A Refutation of HWA's Plain Truth About Christmas

Herbert W Armstrong wrote and published a booklet titled The Plain Truth About Christmas which purported to prove that the holiday was a pagan derivative. He observed that "Most people have 'supposed' a lot of things about Christmas that are not true. But let's quit 'supposing' and get the facts!" Now, that's something with which I can completely concur!

According to Armstrong, Christmas "came to non-Christians and Protestants from the Roman Catholic Church. And where did they get it? Not from the New Testament-NOT from the Bible-NOT from the original apostles who were personally instructed by Christ-but it gravitated in the fourth century into the Roman Church from paganism." This, however, does NOT square with the evidence available to us about the origins of the holiday!

For instance, in order for his assertion about the holiday coming to the world through the Roman Catholic Church to be true, we would basically have to accept that church's understanding of its own origins and history. Now, although the RCC claims that its history stretches all the way back to apostolic times, most historians would say that our modern notion of that church began to emerge in the Sixth Century - during the reign of Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome. Hence, if we accept Armstrong's assertion that Christianity adopted the holiday from paganism in the Fourth Century, we are already faced with a clear dilemma (both things can't be true). Is, however, Armstrong right about Christmas creeping into Christianity in the Fourth Century? Is he right about its non-biblical and pagan origins?

Unfortunately, Mr. Armstrong completely ignored the fact that TWO of the canonical gospels (Matthew and Luke) contain rather detailed narratives about the events surrounding the birth of Jesus Christ! In the first chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, we read: "This is how Jesus the Messiah was born. His mother, Mary, was engaged to be married to Joseph. But before the marriage took place, while she was still a virgin, she became pregnant through the power of the Holy Spirit." (Verse 18) The author of the gospel then proceeds to tell the story of Joseph's part in Mary's pregnancy (verses 19-25). Then, in the second chapter of this same account, we read: "Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the reign of King Herod. About that time some wise men from eastern lands arrived in Jerusalem, asking, 'Where is the newborn king of the Jews? We saw his star as it rose, and we have come to worship him.'" (Verses 1-2) Next, King Herod's interest in the birth of the Messiah is elucidated (verses 3-8). Next, we read: "After this interview the wise men went their way. And the star they had seen in the east guided them to Bethlehem. It went ahead of them and stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they were filled with joy! They entered the house and saw the child with his mother, Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasure chests and gave him gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh." (Verses 9-11)

Likewise, in the Gospel of Luke, we read that the angel Gabriel appeared to Mary and told her that the Lord had chosen her for a great task (1:26-29). Continuing, we read: "'Don’t be afraid, Mary,' the angel told her, 'for you have found favor with God! You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you will name him Jesus. He will be very great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David. And he will reign over Israel forever; his Kingdom will never end!'" (Verses 30-33) Next, we are informed that Gabriel explained to her how this would happen (verses 34-38). In the following chapter, we read: "At that time the Roman emperor, Augustus, decreed that a census should be taken throughout the Roman Empire. (This was the first census taken when Quirinius was governor of Syria.) All returned to their own ancestral towns to register for this census. And because Joseph was a descendant of King David, he had to go to Bethlehem in Judea, David’s ancient home. He traveled there from the village of Nazareth in Galilee. He took with him Mary, to whom he was engaged, who was now expecting a child. And while they were there, the time came for her baby to be born. She gave birth to her firstborn son. She wrapped him snugly in strips of cloth and laid him in a manger, because there was no lodging available for them. That night there were shepherds staying in the fields nearby, guarding their flocks of sheep. Suddenly, an angel of the Lord appeared among them, and the radiance of the Lord’s glory surrounded them. They were terrified, but the angel reassured them. 'Don’t be afraid!' he said. 'I bring you good news that will bring great joy to all people. The Savior—yes, the Messiah, the Lord—has been born today in Bethlehem, the city of David! And you will recognize him by this sign: You will find a baby wrapped snugly in strips of cloth, lying in a manger.' Suddenly, the angel was joined by a vast host of others—the armies of heaven—praising God and saying, 'Glory to God in highest heaven, and peace on earth to those with whom God is pleased.' When the angels had returned to heaven, the shepherds said to each other, 'Let’s go to Bethlehem! Let’s see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about.' They hurried to the village and found Mary and Joseph. And there was the baby, lying in the manger. After seeing him, the shepherds told everyone what had happened and what the angel had said to them about this child. All who heard the shepherds’ story were astonished, but Mary kept all these things in her heart and thought about them often. The shepherds went back to their flocks, glorifying and praising God for all they had heard and seen. It was just as the angel had told them." (Verses 1-20)

