This work holds the first place among monastic legislative codes, and was by far the most important factor in the organization and spread of monasticism in the West. For its general character and also its illustration of St. Benedict's own life, here however, it is treated in more detail, under the following heads:I. The Text of the Rule;
II. Analysis of the Rule;
III. Practical Working of the Rule.
The text of the rule
The exact time and place at which St. Benedict wrote his Rule are not known, nor can it be determined whether the Rule, as we now possess it, was composed as a single whole or whether it gradually took shape in response to the needs of his monks. Somewhere about 530 however, may be taken as a likely date, and Monte Cassino as a more probable place than Subiaco, for the Rule certainly reflects St. Benedict's matured monastic and spiritual wisdom. The earliest chronicler says that when Monte Cassino was destroyed by the Lombards in 581, the monks fled to Rome, carrying with them, among other treasures, a copy of the Rule "which the holy Father had composed"; and in the middle of the eighth century there was in the pope's library a copy believed to be St. Benedict's autograph. It has been assumed by many scholars that this was the copy brought from Monte Cassino; but though this is likely enough, it is not a certainty. Be that as it may, this manuscript of the Rule was presented by Pope Zachary to Monte Cassino in the middle of the eighth century, a short time after the restoration of that monastery. Charlemagne found it there when he visited Monte Cassino towards the end of the century, and at his request a most careful transcript of it was made for him, as an exemplar of the text to be disseminated throughout the monasteries of his empire. Several copies of the Rule were made from it, one of which survives to this day; for there can be no doubt that the present Codex 914 of the St. Gall Library was copied directly from Charlemagne's copy for the Abbey of Reichenau. An exact diplomatic reprint (not in facsimile) of this codex was published at Monte Cassino in 1900, so that the text of this manuscript, certainly the best individual text of the Rule in existence, can be studied without difficulty. Various other manuscripts go back to Charlemagne's manuscript, or to its original at Monte Cassino, which was destroyed by fire in 896, and thus the text of the so-called autograph may be restored by approved critical methods with quite unusual certainty, and could we be certain that it really was the autograph, there would be no more to say.
But as already pointed out, it is not quite certain that it was St. Benedict's autograph, and the case is complicated by the circumstance that there is in the field another type of text, represented by the oldest known manuscript, the Oxford Hatton manuscript 42, and by other very early authorities, which certainly was the text most widely diffused in the seventh and eighth centuries. Whether this text was St. Benedict's first recension and the "autograph" his later revision, or whether the former is but a corrupted form of the latter, is a question which is still under debate, though the majority of critics lean towards the second alternative. In either case, however, the text of the "autograph" is the one to be adopted. The manuscripts, from the tenth century onwards, and the ordinary printed editions, give mixed texts, made up out of the two earliest types. Thus the text in current use is critically a bad one, but very few of the readings make any substantial difference.
The Rule was written in the Lingua Vulgaris or Low Latin vernacular of the time, and contains much syntax and orthography not in conformance with the classical models. There is as yet no edition of the Rule that satisfies the requirements of modern criticism, though one is in process of preparation for the Vienna "Corpus" of Latin Ecclesiastical writers. A sufficiently good manual edition was published by Dom Edmund Schmidt. of Metten, at Ratisbon in 1892, presenting in substance the text of St. Gall manuscript, with the Low Latin element eliminated.
The number of commentators on the rule is legion. Calmet gives a list of over a hundred and thirty such writers, and Ziegelbauer gives a similar list. The earliest commentary, in point of date, is that which has been variously ascribed to Paul Warnefrid (a monk of Monte Cassino about 780-799), Hildemar, Ruthard of Hirsau, and others. Hildemar, a Gallic monk, brought to Italy by Angelbert, Archbishop of Milan, reformed the monastery of Sts. Faustinus and Jovita at Brescia and died in 840. Marténe, who considered this commentary to be the best ever produced, maintained that Hildemar was its real author, but modern critics attribute it to Paul Warnefrid. Amongst other commentators the following deserve mention: St. Hildegard (d. 1178), the foundress and first Abbess of Mount St. Rupert, near Bingen on the Rhine, who held that St. Benedict's prohibition of flesh-meat did not include that of birds; Bernard, Abbot of Monte Cassino, formerly of Lérins and afterwards a Cardinal (d. 1282); Turrecremata (Torquemada) a Dominican (1468); Trithemius, Abbot of Sponheim (1516); Perez, Archbishop of Tarragona and Superior-General of the congregation of Valladolid; Haeften, Prior of Afflighem (1648); Stengel, Abbot of Anhausen (1663); Mége (1691) and Marténe (1739) Maurists; Calmet, Abbot of Senones (1757); and Mabillon (1707), who discusses at length several portions of the Rule in his Prefaces to the different volumes of the "Acta Sanctorum O.S.B."
It is impossible to gauge the comparative value of these and other commentaries, because the different authors treat the Rule from different points of view. That of Calmet is perhaps the most literal and exhaustive on many important points; those of Marténe and Haeften are mines of information regarding monastic tradition: Perez and Mége are practical and pious, though the latter has been considered lax in many of the views maintained; that of Turrecremata is useful as treating the Rule from the standpoint of moral theology; and others give mystical interpretations of its contents. It may be pointed out that in studying the Rule as a practical code of monastic legislation, it is necessary to facilitate uniformity of observance, each congregation of the order has its own constitutions, approved by the Holy See, by which are regulated many of the matters of detail not touched upon by the Rule itself.
Before proceeding to analyze St. Benedict's Rule and to discuss its leading characteristics, something must be said about the monasticism that preceded his times, and out of which his system grew, in order that some idea may be gained as to how much of the Rule was borrowed from his precursors and how much was due to his own initiative. Such considerations are important because there is no doubt whatever that the introduction and propagation of St. Benedict's Rule was the turning-point which changed the whole trend of monasticism in the West.
The earliest forms of Christian monachism were characterized by their extreme austerity and by their more or less eremetical nature. In Egypt, the followers of St. Anthony were purely eremetical, whilst those who followed the Rule of St. Pachomius, though they more nearly approached the cenobitical ideal, were yet without that element of stability insisted upon by St. Benedict, viz: the "common life" and family spirit. Under the Antonian system the austerities of the monks were left entirely to their own discretion; under the Pachomian, though there was an obligatory rule of limited severity, the monks were free to add to it what other ascetical practices they chose. And in both, the prevailing idea was that they were spiritual athletes, and as such they rivaled each other in austerity. Syrian and strictly Oriental monasticism need not be considered here, as it had no direct influence on that of Europe. When St. Basil (fourth century) organized Greek monasticism, he set himself against the eremetical life and insisted upon a community life, with meals, work, and prayer, all in common. With him the practice of austerity, unlike that of the Egyptians, was to be subject to control of the superior, for he considered that to wear out the body by austerities so as to make it unfit for work, was a misconception of the Scriptural precept of penance and mortification. His idea of the monastic life was the result of the contact of primitive ideas, as existing in Egypt and the East, with European culture and modes of thought.
Monasticism came into Western Europe from Egypt. In Italy, as also in Gaul, it was chiefly Antonian in character, though both the rules of St. Basil and St. Pachomius were translated into Latin and doubtless made their influence felt. As far as we know, each monastery had practically its own rule, and we have examples of this irresponsible form of monastic life in the community St. Benedict was called from his cave to govern, and in the Gyrovagi and Sarabitae whom he mentions in terms of condemnation in the first chapter of his Rule. A proof that the pervading spirit of Italian monachism was Egyptian lies in the fact that when St. Benedict determined to forsake the world and become a monk, he adopted, almost as a matter of course, the life of a solitary in a cave. His familiarity with the rules and other documents bearing upon the life of the Egyptian monks is shown by his legislating for the daily reading of the "Conferences" of Cassian, and by his recommendation (c. 73) of the "Institutes" and "Lives" of the Fathers and the Rule of St. Basil.
When, therefore, St. Benedict came to write his own Rule for the monasteries he had founded, he embodied in it the result of his own mature experience and observation. He had himself lived the life of a solitary after the most extreme Egyptian pattern, and in his first communities he had no doubt thoroughly tested the prevailing type of monastic rule. Being fully cognizant, therefore, of the unsuitability of much in the Egyptian systems to the times and circumstances in which he lived, he now struck out on a new line, and instead of attempting to revivify the old forms of asceticism, he consolidated the cenobitical life, emphasized the family spirit, and discouraged all private venture in austerities. His Rule thus consists of a carefully considered combination of old and new ideas; rivalry in austerity was eliminated, and there was to be henceforth a sinking of the individual in the community. In adapting a system essentially Eastern, to Western conditions, St. Benedict gave it coherence, stability, and organization, and the verdict of history is unanimous in applauding the results of such adaptation.
Analysis of the rule
Of the seventy-three chapters comprising the Rule, nine treat of the duties of the abbot, thirteen regulate the worship of God, twenty-nine are concerned with discipline and the penal code, ten refer to the internal administration of the monastery, and the remaining twelve consist of miscellaneous regulations.
The Rule opens with a prologue or hortatory preface, in which St. Benedict sets forth the main principles of the religious life, viz.: the renunciation of one's own will and the taking up of arms under the banner of Christ. He proposes to establish a "school" in which the science of salvation shall be taught, so that by persevering in the monastery till death his disciples may "deserve to become partakers of Christ's kingdom".
•In Chapter 1 are defined the four principle kinds of monks: (1) Cenobites, those living in a monastery under an abbot; (2) Anchorites, or hermits, living a solitary life after long probation in the monastery; (3) Sarabites, living by twos and threes together, without any fixed rule or lawfully constituted superior; and (4) Gyrovagi, a species of monastic vagrants, whose lives spent in wandering from one monastery to another, only served to bring discredit on the monastic profession. It is for the first of these classes, as the most stable kind, that the Rule is written.
•Chapter 2 describes the necessary qualifications of an abbot and forbids him to make distinction of persons in the monastery except for particular merit, warning him at the same time that he will be answerable for the salvation of the souls committed to his care.
•Chapter 3 ordains the calling of the brethren to council upon all affairs of importance to the community.
•Chapter 4 summarizes the duties of the Christian life under seventy-two precepts, which are called "instruments of good works" and are mainly Scriptural either in letter or in spirit.
•Chapter 5 prescribes prompt, cheerful, and absolute obedience to the superior in all things lawful, which obedience is called the first degree of humility.
•Chapter 6 deals with silence, recommending moderation in the use of speech, but by no means prohibiting profitable or necessary conversation.
•Chapter 7 treats of humility, which virtue is divided into twelve degrees or steps in the ladder that leads to heaven. They are: (1) fear of God; (2) repression of self-will; (3) submission of the will to superiors; (4) obedience in hard and difficult matters; (5) confession of faults; (6) acknowledgment of one's own worthlessness; (7) preference of others to self; (8) avoidance of singularity; (9) speaking only in due season; (10) stifling of unseemly laughter; (11) repression of pride; (12) exterior humility.
•Chapters 9-19 are occupied with the regulation of the Divine Office, the opus Dei to which "nothing is to be preferred", or Canonical Hours, seven of the day and one of the night. Detailed arrangements are made as to the number of Psalms, etc., to be recited in winter and summer, on Sundays, weekdays, Holy Days, and at other times.
•Chapter 19 emphasizes the reverence due to the presence of God.
•Chapter 20 directs that prayer in common be short.
•Chapter 21 provides for the appointment of deans over every ten monks, and prescribes the manner in which they are to be chosen.
•Chapter 22 regulates all matters relating to the dormitory, as, for example, that each monk is to have a separate bed and is to sleep in his habit, so as to be ready to rise without delay, and that a light shall burn in the dormitory throughout the night.
