An old proverb warns against “throwing out the baby with the bathwater”. (In societies where almost everyone has a bathtub and running water, and where the bathwater drains out of the tub at the flip of a switch, the reader may have to reflect on this proverb just a bit!) The point, of course, is to distinguish between primary and secondary matters, and to treat each accordingly.

A well-known Bible story deals with a baby also. Once the wise king Solomon was called upon to judge a case involving two women and one baby (1Ki 3:16-28). It seems that one mother had accidentally smothered her baby, and, discovering this, had switched her dead baby with the living baby of her neighbor. Now both mothers stood before the king, each claiming that the remaining live baby was hers.

“Then said the king, ‘The one saith, This is my son that liveth, and thy son is the dead: and the other saith, Nay; but thy son is the dead, and my son is the living… Bring me a sword.’ And they brought a sword before the king. And the king said, ‘Divide the living child in two, and give half to the one, and half to the other.’ Then spake the woman whose the living child was unto the king, for she yearned upon her son, and she said, ‘O my lord, give her the living child, and in no wise slay it.’ But the other said, ‘Let it be neither mine nor thine, but divide it.’ Then the king answered and said, ‘Give her the living child, and in no wise slay it: she is the mother thereof.’ And all Israel heard of the judgment which the king had judged; and they feared the king: for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him, to do judgment” (1Ki 3:23-28).

The wise king understood clearly that the true mother would desire more than anything that her baby live, even if it were in the hands of another woman. Its life was infinitely more precious than anyone else’s “property rights”! But the impostor (to satisfy her pride, or her injured feelings, or out of sheer spite?) said, “Divide it!”

Sometimes (almost always!) “dividing the baby” will have disastrous results, for everyone concerned. New and young converts to the truth are characterized in Scriptures as “babes” (Mat 1:25; Luk 10:21; Rom 2:20; 1Co 3:1; Heb 5:13; 1Pe 2:2), easily influenced and even manipulated by their elders — their fathers and “mothers”.

Ecclesial controversies may have (or may seem to have) an invigorating effect on some “elders” and “parents”. It can be exhilarating to “stand firm for the truth”, regardless of the circumstances, to fight for purity, to defend one’s fellowship stand, to attack the faith of others, etc, etc. But the same controversies can be very damaging, even perhaps fatal, to the “babes” in the truth who (not really by their own choice) become a party to them.

So this exhortation is especially to the older, experienced brother and sister: Be careful how you “fight” for the truth. Be careful that any “charges” you bring against others are true, and fair, and fairly stated — not colored by prejudice or pride or anger. Be careful how you treat others who may be part on the One Body as well as you.

And be very careful before you do anything that could be construed by the wise King and Judge as “cutting up the baby”! Because… the “baby” belongs to him!

“The Samaritans were neighbors in the most literal sense, but as for loving them, that seemed impossible. Christ loved them and caused his disciples to marvel at the manner in which he spake to the woman at Jacob’s well and afterwards to others who came out to hear him. The Jews as a whole almost made it a part of their religion to hate the Samaritans, and if they were able to analyze their own feelings, they would probably have to admit that the hatred was directly traceable to the fact of their being such near neighbors. This is a common weakness of poor human nature. Those who are near but not quite with us arouse more bitterness of feelings that complete strangers. Then when such an evil feeling has once been started, the deceitful heart begins to build up fancies to justify, the hatred, thus further traducing those who have already wronged” (Islip Collyer, “The Guiding Light”).

Of all Scriptural principles, this may seem the simplest. Almost any brother or sister could expound it, could exhibit the beauty of the apostle’s simile and reveal the folly of any member being either puffed up with an impression of superior office or depressed by lack of qualification for any particular form of service. Eye and ear and foot and hand all have worthy parts to play. A well equipped mouth is of no service if it fails to arrive at the place where it is wanted. The feet have to bring it. It may follow therefore that an inferior mouth would render better service if only it could be supported by better feet.

The principle is recognized at least in theory, and it needs no further theoretical exposition. Is it recognized in practice? Do we realize the object “that there should be no schism in the body”? Have members “the same care one for another”? So that if “one member suffer, all the members suffer with it”?

