Christmas Eras Tour - Part I

I have another history of Christmas post for you today.

I have been reading "Stations of the Sun" by Ronald Hutton. Sometimes painful to follow, the book is densely packed with information. Definitely not an easy reader you'll find in your special little one's Scholastic Book Club fundraiser catalog. I cannot say I agree with 100% of it, but I definitely agree with enough of it to keep reading it and to use it as a source. Today, I want to lighten up his material a little for you. Hopefully make it more accessible with a highlights reel.

One thing I noticed while reading is that Christmas went through stages. I see at least 7 eras in the past 2,000 years. (Everyone from an Armstrongist background knows that a good list has 7 items.) I thought it might be worthwhile to take us on a tour of those eras. Since this post pulls mainly from Hutton, and Hutton focuses mainly on England where Christmas is concerned, this post will, too.

Two things - these names and these dates are all my own observations, and they are rough descriptions.

1. Development - before there was a holiday, as the church was building towards it.
2. Infancy - the church decides what a Christmas is.
3. Catholic - twelve days of Christmas before the Reformation.
4. Oppression - Protestants try to banish Christmas but fail.
5. Restoration - Christmas barely survives as Protestants grow nostalgic.
6. Industrial Revolution - a near death experience and a resurgence.
7. Modern - Christmas becomes what we see today.

Some of my choices may seem rather arbitrary. I believe these are distinct eras. Each one is marked by its own characteristics which were either greatly changed or outright abandoned in the following era.
I am particularly interested in showing how our modern Christmas is mostly a product of the three eras before it (ie. 7 is caused by 4, 5, & 6), and how some people who make accusations against Christmas as we see it today are really projecting recent issues back into the distant past, anachronistically.

Sadly, I believe we can say Christmas is somewhat of a mirror on Christianity in general.

Ready?

DEVELOPMENT (0 to 313 AD)

The Development era is the time from the beginning of the first century, to the Edict of Milan, which allowed the church to rapidly mature. In this period, Christian scholars were investigating the details surrounding the nature of Christ, and Christmas, including its December 25 date, grew out of that. Consensus grew organically, but slowly, hampered by decentralization and persecution.

Much of the history of Christmas material on As Bereans Did is about this period due to there being so many misconceptions about this period.

The claim that Christmas is not among the earliest feasts of the Church is true. It wasn't. Then again, the only ones that were among the earliest feasts are Easter and Pentecost. Those two feasts had their own issues. There were at least two views on the memorial of the death and resurrection (see our articles on the Quartodecimans), and there was more than one way to calculate the timing of Easter Sunday. Since calculating Easter Sunday was not uniform, the timing for Pentecost was also not uniform. Jewish converts to Christ continued to observe all their own customs, but even they were not unified in opinion on most things. They started with the Pharisee, Sadducee, and Essene timings, which did not agree, and eventually the Rabbinical tradition grew out of the Pharisaical (see our article "FirstFruits and the Beauty of God's Timing").

The idea that the first century was somehow uniform and perfect but was later corrupted is simply not at all correct. Quite the opposite. It was chaotic and only later was standardized. They didn't even have a standard Bible. In the first century, a very few things were solidly agreed upon outside of certain core truths. Orthodoxy was in big concepts like faith, sin, righteousness, and the Gospel - what we might see as core-Christianity. This is the root reason why there was no Christmas early on. It was the "wild west" of Christianity. They only dealt with things as they arose. The theological debate Christmas was meant to solve - the very real human nature of Jesus - did not arise right away. So, Christmas didn't arise right away. The same could be said about most things, that they weren't there from the start. That isn't an "issue". It is simply a reality of a church in its infancy. I often hear people talking about getting back to the "first century church", but if they truly understood the first century church I think they would not like it.

Jesus did not answer most questions, but He answered the most important questions of salvation. He left the church to wrestle to understand Him better. One of the things wrestled with is the nature of our Lord and therefore the nature of God. What now of the Shema? How can a man also be God? Was He always God, or did He become one later? The church being so decentralized led to many opinions. Gnosticism began to spread.
Clement of Alexandria, in his work "Stromata", book 1, said the Basilideans, a Gnostic sect in Alexandria, initiated a feast of the baptism because they believed Jesus became enlightened by the highest God at His baptism. Their timing was early January, somewhere from the 9th to the 15th. Days honoring the nativity and early events of Christ's life appear to have started in response, as a way to emphasize the literal humanity and fully divine nature of Jesus. Multiple dates for the nativity were proposed, with May and mid-winter being the most popular.

From the middle of the second century, the mood in Egypt was on dates like April and May for the birth.
Remember this the next time you try to google the historical origins of almost any Christian tradition and see the ubiquitous, "may have started in pagan celebrations of solstice and light". Hard to get a celebration of solstice and light in May. Also remember Egypt has no winter, nor does their calendar system depend on the solstice.
In the late-second century, Christian scholars started moving toward the mid-winter period. In about 198, Clement of Alexandria (Egypt again) calculated Jesus' birth to late November. In 200-211 AD, Hippolytus (of Rome) calculated Jesus' death to March 25th and then added 9 months. March 25th + 9 months = December 25th.
At this time in pagan Rome, there was no known festival on December 25. There would not be a "birthday of the sun" for decades to come. Remember this the next time you read, "December 25 coincides with the birthday of the sun." Hard to coincide with a day that doesn't exist. The only holiday of significance to Christians in that range was Hannukah.
The March 25th date stuck and is still accepted to this day as the Feast of the Annunciation. The Christmas date also stuck, but it took a century more to really catch on.

But there is another wrinkle we need to be aware of. The date of Epiphany, January 6, was more popular in the east than the December 25 date. Many people have heard of the Quartodeciman Controversy. That was primarily centered on Passover/Easter. But it might have had a hand in the Christmas/Epiphany debate as well.
It was attested by many sources (Anatolius of Laodicea via Eusebius, the Didascalia Apostolorum, some Armenian and Cappadocian sources, and later Byzantine chronographers) that the Quartodeciman camp favored a particular date for the crucifixion: April 6. By the way, this is likely the correct date. But when we use the exact same calculation for April 6 as we did earlier for March 25, we arrive at ... January 6, the date of Epiphany. Several scholars have written about this connection (Thomas Talley, Louis Duchesne, Jean Daniélou, Hans Förster & C. Rapp, Gianfranco Ravasi, G.P. Woolfenden, Khaled Anatolios, Albert Geljon, and Andrew McGowan).
It seems highly likely the Quartodecimans are to Epiphany what the western scholars like Hippolytus are to Christmas. Happy Epiphany!

The 200s were a time of feast or famine for Christians. In various places and times, they were tolerated, but in others persecuted. In February 303, Diocletian began the Great Persecution. Thousands of Christians died. It was their blood that watered the growth of the church. It was in this time that Saint Nicholas of Myra was born, in 270 AD. We will be revisiting him many times as we go.

In February 313 AD, Constantine the Great and Licinius issued the Edict of Milan, making Christianity legal in the Empire. Here, Christianity is merely legalized; it is not made the official religion of the empire until much later. That was enough to allow the church to begin to unify, standardize, and flourish.

I am putting the end of this era at 313 AD due to the Edict of Milan, because it was one of the most important events in Christian history and a watershed moment in the development of the church.

The next step in the history of Christmas is its development as an official church feast day, and the solidifying of its base traditions such as Advent.

INFANCY (313 to 567 AD)

The Infancy era is the time starting at the Edict of Milan, to the time when the feast had matured across Christendom and its base liturgical traditions were solidified - which I am putting at the Second Council of Tours in 567 AD. In this era comes the Chronography of 354. During this era we see the first Christmas sermons and music, a competition between Epiphany and Christmas, settling of the twelve days of Christmas, the start of Advent, and making Christmas a government holiday.

Great strides were made in this century. Christianity, which had been scattered and dissociated, was now able to be out in the open, collective, and unified. Many efforts to standardize doctrines and practices began in this century.

Speaking of standardization, there is a great deal of confusion surrounding Constantine the Great's role in Christian orthodoxy. He is attributed far more credit than he deserves for most things. He has become the whipping boy for any anti-Catholic fundamentalist. Most of those claims are falsified outright or the facts twisted beyond recognition. There simply is no information about Constantine and Christmas, so I will make this mention of him then continue.

The Chronography of 354 was written for the year 354, but was likely written in the year 336, by one Filocalus, a Christian. I go into detail on this in the article "The Plain Truth About December 25". The Chronography consisted of 16 parts, one of which was the Commemoration of the Martyrs. The most notable event in the Commemoration for December 25 is the phrase, "...birthday of Christ in Bethlehem Judea." You can't get more blatant than that. This is the first unmistakable and uncontested mention of Jesus being born on December 25. This tells us that by 336 AD, the December 25 date was widely accepted.

If we can speculate any pagan connection at all, it would not be a coopt, as if to say Christmas finds its origins in pagan days, but as a competitive replacement, as if to say Christmas opposed and outlasted pagan days. Christmas outshone the sun, so to speak. As for other issues, such as how Saturnalia, Natalis Invicti, or Julian the Apostate fit in, see the article in the link above.

The first Christmas hymn was likely written in the early 300s, according to St. Jerome, by St. Hilary of Poitier. It is called "Iesous Refulsit Omnium" (Jesus Outshined All).

This overall mood of Christmas in this era is simple and deeply religious, and focused on the Nativity. In fact its first name was "Natalis" or "Deis Natalis", which is nativity/birthday in Latin (the word Christmas would not be invented until much later). That is why you get names like Natale in Italy, Navidad in Spain, and Noel in France.

