It doesn’t matter how you feel one way or the other, we are after truth are we not? Then we need to get to the truth of the matter. If the truth is that Jeremiah 10 speaks of Christmas trees, then that is the truth, and you'd better distance yourself from that tree post haste!! But if not, then only a person who has no interest in truth would persist in propagating a known falsehood.
I used to propagate this idea heavily, especially around Christmas. To be bluntly honest, I was taught that Christmas was wrong, so I very much wanted to dislike Christmas, and so I allowed myself to be convinced by a simple argument because that’s what I wanted to believe. Whether or not the claim really was true, it agreed with what I wanted to be true, and that was good enough for me. And many others!
Well, it’s getting to be about that time of year, so I thought it might be a good idea to put this claim through the As Bereans Did patented gauntlet to see if it can survive. I’m going to put this claim to the test as I should have long, long ago but never did. Is it true, or is it a convenient lie. Let’s test and prove this condemnation of Christmas trees, shall we?
HONESTY AND EVIDENCE
(JER. 10: 3-4) 3 For the customs of the peoples are futile; For one cuts a tree from the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the ax. 4 They decorate it with silver and gold; they fasten it with nails and hammers so that it will not topple.
This was so convincing to me that I went around for years of my life telling people that these two verses spoke about Christmas trees. But let's think about this critically.
If I took a person who was familiar with Christmas trees but had never read Jeremiah 10 before, handed them these verses and asked them what they think, would they look at me in astonishment and remark, "That's speaking about nothing other than Christmas trees!"? I have to tell you, I doubt that would happen (believe me, I've tried this quite a few times and I've never seen it happen).
Billions of people have lived and died, reading Jeremiah 10 several times - not just casual readings but scholarly readings as well - and have not come to this conclusion. They have to be "helped" into it.
Have you ever heard the brain teaser when you are asked to spell a few words that rhyme with "toast" and then you are asked "what do you put in a toaster"? Most people don't think, and just respond "toast." Well, that's a possibility, sure, but highly improbable. The correct answer is "bread." You put bread in a toaster. The brain-teaser is a trick. It purposefully leads you into answering "toast."
In the exact same way, Armstrongists purposefully lead people into a loaded discussion on Christmas trees, and then introduce Jeremiah 10. It's a trick; akin to slight of hand. You are meant to see verses 3 and 4 after your mind is already conditioned to be thinking of Christmas trees, and then you're far more likely to see what they want you to see. Of course they accompany the trick with a generous amount of commentary.
So what is really going on here? It's the power of suggestion. We call this "proof-texting."
We burst into chapter 10 of Jeremiah’s book, abscond a very few verses from their proper context, set them aside as if they are an island unto themselves, conjure up a whole new meaning for them, then go about telling the whole of Christendom how God is angry with them for such and such a thing. OK. And nobody has a problem with this?
“I’m just reading God’s word straight from the Bible,” we would plead. Oh really? Just innocently reading straight from God’s word? No commentary whatsoever to nudge people towards the desired conclusion? I see.
Then what is this, “There is a condemnation of a Christmas tree in the Old Testament”?
I don’t see those words in Jeremiah.
If the "plain truth" is so plain and so true, why do the verses always come packaged with the suggestive commentary? Because this is not just reading the Bible!
Are we so certain that Jeremiah is unambiguously speaking of Christmas trees, and there is no other possible explanation because it’s so very clear and so very well spelled out that all you’re doing is reading “God’s word” and not proof-texting whatsoever? So very confident, in fact, that you would go around judging others to be pagan and condemning others over it? Well, let’s just challenge that and see if it holds up.