•Chapter 23-30 deal with offences against the Rule and a graduated scale of penalties is provided: first, private admonition; next, public reproof; then separation from the brethren at meals and elsewhere; then scourging; and finally expulsion; though this last is not to be resorted to until every effort to reclaim the offender has failed. And even in this last case, the outcast must be received again, should he so desire, but after the third expulsion all return is finally barred.
•Chapter 31 and 32 order the appointment of a cellarer and other officials, to take charge of the various goods of the monastery, which are to be treated with as much care as the consecrated vessels of the altar.
•Chapter 33 forbids the private possession of anything without the leave of the abbot, who is, however, bound to supply all necessaries.
•Chapter 34 prescribes a just distribution of such things.
•Chapter 35 arranges for the service in the kitchen by all monks in turn.
•Chapter 36 and 37 order due care for the sick, the old, and the young. They are to have certain dispensations from the strict Rule, chiefly in the matter of food.
•Chapter 38 prescribes reading aloud during meals, which duty is to be performed by such of the brethren, week by week, as can do so with edification to the rest. Signs are to be used for whatever may be wanted at meals, so that no voice shall interrupt that of the reader. The reader is to have his meal with the servers after the rest have finished, but he is allowed a little food beforehand in order to lessen the fatigue of reading.
•Chapter 39 and 40 regulate the quantity and quality of the food. Two meals a day are allowed and two dishes of cooked food at each. A pound of bread also and a hemina (probably about half a pint) of wine for each monk. Flesh-meat is prohibited except for the sick and the weak, and it is always within the abbot's power to increase the daily allowance when he sees fit.
•Chapter 41 prescribes the hours of the meals, which are to vary according to the time of year.
•Chapter 42 enjoins the reading of the "Conferences" of Cassian or some other edifying book in the evening before Compline and orders that after Compline the strictest silence shall be observed until the following morning.
•Chapters 43-46 relate to minor faults, such as coming late to prayer or meals, and impose various penalties for such transgressions.
•Chapter 47 enjoins on the abbot the duty of calling the brethren to the "world of God" in choir, and of appointing those who are to chant or read.
•Chapter 48 emphasizes the importance of manual labour and arranges time to be devoted to it daily. This varies according to the season, but is apparently never less than about five hours a day. The times at which the lesser of the "day-hours" (Prime, Terce, Sext, and None) are to be recited control the hours of labour somewhat, and the abbot is instructed not only to see that all work, but also that the employments of each are suited to their respective capacities.
•Chapter 49 treats of the observance of Lent, and recommends some voluntary self-denial for that season, with the abbot's sanction.
•Chapters 50 and 51 contain rules for monks who are working in the fields or traveling. They are directed to join in spirit, as far as possible, with their brethren in the monastery at the regular hours of prayers.
•Chapter 52 commands that the oratory be used for purposes of devotion only.
•Chapter 53 is concerned with the treatment of guests, who are to be received "as Christ Himself". This Benedictine hospitality is a feature which has in all ages been characteristic of the order. The guests are to be met with due courtesy by the abbot or his deputy, and during their stay they are to be under the special protection of a monk appointed for the purpose, but they are not to associate with the rest of the community except by special permission.
•Chapter 54 forbids the monks to receive letters or gifts without the abbot's leave.
•Chapter 55 regulates the clothing of the monks. It is to be sufficient in both quantity and quality and to be suited to the climate and locality, according to the discretion of the abbot, but at the same time it must be as plain and cheap as is consistent with due economy. Each monk is to have a change of garments, to allow for washing, and when traveling shall be supplied with clothes of rather better quality. The old habits are to be put aside for the poor.
•Chapter 56 directs that the abbot shall take his meals with the guests.
•Chapter 57 enjoins humility on the craftsmen of the monastery, and if their work is for sale, it shall be rather below than above the current trade price.
•Chapter 58 lays down rules for the admission of new members, which is not to be made too easy. These matters have since been regulated by the Church, but in the main St. Benedict's outline is adhered to. The postulant first spends a short time as a guest; then he is admitted to the novitiate, where under the care of a novice-master, his vocation is severely tested; during this time he is always free to depart. If after twelve month' probation, he still persevere, he may be admitted to the vows of Stability, Conversion of Life, and Obedience, by which he binds himself for life to the monastery of his profession.
•Chapter 59 allows the admission of boys to the monastery under certain conditions.
•Chapter 60 regulates the position of priests who may desire to join the community. They are charged with setting an example of humility to all, and can only exercise their priestly functions by permission of the abbot.
•Chapter 61 provides for the reception of strange monks as guests, and for their admission if desirous of joining the community.
•Chapter 62 lays down that precedence in the community shall be determined by the date of admission, merit of life, or the appointment of the abbot.
•Chapter 64 orders that the abbot be elected by his monks and that he be chosen for his charity, zeal, and discretion.
•Chapter 65 allows the appointment of a provost, or prior, if need be, but warns such a one that he is to be entirely subject to the abbot and may be admonished, deposed, or expelled for misconduct.
•Chapter 66 provides for the appointment of a porter, and recommends that each monastery should be, if possible, self-contained, so as to avoid the need of intercourse with the outer world.
•Chapter 67 gives instruction as to the behavior of a monk who is sent on a journey.
•Chapter 68 orders that all shall cheerfully attempt to do whatever is commanded them, however hard it may seem.
•Chapter 69 forbids the monks to defend one another.
•Chapter 70 prohibits them from striking one another.
•Chapter 71 encourages the brethren to be obedient not only to the abbot and his officials, but also to one another.
•Chapter 72 is a brief exhortation to zeal and fraternal charity
•Chapter 73 is an epilogue declaring that this Rule is not offered as an ideal of perfection, but merely as a means towards godliness and is intended chiefly for beginners in the spiritual life.
Characteristics of the Rule
In considering the leading characteristics of this Holy Rule, the first that must strike the reader is its wonderful discretion and moderation, its extreme reasonableness, and its keen insight into the capabilities as well as the weaknesses of human nature. Here are no excesses, no extraordinary asceticism, no narrow-mindedness, but rather a series of sober regulations based on sound common-sense. We see these qualities displayed in the deliberate elimination of austerities and in the concessions made with regard to what the monks of Egypt would have looked upon as luxuries. A few comparisons between the customs of these latter and the prescriptions of St. Benedict's Rule will serve to bring out more clearly the extent of his changes in this direction.
With regard to food, the Egyptian ascetics reduced it to a minimum, many of them eating only twice or thrice a week, whilst Cassian describes a meal consisting of parched vetches with salt and oil, three olives, two prunes, and a fig, as a "sumptuous repast" (Coll. vii, 1). St. Benedict, on the other hand, though he restricts the use of flesh-meat to the sick, orders a pound of bread daily and two dishes of cooked food at each meal, of which there were two in summer and one in winter. And he concedes also an allowance of wine, though admitting that it should not properly be the drink of monks (Chapter 40). As to clothing, St. Benedict's provision that habits were to fit, to be sufficiently warm, and not too old, was in great contrast to the poverty of the Egyptian monks, whose clothes, Abbot Pambo laid down, should be so poor that if left on the road no one would be tempted to take them (Apophthegmata, in P.G. LXV, 369). In the matter of sleep, whereas the solitaries of Egypt regarded diminution as one of their most valued forms of austerity, St. Benedict ordered from six to eight hours of unbroken sleep a day, with the addition of a siesta in summer. The Egyptian monks, moreover, often slept on the bare ground, with stones or mats for pillows, and often merely sitting or merely reclining, as directed in the Pachomian Rule, whilst Abbot John was unable to mention without shame the finding of a blanket in a hermit's cell (Cassian, Coll. xix, 6). St. Benedict, however, allowed not only a blanket but also a coverlet, a mattress, and a pillow to each monk. This comparative liberality with regard to the necessaries of life, though plain and meagre perhaps, if tested by modern notions of comfort, was far greater than amongst the Italian poor of the sixth century or even amongst many of the European peasantry at the present day. St. Benedict's aim seems to have been to keep the bodies of his monks in a healthy condition by means of proper clothing, sufficient food, and ample sleep, so that they might thereby be more fit for the due performance of the Divine Office and be freed from all that distracting rivalry in asceticism which has already been mentioned. There was, however, no desire to lower the ideal or to minimize the self-sacrifice that the adoption of the monastic life entailed, but rather the intention of bringing it into line with the altered circumstances of Western environment, which necessarily differed much from those of Egypt and the East. The wisdom and skill with which he did this is evident in every page of the Rule, so much so that Bossuet was able to call it "an epitome of Christianity, a learned and mysterious abridgement of all the doctrines of the Gospel, all the institutions of the Fathers, and all the Counsels of Perfection".
St. Benedict perceived the necessity for a permanent and uniform rule of government in place of the arbitrary and variable choice of models furnished by the lives and maxims of the Fathers of the Desert. And so we have the characteristic of collectivism, exhibited in his insistence on the common life, as opposed to the individualism of the Egyptian monks. One of the objects he had in view in writing his Rule was the extirpation of the Sarabites and Gyrovagi, whom he so strongly condemns in his first chapter and of whose evil lives he had probably had painful experience during his early days at Subiaco. To further this aim he introduced the vow of Stability, which becomes the guarantee of success and permanence. It is only another example of the family idea that pervaded the entire Rule, by means of which the members of the community are bound together by a family tie, and each takes upon himself the obligation of persevering in his monastery until death, unless sent elsewhere by his superiors. It secures to the community as a whole, and to every member of it individually, a share in all the fruits that may arise from the labours of each monk, and it gives to each of them that strength and vitality which necessarily result from being one of a united family, all bound in a similar way and all pursuing the same end. Thus, whatever the monk does, he does it not as an independent individual but as part of a larger organization, and the community itself thus becomes one united whole rather than a mere agglomeration of independent members. The vow of Conversion of Life indicates the personal striving after perfection that must be the aim of every Benedictine monk. All the legislation of the Rule, the constant repression of self, the conforming of one's every action to a definite standard, and the continuance of this form of life to the end of one's days, is directed towards "putting off the old man and putting on the new", and thereby accomplishing the conversio morum which is inseparable from a life-long perseverance in the maxims of the Rule. The practice of obedience is a necessary feature in St. Benedict's idea of the religious life, if not indeed its very essence. Not only is a special chapter of the Rule devoted to it, but it is repeatedly referred to as a guiding principle in the life of the monk; so essentials it that it is the subject of a special vow in every religious institute, Benedictine or otherwise. In St. Benedict's eyes it is one of the positive works to which the monk binds himself, for he calls it labor obedientiae (Prologue). It is to be cheerful, unquestioning, and prompt; to the abbot chiefly, who is to be obeyed as holding the place of Christ, and also to all the brethren according to the dictates of fraternal charity, as being "the path that leads to God" (Chapter 71). It is likewise extended to hard and even impossible things, the latter being at least attempted in all humility. In connexion with the question of obedience there is the further question as to the system of government embodied in the Rule. The life of the community centres round the abbot as the father of the family. Much latitude with regard to details is left to "discretion and judgement", but this power, so far from being absolute or unlimited, is safeguarded by the obligation laid upon him of consulting the brethren - either the seniors only or else the entire community - upon all matters affecting their welfare. And on the other hand, wherever there seems to be a certain amount of liberty left to the monks themselves, this, in turn, is protected against indiscretion by the repeated insistence on the necessity for the abbot's sanction and approval. The vows of Poverty and Chastity, though not explicitly mentioned by St. Benedict, as in the rules of other orders, are yet implied so clearly as to form an indisputable and essential part of the life for which he legislates. Thus by means of the vows and the practice of the various virtues necessary to their proper observance, it will be seen that St. Benedict's Rule contains not merely a series of laws regulating the external details of monastic life, but also all the principles of perfection according to the Evangelical Counsels.
