perhaps in a position to quote from a past utterance of an opponent, a cutting criticism of one of his present supporters. The quotation would not help or guide anyone a fraction of a degree in the right direction; but it might tend to cause division among those who do not agree with us. The flesh would call such a quotation skilful tactics; Scripture calls it sowing discord among brethren.
It is easy for men to deceive themselves into thinking that unrighteous and unjust extremes are simply the evidence of their zeal for truth. Even a readiness to listen to the accused is regarded as weakness. Such extremists cry shame on the very effort to be fair, and in their determination to have no compromise with error they sometimes exaggerate faults, and so grossly misrepresent the objects of their attack that they become guilty of offences worse than all the error against which they are trying to fight.
We must not fall into the mistake of taking an extreme view even of the extremist. God has been merciful to such men in the past, and we must be merciful now even in our thoughts. We may state most emphatically, however, that it is wrong to exaggerate the faults of anyone or to find ugly and misleading names with which to label those who do not quite see eye to eye with us. It is quite possible to be valiant for the Truth and zealous for the Lord without being unfair even to those who are mistaken, and it is always wrong to be unfair. In faithfulness we must point out the danger that in great zeal for the jots and tittles of the law men may lose sight of the foundation principles. All their faith and works may become valueless through lack of charity.
The need for a clear perception of the scriptural principles governing controversy is shown by the tendency toward unrighteous exaggeration even on the part of those from whom better things would be expected. A few days ago we read some words written by a critic who has usually shown a sense of responsibility in the use of words. Yet there are exaggerations which tend to foster strife without the slightest suggestion as to the restitution of the offenders. It declares that the belittling of the commandments among us had become an open sin.
This is a very definite and severe judgment, which presumably includes the present writer in its sweeping condemnation. What does it mean? Is there any effort or desire to restore us “in the spirit of meekness”, or are we too evil for that? If we “belittle the commandments of Christ” to the point of “open sin”, what hope can we have of forgiveness unless we can be restored? I have just recently been through the four Gospel records in an attempt to classify all the commandments of the Lord Jesus and apply them to present experience. It is easy to find commands which are very imperfectly observed. The repeated command to love one another even as he has loved us (Joh 13:34) has been repeatedly broken. The commands not to lay up treasure on earth and not to seek the riches of the Gentiles are so foreign to the spirit of our age that we only grasp them with great difficulty, and so far no one has been found to rend the ecclesias on this issue. It is quite certain that our critic does not mean these matters. He probably refers to the vexed question of a decision as to where to draw the line between reproving, rebuking or withdrawing from an offender. Is there anything in the commands of Christ to suggest that one who takes too lenient a view of his brother’s offences is to be condemned and repudiated? I know of no such command. There are plenty of warnings that those who take too severe a view of a brother’s offences will themselves be dealt with severely. There are warnings against judging and against the natural tendency to see the defects in the eye of a brother while remaining unconscious of greater defects in ourselves. If some among us err in their unwillingness to take the most severe of all measures against offenders, if they carry too far the commands to be patient and to restore offenders in the spirit of meekness, it cannot in fairness be described as “belittling the commandments of Christ.”
The use of this expression is to be explained in the same way as the many far worse attempts at argument which we sometimes hear. It is a natural emanation from strife and debate.
It is not fair, it is not true; but it has the doubtful merit of being severe, and therefore it is made to serve. It is so easy to be led into the use of such expressions, and we must not make any man an offender for a word, but we do well to sound a warning. Be pitiful, be courteous, be gentle, be meek, be honest. Cultivate charity and love, and remember that for every idle word that you speak you shall give account in the day of judgment.