The apostle truly presents a high ideal, but it is the ideal at which we must aim if we want to be saved. All that we are told of the judgment seat tends to show that the supreme test is in these matters. If we are repudiated then, it will be because we have failed to live the Truth and not for inability to understand it. We are told that some will be punished for errors committed without adequate knowledge of their Lord’s will; but assuredly it will not be because of inability to understand. It is our duty to know our Lord’s will. The necessary instruction is given to us, and if we fail to hear and understand it is almost certain that an obstinate self-deception is at the root of the difficulty. Such obdurate self-deception is deserving of stripes.

A simple test will probably prove to all who are able to receive instruction that they have far to go in pursuit of the apostolic ideal. Have we the same care one for another? If one member suffers do we all suffer in sympathy, or if one member is honoured do we all rejoice? The natural tendency of the flesh is in the wrong direction under each of these headings. It is natural to have care for those who are the objects of our especial regard, and to be indifferent to all others. Of course, there will be special friendships in the Brotherhood, with different degrees and even different kinds of love. This is inevitable, and not at all incompatible with true fellowship. It is well to understand the distinction between the two words. Friendship is individual and peculiar. You cannot have ten thousand close friends. Fellowship is collective and comprehensive. You can be in true fellowship with any number. Friendship is at liberty to make selection of special companions. Just as a man in the Faith is at liberty to marry whom he will “only in the Lord”, so is he at liberty to choose his special friends, assuming, of course, in both cases, that the desires are reciprocal and that the choice made is in harmony with the other commands of the Lord. Fellowship does not give us such liberty. We fellowship each other on the basis of the one Faith, and this may draw together men and women who are utterly different in taste and temperament. These differences will inevitably affect our choice of special friends but they ought not to affect our “care for one another” in the fellowship of the Gospel. The point can be illustrated without departure from the most ordinary experiences of life. If a brother or sister who is a very dear friend shows signs of weakness and a need for special help, we are ready to give any amount of care and attention to nurse the feeble one back to healthy faith. We would reprove any impatient critic, and find plenty of scripture to assist our advocacy of gentle methods. What long-suffering, patience, gentleness, and compassion are shown in our great example! How many injunctions there are to be kind, considerate, and forbearing! But are we quite as ready to think of these passages if the straying sheep is one whose personality repels us? Are we as ready to sacrifice rest and comfort in trying to assist the unattractive wanderer?

The question whether brethren attract us or repel us personally does not in the least degree affect the truth of their being members of the One Body, and we ought to have the “same care one for another”, because of our fellowship in the Truth, unaffected by the affinities and preferences which belong to human personality. This, of course, as with many others duties, is unnatural. The natural tendency is to be “partial” in judgment. We may be quite innocent of showing any undue respect to the man with a gold ring or disrespect toward the one who is poorly clad, yet we may fall into an exactly similar error on a different basis. A dear friend has erred. Well, we remember how forbearing our Lord was with sinners. We must restore him in the spirit of meekness. One who always repelled us has erred. We remember how Samuel treated Agag; we remember the apostle’s instructions to withdraw from those who are disorderly. We must be valiant for the Truth.

It is not suggested that all are under the sway of such fleshly instincts leading to such partiality of judgment. This, however is the natural tendency, and it is questionable whether even those who are most conscious of the weakness have overcome it entirely. Has there never been a time when in dealing with a friend, you have shown a consideration and patience far beyond anything you can muster for that other offender who does not interest you or possibly repels you? If there has been any such partiality, has it been an instance of weakness in dealing with a friend when you should have been valiant for the truth; or has it been harshness in dealing with another when you should have remembered the meekness and gentleness of Christ? True fellowship demands that we should have the same care one for another “that there be no schism in the body”. When we are least inclined to remember the rights and the interdependence of members, then we should try our hardest. When we are least attracted to members we have the best opportunity for increasing the duties of fellowship. Where our sympathies are least engaged we have the best opportunity of showing that we can be impartial, having the same care one for another.

It is easier for us to conform to the Apostolic command under the second heading we have mentioned. We can suffer with those who suffer, more readily than we can rejoice with those who are honoured. The suffering, however, has to be near and obvious, or we can easily forget and ignore it. We have heard of the millionaire who was so touched with the pitiful story of a caller that he said to a servant, “Send this poor fellow away at once, or I shall have no appetite for dinner.” Perhaps there are many even in the Brotherhood who would find it too painful to regard the lives of their fellows very closely. A tragedy in the house of a next-door neighbour will cast a gloom over us when a far greater tragedy in a distant land hardly affects us at all. In the same way we shall be partial in our treatment of brethren near and distant unless we make a great effort to enlarge our sympathies.