With regard to the obligation or binding power of the Rule, we must distinguish between the statutes or precepts and the counsels. By the former would be meant those laws which either command or prohibit in an absolute manner, and by the latter those that are merely recommendations. It is generally held by commentators that the precepts of the Rule bind only under the penalty of venial sin, and the counsels not even under that. Really grave transgressions against the vows, on the other hand, would fall under the category of mortal sins. It must be remembered, however, that in all these matters the principles of moral theology, canon law, the decisions of the Church, and the regulations of the Constitutions of the different congregations must be taken into consideration in judging of any particular case.
Practical working of the rule
No higher testimony as to the inherent excellencies of the Rule can be adduced than the results it has achieved in Western Europe and elsewhere; and no more striking quality is exhibited by it than by its adaptability to the ever-changing requirements of time and place since St. Benedict's days. Its enduring character is the highest testimony to its wisdom. For fourteen centuries it has been the guiding light of a numerous family of religious, men and women, and it is a living code at the present day, just as it was a thousand years ago. Though modified and adapted, from time to time, to suit the peculiar necessities and conditions of various ages and countries, by reason of its wonderful elasticity its principles still remain the same, and it has formed the fundamental basis of a great variety of other religious bodies. It has merited the encomiums of councils, popes, and commentators, and its vitality is as vigorous at the present time as it was in the ages of faith. Though it was no part of St. Benedict's design that his spiritual descendants should make a figure in the world as authors or statesmen, as preservers of pagan literature, as pioneers of civilization, as revivers of agriculture, or as builders of castles and cathedrals, yet circumstances brought them into all these spheres. His sole idea was the moral and spiritual training of his disciples, and yet in carrying this out he made the cloister a school of useful workers, a real refuge for society, and a solid bulwark of the Church (Dudden, Gregory the Great, II, ix). The Rule, instead of restricting the monk to one particular form of work, makes it possible for him to do almost any kind of work, and that in a manner spiritualized and elevated above the labour of merely secular craftsmen. In this lies one of the secrets of its success.
The results of the fulfilment of the precepts of the Rule are abundantly apparent in history. That of manual labour, for instance, which St. Benedict laid down as absolutely essential for his monks, produced many of the architectural triumphs which are the glory of the Christian world. Many cathedrals (especially in England), abbeys, and churches, scattered up and down the countries of Western Europe, were the work of Benedictine builders and architects. The cultivation of the soil, encouraged by St. Benedict, was another form of labour to which his followers gave themselves without reserve and with conspicuous success, do that many regions have owed much of their agricultural prosperity to the skillful husbandry of the sons of St. Benedict. The hours ordered by the Rule to be devoted daily to systematic reading and study, have given to the world many of the foremost scholars and writers, so that the term "Benedictine erudition" has been for long centuries a byword indicative of the learning and laborious research fostered in the Benedictine cloister. The regulations regarding the reception and education of children, moreover, were the germ from which sprang up a great number of famous monastic schools and universities which flourished in the Middle Ages.
It is true that as communities became rich and consequently less dependent upon their own labours for support, the primitive fervour for the Rule diminished, and for this reason charges of corruption and absolute departure from monastic ideals have been made against monks. But, although it is impossible to deny that the many reforms that were initiated seem to give colour to this view, it cannot be admitted that the Benedictine Institute, as a whole, ever became really degenerate or fell away seriously from the ideal established by its legislator. Individual failures there certainly were, as well as mitigations of rule, from time to time, but the loss of fervour in one particular monastery no more compromises all the other monasteries of the same country than the faults of one individual monk reflect necessarily upon the rest of the community to which he belongs. So, whilst admitting that the rigour of the Rule has varied at different times and in different places, we must, on the other hand, remember that modern historical research has entirely exonerated the monastic body as a whole from the charge of a general departure from the principles of the Rule and a widespread corruption of either ideal or practice. Circumstances have often rendered mitigations necessary but they have always been introduced as such and not as new or better interpretations of the Rule itself. The fact that the Benedictines still glory in their Rule, guard it with jealousy, and point to it as the exemplar according to which they are endeavouring to model their lives, is in itself the strongest proof that they are still imbued with its spirit, though recognizing its latitude of application and its adaptability to various conditions.
Read more...
Monday, March 15, 2010
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Ash Wednesday: Is it in the Bible?
No, it is not. Ash Wednesday is actually of pagan origin and was admitted into the church beliefs of the Catholic Church a few hundred years after Christ. This was the era when Constantine was attempting to weld pagans and Christians into a unit within the Roman kingdom.Ash Wednesday is the first day of Lent. Roman Catholic churches of the Latin Rite use this service to prepare themselves for the passion and resurrection of Christ through self-examination, repentance,... prayer, fasting, and self-denial. Ashes from the burned palms of the preceding year's Palm Sunday are blessed. With these ashes, the priest marks a cross on the foreheads of those who come forward and kneel, saying, "Remember, man, that dust thou art, and unto dust thou shalt return." (Genesis 3:19 KJV) From Biblical times, sprinkling oneself with ashes has been a mark of sorrow for sin. Those who honor Ash Wednesday add to this meaning of penance a second point; the need to prepare for a holy death. The churches of the Anglican Communion, as well as some other Protestant churches observe this day. Eastern Rite churches do not. Their Lent begins on the preceding Monday.
Read more...
Read more...
The Da Vinci Code: Is It Accurate?
Dan Brown (born June 22, 1964) is an American author of thriller fiction, best known for the 2003 bestselling novel, The Da Vinci Code. Browns novels feature the recurring themes of cryptography, keys, and codes, and have been translated into more than 51 languages.
Brown's novels that feature the lead character Robert Langdon also include historical themes and Christianity as recurring motifs, and as a result, have generated controversy. Brown states on his website that his books are not anti-Christian, as he is a Christian himself, and says of his book The Da Vinci Code that it is simply "an entertaining story that promotes spiritual discussion and debate" and suggests that the book may be used "as a positive catalyst for introspection and exploration of our faith".
Sitting on the back porch of a Nova Scotia bed and breakfast one evening, I was engaged in a rather remarkable discussion with the owner of the house. "Long before Columbus," she said, "people from Europe visited this part of the world. We know that because they find a lot of stuff around here that just doesn't fit what we were taught in school. I think the Knights Templar visited this place and stashed their treasure."
It was interesting, and there is a lot of evidence that Europeans had visited North America well before Columbus set foot here. But then the story got stranger:
"In fact, I think the Knights Templar knew something about Jesus that the church has been hiding from us for years. I think Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, and they had a child. There are lots of ancient documents that have been suppressed by the official church to prove it. The Holy Grail isn't actually the cup that Jesus drank from at the last supper—it's the hidden bloodline of Jesus!"
I knew immediately that she had been reading Holy Blood, Holy Grail, written by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln. The book raises questions about the Christian church's historical understanding of Jesus, suggesting—among other things—that He was married, had a child, and did not actually die on the cross. As the book hit stores across the nation, a Los Angeles Times book review proposed that the book was, "Enough to seriously challenge many traditional Christian beliefs, if not alter them."
The book did not, obviously, topple the Christian church and for a good reason. No credible historian took it seriously because the weight of historical evidence clearly contradicts it. Furthermore,even though many people are easily romanced by a good conspiracy theory, this one was far enough off the wall that most people simply didn't buy it—until it was reincarnated in a new format when The Da Vinci Code hit bookstores.
This time the strange theory hit a chord with much of the general public. The Da Vinci Code has sold more than 40 million copies, and Hollywood recently splashed its contents across the big screen. Then in a move almost certainly calculated to maximize publicity for the magazine, National Geographic announced that it was in possession of an ancient "gospel" that presents an alternate version of the events surrounding Jesus' death: the gospel of Judas (Even though many people seem to assume that this document has only recently been unearthed, it was actually discovered years ago).
An obscure theory has suddenly been pushed to the forefront of public discussion. Popular news magazines are running stories about it. The television airwaves are full of "davinciesque" specials. Christian churches are voicing their concern over all the publicity Dan Brown's book is receiving.
Christians, of course, are naturally troubled by the book and for good reason. If the theories presented by Dan Brown are true, then the foundations of a two-thousand-year-old Christianity have been essentially ripped out from under the church. Among other things, the claims presented in the book include:
Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and fathered a child with her.
Jesus intended for Mary Magdalene to become the head of the Christian church, but because of a patriarchal conspiracy, the concept of the "sacred feminine" was rejected and her role in the formation of the early church was stolen from her. The church has suppressed women ever since.
Jesus was never considered to be divine by the early church; this was an idea adopted by the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.
The four Gospels presented in the New Testament were put there by the Roman Emperor Constantine to cover up what had been done. Many other "gospels" that revealed the truth were covered up.
Secret societies, like the Knights Templar and the Priory of Zion (a group whose members are said to have included such luminaries as Sir Isaac Newton and Leonardo Da Vinci) have carefully guarded these facts for centuries in the face of oppression from the organized Christian church.
The book, of course, is sold in the fiction section of the bookstore, and no publisher has yet made the claim that it is historically verifiable. Yet the clever manner in which Dan Brown presents his material has, while not convincing many people, still confused them. An author's note in the book assures us that "all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate."
This gives the average reader—who is understandably not widely educated in ancient Christian history—the distinct impression that The Da Vinci Code is at least historical fiction, based on real events.That's where the essence of the concern over the book really lies. The lines between fact and fiction have been carefully blurred, making it seem as if many of the strange theories listed above might actually be true. The reality is that The Da Vinci Code is wildly inaccurate.
Take, for example, the book's suggestion that the Dead Sea scrolls contain some of Christianity's earliest documents (the assumption is made that these were suppressed by the early Christian church) - a claim that is utterly impossible. The Dead Sea scrolls are exclusively Old Testament documents.
Additionally, the ancient manuscripts discovered at Nag Hammadi in the 1940s are said to contain the "earliest" Christian documents. This simply isn't true. The writings of the New Testament were all completed before the first century expired; the books discovered at Nag Hammadi, at the earliest, date back to the late second century. (The one exception would be the gospel of Thomas which might date back as early as 130AD. This still puts it many years after the books of the New Testament were completed).
The story presented in The Da Vinci Code also seeks to persuade us that the four Gospels we now have in the New Testament are only there because of the political ambitions of the Roman Emperor Constantine. This supposedly happened at the Council of Nicea (325 AD), when the church needed Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to prove their newly-adopted theory that Jesus was divine. They purportedly selected the four Gospels we have today from as many as eighty other "gospels" which told a different story.
This assertion is utter nonsense, as any well-versed historian can tell you. There was no occasion on which the church sorted through eighty documents. Additionally, the veracity of the New Testament Gospels had been well established by the Christian church for hundreds of years before the Council of Nicea, which is proven by the fact that earlier church writings make constant reference to them as authoritative documents. The so-called "other gospels" are never mentioned in any list of books considered authoritative for the Christian.
There is also no record of the Council of Nicea making the decision that Jesus was divine. This was a doctrine well understood by the Christian church since the first believers wrote about His miracles and His claims to Godhood. The only topic of discussion at Nicea dealing with Christ's divinity had to do with how God the Son related to God the Father—but the fact of His divinity was not questioned, nor introduced for the first time.
Constantine would have been a relatively easy target for the likes of Dan Brown, because he did make a number of questionable decisions that are well recorded throughout history. We know, for example, that his influence allowed some pagan ideas to drift into the thought patterns of the Christian church. But Constantine did not create the canon of the New Testament or invent the notion of Christ's divinity. Those notions are utter fiction and a deliberate assault on the well-documented historicity of the Christian faith.