Now, in case you were wondering, I included all of this material to demonstrate both the scope and nature of the material contained IN SCRIPTURE about the events surrounding Christ's BIRTH. In other words, Armstrong's assertion that the Christmas narrative did not originate in Scripture is conclusively demonstrated to be false! Moreover, I don't know if you caught it, but the language in those accounts suggests that there was much to celebrate and rejoice over! Hence, although there isn't any command to commemorate or celebrate the event, its inclusion in these biblical narratives about Christ suggests that his birth was one of the great events of human history!

Thus, having established that Christ's nativity has a rather extensive basis in Scripture, we turn to the question of when that event began to be celebrated among Christians. First, we should note again that we have already established that the story of Christ's birth was important to the authors of TWO of the canonical gospels! This blogger has also already established that Ignatius of Antioch (martyred early in the Second Century) felt that Christ's nativity was important enough to mention it in his epistle to the Ephesians (See Ignatius of Antioch on the Nativity of Jesus Christ). Likewise, Justin Martyr (100-165 CE) felt that the events surrounding Christ's birth were important enough to include in his First Apology defense of the Christian religion. Moreover, Armstrong's quotation of Origen (185-253 CE) about the celebration of birthdays being repugnant to Christians also demonstrates that at least some of the saints of that time were celebrating birthdays! (In other words, why mention it if he didn't consider it to be a problem within the Christian community). Moreover, the post immediately preceding this one provides excerpts from Ancient Nativity Hymns composed by Ephrem the Syrian in the Fourth Century (which suggests that Christ's birth was already a very popular theme by that time). Thus, we have conclusively demonstrated that Christ's birth was important to at least some Christians belonging to the First, Second and Third Centuries (the notion was NOT suddenly borrowed from the pagans in the Fourth Century).

In his infamous booklet, Mr. Armstrong suggested that both the timing and manner of this holiday were borrowed from the pagans. As for his assertions about the Roman Saturnalia and Brumalia, I have already refuted any connection to Christmas in a previous post (See The Saturnalia and Brumalia). In similar fashion, I refuted his assertions about the influence of Babylonian or other forms of paganism on Christianity more generally in my post Paganism and Christianity. In short, the narrative simply does NOT hold up to closer scrutiny!

Well, if we didn't get our Christmas customs from the pagans, from whence did they come? The truth is that the overwhelming majority of our observances/traditions associated with Christmas belong entirely to the Christian era! In my posts, Pagan Holidays or God's Holy Days - Really? and The Plain Truth About Christmas Trees and Santa Claus, I meticulously enumerate the origins of most of the customs/traditions/observances which we associate with Christmas in the Twenty-first Century. Astoundingly, over ninety percent of those customs are based on developments within the last five hundred years or so!

In his booklet, Armstrong also had a section entitled "What the Bible Says About the Christmas Tree." He points to a passage from the book of Jeremiah as the Bible's definitive and final word on the Christmas tree. In the tenth chapter of that book, we read: "This is what the Lord says: 'Do not act like the other nations, who try to read their future in the stars. Do not be afraid of their predictions, even though other nations are terrified by them. Their ways are futile and foolish. They cut down a tree, and a craftsman carves an idol. They decorate it with gold and silver and then fasten it securely with hammer and nails so it won’t fall over. Their gods are like helpless scarecrows in a cucumber field! They cannot speak, and they need to be carried because they cannot walk. Do not be afraid of such gods, for they can neither harm you nor do you any good.'" (Verses 2-5) Armstrong observed that this "is a perfect description of the Christmas tree." Talk about twisting Scripture! The passage is clearly speaking about the idols which the people of that time crafted for themselves out of wood (as just about any good Bible commentary will make plain). In other words, the passage has absolutely NOTHING to do with a Christmas tree!