When we are called upon to rejoice with the member who is highly honoured, the task is still more difficult, especially for some natures. There are men who could sympathize with a friend’s misfortune and even make a generous effort to assist him; but they can never forgive him for being successful. The jealous feeling is well disguised, of course. They fear that the friend’s good fortune will turn his head and spoil his character, and we may rest assured that they will find ample confirmation of their worst fears, act how he may. Such people are capable of killing an old friend with pinpricks; shaking their heads all the while, and deploring his supposed weakness.

It is only too true that even brethren are often very unkind to each other without ever owning the fault or recognizing the tortuous self-deception which leads to the cruelty. The evils in the world are reproduced among those who are supposed to have come out from the world. It is easy to forget that there are any obligations in connection with the One Body or that if we sin against any of the members we sin against the Head. The One Body is formed on the basis of the One Faith; the essentials of which remain as in the days of the apostles. They do not change from year to year with the exigencies of human policy. Faith has been corrupted repeatedly both by the neglect of essentials and by the additions of human ideas. We must hold fast to the Word which is the only true light. It does not matter what men may think or say of us; what would the Lord have us do? That is the supreme test and it is well for us to use it now in the day of opportunity and before the day of judgment. If we can really bend our spirits to “learn of him”, we find at once that our duties are constructive and that they begin with the nurture and care of the One Body which is being developed on the basis of the One Faith.

(PrPr)

“Without shedding of blood there is no remission of sins.” The doctrine of atonement involved in this scriptural principle is one of the most important and in some respects one of the most difficult of all the primary truths connected with the Gospel. Nowhere else is it so easy for men to get out of their depth, and there is no other subject that proves so tempting.

There is certainly danger that vital truths affecting the sacrifice of Christ may be called in question or may be obscured by wrong teaching on this subject. There is far more danger that a destructive strife of words should arise through men getting out of their mental depth in an effort to measure the mind of God. Dr. Thomas once remarked that the elementary truths regarding redemption were few and simple and no reason could be given for them beyond “the fact that God wills them”. If a candidate for baptism revealed a sound knowledge of these simple truths and of this simple explanation of them, we should not dare to “forbid water”.

Suppose that having rendered a satisfactory confession of faith on all other first principles the candidate said: “I believe that God required a perfect sacrifice before He could forgive sin, and that He provided the One capable of rendering that sacrifice. He sent forth His Son, the Lord Jesus, made of a woman, made in all points like his brethren, tempted in all points as we are, but by virtue of his divine parentage so superior to us morally that he was able to render the perfect sacrifice required and thus to secure redemption for himself from sin-stricken human nature and both forgiveness and redemption for those who come to God through him in the way appointed.” Should we dare to forbid baptism because the candidate was unable to explain why God required a perfect sacrifice, or why He demanded the shedding of blood before sins could be remitted ?

If we are quite agreed that an understanding of these simple elements is sufficient for one to enter the Covenant, surely it is a tragedy if brethren become divided simply through the effort to see further. It may be even worse than a tragedy, for it sometimes leads to destructive strife in which extremes act and react upon each other, the disputants getting further and further out of their depth, while the vital duties of life are neglected.

We would not suggest for a moment that being agreed on the simple and elementary truths we should be content to go no further. Certainly we must push on and gain all the knowledge of divine things that is possible. Discussion of such matters may be very helpful if conducted by brethren who have grasped the more elementary teaching of the Word regarding human conduct. This, however, is certainly a subject in which we do well to be swift to hear and slow to speak; we may venture to suggest, still slower to write. So much sin lies at the door of the man who invented printing.

It may be helpful to take note of the main causes that have led brethren astray when they have tried to probe deeply into the doctrine of atonement. We may then be on our guard against these particular dangers.

One cause has been through the tendency to confuse the shadow with the substance. Brethren have reasoned that the types of the law suggested such and such necessities and the sacrifice of Christ had to conform. The truth is, of course, exactly the other way. The work of Christ was the very central feature of the divine purpose and all the shadows of the law had to conform to it. The Apostle in writing to the Hebrews, truly reasons from the types forward to Christ, but he makes it plain that Christ is the substance. We recognize the writings of the Apostles as of precisely the same authority as the Old Testament Scriptures. We do well therefore to take their plainest language as our guide and see that our understanding of types and symbols falls into line.