And what of the claim that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene? This was supposedly hidden from us for a number of reasons, including the way established Christianity frowns upon sexual relationships—including those found within the context of marriage. While the Christian church at large has, on occasion, taken a less-than-healthy attitude toward positive sexual relationships, this assertion is simply wrong. The New Testament book of Hebrews makes it abundantly clear that "marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled." (Hebrews 13:1) Marriage in Christian teaching does not diminish the sanctity of the individual; it rather elevates it.
If Jesus had been married (He was, after all, fully human in addition to being fully God), it would not have been a sin. The book of Ephesians—written in the mid-first century—uses marriage as a striking illustration of the sacred relationship of Jesus to His church. Listen to the words of Jesus Himself:And He answered and said to them,"Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? So then they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." Matthew 19:5, 6
How could marriage be considered as defiling when God Himself thought of it? And yet Dan Brown insinuates that the early Christian believers had a poor view of it and covered up the "fact" that Jesus was married. The fact is that Jesus did not marry, and there is not one shred of ancient historical evidence to prove it - in or out of the biblical record. An appeal is made to the ancient Gospel of Philip, which was probably written sometime in the late 3rd century, because of the mention that Mary Magdalene was a "companion" of Jesus, and that He often kissed her. There are a number of things that I should probably point out:
The gospel of Philip is not an eye-witness account like the four canonical gospels. Even if threads of the genuine story of Jesus can be found in it, it is still a work of fiction. A "companion" is hardly a spouse. Many people greeted each other with a kiss in Jesus' day—it does not mean it was sexual in nature. Judas greeted Jesus with a kiss on the night of His betrayal.
Just what are these strange "other gospels" that Dan Brown and others refer to in their attempt to overthrow the traditional understanding of Jesus' life? As Christianity spread in the early centuries, so did problems and distortions of the Christian message. Among these groups were the Gnostics, who adopted a rather incredible version of the story of salvation. They believed that an inferior god—known as the Demiurge—created the material world we live in. According to their understanding, this was a grave mistake, because a material existence is less than ideal.
We should have never been created to live a physical existence in the first place. The mission of Jesus Christ, in Gnostic theology, was to set us free from the prison of the material world and the mistakes of the Creator. They wrote a number of so-called "gospels" and other books—the vast majority of which were written more than 100 years after the books of the New Testament - to espouse these views.
The gnostic world view is in direct competition with the view presented in both the Old and New Testaments. In opening chapters of Genesis, we are told that creation was "very good," and that it was man's rebellion against God that corrupted it. In the New Testament, we discover that Jesus Himself is the Creator. (See passages like John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16, 17, Hebrews 1:1-3. So much for the idea that Jesus wasn't understood to be divine by Christian believers until the fourth century!)
He came to set us free from the consequences of our rebellion against the Creator through His sacrificial death at the cross, not from the physical, material world. In fact, the Bible clearly indicates that we will eventually be restored to a newly-created world for all eternity once the effects of sin have been eradicated. (See Isaiah 65:17-25, Revelation 21-22)
What is particularly interesting is the appeal to the ancient Gnostics to both elevate the status of women and endorse sexuality that seems to permeate The Da Vinci Code. In reality, the Gnostic's spurned the physical world (including sexual relationships), and demeaned women to a degree that would have been unimaginable for the early Christian church. Take, for example, this saying taken from number 114 from the gospel of Thomas: Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."
It is hardly a ringing endorsement on the value of womanhood. In other Gnostic writings found at Nad Hammadi, Jesus warns his disciples to pray somewhere that women are absent and to destroy the "works of womanhood." The appeal to Gnostic writings to elevate the "sacred feminine" is strange indeed, given the anti-female tone found in many of them. In the New Testament Gospels, you will never find a statement from Jesus that demeans women. As accomplished New Testament scholar Ben Witherington III points out, the Gnostic gospels really can't be called gospels at all:"...the term gospel ("Good News") is not just a Christian term, but rather one that was already in use in the Greco-Roman world before the canonical gospels were written. Because the ancient world didn't have a free market economy, public gifts from higher-status persons were what greased the wheels of society and commerce.
Emperors were lauded for their good deeds of benefaction and their triumphs in wars. The "gospel" was good news about actions taken on behalf of the people by the emperor (or another wealthy person). The benefactors weren't in the main, praised for their great philosophical or wise utterances.
When early Christians picked up the term gospel, they had in mind the goods news of things Jesus had done, while also including some of his teachings." (Ben Witherington III, The Gospel Code (Downer's Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 2004), p. 97)
All four of the New Testament gospels drive relentlessly toward the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. His teachings are emphasized, but they inevitably lead us to the cross and what Christ accomplished there in our behalf. They underscore the fact that we cannot save ourselves, so God did something to save us. That is why these four books are gospels—Good News.
The gnostic "gospels," on the other hand, do not tell the story of God becoming man and giving His life to save sinners. Instead, they present a different Jesus, one who speaks in mysterious riddles and vague philosophical sayings. This is because the Gnostics, far from being more pluralistic and accepting than the early Christians, were terrible elitists who believed that only people who were mentally capable of achieving hidden mystic knowledge would find salvation.
The door was not open to all; others were despised as inferior and unworthy. The Gnostics essentially left you on your own to find salvation. The God who created you, they said, was incompetent and made a terrible blunder when He did it. If you can't seem to wrap your head around secret knowledge, there is no hope for you. That is not good news. It is not a gospel.
Why has The Da Vinci Code struck such a chord with so many people? Why would somebody choose to reject the real good news of Christian belief—the divinity of Christ and His victory over the grave in our behalf? It's hard to tell. Maybe it has something to do with the scandals in the Christian world over the last couple of decades that have rocked the faith of so many people in things they used to count on. That's possible, but I somehow doubt that is all that's going on.
If we accept the Bible as true, it is an admission that the Creator has some claims on our lives. The misunderstanding is that somehow, these claims will enslave us and rob us of the liberty we crave. Nothing could be further from the truth. When you come face to face with Jesus Christ, you will discover that the Bible is reliable and the words of Jesus present both hope and truth. "If you abide in My word," said Jesus, "you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:31)
What is freedom? For Dan Brown and others, freedom appears to be a release from the claims of the biblical Christ. But in the end, this leaves you with a serious problem that forces you into unimaginable bondage: you have to sort out your sin problem all by yourself. You become a slave to the material world, fighting to escape it with all your might. That's not freedom. As Jesus stated, "Whoever commits sin is a slave to sin. And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever. Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed." (John 8:34)
God does not offer us slavery in the New Testament Gospels; He offers us the chance to become sons and daughters of the Most High God. And He offers us this opportunity through what Jesus accomplished at the cross. Has there been a historical conspiracy to hide the truth? Absolutely. The Bible describes it well: But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. 2 Corinthians 4:3, 4
There is a cover-up taking place, and The Da Vinci Code, ironically, is part of it. It's a deliberate attempt to keep the truth of the Gospel - the Good News of what Jesus has done for you—out of your hands. The so-called "light" of The Da Vinci Code, in reality, is a shroud of darkness being thrown over the hope that God wants you to have.
So why does Dan Brown feel the need to present an alternate version of Christianity? Why not simply reject the Christian faith all together? Many years ago, the New Testament Scriptures predicted that in the last days, just before Jesus returns, there would be those "having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!" (2 Timothy 3:5)
There is no question about it: a Jesus who did not die for us and was not divine is an attempt to have a form of Christianity that denies the power behind it. It has been stripped of all hope. This is the real problem with Dan Brown's Jesus. Without the resurrection of God's Son, the grave will be the end for all of us: For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable. But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the first fruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming. 1 Corinthians 15:13-20
It's hard to imagine someone who is truly delighted in the message of The Da Vinci Code—at least if they understand what Dan Brown is really saying. Where is the hope? Where is the Good News? Where is God?
Our generation is susceptible to the ideas presented in The Da Vinci Code because for most of us, it's been a while since we've looked at what the Bible actually says about Christ and what He did for us. Why not take a fresh look at the biblical gospels and the major themes of the Bible? I think you'll be amazed at how much more meaningful they are for your life than the Jesus of the best-sellers list and the silver screen.
Read more...
Brown's novels that feature the lead character Robert Langdon also include historical themes and Christianity as recurring motifs, and as a result, have generated controversy. Brown states on his website that his books are not anti-Christian, as he is a Christian himself, and says of his book The Da Vinci Code that it is simply "an entertaining story that promotes spiritual discussion and debate" and suggests that the book may be used "as a positive catalyst for introspection and exploration of our faith".
Sitting on the back porch of a Nova Scotia bed and breakfast one evening, I was engaged in a rather remarkable discussion with the owner of the house. "Long before Columbus," she said, "people from Europe visited this part of the world. We know that because they find a lot of stuff around here that just doesn't fit what we were taught in school. I think the Knights Templar visited this place and stashed their treasure."
It was interesting, and there is a lot of evidence that Europeans had visited North America well before Columbus set foot here. But then the story got stranger:
"In fact, I think the Knights Templar knew something about Jesus that the church has been hiding from us for years. I think Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene, and they had a child. There are lots of ancient documents that have been suppressed by the official church to prove it. The Holy Grail isn't actually the cup that Jesus drank from at the last supper—it's the hidden bloodline of Jesus!"
I knew immediately that she had been reading Holy Blood, Holy Grail, written by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln. The book raises questions about the Christian church's historical understanding of Jesus, suggesting—among other things—that He was married, had a child, and did not actually die on the cross. As the book hit stores across the nation, a Los Angeles Times book review proposed that the book was, "Enough to seriously challenge many traditional Christian beliefs, if not alter them."
The book did not, obviously, topple the Christian church and for a good reason. No credible historian took it seriously because the weight of historical evidence clearly contradicts it. Furthermore,even though many people are easily romanced by a good conspiracy theory, this one was far enough off the wall that most people simply didn't buy it—until it was reincarnated in a new format when The Da Vinci Code hit bookstores.
This time the strange theory hit a chord with much of the general public. The Da Vinci Code has sold more than 40 million copies, and Hollywood recently splashed its contents across the big screen. Then in a move almost certainly calculated to maximize publicity for the magazine, National Geographic announced that it was in possession of an ancient "gospel" that presents an alternate version of the events surrounding Jesus' death: the gospel of Judas (Even though many people seem to assume that this document has only recently been unearthed, it was actually discovered years ago).
An obscure theory has suddenly been pushed to the forefront of public discussion. Popular news magazines are running stories about it. The television airwaves are full of "davinciesque" specials. Christian churches are voicing their concern over all the publicity Dan Brown's book is receiving.
Christians, of course, are naturally troubled by the book and for good reason. If the theories presented by Dan Brown are true, then the foundations of a two-thousand-year-old Christianity have been essentially ripped out from under the church. Among other things, the claims presented in the book include:
Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and fathered a child with her.
Jesus intended for Mary Magdalene to become the head of the Christian church, but because of a patriarchal conspiracy, the concept of the "sacred feminine" was rejected and her role in the formation of the early church was stolen from her. The church has suppressed women ever since.
Jesus was never considered to be divine by the early church; this was an idea adopted by the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D.
The four Gospels presented in the New Testament were put there by the Roman Emperor Constantine to cover up what had been done. Many other "gospels" that revealed the truth were covered up.
Secret societies, like the Knights Templar and the Priory of Zion (a group whose members are said to have included such luminaries as Sir Isaac Newton and Leonardo Da Vinci) have carefully guarded these facts for centuries in the face of oppression from the organized Christian church.