One oft-repeated argument from Armstrongists is to say “The word ‘Trinity’ never appears in the Bible, therefore it isn’t a Biblical concept.” But Trinitarians counter that they believe the additional Biblical evidence points to a God in three Persons. Even though Trinitarians cite multiple verses across the Bible, Armstrongists reject all of it outright. I'm not arguing for or against the Trinity doctrine here. I'm speaking to standards of evidence. If this is the standard, then let’s be even-handed about it. By the Armstrongists’ own standard, the phrase “Christmas tree” never appears in the Bible, ergo Jeremiah is not talking about Christmas trees. To be fair, we should dismiss any additional evidence outright (good thing there is none). Sophomoric, but fair play. If you’re going to have a standard of proof, then have a standard.
I think that's the real root of this issue. It's about standards of evidence and being honest with ourselves.
The standard of evidence is low. But, usually, that is low because people don't want to find out what really is actually, honestly true. No, they just want to find what upholds their predetermined view. They've compromised truth in favor of the ideology. We all do it in one way or the other. The challenge is to stop that once we learn the truth. If standards of evidence were higher, and truth the priority, then in my opinion this wouldn't happen. And blogs like this one wouldn't be necessary.
ALL TREES PAGAN?
Someone might point out that trees were used in ancient pagan worship practices, but so what? Correlation does not imply causation. That "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy has absolutely no bearing on whether or not Jeremiah 10 speaks about Christmas trees.
When I mention the very many other things people do in church that were also practiced by pagans (singing, praying, sermons, etc), usually the response is "But God lists those things in the Bible."
Where is the office of "Minister" found in the Bible (Deacon and Minister are the same word)? Where is the command found in the Bible to have one man give a sermon while everyone else sits silently? Where is the command to go to church every week? Where is the command to go to a restaurant on the Sabbath or have a pot luck?
But let's go with this idea. The reasoning is - if it's something God approved in the Bible, then it's OK.
If Herbert Armstrong had any intention of keeping the law then Armstrongists would know that God commands the use of trees in His worship as well.
(LEV. 23: 40) And you shall take for yourselves on the first day the fruit of beautiful trees, branches of palm trees, the boughs of leafy trees, and willows of the brook; and you shall rejoice before the LORD your God for seven days.
(NEH. 8: 13-15) 13 Now on the second day the heads of the fathers’ houses of all the people, with the priests and Levites, were gathered to Ezra the scribe, in order to understand the words of the Law. 14 And they found written in the Law, which the LORD had commanded by Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in booths during the feast of the seventh month, 15 and that they should announce and proclaim in all their cities and in Jerusalem, saying, “Go out to the mountain, and bring olive branches, branches of oil trees, myrtle branches, palm branches, and branches of leafy trees, to make booths, as it is written.”
So, according to the reasoning, use of trees and greenery in the worship of God is OK because we find it commanded by God in the Bible.
God also lists the use of statues in His worship (EXO. 25: 17-19), garland, bells, and fruit (EXO. 28: 33; II COR. 3: 16), and other things I could list but won't.
All of these things are used at Christmas, and condemned by people as pagan. Is this a double-standard? Once again we're right back to talking about having a standard and sticking to it.
Did pagans use trees in their celebrations? Yes. And so should you (if you truly believe that you must observe the Feast of Tabernacles)!
So the Bible prescribes the use of trees at the Feast of Tabernacles, yet that is ignored. It says nothing directly about Christmas trees, yet they are condemned.
Are we the only ones who find something terribly wrong with that?
JUDGMENT AND CONDEMNATION
You want to read something that’s clear and unambiguous? Here:
(ROM. 2: 1-4) 1 Therefore you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are who judge, for in whatever you judge another you condemn yourself; for you who judge practice the same things. 2 But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things. 3 And do you think this, O man, you who judge those practicing such things, and doing the same, that you will escape the judgment of God? 4 Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and long suffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?
To make a personal decision to not have a Christmas tree is one thing. Nothing ties salvation to Christmas trees. To point the finger and judge someone based on a half-baked reading of Jeremiah is something else entirely.
We had better be beyond certain that Jeremiah 10 is speaking of Christmas trees, my friends, because regardless of what God may think about idolatry, He is certainly not happy with judgment and condemnation – most especially that based on false accusation.