A second cause of confusion is the tendency to seek an explanation according to a human conception of logic and legality. Many years ago we had to point out that while human laws might often have effects far removed from the intention of the law makers, this could never be the case with the laws of God. We cannot recognize any distinction between the divine law and the divine will. When God makes a law it is the expression of His will for the time to which it applies, and it is made with a full knowledge of all its effects (see Act 15:18). We can hardly suppose that any brother would ever dispute this proposition; but some have reasoned as if they never thought of such an idea. We do well therefore to remind each other of this simple truth, which forbids us to make any distinction between legal necessities and the divine will.

A third cause of confusion has been through the persistent use of phrases that are sometimes misleading. Some staunch brethren in upholding the truth that Christ bore our sin-stricken nature have used language suggestive of an automatic cleansing by death. We could easily have rival camps in this matter, disputants on each side being totally unconscious of the ambiguity of their own language but too acutely conscious of the worst interpretations that could be put on the language of opponents.

Earnest brethren and sisters, anxious to hold the truth, have sometimes been perplexed and almost distracted in the strife of words, beyond their power to understand. The havoc that such strife may cause is perhaps best illustrated by the fact that one of the most capable men we ever had among us, in his efforts for legal logic ended by teaching justification for sin without faith, and we were all slow to realize the full enormity of the position. I well remember the surprise and even consternation of one of his supporters when he was first shown this feature of the case.

Even now there is the same disposition towards legal reasoning regarding types and shadows with the clear principles of Scripture neglected. Although disputants would deny the charge, it is a fact that some of them persistently lose sight of the fact that all things in God’s dealings with this world centre round Christ. The reason that all things under the law were cleansed by the offering of blood, was that all things in the age to come will be through the sacrifice of Christ. In reasoning with Jews it might be necessary to invert the argument, but we who are privileged to know the substance of God’s great purpose must never lose sight of it.

What is the literal truth revealed in the New Testament as to the meaning of sacrifice? It is that God forgives sins and offers eternal life on the basis of the perfect sacrifice effected by Christ in his life and death. Whatever figurative or partly figurative language the Bible may use, this is the real meaning. Washed in his blood, our sins laid upon him, a bearing of our sins in his own body, the purchase of his blood, the ransom, his being delivered for our offences, the just for the unjust: all such expressions must be understood in harmony with the literal truth that God forgives. Transgressions of the divine law can only be put away by the forgiveness and forbearance of God. Physical uncleanness of nature can only be put away by the power of God. The sacrifice of Christ is the divinely appointed basis in which God in mercy and forbearance offers forgiveness and redemption to sinners (Rom 3: 23-24; 4:7; Eph 1:7; Col 1:14; 1Jo 1:9; 2:12).

If we desire to probe further and ask the question why did God require such a sacrifice as the basis of the forgiveness offered to humanity, we shall never find any answer through the various interpretations of the law or by talk of the penalty due to sin. Divine law is simply an expression of divine will. It was not the will of God that man should sin, but it was the will of God that man should be a free agent and that death should be the wage of sin. It was the will of God that the human race having been defiled by sin should have no access to His holy presence except on the basis of a perfect sacrifice. And it is the will of God that we should respond to the gracious invitation and be saved on the basis He has provided (1Th 5:9). If we ask why God required such a sacrifice, we must seek a moral explanation. It is no answer to quote the law which expresses His will.

Guided by Scripture we can find a moral explanation that satisfies every demand that the intelligence can make. The perfect sacrifice was required that the flesh might be effectively repudiated, that sin might be conquered and condemned, that the righteousness and holiness of God might be declared, and that sinful man should be humbled without a particle of ground for boasting being left to him (Rom 3:23-27; 8:3; Eph 2:1-9).