The book, of course, is sold in the fiction section of the bookstore, and no publisher has yet made the claim that it is historically verifiable. Yet the clever manner in which Dan Brown presents his material has, while not convincing many people, still confused them. An author's note in the book assures us that "all descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate."
This gives the average reader—who is understandably not widely educated in ancient Christian history—the distinct impression that The Da Vinci Code is at least historical fiction, based on real events.That's where the essence of the concern over the book really lies. The lines between fact and fiction have been carefully blurred, making it seem as if many of the strange theories listed above might actually be true. The reality is that The Da Vinci Code is wildly inaccurate.
Take, for example, the book's suggestion that the Dead Sea scrolls contain some of Christianity's earliest documents (the assumption is made that these were suppressed by the early Christian church) - a claim that is utterly impossible. The Dead Sea scrolls are exclusively Old Testament documents.
Additionally, the ancient manuscripts discovered at Nag Hammadi in the 1940s are said to contain the "earliest" Christian documents. This simply isn't true. The writings of the New Testament were all completed before the first century expired; the books discovered at Nag Hammadi, at the earliest, date back to the late second century. (The one exception would be the gospel of Thomas which might date back as early as 130AD. This still puts it many years after the books of the New Testament were completed).
The story presented in The Da Vinci Code also seeks to persuade us that the four Gospels we now have in the New Testament are only there because of the political ambitions of the Roman Emperor Constantine. This supposedly happened at the Council of Nicea (325 AD), when the church needed Matthew, Mark, Luke and John to prove their newly-adopted theory that Jesus was divine. They purportedly selected the four Gospels we have today from as many as eighty other "gospels" which told a different story.
This assertion is utter nonsense, as any well-versed historian can tell you. There was no occasion on which the church sorted through eighty documents. Additionally, the veracity of the New Testament Gospels had been well established by the Christian church for hundreds of years before the Council of Nicea, which is proven by the fact that earlier church writings make constant reference to them as authoritative documents. The so-called "other gospels" are never mentioned in any list of books considered authoritative for the Christian.
There is also no record of the Council of Nicea making the decision that Jesus was divine. This was a doctrine well understood by the Christian church since the first believers wrote about His miracles and His claims to Godhood. The only topic of discussion at Nicea dealing with Christ's divinity had to do with how God the Son related to God the Father—but the fact of His divinity was not questioned, nor introduced for the first time.
Constantine would have been a relatively easy target for the likes of Dan Brown, because he did make a number of questionable decisions that are well recorded throughout history. We know, for example, that his influence allowed some pagan ideas to drift into the thought patterns of the Christian church. But Constantine did not create the canon of the New Testament or invent the notion of Christ's divinity. Those notions are utter fiction and a deliberate assault on the well-documented historicity of the Christian faith.
And what of the claim that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene? This was supposedly hidden from us for a number of reasons, including the way established Christianity frowns upon sexual relationships—including those found within the context of marriage. While the Christian church at large has, on occasion, taken a less-than-healthy attitude toward positive sexual relationships, this assertion is simply wrong. The New Testament book of Hebrews makes it abundantly clear that "marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled." (Hebrews 13:1) Marriage in Christian teaching does not diminish the sanctity of the individual; it rather elevates it.
If Jesus had been married (He was, after all, fully human in addition to being fully God), it would not have been a sin. The book of Ephesians—written in the mid-first century—uses marriage as a striking illustration of the sacred relationship of Jesus to His church. Listen to the words of Jesus Himself:And He answered and said to them,"Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? So then they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate." Matthew 19:5, 6
How could marriage be considered as defiling when God Himself thought of it? And yet Dan Brown insinuates that the early Christian believers had a poor view of it and covered up the "fact" that Jesus was married. The fact is that Jesus did not marry, and there is not one shred of ancient historical evidence to prove it - in or out of the biblical record. An appeal is made to the ancient Gospel of Philip, which was probably written sometime in the late 3rd century, because of the mention that Mary Magdalene was a "companion" of Jesus, and that He often kissed her. There are a number of things that I should probably point out:
The gospel of Philip is not an eye-witness account like the four canonical gospels. Even if threads of the genuine story of Jesus can be found in it, it is still a work of fiction. A "companion" is hardly a spouse. Many people greeted each other with a kiss in Jesus' day—it does not mean it was sexual in nature. Judas greeted Jesus with a kiss on the night of His betrayal.
Just what are these strange "other gospels" that Dan Brown and others refer to in their attempt to overthrow the traditional understanding of Jesus' life? As Christianity spread in the early centuries, so did problems and distortions of the Christian message. Among these groups were the Gnostics, who adopted a rather incredible version of the story of salvation. They believed that an inferior god—known as the Demiurge—created the material world we live in. According to their understanding, this was a grave mistake, because a material existence is less than ideal.
We should have never been created to live a physical existence in the first place. The mission of Jesus Christ, in Gnostic theology, was to set us free from the prison of the material world and the mistakes of the Creator. They wrote a number of so-called "gospels" and other books—the vast majority of which were written more than 100 years after the books of the New Testament - to espouse these views.
The gnostic world view is in direct competition with the view presented in both the Old and New Testaments. In opening chapters of Genesis, we are told that creation was "very good," and that it was man's rebellion against God that corrupted it. In the New Testament, we discover that Jesus Himself is the Creator. (See passages like John 1:1-3, Colossians 1:16, 17, Hebrews 1:1-3. So much for the idea that Jesus wasn't understood to be divine by Christian believers until the fourth century!)
He came to set us free from the consequences of our rebellion against the Creator through His sacrificial death at the cross, not from the physical, material world. In fact, the Bible clearly indicates that we will eventually be restored to a newly-created world for all eternity once the effects of sin have been eradicated. (See Isaiah 65:17-25, Revelation 21-22)
What is particularly interesting is the appeal to the ancient Gnostics to both elevate the status of women and endorse sexuality that seems to permeate The Da Vinci Code. In reality, the Gnostic's spurned the physical world (including sexual relationships), and demeaned women to a degree that would have been unimaginable for the early Christian church. Take, for example, this saying taken from number 114 from the gospel of Thomas: Simon Peter said to him, "Let Mary leave us, for women are not worthy of life." Jesus said, "I myself shall lead her in order to make her male, so that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who will make herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."
It is hardly a ringing endorsement on the value of womanhood. In other Gnostic writings found at Nad Hammadi, Jesus warns his disciples to pray somewhere that women are absent and to destroy the "works of womanhood." The appeal to Gnostic writings to elevate the "sacred feminine" is strange indeed, given the anti-female tone found in many of them. In the New Testament Gospels, you will never find a statement from Jesus that demeans women. As accomplished New Testament scholar Ben Witherington III points out, the Gnostic gospels really can't be called gospels at all:"...the term gospel ("Good News") is not just a Christian term, but rather one that was already in use in the Greco-Roman world before the canonical gospels were written. Because the ancient world didn't have a free market economy, public gifts from higher-status persons were what greased the wheels of society and commerce.
Emperors were lauded for their good deeds of benefaction and their triumphs in wars. The "gospel" was good news about actions taken on behalf of the people by the emperor (or another wealthy person). The benefactors weren't in the main, praised for their great philosophical or wise utterances.
When early Christians picked up the term gospel, they had in mind the goods news of things Jesus had done, while also including some of his teachings." (Ben Witherington III, The Gospel Code (Downer's Grove, Ill.: Intervarsity Press, 2004), p. 97)
All four of the New Testament gospels drive relentlessly toward the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. His teachings are emphasized, but they inevitably lead us to the cross and what Christ accomplished there in our behalf. They underscore the fact that we cannot save ourselves, so God did something to save us. That is why these four books are gospels—Good News.
The gnostic "gospels," on the other hand, do not tell the story of God becoming man and giving His life to save sinners. Instead, they present a different Jesus, one who speaks in mysterious riddles and vague philosophical sayings. This is because the Gnostics, far from being more pluralistic and accepting than the early Christians, were terrible elitists who believed that only people who were mentally capable of achieving hidden mystic knowledge would find salvation.
The door was not open to all; others were despised as inferior and unworthy. The Gnostics essentially left you on your own to find salvation. The God who created you, they said, was incompetent and made a terrible blunder when He did it. If you can't seem to wrap your head around secret knowledge, there is no hope for you. That is not good news. It is not a gospel.
Why has The Da Vinci Code struck such a chord with so many people? Why would somebody choose to reject the real good news of Christian belief—the divinity of Christ and His victory over the grave in our behalf? It's hard to tell. Maybe it has something to do with the scandals in the Christian world over the last couple of decades that have rocked the faith of so many people in things they used to count on. That's possible, but I somehow doubt that is all that's going on.
If we accept the Bible as true, it is an admission that the Creator has some claims on our lives. The misunderstanding is that somehow, these claims will enslave us and rob us of the liberty we crave. Nothing could be further from the truth. When you come face to face with Jesus Christ, you will discover that the Bible is reliable and the words of Jesus present both hope and truth. "If you abide in My word," said Jesus, "you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:31)
What is freedom? For Dan Brown and others, freedom appears to be a release from the claims of the biblical Christ. But in the end, this leaves you with a serious problem that forces you into unimaginable bondage: you have to sort out your sin problem all by yourself. You become a slave to the material world, fighting to escape it with all your might. That's not freedom. As Jesus stated, "Whoever commits sin is a slave to sin. And a slave does not abide in the house forever, but a son abides forever. Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed." (John 8:34)
God does not offer us slavery in the New Testament Gospels; He offers us the chance to become sons and daughters of the Most High God. And He offers us this opportunity through what Jesus accomplished at the cross. Has there been a historical conspiracy to hide the truth? Absolutely. The Bible describes it well: But even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, whose minds the god of this age has blinded, who do not believe, lest the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine on them. 2 Corinthians 4:3, 4
There is a cover-up taking place, and The Da Vinci Code, ironically, is part of it. It's a deliberate attempt to keep the truth of the Gospel - the Good News of what Jesus has done for you—out of your hands. The so-called "light" of The Da Vinci Code, in reality, is a shroud of darkness being thrown over the hope that God wants you to have.
So why does Dan Brown feel the need to present an alternate version of Christianity? Why not simply reject the Christian faith all together? Many years ago, the New Testament Scriptures predicted that in the last days, just before Jesus returns, there would be those "having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away!" (2 Timothy 3:5)
There is no question about it: a Jesus who did not die for us and was not divine is an attempt to have a form of Christianity that denies the power behind it. It has been stripped of all hope. This is the real problem with Dan Brown's Jesus. Without the resurrection of God's Son, the grave will be the end for all of us: For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable. But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep. For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the first fruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming. 1 Corinthians 15:13-20
It's hard to imagine someone who is truly delighted in the message of The Da Vinci Code—at least if they understand what Dan Brown is really saying. Where is the hope? Where is the Good News? Where is God?
Our generation is susceptible to the ideas presented in The Da Vinci Code because for most of us, it's been a while since we've looked at what the Bible actually says about Christ and what He did for us. Why not take a fresh look at the biblical gospels and the major themes of the Bible? I think you'll be amazed at how much more meaningful they are for your life than the Jesus of the best-sellers list and the silver screen.
Read more...
Where Did Easter Come From?
Easter is a time for bunny rabbits, colored eggs, hot cross buns, and springtime apparel. Where did Easter come from? Here is the fascinating story of how it originated.
Few people realize that ‘Easter’ is not the resurrection of Christ; in fact, the only time the word is found in the Bible (in Acts 12:4), it is only ‘Easter’ by mistranslation. The word in the original Greek is ‘Passover.’