It was also at this time, in the early 300s, when Epiphany (aka. Theophany) began to become popular. Finding the origin of Epiphany is difficult, but there are hints that it started in the late 200s or early 300s and grew to be quite popular in the east by the mid-300s. Some claim it is a descendant of that Basilidian baptism feast mentioned earlier, but evidence for that is practically non-existent.

Christmas survived an attempt by Emperor Julian "the Apostate" to restore the Roman Empire back to paganism. Julian wrote his infamous "Ode to King Helios", in 362 AD. It can be reasonably speculated that Julian attempted to coopt Christmas as a pagan day. Much of the debate about Christmas and Sol Invictus hinges on this poetic work from Julian. We talk more about that in the article "The Plain Truth About December 25".

Gregory "the Theologian" Nazianzus, one of the greatest names of the early church (and beyond), in his 38th Oration - from a series of 45 sermons given throughout the year of 379-380 AD - speaks passionately and stirringly about the Nativity. I do recommend you read it sometime. We can know this is about Christmas since he spoke several orations on the church feasts. The 39th Oration was on Epiphany. Therefore, Epiphany and Christmas were distinct in his mind, and this one may be understood as Christmas. But it seems he did not deliver it on Christmas Day.

The year 380 AD was without a doubt the most important year in this era. One of the most significant developments in history was the decision by Emperor Theodosius I to issue the Edict of Thessalonica, making Christianity the official religion of Rome. This was done on February 27, 380 AD -- 67 years to the month after the Edict of Milan. Christianity became the only legal religion in the empire, and efforts to suppress paganism in the Empire while standardizing existing Christian traditions went into high gear. The church was certainly maturing now.

A potentially significant but easily overlooked development also occurred in 380. A synod was held in Spain, which is generally called the "Council of Saragossa". The point of the synod was to address a specific issue which it deemed a heresy. Several acts were decreed by the Council. In the 4th Act (the exact text of which is lost but many references exist which give us good insight into what it said) there is an order about a preparation period and mandatory church attendance before the Nativity, from December 17th to January 6th (Epiphany). We can see at least three things here.

1) There was a period of preparation before the Christmas. This preparation eventually became Advent. So, the beginning of Advent is in the 4th century.
2) This also shows the beginnings of the Twelve Days of Christmas, between Christmas and Epiphany. (The Twelfth Day is the day before Epiphany. Epiphany itself is not one of the Twelve Days of Christmas.)
3) The December 17th date, you should recognize already, is the date of Saturnalia. It does not seem the church was trying to adopt Saturnalia, rather to suppress it. Addressing heresy was the point of the Council, after all, and it was the mood of the Empire. Starting this period of preparation on Saturnalia is significant in that it shows the church was actively combatting any remains of Roman excess. It would be unsuccessful, however. 

We talk more about what happened to Saturnalia in the article "The Plain Truth About December 25". Look in the section on Bruma / Brumalia.
These points are useful in showing significant steps in the maturity of the season were present at this time.

The first recorded sermon delivered on Christmas Day comes to us from John Chrysostom, given in Antioch in 386, which was his first year in the ministry. It is a lovely message. I highly recommend you take the time to read it when you can. Here is an even more complete version form The Tertullian Project, but I find the formatting uncomfortable to the eye. One thing in particular to note about this sermon, Chrysostom employs apologetics. He is the first person known to mention the Course of Abijah in relation to the timing of Christmas. He uses it to defend the date, of course.

In 389, Emperor Theodosius I issued a decree that courts must be closed on Sundays and all major Christian holidays, including Christmas (Codex Theodosianus 2.8.18).

The churches of the east preferred Epiphany over Christmas. Epiphany took longer to catch on in the west while Christmas took longer to catch on in the east. In the early 400s, Christmas was solidified in almost all areas. The Catholic Encyclopedia's article on Christmas lists Armenia as the lone holdout. Eventually it was settled that Christmas would be held in honor of the birth and Epiphany in honor of early events of Jesus' life such as His presentation at the temple, the visit of the Magi, and His baptism.

During this period, many pagans converted to Christianity, whether they were in heart or not. They brought many of their old traditions with them. The church worked to gradually eliminate such practices. One such tradition that is significant to Christmas which the church was never able to fully eliminate was (no, not Saturnalia) the New Year.
Arguably the most significant non-Christian tradition to survive was New Year on the kalends of January (ie. January 1st). It was so popular, it continued even when start of the new year was moved to March 25 in 527 AD (the start of the year was moved back to January 1 in the Gregorian Calendar in 1582), and it was unofficially treated as one of the Twelve Days of Christmas for centuries to come. There are two sources for the Christmas gift-giving tradition: St. Nicholas' Day and New Year. It was customary to send little gifts to family and friends on New Year in Rome. Gift giving on New Year would not move to Christmas until the 1800s.
If you suddenly have issues with gift giving, please read Martha's excellent post "Established and Imposed". Gift-giving is quite biblical. We reject "once pagan, always pagan" here at As Bereans Did.

During the 400s, Advent spread and became a period of fasting before Christmas just as Lent is before Easter. Fasting, which was originally reserved for the ordained, expanded to lay members. In later years, it was considered bad form to decorate during Advent.
Also, in 430, Pope Sixtus III is believed to have celebrated the first midnight mass in Rome at the Basilica of St. Mary Major.

By the 500s, various governments outside Rome began treating Christmas as a national holiday, taking after the Roman government. For example, in the Breviary of Alaric in 506 AD (that's Alaric II the Visigoth, grandson of the Alaric that sacked Rome). It likely took this from the the Codex Theodosianus in 438 AD.

I am putting the end of this era in 567 AD, due to the Council of Tours. The time between Christmas and Epiphany has come to be known as the Twelve Days of Christmas. The Twelve Days of Christmas were officially recognized in the Second Council of Tours in 567. (This was repeated in the Council of Oxford in 1222 and at the Council of Lyon in 1244.) Cannons XI and XVII, proclaimed the importance of the fasts of Advent and the days between Christmas and Epiphany. You can read more in Roger Pearse's article "When to take down the Christmas decorations? A canon of the 2nd Council of Tours (567)". At this point, the season as we know it is completely in place and mature enough to move forward.

The next step in history is the widening and deepening of Christmas during in the many years up to the Reformation.

See you next time for Part II.

************

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

************

Misinformed On Mistletoe

[Note: this article was terribly long when I first published it, so I've condensed it.]

If you just google mistletoe without digging through old history books, you would seriously get the impression the entire history of mistletoe can be summed up as nothing else but, "The only reason we know about mistletoe is because Druids loved it and cut it at the winter solstice, and that's how it came to Christmas."

That is not even remotely the story about mistletoe.

Gonna be frank with you. I don't care much at all for the mistletoe tradition. My family did not pass the tradition to me. I am not particularly in need of an excuse to kiss fair maidens. I don't find cheap, plastic mistletoe to be all that attractive. I much prefer nutcrackers.

Then why write about it? Two reasons. First, I had meant to write something else but was side-quested by all the information on mistletoe. It was quite the adventure. There is more to it than I imagined. Second, because I was told something and now I want to know if it was true. Let me give you but two examples of the claims I grew up hearing.

"The traditional Christmas tree, the Yule log, the holly wreaths, and kissing under the mistletoe - all were borrowed from heathenism and used in a pagan religious orgy dedicated to the sun-god."
-Rod Meredith, "The Ten Commandments", 1972, p. 41

"Now where did we get this mistletoe custom? Among the ancient pagans the mistletoe was used at this festival of the winter solstice because it was considered sacred to the sun, because of its supposed miraculous healing power. The pagan custom of kissing under the mistletoe was an early step in the night of revelry and drunken debauchery - celebrating the death of the "old sun" and the birth of the new at the winter solstice."
-Herbert Armstrong, "The Plain Truth About Christmas", 1970, p. 15

Not very flattering! But are they correct? Let's find the answer to that.

Today, we are going to see the distant history of mistletoe, where it came from, and its surprising uses. Also, I will give some speculation on how it came to us. I present this post to you, dear reader, because mistletoe turns out to be a fantastic way to show how the things everybody knows to be true aren't always true.

Discussions about mistletoe tend to come around to Druids. So, might as well start there.

DRUIDS GALORE

You've heard about how the Druids held mistletoe in a particularly high regard. That's what the Romans said, anyway. That's what most everyone says. You can't have a good discussion about Druids without Pliny the Elder. He says quite a bit about mistletoe and Druids in his work "Natural History". For example:

"Upon this occasion we must not omit to mention the admiration that is lavished upon this plant by the Gauls. The druids - for that is the name they give to their magicians - held nothing more sacred than the mistletoe and the tree that bears it, supposing always that tree to be the oak."
-Pliny, "Natural History", book 16, chapter 95.

The Druids wrote nothing down, so we have to rely on the good word of others for details about them. So far as we know, Pliny wrote accurately. Pliny keeps proving himself in other quotes. I vote we trust him.

But Pliny did not say it was only the Druids who used mistletoe.

He spends four chapters on mistletoe and its particular details, but only one paragraph concerns the Celts. The way he makes it sound, most cultures in the west were incredibly well familiar with it and its uses.

It gets stranger. Pliny did not say all Druids used mistletoe.