Truly one had better be exceedingly certain that Jeremiah 10 is talking only about Christmas trees. Because if it isn’t, then what happening in reality is people are going around proof-texting Jeremiah 10, propagating falsehoods, and violating the 10 Commandments to boot…
(EXO. 20: 16) You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
…that is not something I would take lightly. No, not at all.
Let’s ask if Jeremiah 10 condemns Christmas trees. But let’s start at the start.
CONTEXT, CONTEXT, CONTEXT
What is this portion of Jeremiah about? Is it not clear that from the beginning that God is making a case against Jerusalem and Judah regarding their idolatry?
We focus on Jeremiah 10, so go up and read the many times in Jeremiah 3 and 5 where God describes “treacherous Judah.”
So we know to whom God is speaking – Judah.
From the start, from Jeremiah 1: 16, the case is laid out against Judah for worshipping what their own hands have made. Not just decorating the home. Worshipping! Kneeling down, praying to, expecting help from. Before, during, and after chapter 10, God is clearly angry about bowing down and worshipping idol gods.
So we know what God is angry at Judah about- worshipping gods who are no gods.
And by what standard is God measuring Judah? Go down and read Jeremiah 11 and see that this is specifically about the violation of the now abrogated Old Covenant.
We've gone to prior and post chapters. The context of this portion of Jeremiah is that God is angry at Judah for violating the Old Covenant by worshipping idol gods.
That is the context.
I want you to consider one further point.
Although Jeremiah’s prophecies end when Jerusalem was carried away, these things truly culminate in 70 AD. From the first chapter, see how Jeremiah is a type of Jesus being sent to Israel to plead, but they will not listen. Read Jeremiah, especially chapter 7, and see the parallels to what Jesus said and did.
My point is that these things are not for the time period before the Second Coming, rather they really are for Judah (as it says it is), they really are for the Old Covenant period (as it says it is), and they really were fulfilled by Jesus at His First Coming and shortly thereafter.
End-time prophecies? Yes! End of the Old Covenant time, that is. So, as we’ve seen over and over again, people are distorting time in the Bible.
Now that we have some of the context framed in, let’s focus again specifically on chapter 10 so we can see the surrounding verses.
NOT SIMPLY A TREE
Just look at the blatant proof-texting going on. Notice how the argument always stops at verse 4 or sometimes 5. Why? Because the context undoes the argument!
(JER. 10: 5) They are upright, like a palm tree, and they cannot speak; they must be carried, because they cannot go by themselves. Do not be afraid of them, for they cannot do evil, nor can they do any good.”
Cannot speak??? No one believes a Christmas tree can speak. But since Jeremiah is talking about false gods carved of wood and covered in precious metals, we would expect such an idol to have a mouth. Now it makes sense.
Must be carried because they cannot go by themselves??? No one carries around their Christmas tree. (Note this is after it was fastened.) But since Jeremiah is talking about false gods carved of wood and covered in precious metals, we would expect such an idol to have feet. Now it makes sense.
(JER. 10: 6-7) 6 Inasmuch as there is none like You, O LORD (You are great, and Your name is great in might), 7 who would not fear You, O King of the nations? For this is Your rightful due. For among all the wise men of the nations, and in all their kingdoms, there is none like You.
Why this inset? Because we are contrasting the idol god, that was built and fastened, that cannot speak nor move nor dress itself, with the actual and Living God, who is King of nations! We are not contrasting God with a holiday decoration.
(JER. 10: 8-9) But they are altogether dull-hearted and foolish; a wooden idol is a worthless doctrine.
"A wooden idol." Says everything we needed right there. A Christmas tree is not an idol. It is not a false god. That can't be stressed enough. It's a decoration, plain and simple.
(JER. 10: 11) Thus you shall say to them: “The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth shall perish from the earth and from under these heavens."