Unfortunately, Herbert Armstrong only looked for evidence which supported his thesis - that Christmas was of pagan origin and should be avoided by Christians. And, just as he cherry-picked Scripture to support his view, he also was very selective in what he included from sources outside of Scripture! For instance, in his booklet, Armstrong quotes from the Catholic Encyclopedia, but he leaves out a great deal of material that doesn't support his narrative about Christmas. In their article on Christmas, we read: "The first evidence of the feast is from Egypt. About A.D. 200, Clement of Alexandria (Strom., I, xxi in P.G., VIII, 888) says that certain Egyptian theologians "over curiously" assign, not the year alone, but the day of Christ's birth, placing it on 25 Pachon (20 May) in the twenty-eighth year of Augustus. [Ideler (Chron., II, 397, n.) thought they did this believing that the ninth month, in which Christ was born, was the ninth of their own calendar.] Others reached the date of 24 or 25 Pharmuthi (19 or 20 April). With Clement's evidence may be mentioned the "De paschæ computus", written in 243 and falsely ascribed to Cyprian (P.L., IV, 963 sqq.), which places Christ's birth on 28 March, because on that day the material sun was created. But Lupi has shown (Zaccaria, Dissertazioni ecc. del p. A.M. Lupi, Faenza, 1785, p. 219) that there is no month in the year to which respectable authorities have not assigned Christ's birth. Clement, however, also tells us that the Basilidians celebrated the Epiphany, and with it, probably, the Nativity, on 15 or 11 Tybi (10 or 6 January)." The same encyclopedia discusses the origin of the date (December 25) at some length, but gives a number of possible sources for it - some centered in biblical reasoning and others associated with the Roman Natalis Invicti (a solar festival). In other words, they simply aren't sure about the date's origin. The same article goes on to state: "But even should a deliberate and legitimate 'baptism' of a pagan feast be seen here no more than the transference of the date need be supposed. The 'mountain-birth' of Mithra and Christ's in the 'grotto' have nothing in common: Mithra's adoring shepherds (Cumont, op. cit., I, ii, 4, p. 304 sqq.) are rather borrowed from Christian sources than vice versa." Continuing, we read: "The origin of Christmas should not be sought in the Saturnalia (1-23 December) nor even in the midnight holy birth at Eleusis (see J.E. Harrison, Prolegom., p. 549) with its probable connection through Phrygia with the Naasene heretics, or even with the Alexandrian ceremony quoted above; nor yet in rites analogous to the midwinter cult at Delphi of the cradled Dionysus, with his revocation from the sea to a new birth (Harrison, op. cit., 402 sqq.)." Hence, once again, we see that it was a bit of a stretch for Mr. Armstrong to suggest that the Catholic Encyclopedia supported his narrative about Christmas.

Finally, the narrative that Christians adopted pagan customs to win over heathens to Christ is too simplistic and flawed. History demonstrates that it is more accurate for us to think in terms of Christianity being locked in an existential competition with the pagan religions. Christianity wanted to DEFEAT and REPLACE those beliefs/traditions/practices. In other words, they believed that they had something that was intrinsically superior to offer the heathens!

Hence, regardless of what Herbert Armstrong thought about their motivations and reasoning, millions upon millions of Christians around the world believe that Christ's birth is worthy of celebration. They believe that his first advent was one of the most important events in the history of humankind! And, yes, in many Western countries, the holiday has been commercialized and made into a materialistic orgy of sorts; but that does NOT justify maligning the origins of the day or pretending that there is nothing of spiritual note or value to celebrate. Moreover, I would rather spend my limited resources on my family and loved ones than putting that money into an Armstrong Church of God as Herbie suggested in the conclusion to his booklet! What do you think?