Pliny only mentions the Druids in France (Gaul) loved it. It says nothing about Celts in general, who lived from Britain to Turkey. We have to be careful when we say things like "the Celts" or "the Druids" because those are more concepts than definite groups. Celts were divided up into tribes who fought each other all the time. It is merely an assumption that all Druids everywhere had the same practices. Why would we assume that? The Galatians, to whom Paul wrote his famous epistle, were every bit as Celt as the French. Were their cultures identical? No. As a matter of blatant fact, historians have known for some time that Celtic cultures and practices most definitely were not the same. And they differed over relatively small geographic areas.

Let's explore claims of pagan origin even further by looking at the solstice.

THE SOLSTICE

I get tired of careless claims on the internet like, "Why do Christians use mistletoe at Christmas? That's simple. Because Druids collected it at the solstice." No. That isn't true. This shows people have not thought this through.

But not all claims are careless internet commentors. Alison Wier, author of "A Tudor Christmas" (a book I own and appreciate quite a bit) says the same:

"The ancient Romans observed that the Druids of the British Isles used mistletoe in winter solstice ceremonies and in healing."
-Alison Wier, "A Tudor Christmas", 2018, p. 20

She continues on to talk about Pliny. Let's go back to quote directly from Pliny about Druids:

"The mistletoe, however, is but rarely found upon the oak; and when found, is gathered with rites replete with religious awe. This is done more particularly on the fifth day of the moon, the day which is the beginning of their months and years, as also of their time cycles, which, with them, are only thirty years. This day they select because the moon, though not yet in the middle of her course, has already considerable power and influence..."
-Pliny, "Natural History", book 16, chapter 95.

So, it was not the Druids in Britain but the druids in Gaul (France), and it was not the winter solstice but their new year. Was their new year at the winter solstice? Best data says no.

In our recent post "Samhain Was Not On October 31", we looked at the only known Druidic calendar. If you want more details, you may read that article.

At Halloween, people claim everything comes from the Druids, and Samhain was the Druidic new year. At Christmas, people claim everything comes from the Druids, and the winter solstice was the Druidic new year. Well, it can't be both.

There is no evidence at all the Druids had solstice or equinox celebrations. This is a misunderstanding arising from two thousand years of various traditions getting jumbled and confused together. They were a lunar society. Their calendar shows it and Pliny attests to it. 

"But Stonehenge measured the sun!" Not Druidic. All of the henge artifacts and burial mounds predate the Druids, in some cases by over a thousand years. (Yes. They're that old!) And only a small handful of the henges and burial mounds in Britain are aligned to the sun anyway. The same goes for other henges in other areas, such as Goseck in Germany. They far predate the civilizations we recognize and the times we are interested in here.

I want to point out that all of these things I have said about the Druids and the solstice also pertain to the Anglo-Saxons and the Norse. All had lunar calendars. None have known, verified solstice celebrations. Even Yule was not a solstice celebration until it was reinvented in the 20th century. We can be fairly sure they had mid-winter festivals, but not solstice festivals specifically.

Then there are the ubiquitous claims like, "Such and such originated in pagan celebrations of light at the solstice." Most everything is explained in this way. Those claims come originally from James Frazer. If you've read my posts, you know I don't put a lot of stock in his claims.

These very generic claims about "mistletoe comes from widespread solstice traditions" are not fact-based, make definite claims of speculation like "they could have taken from the Celts", confuses midwinter festivals with solstice festivals, draw conclusions based on broad generalizations like "greenery was used in many cultures", and are generally built on conditions as we see them today being anachronistically projected backwards in time.

See how this works? One person connects two dots that don't connect, and someone else repeats it, and it gets repeated over and over until you simply cannot get a straight answer anymore.

Here's a straight answer -
Mistletoe goes with the Druid new year, but their new year does not go with the solstice. Do you understand what that means? We have two options: Druids used mistletoe in October/November, or in mid-January, and neither one lends itself well to our records or traditions.
In short, people are just as wrong about Druids and Christmas as they are about Druids and Halloween.

NORSE

Upon this occasion we must not omit to mention the Norse.

If you do a simple google search, you will find careless claims, like, "Why do Christians use mistletoe at Christmas? That's simple. Because of Yule." And just like with the Druids, that is not exactly based on reality.

Understand the Norse (and the Germans) were not the Celts/Druids. Completely different culture.
In one of the Prose Eddas, "Gylfaginning", is the story of the death of Baldur, a son of Odin. In most but not all versions of the story, he was killed by an arrow made of mistletoe. This is why mistletoe had a foreboding, deathly reputation among the medieval Norse.

Does that sound like Christmas to you? It sure doesn't to me.

The timing of Baldur's death is also important.
Baldur is associated with mid-summer to late fall. His death would initiate Ragnarök, which is associated with winter. Therefore, the Scandinavian pagan traditions of death by mistletoe had nothing to do with Christmastime (nor Yule).

You will not get this from a mere google search. I can't tell you how many times I've read about Frigg, the goddess of love, wanting people to kiss under the mistletoe. Did you notice none of those claims come with sources cited, besides, "legends say...". That is because they are all baseless. You will get many tales of Norse using mistletoe at Yule, and mentions of love and happiness. But that is not how things were in the past. All of those pretty paintings of Vikings sitting outside in the snow having a mead under some mistletoe are beautiful, but rather inaccurate.

If you look around Scandinavian cultures today, the meaning of mistletoe is not deathly at all. Quite the opposite. It represents love and happiness.
How?
Not wanting to take weeks to research the evolution of Scandinavian cultures over the past 1,000 years, I just asked ChatGPT. I asked, "If mistletoe was used as a kenning for death in the Prose Edda, how did it become a symbol of happiness in modern Scandinavian culture?" It explained how their culture developed, then it said:

"From England, mistletoe's role as a Christmas decoration spread to other parts of Europe, including Germany and Scandinavia, during the 18th and 19th centuries, as part of the cultural exchanges spurred by Victorian England’s global influence."

Isn't that odd, now? It wasn't the Norse who brought mistletoe to the Christians, because to them it was deadly and ominous, but the Christians who changed mistletoe from death to life for the Norse. And it wasn't ancient but quite recent. From this change come the legends of Frigg wanting people to kiss under the mistletoe. They are not ancient legends.

Once again, just as with other studies we have done here at ABD, we see people taking things the way they are today and projecting that backwards in time, anachronistically, and reinventing the past.

Pagan ritual is only one part of the story. Mistletoe's pragmatic uses were far more popular and widespread.

MEDICINE AND BOTANY

Where we have a centuries-long gap in information about pagan uses, we have multiple sources for mistletoe's practical uses. Mistletoe is mentioned in older works for its medicinal value or else for sheer botanical interest.

Going back to Pliny, he says:

"The hyphear [mistletoe that grows on a larch] is the best for fattening cattle with; it begins, however, by purging off all defects, after which it fattens all such animals as have been able to withstand the purging. It is generally said, however, that those animals which have any radical malady in the intestines cannot withstand its drastic effects. This method of treatment is generally adopted in the summer for a period of forty days."
-Pliny, "Natural History", book 16, chapter 93.

The way Pliny talks about mistletoe, it is clear there was an incredible amount of knowledge already existing which he was just gathering up. He finished writing "Natural History" in 77 AD. More than 2,000 years ago, they had it figured out to the point where they knew which mistletoe was better when it grew on which trees. Farmers used it on their cattle. Healers used it on people. This amazes me!
Other ancient authors wrote about mistletoe. Some of the more notable include Virgil in his "The Georgics" book 1, Galen in his "On The Power of Simple Drugs", and Ovid.

That knowledge remained. Several more recent authors have written about it, too.

In 1485, Jacob Meydenbach of Mainz, Germany wrote the "Gart der Gesundheit" (Garden of Good Health), which was greatly expanded and translated to Latin in 1491 under the title "Hortus Sanitatis" (Garden of Health). In it, he provides a drawn illustration of mistletoe, and describes its medicinal uses, including epilepsies, digestive issues, hemorrhaging, and as a general tonic. This is the oldest medieval reference I could find on the practical uses of mistletoe. Clearly, it draws from widely-known uses and perhaps even earlier written works.
It is particularly remarkable for being the first known work where art was used to depict the natural world outside of a religious context. The first illustrated encyclopedia. It was widely popular and translated into several different languages in the following years, including English.

One other notable author is William Coles. In 1657, William Coles wrote "The Art of Sampling". He mentions various health benefits of mistletoe for man and beast, and quotes Sir Francis Bacon. Plus, he mentions the berries. I tried to find when mistletoe berries out. Apparently, it depends on the tree it grows on, but mistletoe produces berries from October to January, and those berries can linger until May. Yeah. That puts it in the range of Christmas.
Coles also wrote this:

"I think the thing itself is better known, than the manner of its growing, because it is carried many miles to set up in homes about Christmas time, when it is adorned with a glistening berry."
(p. 41.)

And there you have the first mention of mistletoe at Christmas time that I was able to locate. He is not the first to mention mistletoe, but he is the first to mention its use at Christmas time. Centuries later than one would expect from a pagan coopt.

And did you know mistletoe and its derivatives is used in modern medicine? It's true! It is used in both cancer and immuno-therapies, and is being considered for other uses.

Since the majority of the info we have is about medicine, why do so many people claim mistletoe was almost exclusively used by Druids for rituals? Bad info. Most people giggle because you kiss under mistletoe, and they really don't care about the stuff otherwise. It's the ones who obsess over "once pagan, always pagan" who seem to be confused about it. They see paganism in everything, and only want what affirms them. There is so much more to it than this.