A Christmas tree is not a false god. Yet Jeremiah is talking about false gods!
People will bend over backwards and swear up and down, and come just short of tearing their clothes and cutting themselves, to insist that Christmas trees are idols. Not so. Just look at the definition of the word. The first definition of "idol" from Merriam-Webster, paying attention to the definition that fits a religious context, is this:
" a representation or symbol of an object of worship; broadly : a false god"I have seen Armstrongist websites and literature replete with mentions of Herbert Armstrong and the current leadership, pictures and references to HWA everywhere, yet virtually absent any mention of Christ (I go into detail on this in the post "On Following Men"). So Christmas trees are idolatry, but this is not?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/idol
“But don’t people sing songs to their Christmas tree?” one might ask. The answer is no. No Christian sings songs to the tree.
Christians might sing songs about the tree. But so what? Don’t Armstrongists sing songs about Zion? Or about the law? Are those things idols now, too, because you sing about them?
(JER. 10: 9) Silver is beaten into plates; it is brought from Tarshish, and gold from Uphaz, the work of the craftsman and of the hands of the metalsmith; blue and purple are their clothing; they are all the work of skillful men.
Metal beaten into plates??? Christmas trees are not coated in metal beaten into plates. There are various things hung on the tree for decoration, but that isn’t beaten plates of metal from Tarshish coating the tree.But an idol god is covered in precious metals. Now it makes sense.
Clothing??? Not on a Christmas tree! There are tree-skirts, but that isn’t clothing by any stretch of the imagination. But an idol statue would be clothed to cover its nakedness. Now it makes sense.
Look back at verse 3. Read it again, slowly, and pay attention to what it is saying.
(JER. 10: 3) 3 For the customs of the peoples are futile; for one cuts a tree from the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.
Look closely at the words there, "the work of the hands of the workman." The indication of the phrase "work of the hands" is that there is a final product here; an artwork or something complex. This is not merely describing the mindless chopping of a tree. And "workman" indicates a craftsman, a carpenter or other artists.
This didn't escape the notice of the commentary writers. Look at Matthew Henry's commentary on this verse:
"It was a tree cut out of the forest originally. It was fitted up by the hands of the workman, squared, and sawed, and worked into shape."Read what John Gill's Exposition has to say on this verse:
"the matter and substance of it the body and trunk of a tree cut down with an axe, and then hewed with the same, and planed with a plane, and formed into the image of a man, or of some creature; and now, to fall down and worship this must be vanity and madness to the last degree"This is no mean tree. This is an idol god, fashioned by an artists and worshiped
This is also not talking about Israel using pagan traditions in their worship of YHWH. No. This is Israel worshiping another god altogether. This is a replacement for God. God does not say, "Do not learn the way of the Gentiles," and then proceeds to describe festivities and ornamentation. No, He says, "Do not learn the way of the Gentiles," and then proceeds to describe false gods.
Context is key!
Having specifically looked at Jeremiah 10, let us now turn and look elsewhere in the Bible, and see if we can't get some other examples that support this conclusion.
Look! Isaiah is very similar to Jeremiah. But obviously Isaiah isn't speaking about Christmas trees.
IGNORED PARALLEL IN ISAIAH
(ISA. 40: 18-20) 18 To whom then will you liken God? Or what likeness will you compare to Him? 19 The workman molds an image, the goldsmith overspreads it with gold, and the silversmith casts silver chains. 20 Whoever is too impoverished for such a contribution chooses a tree that will not rot; he seeks for himself a skillful workman to prepare a carved image that will not totter.
It's speaking about idols; carved images, false gods. Not decorations. Not Christmas trees. But does anyone quote Isaiah? No. Because Isaiah is much more difficult to twist.
Look again!
(ISA. 41: 7) 7 So the craftsman encouraged the goldsmith; he who smooths with the hammer inspired him who strikes the anvil, saying, “It is ready for the soldering”; then he fastened it with pegs, that it might not totter.