Jesus died at the time of the Passover feast. But the Passover is not Easter, and Jesus did not die at Easter time. Here is information you will want to know. It comes from a publication entitled, "Easter: Where It Came From," printed many years ago, by Southern Publishing Association. An old man is speaking:
"The children had gathered around the huge, open fireplace. The lights were turned out and the shooting flames of the great wood fire lit their faces. Farther back, in a huge rocker, sat the Wise Man. In the daytime a very prosaic figure known as grandpa. On the special nights, when the children were allowed to ‘stay up,’ the fire light played on what seemed like the very soul of the old man, his face, and he became a mystic form, infinitely removed and yet very close to them. They called him the Wise Man then.
"This Easter night the children begged for the story of Easter. They did not understand the first part of what he told, but afterward they understood nearly all of it.
"Here is what they learned:
"Sunday was held sacred centuries before Sinai. December 25 was highly honored; the time of Easter was religiously observed; and Lent was a time for healing—all thousands of years before the coming of the Babe to Bethlehem!"
"After the Flood, the Garden of Eden was no longer on the earth. You remember the Lord had placed angels with flaming swords at its gates. As the people came to the gates to worship God, their faces were toward the west, for the gates were on the east side of the Garden. When Eden was taken up to God’s dwelling place, and no one knows just when that was, Satan had so confused some that they worshiped the things that God had made instead of God himself. The next brightest thing men saw was the sun, and they began to worship it. God at creation had given them the Sabbath, to remind them every week that He had made everything, but Satan has always tried to make men forget the Sabbath, so they would forget the true God.
"One of Noah’s great grandsons was called Nimrod. Nimrod was a great leader, and was the first empire builder. His wife, history says, was named Semiramis, and she was a very great queen. Satan was working to counterfeit God’s plan of salvation; and, when Nimrod died, the people said he was a god. Semiramis told them that he was indeed the sun god, and that his spirit was still living, dwelling, in the sun.
"In order that the people should love her as queen as long as she lived, Semiramis told them that hers was the spirit of the moon; and, when she died, she would dwell in the moon as Nimrod already dwelt in the sun.
"Satan was laying the foundation for every system of falsehood and error the world has ever known. The sun god, under different names, was worshiped in Babylon, Egypt, Greece, and Rome, as conquering nations were conquered by the religion of their captives.
"Every year when the cold season began, the people believed their sun god was leaving them. They came to learn that his lowest dip on the horizon, about December 21, was followed by his gradual return, until in midsummer he was directly overhead at noonday. It was on the 25th of December that they noticed, each year, the coming back, a little, of their god. This day they called the birthday of the sun. It was this belief in the annual journey of their god that Elijah alluded to in his conflict with the priests of Baal, the Syro-Phoenician sun god [1 Kings 18:19-40].
"After the death of Nimrod, Semiramis never married again—indeed how could the queen of heaven marry an ordinary man? But some years later she gave birth to a son. His name was Tammuz, and he was born on the 25th day of December! There was wild rejoicing in the nation over which Semiramis was queen. She told the people that the spirit of the sun, her husband Nimrod, was the father of Tammuz, and thus through her sin, Satan persuaded the people of the counterfeit birth of Jesus; for Jesus was really born of a virgin.
"Tammuz was hailed as the Son of the Sun, and the first letter of his name became in time the symbol of sun worship. Human sacrifices to the sun god were offered on this initial letter, made of wood, known as the cross. His birthday, December 25, was honored more and more, and the first day of the week was called the Sun’s day, or Sunday. The people forgot God’s Sabbath, and honored the day of the sun. To honor Semiramis they set aside a time in honor of the moon. This was the first full moon after the vernal equinox, or the twenty-first of March. The first Sunday after this full moon was indeed a gala day.
"While yet a young man, Tammuz, a hunter like his supposed father, was killed by a wild boar. What weeping there was in the kingdom! And the forty days before the time of the celebration for the moon were set apart as days of weeping for Tammuz.
"God’s people were constantly being tempted to follow this religion instead of that of the Bible. Often Satan succeeded in his purpose. In the eighth chapter of Ezekiel we read of the women’s weeping for Tammuz and the people’s turning their backs on the temple of God and worshiping the sun toward the east. They also worshiped the moon goddess, making cakes to the queen of heaven (Jer. 7:18-19). These were round cakes on which had been cut a cross.
"The great distinguishing mark of the heathen was Sunday and the mark of God’s people was the Sabbath (Eze. 20:12-20]. Side by side through the centuries were God’s people worshiping Him, obeying His commandments, keeping His Sabbath; and the heathen were worshiping the sun, keeping Sunday, offering their children in the fire as a sacrifice to the sun, or crucifying their human victims to turn away his supposed anger.
"One writer in a noted periodical says that ‘Sunday was the wild, solar holiday of all pagan times.’ It was on this day that the worst features of sun worship were practiced. Too often Israel did these things too, but God constantly sent them messages to obey Him.
"Finally Christ, the Son of God, was born. The exact day of His birth no one knows, but it was probably in October. He was just thirty-three and a half years old when He was crucified, in April, at the time of the Passover. How Jesus loved His people! He loved them so much that He was willing to suffer abuse and mocking, scourging and death. Remember that Tammuz was exalted by Satan to be the great rival of Jesus, and the symbol of the cross was the sign of sun worship. Through all the years it had seemed that the sun god was greater than the true God, for Israel alone followed God, but often even Israel followed the sun god.
"Oh yes, Jesus loved His people! He came into a world that had forgotten Him, its Creator, suffered every insult at its hands, and finally died upon the symbol of sun worship, ‘even,’ says Paul, ‘the death of the cross’ (Phil. 2:8).
"What rejoicing then by the demons! The Son of God, delivered by His own people and crucified by the sun-worshiping Romans on the symbol of sun worship! Oh the condescending Jesus! How He must have loved His peopIe!"
"The old man’s face softened, and the children saw tears in his eyes. After a time he went on. His eyes were shining now.
"But God honored that sacrifice! On the third day after His crucifixion, the first day for sun worship, while the spirits of demons were in the wildest orgy of celebration over their victory; for, through many men, Satan’s angels all rejoiced in the victory of false worship on that very day set aside and honored by the name of the sun—God raised His Son from the grave a conqueror! As after Creation He had rested, so after redemption He rested in the tomb on His Sabbath; and now, on the day of the sun, He was raised, eternal victor over the sun worship and all false systems of worship. That was why God raised Him on Sunday. Once more the Sabbath is God’s sign between Him and His people. His disciples kept it while they lived.
"But Satan was not yet through with the world. First, he persecuted God’s people, and then he tempted them again. The heathen were still keeping Sunday; and, as the Christians were scattered throughout the world, Satan whispered in the ears of God’s people that they should try to gain favor by being more like the heathen. Was not Christ born toward the end of the year? The exact date was uncertain. Why not call it the same date as the birth of Tammuz? So December 25 became Christmas.
"Again, Christ was crucified and resurrected in the spring, near the time of the moon festival. Why not have the same time as the heathen, and even do as they did, but call it in honor of Christ’s resurrection. The cakes to the queen of heaven became the hot cross buns. The forty days of ‘weeping for Tammuz’ became Lent; and at the close of Lent came Easter Sunday, a counterfeit masterpiece."
"The voice was silent for a time. The old man’s face darkened as he seemed to see, in the embers of the fire, a sinister event against which he would cry out. Suddenly there rang out in the stillness the trumpet-like tones that had called to the men on the battlefield, when as a drummer boy, he had snatched up the colors where a dying bearer had fallen, and rallied a regiment that had nearly broken.
"Oh the cowards! The cowards! They allowed the flag of God, His holy Sabbath, to trail in the dust. They trampled it under their feet; they exalted the sun’s day; they broke the command of God, and all in the name of the One who had given His life to save His people from that very thing!
"Oh, how Jesus in heaven must have wept when His so-called followers, to gain influence, set up the mark of rebellion against heaven—Sunday. And how He must weep today when people profess to honor His resurrection by trampling on His day and honoring the flag of the defeated foe. God forgive our nation if she ever passes a law to do that, if she ever passes a national Sunday law."
" ‘Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples; and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.’ 1 Corinthians 10:11-12 . .
"It was by associating with idolaters and joining in their festivities that the Hebrews were led to transgress God’s law and bring His judgments upon the nation. So now it is by leading the followers of Christ to associate with the ungodly and unite in their amusements that Satan is most successful in alluring them into sin. ‘Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean.’ 2 Corinthians 6:17.
"God requires of His people now as great a distinction from the world, in customs, habits, and principles, as He required of Israel anciently. If they faithfully follow the teachings of His Word, this distinction will exist; it cannot be otherwise. The warnings given to the Hebrews against assimilating with the heathen were not more direct or explicit than are those forbidding Christians to conform to the spirit and customs of the ungodly."
Read more...
Few people realize that ‘Easter’ is not the resurrection of Christ; in fact, the only time the word is found in the Bible (in Acts 12:4), it is only ‘Easter’ by mistranslation. The word in the original Greek is ‘Passover.’
Jesus died at the time of the Passover feast. But the Passover is not Easter, and Jesus did not die at Easter time. Here is information you will want to know. It comes from a publication entitled, "Easter: Where It Came From," printed many years ago, by Southern Publishing Association. An old man is speaking:
"The children had gathered around the huge, open fireplace. The lights were turned out and the shooting flames of the great wood fire lit their faces. Farther back, in a huge rocker, sat the Wise Man. In the daytime a very prosaic figure known as grandpa. On the special nights, when the children were allowed to ‘stay up,’ the fire light played on what seemed like the very soul of the old man, his face, and he became a mystic form, infinitely removed and yet very close to them. They called him the Wise Man then.
"This Easter night the children begged for the story of Easter. They did not understand the first part of what he told, but afterward they understood nearly all of it.
"Here is what they learned:
"Sunday was held sacred centuries before Sinai. December 25 was highly honored; the time of Easter was religiously observed; and Lent was a time for healing—all thousands of years before the coming of the Babe to Bethlehem!"
"After the Flood, the Garden of Eden was no longer on the earth. You remember the Lord had placed angels with flaming swords at its gates. As the people came to the gates to worship God, their faces were toward the west, for the gates were on the east side of the Garden. When Eden was taken up to God’s dwelling place, and no one knows just when that was, Satan had so confused some that they worshiped the things that God had made instead of God himself. The next brightest thing men saw was the sun, and they began to worship it. God at creation had given them the Sabbath, to remind them every week that He had made everything, but Satan has always tried to make men forget the Sabbath, so they would forget the true God.
"One of Noah’s great grandsons was called Nimrod. Nimrod was a great leader, and was the first empire builder. His wife, history says, was named Semiramis, and she was a very great queen. Satan was working to counterfeit God’s plan of salvation; and, when Nimrod died, the people said he was a god. Semiramis told them that he was indeed the sun god, and that his spirit was still living, dwelling, in the sun.
"In order that the people should love her as queen as long as she lived, Semiramis told them that hers was the spirit of the moon; and, when she died, she would dwell in the moon as Nimrod already dwelt in the sun.
"Satan was laying the foundation for every system of falsehood and error the world has ever known. The sun god, under different names, was worshiped in Babylon, Egypt, Greece, and Rome, as conquering nations were conquered by the religion of their captives.
"Every year when the cold season began, the people believed their sun god was leaving them. They came to learn that his lowest dip on the horizon, about December 21, was followed by his gradual return, until in midsummer he was directly overhead at noonday. It was on the 25th of December that they noticed, each year, the coming back, a little, of their god. This day they called the birthday of the sun. It was this belief in the annual journey of their god that Elijah alluded to in his conflict with the priests of Baal, the Syro-Phoenician sun god [1 Kings 18:19-40].