FERTILITY

Kissing under the mistletoe is its most popular use. How many times have you heard mistletoe was an aphrodisiac? More than once, I'd wager. Recall how Rod Meredith and Herbert Armstrong blamed mistletoe on pagan rituals. If you read this blog at all, you will not be one bit surprised when I tell you everything they said there is false.

We do have a reference from Pliny that puts together Druids, mistletoe, and fertility. How dirty-minded were they? Let's take a peek.

"It is the belief with them that the mistletoe, taken in drink, will impart fecundity to all animals that are barren, and that it is an antidote for all poisons."
-Pliny, "Natural History", book 16, chapter 95.

They did believe it was a fertility drug ...for cattle.
But only if the animals could survive the process. Doesn't sound so debauched to me.

Other than that, the only other mention Pliny makes of kissing in that entire book is that Nero would kiss his favorite tree. That does sound a little debauched. Not at all in regards to anything we're talking about here, though.

Regarding kissing, there is no known record of kissing under mistletoe until the later-1700s. That means it developed in the late-1600s or early-1700s at the earliest. The first place mistletoe is found in a romantic context is in a song from a musical comedy called "Two to One", which was published in 1784.

When at Christmas in the hall
The men and maids are hopping
Cry, "What good luck has sent ye?"
And kiss beneath the mistletoe.

From that point on, it is found more and more often in a romantic context. And we see it spreading to other European cultures. What might have caused it? Look at the timing. It was immediately after the Puritan era.

It wasn't just a kiss under the mistletoe, per se, it was a young man got one free kiss from the maiden of his choice per berry on the mistletoe sprig. When the berries ran out, he got no more freebies.

No, not in heathen orgies. Not in drunken debauchery. Not an unbroken continuation of ancient fertility rites. That is entirely fabricated nonsense. "God's own truth," they called that. But false. Somewhat of a letdown there. We were promised things much more juicy than cow medicine and 18th century prudishness.

In short, the Druids are not the source of the kissing tradition. Nor was it some other unnamed group of ancient heathens caught up in unbridled passion. It was just the relatively modern Europeans.

The explanation for the kissing having been located, we have yet to see why mistletoe was a Christmas decoration in the first place.

MISTLETOE FOR CHRISTMAS

So, why do we have mistletoe at Christmas? Unfortunately, no one living knows for certain. The earliest records I have been able to find seem to say it was more of a medicinal thing, and never a part of corporate church celebration, except by accident, until the late 1600s. This tends to lead away from a pagan coopt. But the strongest evidence we have points to our Christmas traditions rising out of the English Puritan suppression of Catholic symbolism.

Going back to "Stations of the Sun", I will summarize what Hutton says in chapters 2 and 3.
The Scottish and then the English heavily suppressed Christmas from the mid-1500s to the mid-1600s. The popular choice in greenery changed as Protestants rejected many symbols from Catholicism, including holly and ivy. Much to their chagrin, suppressing the religious inflated the secular use of greenery. Rather than removing greenery altogether, it was only removed from churches, not the public square. Without the religious symbolism behind it, the greenery options expanded. Anything green at that time was used. Hence mistletoe at Christmas. This is the time period when we start seeing mistletoe used specifically as a Christmas decoration. Mistletoe was hung in defiance of Parliament's banning of Christmas in Great Britain during the 1650s. Mistletoe's role as a Christmas decoration spread into other parts of Europe, including Germany and Scandinavia, during the 18th and 19th centuries, as part of the cultural exchanges spurred by Victorian England’s global influence.

That sounds quite reasonable, but it could all be undone if there were some earlier reference. I searched long and wide for earlier references than Coles, but came up empty. Finally, I asked ChatGPT if it could find an earlier reference to mistletoe used at Christmastime, but it was unable.

The most reasonable conclusion is - there is nothing older to find, because either 1) it wasn't being used as a Christmas tradition, or 2) it was being used in outlying areas which no one bothered to write about.

This gap of mistletoe as a Christmas decoration is across the board. We have no mention of it in any culture - as a Christmas time tradition, specifically - until it appears in England in the late-1600s.
Add to this the fact that we see it first in England and then spreading out into other areas in the 18th and 19th centuries. Mistletoe as we know it today appears in all areas in the same time period.

What else can we say? Mistletoe either was not being used at Christmas at all until the late 1600s, or it was so rural and so unimportant that no one mentioned it. All of the evidence we have, or the lack thereof, lends support to Ronald Hutton's explanation. Nothing so far lends credence to the claim it came directly to Christmas from ancient paganism, especially the Druids. Pagan coopt is the weakest of all explanations by far.

Perhaps that 1500-year gap is as it should be. Perhaps we have not lost information after all. Perhaps it is illusory, built from an insistence on some ancient pagan origin. It is quite reasonable to conclude we are searching for evidence of a pagan origin that never really happened. If mistletoe as a Christmas tradition really did start after the Reformation, then a 1,500-year gap should be there.

What the world needs is the discovery of some new literary source that fills in the missing pieces ...if there are missing pieces to begin with. In the meantime, all one can do is speculate based on the solid information we have in hand rather than insisting on theories we have no evidence for.

CONCLUSION

"The only reason we know about mistletoe is because Druids loved it and cut it at the winter solstice, and that's how it came to Christmas." False.
"Well, then it was because of the Norse and Yule." No.
"Well, then it was because of some unnamed culture's winter solstice rituals." Incorrect.

Do you recall those two quotes from the start of this post, the ones from Rod Meredith and Herbert Armstrong? Read them again quickly and see how they are just nonsensical. Once again, we see people passing off false history as "God's truth". That should come as absolutely no surprise to the readers here. The thing is, there is a lot of bad info out there. That's why we needed this post.
Mistletoe did turn out to be a fantastic way to show how the things everybody knows to be true aren't always true.

The history of mistletoe is a long, complex, and winding road. We may never get all the answers we seek. But we did get a few.
Today, we learned:

• Mistletoe was used medicinally and ritually throughout most of the western world since forever ago. It was also used to trap birds. Everyone seemed to use it.
• Pliny said mistletoe was used as an animal medicine especially in summer. Mistletoe is not just a winter thing.
• Mistletoe was not popular in churches at all. English churches preferred holly and ivy.
• If mistletoe was not used in churches, that speaks against it being coopted from pagans by the church.
• We do not know exactly when mistletoe became associated with Christmas, but it appears to be during the Reformation, in the late-1600s.
• The first mention of mistletoe being collected at Christmas time was from 1657.
• Kissing under mistletoe did not start until the 1700s. The first mention was from 1784.
• Mistletoe does not start appearing as a Christmas tradition in other nations outside the British Isles until the 18th and 19th centuries.
• Mistletoe was not an aphrodisiac ...except for animals.
• If the mistletoe tradition involved a continuation of a pagan practice, the Druids aren't the best candidate.
• Druids in France loved mistletoe, only when it grew on oak trees. We don't know much about Druids in other areas.
• French Druids most important use of mistletoe was at their new year, which was likely in fall, not at the winter solstice. And they were moon-based, not solar-based. Some say Druids had no solstice celebrations at all. Claims of Druids and solstice are likely to be false. Mistletoe was not particularly a winter tradition for them.
• Norse mistletoe was foreboding and deathly, and associated with Autumn. It changed after they imported the Christmas mistletoe tradition from the English.
• The Anglo-Saxons had no known mistletoe traditions.
• And there is quite a bit of misinformation floating around, started after the Reformation.

There sure is a lot more to mistletoe than I thought there was! Life is a funny thing. I sat down to write a very small and simple post about Christmas greenery, so light and easy to read with pictures from Pompeii, when all of this information about mistletoe starts pouring out of the internet at me. Oh, not easily, mind you. I had to dig, dig, dig for it. Next thing you know, I'm reading many esoteric histories, chasing down recursive series of sources cited one after the other, and even talking to software. At one point, I had five books open at the same time. I have nine tabs open in my other browser right now. But there is some good information out there if you have the determination to get it.

In the end, I think the simplest explanation for mistletoe is the best. People decorate all year around. Flowers in the spring and summer, produce in the fall, greenery in the winter. What truly seems to matter about mistletoe is that it is not only a useful plant, but is green and has pretty berries when it needs to. Everything boils down to that.

 

************

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

************

X-Mas Exasperations

I have a rant for you today! ♫It's my blog and I can cry if I want to...♪

For years, I have been writing posts that try to get to the historical origins of dates and traditions of the holidays. I happen to be writing a new one these past couple of weeks. Those posts usually come across in favor of holidays. That's just how the chips fall naturally. Look. I read history and I tell you what history says. Simple. Some people say holidays are pagan, we investigate and usually find that's not true, and we write about it. That makes us look like we are 100% pro-holiday. But we aren't 100%.

One of the things that makes As Bereans Did so effective at digging for truth is our insistence on facing our own biases (which everyone has) for the goal of staying neutral. Whether we love something or hate it, doesn't matter much. We want the truth. Regardless. The truth can take care of itself. To do this, one must consider both sides. Hence, you will see us saying people like Herbert Armstrong were right sometimes, or that we don't like certain Halloween traditions. That approach has an unfortunate side-effect of making one a Moderate. Nobody loves a moderate. Everyone adores a zealot (who agrees with them). Who would you rather have on your side - a zealot who will say anything no matter how ridiculous so long as it supports you, or a moderate who says, "Well... they have a point." ?? Thought so.