God made it clear even in ancient times that humanity could not approach to Him at all except with humble faith and on the basis of blood shedding. He gave a law that emphasized the sinfulness and helplessness of His people (Rom 8:15; 5:20). He made it clear that when sins were put away by sacrifice they were really forgiven (Lev 4:20,26,31,35). He promised a deliverer who should “make an end of sin”, and “bring in everlasting righteousness” (Dan 9). When the fullness of time was come He revealed that scheme of love into which even the angels had desired to look. He made selection of a virgin of the house of Israel and produced from her one who should be strong for the great work required. So the flesh was repudiated even in the birth of Christ, sin was conquered and condemned in every act of his life, and finally he freely rendered the last obedience even unto death that he might be raised from the dead to immortality and glory as the captain of our salvation — made perfect through suffering (Heb 2:10). To him much was given and of him much was required. The lights and shadows inseparable from the formation of a character needed to be intense in the probation of our great Captain. He worked out his perfection and salvation by the strength God gave him, and thus through him God opened the way of life for us. Here is the sin nature that had produced only helpless sinners, controlled, condemned and finally put away by the strong Son of God in his perfect obedience of life and death. On this basis humanity can approach the holiness of the Creator and men of faith though sinners can be exalted to the divine. On this basis of the sin nature conquered, repudiated and condemned by the one God made strong for Himself, God forgives. That is the real meaning of atonement.

It is hardly possible to imagine anyone who had ever caught even the most fleeting glimpse of this vision turning back to the pitiful speculations of men as to supposed legal necessities. There are those in the world who think that the real body of Christ never rose, but remains eternally dead as the price due to God or the punishment due to sin! It would be difficult to make any comment on such an idea while preserving the language of decorum. The brethren are doubtless proof against such monstrous teaching. Let them keep far from the narrow reasoning that leads in that direction. The New Testament describes the sacrifice of Christ in plain and literal language. Let us interpret all figures and symbols by reference to the plain statements. God — who knows the end from the beginning, who does according to His will, but who “cannot deny Himself” — God provided the means for condemning and overcoming sins on the basis of which He with much forbearance forgives those who please Him by their faith.

Much controversy has been caused by the question as to whether Christ offered for his own cleansing. It has been largely a war of words, due on the one hand to a fear of saying or subscribing to anything derogatory to Christ and on the other hand perhaps a tendency to relapse into the old exaggeration of “original sin”. There ought not to be a minute’s difficulty in dealing with the question and securing agreement.

When we speak of “sin” in the flesh we use the phrase just as the Apostle used it in Rom 7. Obviously it is a derived or secondary sense of the word, for the primary meaning of sin is transgression of divine law. It is a similar extension of meaning to that of the word “death” for poison when they said, “there is death in the pot”. The Apostle speaks of a law in his members which wars against the laws of God and leads to transgression. He calls this physical weakness “sin” in the flesh or “sin” that dwelleth in me. It is the diabolos in human nature, the natural desires of the flesh which, if they are allowed to “conceive”, “bring forth sin”. We need not argue as to whether there is such a law. We all know it only too well. We are born with it and if we give way to any sin we correspondingly strengthen the evil desire in that direction and thus make “sin” in the flesh more active.

To suppose that an extraordinarily pure and righteous man would feel this weakness less than others is a huge mistake. The truth is the other way. It is the thoroughly fleshly man who is unconscious of the sinful law in his members and who probably would not understand what the Apostle meant. The man with the highest ideals and the most spiritual mind will feel the struggle most. To suggest that Christ was tempted in all points as we are and yet without this law of sin in his members is to proclaim a complete contradiction. It is like saying, “Except that he was not tempted at all!” Suggestions from without are no temptation to us if they do not appeal to something within. Christ bore just this same defiled nature that we bear or he could not have been tempted as we are and therefore could not have condemned and conquered sin. Christ bore this quality in the flesh, but he never allowed it to conceive even to the point of sinful thought. Therein was the most terrific struggle and the most portentous victory of all human experience. It is easy to understand that with his ideals, and his standards of rectitude, the weakness of the flesh would be so distressing that even the most startling language of the Psalms is comprehensible.

Now whether we take the plain language of the Apostles (Heb 9:12; 10:20) or the prophecies and types of the law, the teaching is that all things were to be cleansed by the perfect sacrifice and that no one of Adam’s race should have access to the Most Holy place except on the basis of that sacrifice (Lev 16:2-14 — note seven times of sprinkling) .

Some have caused confusion by arguing whether Christ’s offering for himself was “only a matter of obedience to God” or whether it was something more. What do they mean? Obedience to God is carrying out the will of God. What can be required beyond this? Surely we are all agreed that Christ, “the beloved son”, “the servant in whom God delighted”, and the one who “always did his Father’s will”, needed no forgiveness. Surely we are also agreed that he needed cleansing from the sin-stricken nature in which he wrestled with and conquered the diabolos. There could be no forgiveness for personal sinners except on the basis of the perfect sacrifice, for this was the will of God. There could be no cleansing and immortalizing, no entry into the Most Holy by any of Adam’s race except on the basis of the same perfect sacrifice, for that also was the will of God. Christ came to do God’s will, he was obedient in all things even unto death, and so with his own blood — in other words, on the basis of his perfect offering — he entered the Most Holy “having obtained eternal redemption.”