"After the death of Nimrod, Semiramis never married again—indeed how could the queen of heaven marry an ordinary man? But some years later she gave birth to a son. His name was Tammuz, and he was born on the 25th day of December! There was wild rejoicing in the nation over which Semiramis was queen. She told the people that the spirit of the sun, her husband Nimrod, was the father of Tammuz, and thus through her sin, Satan persuaded the people of the counterfeit birth of Jesus; for Jesus was really born of a virgin.
"Tammuz was hailed as the Son of the Sun, and the first letter of his name became in time the symbol of sun worship. Human sacrifices to the sun god were offered on this initial letter, made of wood, known as the cross. His birthday, December 25, was honored more and more, and the first day of the week was called the Sun’s day, or Sunday. The people forgot God’s Sabbath, and honored the day of the sun. To honor Semiramis they set aside a time in honor of the moon. This was the first full moon after the vernal equinox, or the twenty-first of March. The first Sunday after this full moon was indeed a gala day.
"While yet a young man, Tammuz, a hunter like his supposed father, was killed by a wild boar. What weeping there was in the kingdom! And the forty days before the time of the celebration for the moon were set apart as days of weeping for Tammuz.
"God’s people were constantly being tempted to follow this religion instead of that of the Bible. Often Satan succeeded in his purpose. In the eighth chapter of Ezekiel we read of the women’s weeping for Tammuz and the people’s turning their backs on the temple of God and worshiping the sun toward the east. They also worshiped the moon goddess, making cakes to the queen of heaven (Jer. 7:18-19). These were round cakes on which had been cut a cross.
"The great distinguishing mark of the heathen was Sunday and the mark of God’s people was the Sabbath (Eze. 20:12-20]. Side by side through the centuries were God’s people worshiping Him, obeying His commandments, keeping His Sabbath; and the heathen were worshiping the sun, keeping Sunday, offering their children in the fire as a sacrifice to the sun, or crucifying their human victims to turn away his supposed anger.
"One writer in a noted periodical says that ‘Sunday was the wild, solar holiday of all pagan times.’ It was on this day that the worst features of sun worship were practiced. Too often Israel did these things too, but God constantly sent them messages to obey Him.
"Finally Christ, the Son of God, was born. The exact day of His birth no one knows, but it was probably in October. He was just thirty-three and a half years old when He was crucified, in April, at the time of the Passover. How Jesus loved His people! He loved them so much that He was willing to suffer abuse and mocking, scourging and death. Remember that Tammuz was exalted by Satan to be the great rival of Jesus, and the symbol of the cross was the sign of sun worship. Through all the years it had seemed that the sun god was greater than the true God, for Israel alone followed God, but often even Israel followed the sun god.
"Oh yes, Jesus loved His people! He came into a world that had forgotten Him, its Creator, suffered every insult at its hands, and finally died upon the symbol of sun worship, ‘even,’ says Paul, ‘the death of the cross’ (Phil. 2:8).
"What rejoicing then by the demons! The Son of God, delivered by His own people and crucified by the sun-worshiping Romans on the symbol of sun worship! Oh the condescending Jesus! How He must have loved His peopIe!"
"The old man’s face softened, and the children saw tears in his eyes. After a time he went on. His eyes were shining now.
"But God honored that sacrifice! On the third day after His crucifixion, the first day for sun worship, while the spirits of demons were in the wildest orgy of celebration over their victory; for, through many men, Satan’s angels all rejoiced in the victory of false worship on that very day set aside and honored by the name of the sun—God raised His Son from the grave a conqueror! As after Creation He had rested, so after redemption He rested in the tomb on His Sabbath; and now, on the day of the sun, He was raised, eternal victor over the sun worship and all false systems of worship. That was why God raised Him on Sunday. Once more the Sabbath is God’s sign between Him and His people. His disciples kept it while they lived.
"But Satan was not yet through with the world. First, he persecuted God’s people, and then he tempted them again. The heathen were still keeping Sunday; and, as the Christians were scattered throughout the world, Satan whispered in the ears of God’s people that they should try to gain favor by being more like the heathen. Was not Christ born toward the end of the year? The exact date was uncertain. Why not call it the same date as the birth of Tammuz? So December 25 became Christmas.
"Again, Christ was crucified and resurrected in the spring, near the time of the moon festival. Why not have the same time as the heathen, and even do as they did, but call it in honor of Christ’s resurrection. The cakes to the queen of heaven became the hot cross buns. The forty days of ‘weeping for Tammuz’ became Lent; and at the close of Lent came Easter Sunday, a counterfeit masterpiece."
"The voice was silent for a time. The old man’s face darkened as he seemed to see, in the embers of the fire, a sinister event against which he would cry out. Suddenly there rang out in the stillness the trumpet-like tones that had called to the men on the battlefield, when as a drummer boy, he had snatched up the colors where a dying bearer had fallen, and rallied a regiment that had nearly broken.
"Oh the cowards! The cowards! They allowed the flag of God, His holy Sabbath, to trail in the dust. They trampled it under their feet; they exalted the sun’s day; they broke the command of God, and all in the name of the One who had given His life to save His people from that very thing!
"Oh, how Jesus in heaven must have wept when His so-called followers, to gain influence, set up the mark of rebellion against heaven—Sunday. And how He must weep today when people profess to honor His resurrection by trampling on His day and honoring the flag of the defeated foe. God forgive our nation if she ever passes a law to do that, if she ever passes a national Sunday law."
" ‘Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples; and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall.’ 1 Corinthians 10:11-12 . .
"It was by associating with idolaters and joining in their festivities that the Hebrews were led to transgress God’s law and bring His judgments upon the nation. So now it is by leading the followers of Christ to associate with the ungodly and unite in their amusements that Satan is most successful in alluring them into sin. ‘Come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean.’ 2 Corinthians 6:17.
"God requires of His people now as great a distinction from the world, in customs, habits, and principles, as He required of Israel anciently. If they faithfully follow the teachings of His Word, this distinction will exist; it cannot be otherwise. The warnings given to the Hebrews against assimilating with the heathen were not more direct or explicit than are those forbidding Christians to conform to the spirit and customs of the ungodly."
Read more...
Where Did Halloween Come From?
With the loving approval of their parents, children dress up in weird costumes and play pranks on Halloween night, little realizing that, for over a thousand years, this has been the one evening in the year specially dedicated by spirit mediums and witches to the worship of Satan.
Halloween has nothing to do with Christianity. It is a festival which no one—child or adult—should have anything to do with. We need to better understand the origins of Halloween and its dangers.
Here is where Halloween came from:
During the Dark Ages, a number of pagan customs were adopted by the dominant Christian church in Europe. One of these was devil night, which was later named, "Halloween." This special night, celebrated, since antiquity, as the night when the devils come out and walk about the streets, was a satanic festival on October 31 of each year. The next day was called "All Saints’ Day" (or Allhallows Day or All Souls Day), so "Halloween" was the name given to "hallows evening," or the "evening before hallows day"). Like the night before it, Allhallows Day was dedicated to honoring the dead.
The Druids were an order of priests in Gaul (ancient France) and Britain. They were devil worshipers who told the people they must hold an annual celebration to their two leading gods: the Celtic sun god and their lord of the dead. On this night, the god who brings death—Satan—was worshiped in a variety of peculiar ways. This October 31 festival was named Samhain (or Sowein; both are pronounced "SAH-win") or "summer’s eud." The next day, the sun god was worshiped.
On the night of October 31, they believed the dead came out of the graves and walked around; so they offered up sacrifices and had special feasts to honor them. The priests of Druid taught them that if they did not do this, when they themselves died they would be reincarnated as animals instead of people.
But pretended communication with the dead is the basis of spiritualism (also called spiritism), which is one of the most dangerous practices in society; for it invites the control of demons! We should have nothing to do with anything connected with spiritism. And that includes participating in Halloween.
Druidic priests became nominally converted to Christianity when, in the early centuries, it entered their land (A.D. 433-475), and Druidic practices, including the October 31 festival to devils, came into the church (A.D 558) at that time. To pacify the followers of Druid, in the eighth century, Pope Gregory III (A.D. 731-741) declared November 1 to be a special feast day honoring the dead. In the ninth century, Pope Gregory IV (827-844) said that it must be kept by all Christians. Church discipline would be enforced on those who refused.
It is of interest that November 1 was the first day of the Druidic New Year. This made the evening before very special. As might be expected, because the night of October 31 had for centuries been dedicated to devils, the new church ruling only intensified the celebrations that took place that night. The devils made sure of that. Soon Halloween (Hallowe’en, Allhallows Eve), originally a pagan festival, became the outstanding Christian event held every autumn.
Celebrations of all kinds took place. In Ireland, carvings on pumpkins and jack-o’-lanterns (also known as will-o’-the-wisp, fox fire, fairie fire, friar’s lantern, and corpse lantern) were made. The legend was that a man named Jack had played practical jokes on the devil and bothered him, so the devil kept him out of heaven. Jack, therefore, had to live forever on earth carrying about a lit lantern, warning people not to offend the devil. The lesson for little children: Do not offend the devil.
Yet such teachings did not help either the people nor the morals of society. Throughout Europe, on this one night of the year, it soon seemed as if all the devils came out! Indeed, that was the hidden meaning of Halloween, and the wild excitement and orgies of the people on that night seemed to fulfill it.
The Druids believed that, on Halloween, ghosts, spirits, fairies, witches, and elves emerged from the woods and flew in from the skies to harm people. Those evil creatures must be placated with offerings of food. On that night, the Celts went with their children to one another’s house to gather food for the devil gods.
Animals were feared on that night also. Dogs, owls, snakes, and pigs were particularly worshiped on that night; but, among them, the cat was regarded with a special veneration. The Druid priests taught that cats—especially black ones—were sacred. This is why, today, we think of cats, as well as skeletons, pumpkins, skulls, and children with sheets over their heads (imitating ghosts), when we think of Halloween.
Druids were supposed to be able to cast spells and bring demon spirits into cats and similar animals. By believing those lies, the people feared the priests and were in bondage to do whatever they requested.
The Celtic priests also taught that witches ride on brooms through the skies on that night and fling down curses on those who do not honor the dead by taking part in the ritual ceremonies of that night.
As might be expected, Satan had introduced a similar October festival on the mainland of Europe among the Finns and Goths. However, it was the Druidic festival in Britain—and the date of that festival—which was adopted by the Vatican as the official harvest festival in honor of the dead.
After being adopted by nominal Christianity in the Dark Ages, the festival of Halloween spread throughout Europe and to most countries which they later colonized. Yet few today are aware that this holiday originated in paganism, not Christianity, and that it is the most dangerous "holiday" in the year. For long ages, Halloween has been a night especially dedicated to satanic agencies. Every October 31 we see the clearest evidence of that fact.
The Druid priests in North Wales taught that the devils came out of the fire on this night. So bonfires were lit, to bring them out in droves! This is why outdoor night fires are today considered a part of the Halloween experience.
In North Wales, each family was told to build a bonfire and then throw stones into it, to bring out the devils and placate the dead. Prayers were offered. In the Scottish highlands, fortune telling was done by clairvoyants during the bonfire celebrations.
The problem has become so serious in our time, that, a couple years ago in Detroit, Mayor Coleman Young reported that 281 fires occurred on that night, up 20 percent from the 223 fires set on the previous Halloween.