Today, I am going to play devil's advocate and purposefully rant about the negative side of modern Christmas in the United States of America and vent about some things I don't like. Today, I complain about modern Christmas in America. Pardonne moi, I mean X-Mas - because some people want "Christmas' to be an offensive word even as they celebrate it. For just one example, Neiman Marcus recently changed the name of their seasonal catalog, which had been called "Christmas Book" for 100 years, to "Holiday Book". I saw a door mat at Costco the other day that said something like "Happy Celebration". They couldn't even say holiday.

Oh, where to begin? There is so much to dislike!
Christmas is a wonderful time of year. But let's face it, "wonderful" in this world does not mean perfect.

SECULARLISM

I think the top complaint I personally have about Christmas in America is that it has been taken over by secularism. Everything else in my post seems to extend from this.

Author and researcher Ronald Hutton, in his book "Stations of the Sun", makes a strong case that the secularism in Christmas can be laid at the feet of two things. First, Protestants in England and Scotland. By trying to ban it in the 1600s to spite the Catholics, the Puritans only succeeded in stripping it of its religious nature. They inadvertently caused the rise of secular traditions. Second, the Industrial Revolution shoulders blame. The world is a very different place because of it.
I envy those nations who were never robbed of the special sacred nature of their day.

Martha wrote my personal favorite series in all of the ABD catalog, the "Falsely Accused?" series. So very well researched and written. She investigated the history of Christmas Trees. In one post, "Falsely Accused? Nazi Propaganda Lives On...", she demonstrated the Nazis played a big part in secularizing modern Christmas. It worked!
Thanks a lot, Adolf. You were just a peach. (He said, sarcastically.)

Christmas in the old days was twelve days long - the Twelve Days of Christmas. It wasn't the month-long behemoth we see now. In the past, people went to church on Christmas day, did a parade through town, maybe they would catch an instructional play put on by the church, they had a nice meal at home with family and friends or went to a lavish dinner at a Lord or King's estate, they would play some games and tell some stories - tales from the past and spooky ghost stories were very popular, maybe you would go caroling or souling to raise some money for the church or a charity, and that was about how it went. Gift-giving was not central. Gifts were the realm of St. Nicholas' Day or New Year's. I read a version of "Old Christmas" from Washington Irving every year because I like to think about how Christmas used to be celebrated in some places back before there was a Coca Cola or a Nazi propaganda machine. It was quite different from today. Basically, a more religious version of Thanksgiving.

Without Jesus at the center of Christmas, the celebration has no context. What is the context, then? It's not on the solstice. There is no natural purpose for it. It just becomes a winter festival, giving people something to drink about. Most claims of paganism are either completely false or they arose after December 25 was chosen by Christians. The day just becomes a day of nothing in particular, with traditions from the 1900s made ever bigger. Secular America took Christmas and said, "We can't find any good reason for this day, but we like the pretty lights and trees and songs, so we want to keep it around. But what do we do and why?? Hey! Let's make the day ABOUT the lights and trees and songs!"
So, you have a feast for the emotions and the senses, complete with Darth Vader ornaments, ugly sweaters, 25-foot-tall inflatable Santas, $10,000 synchronized LED light displays, and $60,000 luxury automobiles wrapped up in large red bows. Santa has completely replaced Jesus. The tree goes up a month before Christmas rather than on Christmas Eve. The twelve days of Christmas are gone. Only history nerds have ever heard of Twelfth Day. The tree and the ornaments simply exist for their own decorative sake rather than as symbols with specific religious meanings. And then tales of ancient pagan origins get tossed in there to explain it all apart from the Nativity, even though they are not accurate.

I am just expressing the sad fact that, in a post-Christian world, Christmas isn't even considered a Christian holiday by most of the people who celebrate it. Because many people who go about with Merry Christmas on their lips - excuse me, Happy Holidays, because how dare we speak Merry Christmas - would hardly even qualify as barely-churched. Harry Potter celebrates Christmas for crying out loud.

Some Christians say we should abandon the day because it has become too secular. Great idea. How'd that work out the first time with the Puritans? That's the main reason we're in this mess in the first place. And what does that mean, anyway? "Too secular." Is there some kind of a scale I am unaware of? Why should we abandon our day because secular people like it, too? Rome used to be "too secular". If we abandoned everything that is "too secular", we might as well go back into the catacombs. What's your alternative? Winter Family Fun Night? Right! As if whatever alternative you come up with is not also going to eventually be coopted by secularism. Then you're right back where you started.
I say we make a stand. I say we reclaim Christmas! Secularism may be my biggest complaint, but that doesn't mean I'm going to surrender to it. Quite the opposite!

All you have to do to get started is to make sure your Christmas is about Jesus. That's what I'm doing. You don't have to throw out your decorations or become a curmudgeon. Just focus it on Jesus. Next year, add in more charity. It's that simple!

Yeah, yeah. I know some people will mock the idea of "put Christ back in Christmas". "Christ never was in Christmas," they say. Yadda, yadda, yadda. Look here! This is the As Bereans Did blog. We've already done the homework. We are on year 14 of doing the homework. We have investigated pagan origins more times than we can count, and we feel completely justified in absolutely rejecting that as complete nonsense. Go sell "once pagan, always pagan" somewhere else. You want to insist Christians coopted Christmas? That's not a winning message. All that says to me is we did it once and we can do it again.

CONSUMERISM & EXCESS

I like Christmas gifts, but not the way we do it these days. As I said earlier, Christmas was not originally the big gift-giving holiday. True story! Thank the Protestant Reformation for that.
Thank you, Martin Luther. Thank you, King Henry VIII. You're both just a peach. (He said, sarcastically.)
*deep sigh*

All those overblown tales you hear about Christmas in the distant past being a wild and debauched day are not at all representative of the majority. Stories like that tend to rely on abandoned claims from the 1800s. You might find a group of people in some place at some time doing some questionable things. I'm not here to rant about the medieval French, though. The typical Christmas day was not like that on the whole.
Not any more!

I think this complaint about Christmas is less about Christmas, per se, and more about a certain disappointment with the world in general. It's the same complaint I could make about nearly anything. There is too much! And it's too commercial! I like modern medicine, but not drug commercials and suspicions that pills are more about keeping people manageably sick than truly healing them. I like grocery stores, but not highly processed foods and seed oils and et cetera that are cheap but terrible for you. I like the convenience of driving, but not used car sales people, cars that are designed to break, gambling on the right insurance coverage that might never pay out when you need it most, overcrowded highways, political manipulation of gas prices and road taxes, and a hundred other things. Do you see my point? Greed distorts everything it touches, not just Christmas.
But is has touched Christmas.

I got a comment recently correlating Christmas decorations and Herbert Armstrong's purchase of the Czar's golden flatware (and Steuben crystal, and $2,500 bottles of Remy Martin Lousi XIII cognac, and private jets, and mansions, and...). I disagree with the comment. It goes too far. But! It's not like that comment is entirely off the mark. The heart of that comment is about exploitation, and I think we all agree we are against exploitation (at least in theory). Christmas has become a festival of consumption. I am not an anti-Capitalist by any means, but some of those criticisms cannot be entirely dismissed. People seem to go bananas for spending all of their money on junk. Junk primarily made in Chinese sweat shops. Junk that does not honor Jesus. Junk that does nothing to aid in our Gospel message. Junk that brings no glory to God at all. How did that monologue go in the Jim Carey version of "How The Grinch Stole Christmas"?

"That’s what it’s all about, isn’t it? That’s what it’s always been about. Gifts, gifts… gifts, gifts, gifts, gifts, gifts! You wanna know what happens to your gifts? They all come to me. In your garbage. You see what I’m saying? In your garbage! I could hang myself with all the bad Christmas neckties I found at the dump. And the avarice. The avarice never ends! ‘I want golf clubs. I want diamonds. I want a pony so I can ride it twice, get bored, and sell it to make glue!’"

I mean, he's not entirely wrong.

The car commercials, where the one comes home with an $80,000 Lexus in a bow, only to find the other got them a $90,000 truck in a bow. Or the jewelry commercials, where the man is encouraged to buy a $10,000+ engagement ring for the woman of his dreams. Who are these people anyway? Those commercials make me cringe. Can't afford a new 1,000 horsepower European hyper-car? We can accommodate you! Black Friday starts in early November now. There's pre-Black Friday, Black Friday, after-Black Friday, Cyber Monday, door busters, extended hours, and deep discounts on Chinese junk of every shape and hue.
Have you listened to the lyrics of "Up On The Housetop" lately? Little Will gets, "a hammer and lots of tacks, also a ball and a whip that cracks." Kids these days would burn down the house if that's what they got.

Let Neiman Marcus change the name of their catalog. I prefer it! Christmas isn't about what's in that book anyway.

I gotta hand it to ol' Herbert Armstrong; sometimes he had clever lines. (He was a detergent salesman after all.) One of his better lines was, "The way of give vs. the way of get." The secular, consumerist Christmas is fairly well in the "way of get" category. The people who say "Christmas is pagan" may be factually incorrect, so far as its origins go, but the people who say "Christmas is consumerist" are not.

I wish I had an "all you have to do" simple answer for this problem. What do you do about consumerism? Set a spending limit. Set expectations up front that you're not going to do Christmas that way anymore. Buy less junk. Give less gifts, and give more to charity. Notice that I didn't say, "Give no gifts." I just said give less gifts ...to people who already have, and give more to people who do not. Charity. It's the Christian way.

I want everyone who reads this blog to give me a Christmas gift this year. And the gift I want is for you to give is something to the poor. Donate, volunteer, whatever you can do. You give to me by giving to them. That's what I want for Christmas. It's the same thing Jesus asked for this year!