24 Indeed you are nothing, and your work is nothing; he who chooses you is an abomination.
The idol god cannot tell the future. It cannot speak. It cannot be compared to God. This is the exact same thing God is trying to get across in Jeremiah. It is not that Isaiah is talking about idol gods and Jeremiah decorations. Both are talking about idols. Neither are not talking about Christmas trees. God is upset about the vain worship of bits of wood and gold, not decorating the home.
Look yet again!
Look yet again!
(ISA. 44: 9-17) 9 Those who make an image, all of them are useless, and their precious things shall not profit; they are their own witnesses; they neither see nor know, that they may be ashamed. 10 Who would form a god or mold an image that profits him nothing? 11 Surely all his companions would be ashamed; and the workmen, they are mere men. Let them all be gathered together, let them stand up; yet they shall fear, they shall be ashamed together.
12 The blacksmith with the tongs works one in the coals, fashions it with hammers, and works it with the strength of his arms. Even so, he is hungry, and his strength fails; he drinks no water and is faint. 13 The craftsman stretches out his rule, he marks one out with chalk; he fashions it with a plane, he marks it out with the compass, and makes it like the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man, that it may remain in the house.
14 He cuts down cedars for himself, and takes the cypress and the oak; he secures it for himself among the trees of the forest. He plants a pine, and the rain nourishes it. 15 Then it shall be for a man to burn, for he will take some of it and warm himself; yes, he kindles it and bakes bread; indeed he makes a god and worships it; he makes it a carved image, and falls down to it.
16 He burns half of it in the fire; with this half he eats meat; he roasts a roast, and is satisfied. He even warms himself and says, “Ah! I am warm, I have seen the fire.” 17 And the rest of it he makes into a god, his carved image. He falls down before it and worships it, prays to it and says, “Deliver me, for you are my god!”
A Christmas tree is not a god; it is not an idol. No Christian bows down to and worships a Christmas tree. No Christian prays to the tree and hopes for a response. When we put away the proof-texting and allow the Bible to interpret the Bible, this whole bit about Christmas trees crumbles to dust.
CONCLUSION
Of course you see how silly it was to answer "toast" after you realize you've been tricked. I hope this post has helped you to realize that you've been tricked!
This is not some distanced, objective, unbiased pursuit of truth we're getting from Armstrongism. I would hope that people who claim to be so very in favor of God and truth would put an exceedingly high value and priority on truth, and pursue it regardless of where it takes them. Yet, these claims are not truth. They're barely opinion. And they're just wrong.
So in the end, what do we have? Another lesson on how proof-texting works.
They take only a few verses that appear to say what they want, they take them completely out of context, then they conjure up a new and improper context, and they accompany it with commentary in order to 'help' us reach the new and desired conclusion. Voila! Christmas trees!
The trick depends on our thinking the new context is interesting, and not doing our job of following through and proving it out.
How do we combat proof-texting? We PROVE! Read the surrounding chapters, but especially read the surrounding verses. And once we've proved, we abandon the lie and expose it for what it is.
"Now you know the rest of the story."
Another of HWA’s top arguments fails to pass the ABD standard. The myth of Jeremiah 10 and Christmas trees is BUSTED!
************
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; ) Acts 17:11
************
It is important that you understand; Everything on this blog is based on the current understanding of each author. Never take anyone's word for it, always prove it for yourself, it is your responsibility. You cannot ride someone else's coattail into the Kingdom. ; ) Acts 17:11
************
18 comments:
It is the art of citing scripture out of context that made the Armstrong empire successful, and that "art" is what destroyed the empire in the end.
If there is a hell, may Herbert burn in it forever!
Merry Christmas!
Well done wordmeister x. It would have to be one mighty big tree for me to pull out my chisels and carve a face on it. Three or four inches in diameter just wouldn't do it for me.
Great post!