The truth is that when brethren who are agreed as to these fundamentals still argue and suspect each other of being “unsound”, they are really in their minds raising that old question of many years ago, “Supposing Christ had been the only one to be saved, would he still have had to die a sacrificial death?” Everyone ought to have learned long ago that this question is not legitimate. It is asking, “If the will of God had been totally different in one direction, would it have remained the same in another closely related matter?” There is only one proper answer to such a question. No one knows what the will of God would have been if His purpose had been other than it is, and only a presumptuous man would claim to know.

We have to do with the purpose of God as it is and as it is revealed to us. These truths are so simple and withal so beautiful that unless brethren insist on a misleading form of words making for strife, there should be no difficulty in agreeing.

The will of God determines everything. It was the will of God that none of our sin-stricken race should enter His holy presence except on the basis of the most complete repudiation of the flesh involved in a perfect obedience even unto death. He provided the strength necessary for this great work and it was for this purpose that Christ was born. Thus through the blood of the everlasting Covenant he was brought again from the dead. With his own blood he entered the Most Holy place, having obtained eternal redemption, and we, if we are faithful, can stand at last “washed from our sins in his blood” and covered with his righteousness. All these figures meaning that God accepts, forgives and cleanses His people on the basis of the perfect life and death of His Anointed Son.

“What communion [koinonia] hath light with darkness?… Therefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing” (2Co 6:14,17).

This passage has always been popular with separatists, but it is even more sorely misapplied than some of the others we have considered. The context clearly speaks of a life of unrighteousness. From such a worldly outlook and way of life the believers are certainly prohibited, since such a joining is an “unequal yoking with unbelievers”. But it is a peculiar wresting of Scripture which would take this passage and wield it in cutting off believers for some minor deviation, real or imagined!

The entire passage is much richer and more detailed than one would ever imagine from a cursory reading. Each phrase is fully expounded in a series of articles by David Parry — in which practical applications are precisely drawn (Tes 46:218-220, 270-272,311-314, 341-344, 427-429, and 452-455; Tes 47:70-74). These exhortational conclusions reveal once and for all the moral force of the passage, in contrast to the mere legalistic approach in “withholding fellowship” at the breaking of bread. We have certainly come to see by now, if we had not realized it already, that “fellowship” is a much broader and more meaningful concept for believers than the question of whom we exclude from “our” table (which is not even ours, but Christ’s). Fellowship with God is a way of life which permeates all corners of our lives, and calls us constantly upward to a fuller appreciation of life lived always in the presence, and in the household, of our Heavenly Father. Those who convince themselves that their duty in the way of “separation” is accomplished when they ruthlessly exclude some or many of their brethren from their “fellowship” have simply not understood as yet what “fellowship” is all about! And it just may be that, in giving undue attention to one area of responsibility, they are on their way to ignoring other, more far-reaching duties!

1. Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers (v 14): Only two can wear a yoke, and they must agree together in the direction they are traveling. We are commanded to be yoked with Christ (Mat 11:28,29), and we can be yoked with no other at the same time.

“The call of Christ is to a complete way of life — it is all-sufficient. Failure to realize that when Christ spoke of two ways, he meant two and no more, has led men to try and walk in both, looking for a third. For the Christian partnership to work, the believer must at all times try to match the example of his Master. The only incentive is to think deeply of the work being performed together. Unless positive reasons for a life in Christ are understood, the yoke of Christ will chafe and the discipline be irksome” (Ibid 220).

2. What fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? (v 14): This word “fellowship” might best be translated “partnership”, a joint partaking in something. Righteousness describes the ethical standard by which God offers men salvation. It is the pattern of life in Christ. It is impossible that there should be any partnership between this way of living and its exact opposite — unrighteousness, or lawlessness.

3. What communion hath light with darkness? (v 14): This word “communion” is the common word for “fellowship” — koinonia. To think of fellowship between light and darkness is an impossibility, for the two cannot in any way exist side by side. Those who say they fellowship light and yet walk in darkness are liars (1Jo 1:5-7). Correct beliefs are necessary, but our fellowship in light must be proven by the actions of a new life (1Jo 2:29; 3:7; Joh 3:19-21; 8:39; 10:37). The Bible definition of walking in darkness is not holding false doctrine, but hating one’s brother (1Jo 2:11)!