BUSY-NESS

The secularism leads to the consumerism, and the consumerism leads to the busy, busy, busy-ism. All the crowds, the traffic, the noise, the events, the family get togethers, the friends' get togethers, the work get togethers, this, that, and the other thing. GAH!

It's bad enough to have to fight through the crowds at every store to pick up a gift, but much more often than not I am only trying to do my regular, day-to-day shopping, and to fight the crowds just to get a gallon of milk and some bread adds insult to injury. This isn't a hurricane, people! I just want some milk and bread and I'm gone! ... GAH!

The streets are bumper-to-bumper from November to February. If people aren't shopping for gifts, they're returning gifts. Streets wouldn't be so very crowded and drivers so very angry if not for that one person who is moving at a crawl because they're so terrified of the traffic. If you are so terrified, then you are the very danger you fear! Perhaps car pool? GAH!

I do not want to see my co-workers any more often then I absolutely must, but I do want to see my family and friends. I do! No, I really do. Kinda. Just not at this time of year. Let's have some get togethers at other times. It's cold, the kids are cranky, I am cranky, the sun has been down since 4 PM, and I just want to sleep. GAH! 

In the words of Sweet Brown, "Aint nobody got time for that!"

Talking about this is giving me anxiety. Want to fix this? See the previous two sections. Moving on.

BAD MUSIC

Two words: Mariah Carey.

I even like Mariah's songs. (I said what I said.) But I'm so sick of them!

Have you ever noticed how music celebrities all seem to need to have a Christmas album? It's the same few songs that you've heard a billion times, but in their voice. That's what we needed! *ugh* I like Amy Grant and all, but her extremely popular album has no soul to my ears. Some celebrities even have multiple versions of the same songs. They're not even necessarily better versions.  Looking at you, Johnny Mathis. And please do not even get me started on the Beetles members! How is it the Eurythmics of all bands makes a vastly superior song than former members of the Beetles? Give me an Andrea Bocelli, or Nat King Cole, or Michael Bublé any day over a soulless cash grab. I am sick of Frank Sinatra's Christmas songs, too, but at least he pained over every last detail.

The songs play on constant repeat starting in November and going un-paused through to January. Over and over and over and over. No, I don't want Parson Brown to marry me off. No, I don't want it to snow me in. No, I absolutely do not want to do the jingle bell rock. No, I don't ever want another blue Christmas. And no, I absolutely, positively do not ever, ever want to hear "Last Christmas" ever again in all my natural-born life. The song is about an epically bad judge of character getting into serial relationships with abusers. How is that even a Christmas song? Hans Gruber falling off the Nakatomi Tower has more to do with Christmas than that. Given those options, I would much prefer to listen to "Natty Christmas" by Jacob Miller & Ray I, featuring their transcendent "All I Want for Ismas". Lol

And don't get me started on the televised parades. Less balloons, more stars, and all of them lip-synching. Your lips are half a second off on that line, celebrity - and it's your own song! You know why that microphone is so far away from your mouth? It's because you know it doesn't matter where it is! Milli Vanilli were ruined for less.

These new Christmas songs are all about romance, it seems to me. Once again, a tradition trying to find context. I guess with snow happening less and less in many places and half the world having Christmas in summer anyway, a secular Christmas song has to be about something. Is it strange that my favorite Christmas song lately is "Christmas Wrapping" by The Waitresses? Lol

What ever happened to hymns and carols? You know, the really old songs that glorified Jesus and told the story of the nativity of our Lord and Savior? Why are those songs a hundred years old or more? Bach, we need you! Make new ones! Yes, I do want a silent night. Yes, I do wish joy to the world. Yes, I do want ye merry gentlemen to remember Christ our Savior. Yes, I do want the herald angels to sing. Read these lyrics from "I Heard The Bells On Christmas Day" (I like the Sinatra version best):

I heard the bells on Christmas day

Their old familiar carols play,

And wild and sweet the words repeat

Of peace on earth, good will to men.

I thought how, as the day had come,

The belfries of all Christendom

Had rolled along th' unbroken song

Of peace on earth, good will to men.

And in despair I bowed my head

"There is no peace on earth," I said,

"For hate is strong and mocks the song

Of peace on earth, good will to men."

Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:

"God is not dead, nor doth He sleep;

The wrong shall fail, the right prevail

With peace on earth, good will to men."

THAT is a Christmas song!

I wish Christian artists would make more original, faith-based Christmas music. Good stuff, though. Not that over-produced, formulaic stuff I usually hear on K-Love.

How do we fix this one? I don't think it really needs to be fixed. People like what they like. If people like romantic Christmas songs, so be it. To each their own. I just wish there was more in the way of hymns and carols is all. Perhaps let the artists know with your dollars that you prefer a more traditional Christmas song.

SANTA

Oh, here's one that's a touchy subject for many. Jolly old Saint Coca Cola advertisement.

I did in fact study the history of Santa Claus. I put some of the things I found into the Christmas FAQ. Look in the section on Other Traditions. Did you know Santa is not pagan in origin? It's true!

The tradition started harmlessly enough. Saint Nicholas was a real saint, and for very good reasons was arguably the most popular saint of all. There were some big changes after the Protestant Reformation. The original gift-giving day was the Feast of St. Nicholas on December 6, but Reformers couldn't have us honoring saints, so they moved it to Christmas and then created gift-givers like Father Christmas, and Christkindl, and the Weihnachtsmann. (Thanks again, Martin and Henry. Just peaches, you two.) And then things went sideways. The Dutch who still liked Saint Nicholas, transformed him into a magical, flying character to entertain the children. Then into a tiny character, because he needed to fit down stove pipes. And then he was a political instrument. He was relocated from New Jerusalem to the North Pole, to spite the Confederacy. And then, right when he was about to be abandoned, along comes a Coca Cola commercial. Now, he's just completely off the rails.
I imagine the real Saint Nicholas would not be on good terms with Santa Claus. Nicholas is the guy who allegedly punched Arius in the face at the Council of Nicaea, after all. Can you imagine Saint Nicholas punching Santa Claus? I find a small amount of comfort in that thought.

Secular Christmas is more about Santa than the Savior. That's a shame. Some people balked in 1965 when Linus recited some Bible verses in the animated special "A Charlie Brown Christmas". But no one has an issue with secular Santa. Most of the Christmas movies and shows these days are about Santa. It is far easier to find decorations of Santa or Santa themes than Jesus or Nativity themes. There are more popular "modern" songs about Santa than religious themes. Is Mariah Cary dressed like Mary Theotokos? No. She's dressed like Santa. People say Santa is the reason for the season. Santa Claus has in effect replaced Jesus in secular Christmas. This saddens me.

At the risk of giving aid and comfort to the Armstrongist propaganda machine - Santa Claus has gotten painfully close to becoming an idol for some people in our modern, secular Christmas.

I am not saying Santa crosses the line for all people in all instances. I enjoy some of the Santa movies and shows. I own the Lionel Polar Express train. The trick is to keep Santa in his place. Santa is nothing more than a character, like Mickey Mouse or Totoro or Captain Kirk (or Big Beak  Lol). Imaginary characters are not in and of themselves wrong. Santa Claus is not in and of itself wrong. A healthy imagination is a good thing. Let things be fantastical and magical and wonderful and playful in your life. Just keep it in perspective.

My suggestion to fix this one? Minimize Santa. I am not advocating ditching Santa, per se. I am advocating returning Santa to the status of a friendly character. He's a fictional character. Leave it at that. Personally, I much prefer those fuzzy gnome things with the massive beards. They're adorable!

I do like this Santa, though:

CONCLUSION

Alright. I think that's just about enough complaining for one day.

Christmas. It has issues. 

The issues, it seems to me, are really complaints about the world. If Christmas had never existed, all of these things would still exist in another context. I think they are fixable over time. No, I do not agree we should ditch Christmas, nor do I agree that any of these issues make it pagan. Not at all. If problems make things pagan, I refer you to the problems in your own life, and I refer you to the issues in your own church. I say it often and I will say it again - the definition of "pagan" used in groups like Armstrongism is expansive, unworkable, shifting, and self-serving. It accuses everyone on earth, including themselves, and you could argue it even accuses Jesus Christ. It's so expansive that it defeats itself. That's why it needs to shift, you see, so the accusers can excuse themselves. I disagree!

Christmas is a wonderful time of year all the same. Not in every way. Not for everyone. But what in this world is? I hope you find some way to make this year better than last, and next year better than this.

************

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

************

Only Pagans Observe Birthdays?

I just realized As Bereans Did has material on birthdays, but it is hidden all around here and there. We have no post specifically dedicated to the topic. About time I remedied that.

Growing up Armstrongist, we were taught never to celebrate birthdays. "It's pagan," they told us, "The only people in the Bible who celebrate their birthday were pagans, so you're a pagan if you do it, too. ...And don't wear makeup!" The Worldwide Church of God abandoned that position shortly after Herbert Armstrong died. Well, that wasn't official enough for some. I still get email asking about this topic. So, today, I want to investigate birthdays and find out whether or not we're pagan for celebrating them.

There isn't a whole lot of material to present, but I did run across some details I found to be interesting. Care to review birthdays with me? Oh, come on. What else did you have to do right now?

BIBLICAL BIRTHDAYS

In the interest of being thorough, let's see the three explicit instances of birthdays being celebrated in the Bible.