I found this article on the Christmas tree at a perfect timing. I have just been accused of "not loving the truth" because I will not keep the Sabbath and I celebrate Christmas. I have been a lover of Truth all my life and have been really speaking out lately about what is happening in churches, but have now .. just the other day ..been accused of not living the truth. I guess the term for someone like me is "hypocrite." The man used the exact same arguments as Armstrong used. I had no idea what Armstrong preached about the law until I read this and your other article about the Law of Moses versus the Law of God. The man says they are two different laws and wrote a 70 study to prove it. I'm supposed to believe every word he said because his is truth. Strange because he is not an Armstrong follower.
Thank you very much, now I can really enjoy my Christmas tree. I always did.
Pat from Sylvan Lake, Alberta
Hi Pat! Glad we could be of some help and comfort.
And they say you're the hypocrite?
HA!
Are you sure those people who accuse you haven't been reading Herbert Armstrong's material? Herbert Armstrong came out of Adventism. From what you tell me, I'd say there's definitely some kind of Adventist influence in these people somewhere along the line.
If you're interested, we just finished four other posts on Christmas. You will find them in our Categories page.
If you haven't had it yet, these people will eventually accuse you of worshiping Nimrod. They'll pull out words like "Saturnalia" and "Brumalia" and who knows what else. Our posts will prepare you to answer them.
For His glory, and in His name - blessings of peace and joy to you!
Take a look at what you wrote:
"The myth of Jeremiah 10 and Christmas trees is BUSTED! If anyone tries to “help” me with the this lie again I’m just going to turn to them and say, “Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men”"
1. That is not a Berean attitude. That is called making up your mind, sticking your fingers in yours ears, and answering a matter before you hear it.
2. So you have said would call anyone Satan and the devil if they pointed out that you had not read the complete context of the passage, misrepresented your perceived opponent, or had failed to consider relevant evidence?
I notice that you say here that "Anonymous Comments will be Rejected" but you allowed an anonymous post that said, "Great post!" (Post 3)
But if someone tries to help you and speak to you with scripture or reason, you have already said preemptively that they are Satan and the devil.
I think you need to reconsider your attitude...
Thanks Andrew, but I've made the reverse argument for 30 years. I haven't failed to take the other viewpoint into consideration.
And this article is all about context and relevant evidence. If you have some unique context or relevant evidence that neither I nor the WCG has ever heard of before, let's hear it. If not then you've missed the point of why I said I would say "get thee behind me Satan". The point wasn't to call people "Satan the Devil" (nor was that the point when Jesus said it to Peter).
If you have made the "reverse argument for thirty years" then it seems that you failed to understand the spiritual principles involved or the meaning of the word "idol."
And with spiritual understanding, you ought to object to comments like "If there is a hell, may Herbert burn in it forever! Merry Christmas!" ...
You wouldn't be arguing that God only told "Old Covenant" people not to worship him with the ways of the heathen.
The size limitation of these posts does not allow me to say much, but do you not realize that when you argue so hard to try to exclude the (obvious) Christmas tree reference, that you are revealing a very legalistic mindset akin to the Pharisees?
Regardless, if you cannot see the tree here, you must have some sort of blindness:
1) The tree is cut down from the forest,
2) The tree is fastened with hammer and nails so it can adorn the living room
3) The tree is decked with silver and gold... sometimes tinsel, sometimes globes (and tinsel is formed from plates).
4) The fact that many other things are used as ornaments such as cloth or popcorn are merely cultural variations...
5) Gifts are laid at its feet, and there is even a specific song addressed to the tree, "O Christmas tree, how lovely are thy branches..." [O Tannenbaum]
6) A pentagram is placed at its top. Do you not recognize the meaning of a pentagram?
7) Nothing about this tree has anything to do with God or Christ
8) Non-Christians and even Pagans love the Christmas tree...
William Tyndale had a very good essay about Christian sacraments. He said that even in something with Christian origin, if people forgot what it stood for, it became a vain tradition and an idol.