4. What concord hath Christ with Belial? (v 15): “Concord”, relating to the English word “symphony”, expresses the idea of harmony in singing or other verbal expression. In Christ’s life the “symphony” has already been composed. Each performer and each instrument should be controlled by that original plan. We as the players bring our individual talents to bear upon the composer’s score. But we cannot “play our own tune”, or else there will be discord and not concord in the finished product. Trying to follow both Christ and Belial (idols) is like singing two songs at once. How much easier to follow the example set by Christ, so that there be true harmony in our lives!

5. What part hath he that believeth with an infidel? (v 15): Here is the idea of sharing, or having a portion or an inheritance, which may be understood against the Old Testament background of the promised possession of the land. “Believers and unbelievers have nothing in common which they can share. The believer cannot take part in activities and associations which are not controlled by God. The believer cannot share his inheritance, nor allow it to be taken away by unholy men. He can, and must, seek to share his inheritance by converting the unbeliever; but he must take care that this work is the one that God has described in His Word. The Lord is the portion, the Hope of Israel, the founder of the New Jerusalem. It is His inheritance, His kingdom, His memorial” (Ibid 429).

6. What agreement hath the temple of God with idols? (v 16): This question involves the idea of putting together, or a joint deposit, particularly of votes. The ecclesia is the temple of God (1Co 6:19); its members must cast in their “votes”, and their hopes and aspirations, with their brethren — not with the “idols”, crude or sophisticated, religious or secular, around them. The temptation to cast in one’s lot and find apparent satisfaction with the godless of today is a strong one to the modern saint. The only real antidote is not knowledge alone but application to the example of Christ.

“Therefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you” (v 17): “The teaching of these words as highlighted by Paul involves an equal determination on the part of a Christian to become holy through separation from unrighteousness, darkness, Belial, unbelievers, and idols. The far-reaching implications of these words are now obvious and it behoves those who would apply them in very limited circumstances to take care that in casting the first stone they are not condemning themselves” (Ibid 72).

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!

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:

• Lepers: “And there came a leper to him, beseeching him and kneeling down to him…. ‘If thou wilt, thou canst make me clean’ ” (Mar 1:40). “The leper, in accord with the strict conditions of the law, should not have been so close. With torn garments and dishevelled hair he should have gone around crying ‘Unclean! Unclean!’ (Lev 13:44,45), and he should have dwelt alone. The stern requirements of hygiene caused the Israelites to deny their camp in the wilderness to those in this condition (Num 5:2). That the man came so close is a mark, not of callous disregard of the law, but of the supreme confidence which knew that he would do no injury to the Lord, while the Lord could, if he would, confer cleansing on him. Jesus, on his part, accepted the position without embarrassment, and acted with the same assurance. To touch a leper was to contract defilement; but for the Lord to do so was to bring cleansing without himself suffering any harm” (NMk 21).

• The Samaritan woman and her neighbors (Joh 4:1-42): Even the woman at the well recognized that the Jews customarily had no dealings with the Samaritans (v 9). To the legalistically devout this was all too literally true; the gospel record finds an exact parallel in the well-reported sayings of the rabbis: “May I never set eyes on a Samaritan!” or “May I never be thrown into company with him!” It was said that to partake of their bread was like eating swine’s flesh (A Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, Vol. 1, p. 401). Most Israelites, in traveling between Judea and Galilee, went miles out of their way, circling through Perea, to avoid traversing the loathsome land of Samaria. How this gives weight by contrast to the statement of John, that Jesus “must needs go through Samaria” (v 4). Not only did Jesus disregard the traditional proscriptions of the land of the Samaritans, but also it was necessary that he go there! And necessary that he wait at the well, and necessary that he ask drink of the woman (unthinkable to a Pharisee), and necessary that he remain in their city two days (v 40) to bring to their thirsty lips the true water of life.