The birthday of Pharaoh (which Pharaoh is not known):

(GEN. 4: 20-22) 20 Now it came to pass on the third day, which was Pharaoh’s birthday, that he made a feast for all his servants; and he lifted up the head of the chief butler and of the chief baker among his servants. 21 Then he restored the chief butler to his butlership again, and he placed the cup in Pharaoh’s hand. 22 But he hanged the chief baker, as Joseph had interpreted to them.

Pharaoh's birthday is the only one mentioned in the entire Old Testament. That makes it the only birthday in the Jewish scriptures.

The birthdays of Job's children:

(JOB 1: 4-6) 4 Every year when Job’s sons had birthdays, they invited their brothers and sisters to their homes for a celebration. On these occasions they would eat and drink with great merriment. 5 When these birthday parties ended—and sometimes they lasted several days—Job would summon his children to him and sanctify them, getting up early in the morning and offering a burnt offering for each of them. For Job said, “Perhaps my sons have sinned and turned away from God in their hearts.” This was Job’s regular practice.

Job did not think his children having birthdays was a sin, he only conjectured that perhaps they might have sinned secretly in one way or the other while they were partying.

The birthday of Herod Antipas:

(MAT. 14: 6-7) 6 But when Herod’s birthday was celebrated, the daughter of Herodias danced before them and pleased Herod. 7 Therefore he promised with an oath to give her whatever she might ask.

(MAR. 6: 21-23) 21 Then an opportune day came when Herod on his birthday gave a feast for his nobles, the high officers, and the chief men of Galilee. 22 And when Herodias’ daughter herself came in and danced, and pleased Herod and those who sat with him, the king said to the girl, “Ask me whatever you want, and I will give it to you.” 23 He also swore to her, “Whatever you ask me, I will give you, up to half my kingdom.”

And don't forget this next one..

The birthday of Jesus:

(LUK. 2: 9-14) 9 And behold, an angel of the Lord stood before them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were greatly afraid. 10 Then the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people. 11 For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. 12 And this will be the sign to you: You will find a Babe wrapped in swaddling cloths, lying in a manger.”
13 And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God and saying: 14 “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, goodwill toward men!”

I prefer to include Jesus in the list of birthdays celebrated because the angels rejoiced at His birth, and because of the many people who will not have anything to do with birthdays mainly because of Christmas.

Was the incarnation of our Lord not a miraculous work of God, foretold by prophets, attended by angels, accompanied by signs (the star, the presence of John the Baptist, the visitations both to Mary and Joseph, born of a virgin, the death of the innocents), rich with prophetic imagery (the manger prophesying Jesus as true food from Heaven, the prophetic words of Elizabeth calling Mary the Mother of her Lord, the gifts of the Magi predicting Jesus' death), and did it not fulfill the specific timing as prophesied in Daniel?? The birth was no small event!

Some may balk since Jesus' birth was not a birthday celebration later in His life. I do recognize that and concede the point. Therefore, for the rest of the article I will try to leave it out. Today's post doesn't need it.

As an aside, there are some striking similarities between the accounts of Pharaoh and Herod Antipas. I think you would be very interested if you dug into that.

COMMONERS AND KINGS

If I were to ask you what is one thing all birthdays in the Bible have in common, what would you say? Probably that they are celebrated by pagans, I'd guess. Unfortunately, Job's children make off with that claim. Have you considered that they were celebrated by the wealthy and by kings..?

Job's children, Pharaoh, Herod Antipas - they were clearly advantaged. That is how things were until quite recently. According to the article "The Strange Origins of American Birthday Celebrations" on The Atlantic, until the 1800's, birthdays were rarely for common folk. How many of you honor President's Day in the United States? That was originally George Washington's birthday. Congress declared Washington's birthday a national holiday in 1879. In 1971, the federal holiday was moved from February 11 to the third Monday in February. There is also the slightly lesser-known Lincoln's Birthday. I mention these days because this is typical throughout history. Birthdays were usually for the societal upper crust.

That's just how things were. They had their way of doing things and we have ours, and the two are not the same. That doesn't make either one better or worse. It just makes groups of people think differently about birthday celebrations. It is possible people simply did not think of birthday celebrations as something common folk would do. You go to work on your birthday, peasant, that's what you do.

Society had structures, and most people who weren't in the appropriate social strata would not do those kinds of things. It's not just birthdays that were like this. People often didn't wear clothes of other social strata, or hold jobs, or use titles, or occupy the same spaces, or travel on the same level of the ship, or eat meat often, or any number of other things that were outside of their status. That's just the way the world was, and in many ways still is. It does not appear birthdays became the norm for common folk until the 1800's, when several societies started removing those social stratus barriers between the common and elite.

If you do a study into history, you will find some older practices that were really quite different from what we do today. That doesn't have any bearing on whether or not we are pagans. We aren't. I absolutely reject "once pagan, always pagan". We can place any guilt we may feel at the feet of an ancient Christian writer, Origen.

For more on the subject of "once pagan, always pagan" see our article "Peddlers of Paganism".

ORIGEN

Well, sadly, it seems we cannot have a conversation about birthdays in the Bible without mentioning Origen. That old Armstrongist quote-mining favorite. So, let's get this over with.

Origen touched on birthdays in two of his works from around the years 238-248 AD. Quite early! One I will quote, the other I will ignore. You can read the second quote, which I am ignoring, in his "Commentary on Matthew', available online at the Sacred Texts website. He just condemns birthdays as pagan and claims people who celebrate birthdays dance to the Devil. I just don't want to waste any more space on that than is absolutely necessary, so I will make you aware of it and move on back to Homilies on Leviticus.

On to quote 1....

Here are the actual words of Origen on the subject, from his "Homilies on Leviticus", translated into English:

"But Scripture also declares that one himself who is born whether male or female is not clean from filth although his life is of one day. 16 And that you may know that there is something great in this and such that it has not come from the thought to any of the saints; not one from all the saints is found to have celebrated a festive day or a great feast on the day of his birth. No one is found to have had joy on the day of the birth of his son or daughter. Only sinners rejoice over this kind of birthday . For indeed we find in the Old Testament Pharaoh, king of Egypt, celebrating the day of his birth with a festival, 17 and in the New Testament, Herod. ls However, both of them stained the festival of his birth by shedding human blood. For the Pharaoh killed "the chief baker 19 Herod, the holy prophet John in prison. 20 But the saints not only do not celebrate a festival on their birth days, but, filled with the Holy Spirit, they curse that day."
-Origen, "Homilies on Leviticus", volume VIII. 
Taken from Gary Wayne Berkley, "The Fathers of the Church A New Translation", volume 83, "Homilies on Leviticus 1-16", CUA Press, 2010, p.156.
(You can download a copy of your own for free from Zlip.pub.)

Now, you will want a little context. This entire section of Origen's homily is about this one verse:

(LEV. 12: 2) "Speak to the children of Israel, saying: ‘If a woman has conceived, and borne a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as in the days of her customary impurity she shall be unclean."

Origen is trying to expound on the uncleanness of the woman and the child. Origen is making a case that normal humans, including the greatest prophets, are unclean because of their conception and their birth. Then, he makes the case how that does not apply to Mary, because she is a virgin and never conceived in the normal way (in some places, it seems like Origen believes she did not conceive at all, even though Matthew and Luke say she did). The exception applies to Jesus as well.
He makes his distinction for Mary and Jesus, and then he continues on about universal uncleanness for everyone else. That brings us to the where the quote above appears.

When Origen gets to this section I quoted above, he is trying to make the case that all humans are unclean from birth, and birth should not be celebrated by us because we are unclean. He goes on to show how we should curse our birth, even saying the Holy Spirit would lead us into cursing our own birth. (So, when Jesus says it would be better if the one who betrays him was never born, we should all feel that way about ourselves? I don't think so.) He gives examples of Job, David, and Jeremiah. Then, he explains this uncleanness is why the Church performs baptism even on infants. (Recall, he wrote Homilies on Leviticus between 238 and 244. Quite early!)

That is the context of the quote on birthdays.

Do you agree with all of that? I bet you don't. I certainly do not. I have three large issues with it.

1) Not moral uncleanness but ceremonial.

The first major problem I have with Origen's concept of uncleanness is he makes the uncleanness about moral uncleanness. You can see the concept of Original Sin hiding in here. I disagree that the uncleanness in Leviticus 12 is moral. Rather, the uncleanness is ceremonial.

Unclean people were not sinners, per se, rather, they were ceremonially impure and unfit to occupy sacred space or join in the sacred assembly. This uncleanness is taken care of by waiting a few days and offering sacrifices. Childbirth is directly in line with many, many other causes of ritual uncleanness described in the Old Testament, including such things as menstruation, touching a carcass or dead body, touching someone who was unclean, sickness, and etc. This same uncleanness affects animals and inanimate objects. Can dishes sin? No. None of these are moral; all of these are ceremonial. There was no need to go on and on about how we are all unclean from conception and birth, pleading a special exception for Mary and Jesus, because this was never permanent moral uncleanness to begin with. It was all temporary ceremonial uncleanness. And at the end of the day, it did apply to Mary and Jesus after all, as you can read in Luke 2:

(LUK. 2: 22-24) 22 Now when the days of her purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the law of the Lord, “Every male who opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”), 24 and to offer a sacrifice according to what is said in the law of the Lord, “A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.”

This is Mary obeying the law in Leviticus 12, which absolutely is about ritual impurity. For Origen to make a way that it did not apply to her is to contradict Luke. (There used to be a church holiday called Candlemas that honored this very event.)