And when people would "burn people forever in hell" for threatening their "Christmas tree tradition" then it is definitely a false god and an idol.
If you loved God and Christ, you would listen to his words. He says not to worship him as the former heathen did, not to use their customs, but to worship him in spirit and truth.
And of all the praising comments I see here, they talk about how they love their Christmas tree, and not how they love Christ.
Andrew, I will make the decisions regarding what comments I choose to allow or disallow on this site, thanks. Keep your comments about my decisions to yourself.
I have issues with most of your 8 points. But it becomes increasingly obvious to me that you're not here for an honest inspection of truth, so I'll keep my comments to myself because it won't do any good anyhow. I've already addressed what you've said in the article you paid no attention to.
But I am ever so curious as to how you define "idol"?
You appear to say a Christmas tree is by definition an idol because it is cut from the forest, fastened with nails, and decorated. So...
Does an idol have to fit the criteria of being cut out of the forest and fastened with nails and decorated? Does everything that is cut out of the forest and fastened with nails and decorated count as an idol by definition? Or just some things? Can idols be things that are not cut out of the forest and fastened with nails and decorated?
If you were curious about what I meant by "idol" then why did you ignore the post? You article was very long, rambling, and unfocused, but this was succinctly stated in less than 4096 characters.
"William Tyndale had a very good essay about Christian sacraments. He said that even in something with Christian origin, if people forgot what it stood for, it became a vain tradition and an idol."
Was that not clear enough?
Vain customs and traditions are idols. Vanity is an idol. Anytime you place a thing in a place it does not belong, it becomes an idol. An idol is anything that you idolize.
Your preference for James with his "If there is a hell, may Herbert burn in it forever. Merry Christmas!" betrays a form of idolatry. Anyone with a Christian spirit should recognize something is wrong with that type of statement. When the honor shown for a thing or an object is placed above the fruits of the spirit, that thing has become a false god and an idol in the spiritual sense of the word.
It is a very legalistic mindset that reasons that it is not an "idol" unless it is graven or molten in a specific fashion... and misses the spiritual intent completely.
So your answer to James' comment, which obviously offends you, is to insult me? Well, I forgive you.
"An idol is anything that you idolize."
So an idol is... anything you idolize. OK.
I must admit that's a little less detail than I expected.
What if people idolize false accusations? What if people idolize their own preconceived notions? What if people idolize their own misconceptions?
One might be able to explain away the passage in Jeremiah if you also ignore the totality of Scripture.
God has one constant throughout the Word and that is not mixing pagan with Godly in Worship. So what we should be asking is does the christmas tree have any pagan in it?
According to the God we are now supposed to be Worshiping Him in Spirit and in Truth. The only physical emblems we have are the Body and the Blood. So...where is our Biblical command for the tree?
I would also challenge to go into the anti-Nicene writings and see what you find on all this.
Remember that Jesus Himself defined Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit as assigning things that were evil to God and things that were of God to evil.
"One might be able to explain away the passage in Jeremiah if you also ignore the totality of Scripture."
I agree.
Many people explain away the clear meaning of Jeremiah 10 by ignoring scripture.
Of course, I define "explain away" differently. The meaning must be "explained away" to get it to stop referring to carved idol-gods and start referring to Christmas trees.
"So what we should be asking is does the christmas tree have any pagan in it?"
I agree with this, also.
ABD does not have an article on this specifically, however, we do have articles that demonstrate there is no link to Nimrod.
Outside if this blog are many fine articles on the history of the Christmas tree. Some are listed in the Categories page.
The weight of evidence, as we see it today, is heavily against a pagan origin. We find the most convincing argument to be that it comes from the Paradise Tree. So the assumption that the Christmas tree is of pagan origin is merely that - an assumption. And not one based on the most credible or most convincing evidence.
Of course, none of this has any bearing on whether or not Jeremiah 10 is not speaking of Christmas trees.