• The infirm man at the pool of Bethesda (Joh 5:1-9): “High on the hill of Zion the immaculately robed priests observed the temple ritual, aloof and impersonal. In the shadows of its walls the halt, the blind and the withered waited for the movement of the water” (MP 86,87). Among them was a certain man with an infirmity of 38 years’ duration (v 5). By the law such a man, if a descendant of Aaron, would be prohibited from all official duties (Lev 21:17-23). Extreme body blemishes would exclude any Israelite from the congregation of the Lord (Deu 23:1). And so the “pure and undefiled” of Israel went their way to the Temple services, oblivious of the poor, suffering scraps of humanity who clung superstitiously to the hope of healing at the pool. Where did the Master’s steps turn, upward to the beautiful ritualized service of Herod’s house, or downward to the miserable exiles of Bethesda? The true scene of his ministry was not among the subtle analysts of the law but in the midst of suffering, diseased, afflicted mankind, those who needed a redeemer.

• The harlot, “a woman in the city, which was a sinner” (Luk 7:37): So astounding was Jesus’ acceptance of this harlot’s approach and service, that his host Simon the Pharisee thought surely he could not be a prophet or else he would push her away and revile her for her sins (v 39). He knew so little of the spirit of the Saviour! Do we know more?

• The lunatic (Mar 5:1-21; Mat 8:28-34; Luk 8:26-40): Christ and his disciples came to the shore at Gergesa, on the east side of the Sea of Galilee, in Decapolis. And there met them out of the tombs a man with an unclean spirit. Here was a man expelled from all society by his condition (insanity), his appearance (nakedness), and his abode (the tombs); yet Jesus approached him, spoke to him, even bearing with his fantasies, healed him, and gave him of his own garments (an unproven suggestion, but quite probable, and filled with wonderful typical significance)! So impressed, however, were those of the neighborhood that they begged him to leave (Mar 5:17); a man who consorted with such men as “Legion” could certainly be no friend of theirs.

• The woman with the issue of blood (Mar 5:25-34): Here was another condition which, like leprosy, rendered the sufferer unclean (Lev 15:19-30). As Jesus went on his way, she pushed her timid way through the crowd: “If I may touch but his clothes, I shall be whole.” This was the reverse of the legal restriction, which should have been: ‘If I touch his garment, he will be unclean also.’ How great was her faith! She knew what manner of man Jesus was: a man who could touch the unclean, and yet remain pure; a man whose law superseded that of Moses; a man to whom mental impurity was far worse than legal defilement.

• Gentiles: Of several examples, we note here the case of the Syrophoenician woman (Mar 7:25,26; Mat 15:21-28). Coming on the heels of the Lord’s discourse about the true source of defilement (Mar 7:1-23; Mat 15:1-20), and in disregard for the traditions of the elders, this incident in which Jesus heals the daughter of the Gentile woman thus carries extra significance. Though the woman was not a Jewess, her faith exceeded by far that of Jesus’ countrymen. As in the other cases we have noted, an external condition of separation was of no consequence to him who came to save the “world” and to call sinners to repentance.

• Publicans: Two of this hated class figure prominently in the gospels: Zaccheus, “chief among the publicans” (Luk 19:2), and one of the twelve, Matthew (Mat 10:3; Luk 5:27). These servants of the Roman oppressors were held in such low esteem generally that the word “publican” had become practically synonymous with “sinner” (Mat 9:11; Mar 2:16; Luk 5:30). Yet Jesus found friends among this class; perhaps some real-life publican was the model for the Lord’s account of contrasting prayer styles, for the admonition of those who “trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others” (Luk 18:9-14). On the opposite side, we have the rabbinical attitude toward the publicans: They were excluded from being judges and witnesses in legal affairs. They were seen as a criminal race, to which Lev 20:5 applied (about those who committed “whoredom with Molech”). It was said that there never was a family which numbered a tax-collector in which all did not become such. And they were seen as so evil that it was permissible for the righteous to lie to them to protect their property from taxation (Edersheim, op cit, p 516).

• The dead (Mar 5:35-43; Joh 11:1-46; Luk 7:14): Here was the ultimate defilement, the dead body (Lev 21:1; 22:4; Num 5:2; 9:6,10); even from this Christ did not shrink. We know he could raise the dead by a word, as he did with Lazarus. But he did not hesitate to take the dead daughter of Jairus by the hand (Mar 5:41). His was the “personal touch” of sincere love. As always, it seems, the consequences of legal “uncleanness” were ignored as irrelevant beside the greater issues of his ministry. The Lord of life came near to death, partaking of mortality, bearing the burdens of those who grieved and the curse of the law, “tasting death” on behalf of all men.

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).