But none of this applies to us in the New Covenant.

2) Ceremonial uncleanness not in the New Covenant.

The second major problem I have with Origen is that there is no ceremonial uncleanness in the New Covenant. That is entirely an Old Covenant thing. This objection needs no lengthy explanation. It really is as simple as that. Origen speaks out against birthdays because of a cleanliness system that does not apply to us. I go over ceremonial law a little more in the post "Is Ceremonial Law Removed?"
The entire foundation of Origen's argument is gone.

We are left with his claim that it was only observed in the Bible by pagans.

3) He left out Job's children.

The third major problem I have with Origen is that he only gives Pharaoh and Herod Antipas as his evidence. Except .. he left out Job's children. Given what we know about Job and how he would pray with his children, we can see they were clearly faithful people. Only, they were faithful people who knew how to party. That doesn't make them bad people or pagans.

About that paganism, notice Origen never calls Pharaoh or Herod "pagans". He calls them murderers. His complaint was they shed blood on their birthdays. Job's children definitely didn't do that. I would hardly say it is a compelling argument that no one should celebrate their birthday because Pharaoh and Herod had people killed on theirs. Well, better stop keeping Passover, then. Pilate had someone killed on that day.

The people who use Origen to support their condemnation of birthdays probably do not understand Origen to begin with, but I bet they would also have major problems with Origen if they did understand him. Many would certainly not agree with original sin or infant baptism. I personally hope they would not agree that the Holy Spirit would lead us to curse our birth. So, do they quote Origen as an authoritative source, or just because he is convenient? Clearly, they don't think he is authoritative if they think he is a pagan himself who professes heretical beliefs (heretical to their own systems, I mean). Therefore, it is clear they quote him only because he conveniently says a few words they agree with.

Is Origen as an example of what the early church believed about birthdays? I would not go so far as to hold Origen up as the standard for his time. He was influential and respected, but some of his ideas were unconventional. If this was typical, peddlers of paganism would find other authors of his time to quote.

And that, dear reader, is yet another in a long line of examples of how people will quote mine for things that want to hear regardless of all else.

HEROD ANTIPAS

I actually have a problem 3b.

You probably came here because you heard the only people in the Bible who celebrated their birthdays were pagans. That is what I was told in my days in Armstrongism. Is it true that in the Bible only pagans celebrate their birthdays? No. As we have already seen, Job's children were not pagans. But there is one other non-pagan to discuss: Herod Antipas.

Herod Antipas was the son of Herod the Great. He was half Edomite on his father's side and half Samaritan on his mother's. Was Herod Antipas a pagan? Surprisingly, no. He was religiously Jewish!

The Jewish Encyclopedia article on Herod Antipas says this about him:

"It is true that, at least ostensibly, he complied with the more important ordinances of the Jewish faith, and that he went to Jerusalem to celebrate the feasts."
-"Antipas (Herod Antipas)", Jewish Encyclopedia, 2015, https://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7602-herod-antipas. Accessed Nov 3, 2024.

See? Jewish. Go ahead, Google what Herod's religion was. You'll find it was Jewish. It doesn't matter if you think Herod Antipas was a bad Jew. The fact remains he was a practicing Jew. Ergo, by definition he was not a pagan. At the very least, he was not a pagan in the same way Pharaoh was.

The Jewish Encyclopedia article goes on to show that Antipas was hated and did nothing to counter that. Origen, in his Homilies on Matthew, which I did not quote, says Herod Antipas was a worse man than Pharaoh. So, we can conclude Herod Antipas was universally seen as a bad Jew. But if you want to compare bad Jewishness, Solomon was arguably worse yet. So, there's that.
In Herod's defense, he did not want John the Baptist killed. He had carelessly walked into a trap. It was his wife and daughter that were the worse offenders here. Herod was just too weak to stand up and insist their request was unreasonable.

Therefore, the initial claim that the only people in the Bible who celebrated birthdays were pagans is false. Two out of three explicit references to birthday celebrations were non-pagans. That is all that some churches make their stand on against birthdays, and it's not even true.

That will be of little use against people dead set on the accusation of paganism. To them, everyone not in their own system are pagans. So, to them, Job's children and Herod were pagans, regardless. And so are you and I. Case closed.
I simply cannot and will not agree with that.

NOT IGNORED

The point in todays' article is to investigate birthday celebrations, but I want to make a very brief detour.

Understand that birthdays are not ignored by people in the Bible, or even by the Jews outside of the Bible. When I listed the birthdays from the Bible, what I gave you were the three explicit mentions of birthday celebrations. One might conclude that means those were the only mentions, and therefore birthdays were largely ignored. That is not so. What I have not given you are the many, many times ages were mentioned.

People knew how old they were. They had to know their birthday, or roughly know, in order to know how old they were.

Think of all the times you heard a person's age in the Bible. Also, one had to know their birthday to determine things like the age of accountability, the age of eligibility for military service, or coming of age celebrations like bar mitzvahs and bat mitzvahs (which are inherently a celebration of age), just to name three.

So, people did know their birthdays. They just didn't usually celebrate them.

The ones who lean towards birthdays being pagan will think this is a useless point to make. "Knowing their age is beside the point," they will say, "it is the celebration that is pagan not the knowledge." I hear this complaint. I agree this argument here is weak. But I do mention it for a reason. My reason is to nudge your thinking toward the idea that there is a lot more to the discussion of birthdays in the Bible than just three explicit mentions. There is a lot more to it even than what I've shown you here in this post.

I will recommend another item for you to read, which you can find for free online. There was once an online publication called "Halachically Speaking". They dive into detail on the Jewish perspective on birthdays in volume 9 issue 11, titled "Happy Birthday", dated 2015, written  by Rabbi Moishe Dovid Lebovits and reviewed by Rabbi Benzion Schiffenbauer Shlita. You can find it on the Wayback Machine.

There are some confusing terms in it for non-Jews, but overall it is easily understood. They touch on things it would take me far too much space and words to review, including such things as:

• Jews are not necessarily against birthdays,
• There are birthdays mentioned in the Bible indirectly,
• Birthdays were not ignored by people in the Bible,
• Birthdays in extra-biblical Jewish literature. 

NOT RELIGIOUS

I want you to keep in mind another very important point: Birthdays are not religious celebrations. If they are not religious, then they are not pagan. Pagan, by definition, has to do with religious matters. Pagans can celebrate their birthdays, but birthdays are not by nature pagan.

Birthdays are entirely secular. Birthdays are every bit as secular as the Fourth of July ...the birthday of America. Do you know anyone who condemns secular national holidays like Independence Day, Cinco de Mayo, and etc? I don't. (I'm sure someone out there does.) During my time in Armstrongism, I was never taught to avoid those days. What's the difference? There is none.

Birthdays are just anniversaries. Do you celebrate your wedding anniversary? Then don't throw rocks at birthdays.

Some people will not celebrate the birth of their Lord and Savior but they will celebrate the birth of their nation or their marriage. So, they are not against all birthdays, just specific ones. 

What's more, there are people who say we should not have any celebration that is not specifically commanded in the Bible. Where did they get that notion? Not from the Bible! (Please read Martha's article "Established and Imposed".)

But let's go with that. The new standard is, we can't do anything the Bible doesn't command us to do. Well, the Bible says nothing for or against birthdays. Condemning birthdays is not something we are commanded to do in the Bible! So, why are people doing it? The Bible is neither here nor there about birthday celebrations. It only mentions them as part of the narrative of events. It never says they are good or bad. It seems to me the weakest of all arguments to say if the Bible is against something, don't do it, but if the Bible is not against something, don't do it.

CONCLUSION

We have gone over some things today!

It is not true that in the Bible only pagans celebrate their birthdays. Job's kids were faithful. Herod Antipas was a Jew.
What is true, however, is that only people who explicitly celebrated their birthdays in the Bible were wealthy. Birthdays were for the upper echelons until quite recently, but not because they were rejected as pagan, rather because of societal norms. It seems reasonable to conclude it was the tearing down of social strata in the 1700s and 1800s that led to common birthdays.
Birthdays were not ignored in the Bible. Other birthdays besides the three explicit references are hinted at. Jews are not necessarily against birthdays.
Birthdays are not religious celebrations, they are secular, therefore they are not able to be "pagan" any more than Independence Day or wedding anniversaries.
Origen tried to apply guilt by association, but he misunderstood who kept a birthday in the Bible as well as what the nature of uncleanness is in Leviticus. We know the accusation that only pagans observed birthdays is false. We don't find it compelling to stop just because someone was killed on the day. We know the uncleanness was ceremonial only, and does not apply in the New Covenant. So, any guilt by association is removed.

What is left? Nothing much at all. I would say birthday celebrations come out rather clean in this investigation. Seems to me that makes the answer 'yes'. Yes, Christians may celebrate birthdays.

Were you accused of being a pagan for celebrating a birthday? You can see it was a baseless accusation, made by someone parroting something they heard but did not genuinely understand. People will accuse you of paganism for many things besides just birthdays. If you are considering giving up birthdays because someone accused you of paganism, don't fool yourself that it will help. You will only find you are accused for something else. It is an endless chase. In the end, will you find grace and peace?

I am not here to talk people into celebrating birthdays. My usual disclaimer for things like this is - if you feel guilty about it, don't do it. But research it to see if you feel guilty reasonably or unreasonably, rightfully or mistakenly. Hopefully today's post helped you do just that.

May God guide you to a life that glorifies Him, regardless.

Oh! And a happy belated birthday to you!

************

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

************