"The only physical emblems we have are the Body and the Blood. So...where is our Biblical command for the tree?"
As you say, there are few physical emblems in the New Covenant. I would add Baptism to that short list, but note physical rest is absent.
However.. neither does it prohibit new traditions.
To ask "where is it commanded" brings up more questions than it answers.
Once pagan origins is removed, the argument always tends towards this claim. Unfortunately, we hear many people making this statement, but few if any actually willing to live by it.
The long list of emblems and rituals found in most every church are never commanded (eg. Ministers, podiums, sermons, churches/rented halls, websites, song books, ). Should we actually take the step and make "where is it commanded" the standard, and apply it across the board evenly, all of these things must also go.
So the question sounds fine in regards to Christmas trees, but in practical application, it fails outright.
The conversation goes from "it's condemned in Jeremiah 10" to "it's pagan", and when both of those fall apart, it becomes "it's not commanded."
We conclude the claim is a red herring to distract from the lack of credible evidence against the tradition.
Again, none of this has any bearing on whether or not Jeremiah 10 is speaking of Christmas trees.
I enjoy reading all the posts. I have never put this much thought into Christmas before. Didn't think I had to til now. I was just wondering if you could involve 1 Corinthians chp 8 in these discussions? Or whether or not that would help?
This is the flimsiest defense of the Christmas tree I've ever read. First of all the definition of the word Christmas means "death of Christ" not birth of Christ. So which is it, are we celebrating the birth of our Lord or His death on the 25th. Christmas day was established by Catholics and placed right on top on the 25th of December the day of worship to the Sun god. The Christmas tree goes back to the worship of the phallus, so are obelisks, etc. The problem with us modernized christenettes is that we love the world and the things in it. Many of us are at enmity with God!
Hello, Saintemplar. God's blessings to you.
I have allowed your comment so people can see what sort and quality of comments I usually receive here.
I am going to proceed as if you were being serious and not joking in your comment, just so that others who come here have an answer.
Perhaps I should clarify that this article is not a defense of the Christmas tree. The point of the article is only that Jeremiah 10 has nothing to do with Christmas trees, but rather manufacturing idol gods.
There is no defense of the Christmas tree on this entire blog.
I do not know where you got your definition of Christmas, but it is not accurate. It does not in any way mean "death of Christ".
Christmas is a compound word meaning literally "Mass of Christ".
"Mass" is another word for 'liturgy'. It is a celebration, including prayers and the Eucharist.
Mass is said for many occasions, but is not synonymous with death at all.
Your assertion on the origin of the Christmas tree is baseless. There is no proof of what you've claimed. I have read many supposed histories of the Christmas tree and none have ever demonstrated such a thing. Even Herbert Armstrong, who is more or less the reason for this blog, did not believe that.
If anyone is interested in reading something from someone who has taken time to look in to the matter, please read this fine article on The Origin and Meaning of the Christmas Tree.
If anyone is interested in The Plain Truth About December 25th, we have an article on that.
I would say the problem with modern Christians is that we lack love.
Many appear to be much more interested in what they are against than what they are for. I cannot agree that the rampant hatred of Catholics and propagation of blatantly false claims is Christ-like or pleasing to Him.
He is truth and all who worship Him must do so in Spirit and in truth.. and in love.
While there are uses of trees in most pagan religions, the origins of the Christmas tree have nothing to do with them. Our modern Christmas tree began in Germany in the 16th century and wasn't even introduced in Britain or the US until the 18th century and most homes did not have them until after the first world war.
And as far as Armstrongism's assertion of Jeremiah 10, they have the wrong subject matter, idols, not decorated trees, wrong century, BC for Jeremiah, modern times for the Christmas tree, and wrong continent...Christmas tree in Germany, Jeremiah, Middle East. They couldn't be further away from historical facts.
Have a blessed Christmas both to XHWA and Saintemplar
Post a Comment