Another ancient Halloween practice was prognostication. Events of the forthcoming year (which began the next day) were predicted. The spirits were thought to give this information to the priests on that special evening. By accepting these speculations as truth, the people came to fear the power of the priests even more. It is well-known, among spiritist mediums, that those people who follow horoscopes and go to fortune tellers are easier to control. If you want devils to harass your life, then go to the prognosticators, the fortune tellers.
Our only safety is in fleeing to Christ and pleading for His protection. If we do that, regardless of our past, we will be safe.
Even today, it is at the time of this October devil festival that the psychics (a modern name for spiritist mediums) write down and publish their predictions of the following year’s events. (It is of interest that lists of these predictions made by mystics have been compiled—and then checked out the following year. Only rarely does even one predicted event occur.) Have nothing to do with fortune telling, astrology, and horoscopes. Remember where they came from and the demon power controlling them.
After the papal edicts were given, adopting and "sanctifying" the October 31 festival into the church, the people were taught that, the next day, special masses must be said for the dead. Children were sent out to the homes on the evening before. The people were told to either give money or some other offering that night or fast the next day, so that departed souls might be released sooner from the suffering of purgatory. Because it was simpler to do, most gave Halloween offerings. In this way, the Druidic practice of begging food from home to home continued. The church of the Dark Ages was expert at absorbing pagan customs and then calling them "Christian."
There are those today who have tried to "Christianize" Halloween Eve even more. They dress their children in Biblical costumes and celebrate Halloween as a "harvest festival." But the origin of the night’s celebrations remains the same. We should not ape the world in observing special sacred days originated by Satan. Separation is needed, not compromise.
Vandalism on a major scale now plagues cities on that night. Not long ago, one U.S. city experienced three days of riots, arson, and mass destruction. For three days children and men seemed possessed, and the city seemed out of control.
Should we today celebrate this pagan night, which every witch, clairvoyant, wizard, and spirit medium will tell you is the outstanding occultic night in the year? Far better to keep our children home on that night, pray to God, and read the Bible! Dedicate year life anew to the true God, and shun the amusements and follies of the devil gods. Although very inviting, they will only bring you troubIe and misery, confusion of mind, and an empty life without happiness.
To conclude this chapter, here are two significant statements by historians:
"Druidic element: Unlike the familiar observance of All Souls, Halloween traditions have never been connected with Christian religious celebrations of any kind. Although the name is taken from a great Christian feast (Allhollows’ Eve), it has nothing in common with the Feast of All Saints and is, instead, a tradition of pre-Christian times that has retained its original character in form and meaning.
"Holloween customs are traced back to the ancient Druids . . Halloween fires are kindled in many places even now, especially in Wales and Scotland.
"Another, and more important, tradition is the Druidic belief that during the night of November 1 demons, witches, and evil spirits roamed the earth in wild and furious gambols of joy to greet the arrival of ‘their season’—the long nights and early dark of the winter months. They had their fun with the poor mortals that night, frightening, harming them, and playing all kinds of mean tricks.
"The only way, it seemed, for scared humans to escape the persecution of the demons was to offer them things they liked, especially dainty food and sweets. Or, in order to escape the fury of these horrible creatures, a human could disguise himself as one of them and join in their roaming. In this way they would take him for one of their own and he would not be bothered. That is what the people did in ancient times, and it is in this very form the custom has come down to us, practically unaltered, as our familiar Holloween celebration . .
"Roman element: In those countries that once belonged to the Roman Empire there is the custom of eating or giving away fruit, especially apples, on Holloween. It spread to neighboring countries: to Ireland and Scotland from Britain, and to the Slavic countries from Austria. It is probably based upon a celebration of the Roman goddess Pomona, to whom gardens and orchards were dedicated. Since the annual Feast of Pomona was held on November 1, the relics of that observance became part of our Holloween celebration, for instance the familiar tradition of ‘ducking’ for apples."—Francis X. Weiser, Handbook of Christian Feasts and Customs, 315-316.
"Our pagan forefathers kept several ‘cult of the dead’ rites at various times of the year. One of these periods was the great celebration at the end of the fall and the beginning of the winter (around November 1). Together with the practices of nature and demon lore (fires, masquerades, fertility cults) they also observed the ritual of the dead with many traditional rites. Since All Saints and All Souls happened to be placed within the period of such an ancient festival, some of the pre-Christian traditions become part of our Christian feast and associated with Christian ideas.
"There is, for instance, the pre-Christian practice of putting food at the graves or in the homes at such times of the year when the spirits of the dead were believed to roam their familiar earthly places. The beginning of November was one of these times. By offering a meal or some token of food to the spirits, people hoped to please them and to avert any possible harm they could do. Hence came the custom of baking special breads in honor of the holy souls and bestowing them on the children of the poor. This custom is widespread in Europe. ‘All Souls’ bread’ is made and distributed in Germany, Hungary, and in the Slavic countries.
"In some sections of central Europe boys receive on All Souls’ Day a cake shaped in the form of a hare, and girls are given one in the shape of a hen (an interesting combination of ‘spirit bread’ and fertility symbols). These figure cakes are baked of the same dough as the festive cakes that people eat on All Saints’ Day and which are a favorite dish all over central Europe. They are made of braided strains of sweet dough and called ‘All Saints’ cakes" (Heiligenstriezel in German, Strucel Swiateczne in Polish, Mindszenti Kalácska in Hangarian)."—Francis X. Weiser, Handbook of Christian Feasts and Customs, 312-313.
"Nearly all forms of ancient sorcery and witchcraft were founded upon a belief in communion with the dead . . This custom of consulting the dead is referred to in the prophecy of Isaiah: ‘When they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? Isaiah 8:19.
"The same belief in communion with the dead formed the cornerstone of heathen idolatry. The gods of the heathen were believed to be the deified spirits of departed heroes. Thus the religion of the heathen was a worship of the dead . .
"The deification of the dead has held a prominent place in nearly every system of heathenism, as has also the supposed communion with the dead. The gods were believed to communicate their will to men, and also, when consulted, to give them counsel. Of this character were the famous oracles of Greece and Rome.
"The belief in communion with the dead is still held, even in professedly Christian lands. Under the name of spiritualism the practice of communicating with beings claiming to be the spirits of the departed has become widespread. It is calculated to take hold of the sympathies of those who have laid their loved ones in the grave. Spiritual beings sometimes appear to persons in the form of their deceased friends, and relate incidents connected with their lives and perform acts which they performed while living. In this way they lead men to believe that their dead friends are angels, hovering over them and communicating with them. Those who thus assume to be the spirits of the departed are regarded with a certain idolatry, and with many their word has greater weight than the Word of God . .
"Modern spiritualism and the forms of ancient witchcraft and idol worship—all having communion with the dead as their vital principle—are founded upon that first lie by which Satan beguiled Eve in Eden: ‘Ye shall not surely die: for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof . . ye shall be as gods.’ Genesis 3:4-5. Alike based upon falsehood and perpetuating the same, they are alike from the father of lies." —Patriarchs and Prophets, 684-685
"In the name of Christ I would address His professed followers: Abide in the faith which you have received from the beginning. ‘Shun profane and vain babblings.’ 2 Timothy 2:16. Instead of putting your trust in witchcraft, have faith in the living God. Cursed is the path that leads to Endor or to Ekron. The feet will stumble and fall that venture upon this forbidden ground. There is a God in Israel, with whom is deliverance for all who are oppressed. Righteousness is the foundation of His throne."
Read more...
Halloween has nothing to do with Christianity. It is a festival which no one—child or adult—should have anything to do with. We need to better understand the origins of Halloween and its dangers.
Here is where Halloween came from:
During the Dark Ages, a number of pagan customs were adopted by the dominant Christian church in Europe. One of these was devil night, which was later named, "Halloween." This special night, celebrated, since antiquity, as the night when the devils come out and walk about the streets, was a satanic festival on October 31 of each year. The next day was called "All Saints’ Day" (or Allhallows Day or All Souls Day), so "Halloween" was the name given to "hallows evening," or the "evening before hallows day"). Like the night before it, Allhallows Day was dedicated to honoring the dead.
The Druids were an order of priests in Gaul (ancient France) and Britain. They were devil worshipers who told the people they must hold an annual celebration to their two leading gods: the Celtic sun god and their lord of the dead. On this night, the god who brings death—Satan—was worshiped in a variety of peculiar ways. This October 31 festival was named Samhain (or Sowein; both are pronounced "SAH-win") or "summer’s eud." The next day, the sun god was worshiped.
On the night of October 31, they believed the dead came out of the graves and walked around; so they offered up sacrifices and had special feasts to honor them. The priests of Druid taught them that if they did not do this, when they themselves died they would be reincarnated as animals instead of people.
But pretended communication with the dead is the basis of spiritualism (also called spiritism), which is one of the most dangerous practices in society; for it invites the control of demons! We should have nothing to do with anything connected with spiritism. And that includes participating in Halloween.
Druidic priests became nominally converted to Christianity when, in the early centuries, it entered their land (A.D. 433-475), and Druidic practices, including the October 31 festival to devils, came into the church (A.D 558) at that time. To pacify the followers of Druid, in the eighth century, Pope Gregory III (A.D. 731-741) declared November 1 to be a special feast day honoring the dead. In the ninth century, Pope Gregory IV (827-844) said that it must be kept by all Christians. Church discipline would be enforced on those who refused.
It is of interest that November 1 was the first day of the Druidic New Year. This made the evening before very special. As might be expected, because the night of October 31 had for centuries been dedicated to devils, the new church ruling only intensified the celebrations that took place that night. The devils made sure of that. Soon Halloween (Hallowe’en, Allhallows Eve), originally a pagan festival, became the outstanding Christian event held every autumn.
Celebrations of all kinds took place. In Ireland, carvings on pumpkins and jack-o’-lanterns (also known as will-o’-the-wisp, fox fire, fairie fire, friar’s lantern, and corpse lantern) were made. The legend was that a man named Jack had played practical jokes on the devil and bothered him, so the devil kept him out of heaven. Jack, therefore, had to live forever on earth carrying about a lit lantern, warning people not to offend the devil. The lesson for little children: Do not offend the devil.
Yet such teachings did not help either the people nor the morals of society. Throughout Europe, on this one night of the year, it soon seemed as if all the devils came out! Indeed, that was the hidden meaning of Halloween, and the wild excitement and orgies of the people on that night seemed to fulfill it.
The Druids believed that, on Halloween, ghosts, spirits, fairies, witches, and elves emerged from the woods and flew in from the skies to harm people. Those evil creatures must be placated with offerings of food. On that night, the Celts went with their children to one another’s house to gather food for the devil gods.
Animals were feared on that night also. Dogs, owls, snakes, and pigs were particularly worshiped on that night; but, among them, the cat was regarded with a special veneration. The Druid priests taught that cats—especially black ones—were sacred. This is why, today, we think of cats, as well as skeletons, pumpkins, skulls, and children with sheets over their heads (imitating ghosts), when we think of Halloween.
Druids were supposed to be able to cast spells and bring demon spirits into cats and similar animals. By believing those lies, the people feared the priests and were in bondage to do whatever they requested.
The Celtic priests also taught that witches ride on brooms through the skies on that night and fling down curses on those who do not honor the dead by taking part in the ritual ceremonies of that night.
As might be expected, Satan had introduced a similar October festival on the mainland of Europe among the Finns and Goths. However, it was the Druidic festival in Britain—and the date of that festival—which was adopted by the Vatican as the official harvest festival in honor of the dead.
After being adopted by nominal Christianity in the Dark Ages, the festival of Halloween spread throughout Europe and to most countries which they later colonized. Yet few today are aware that this holiday originated in paganism, not Christianity, and that it is the most dangerous "holiday" in the year. For long ages, Halloween has been a night especially dedicated to satanic agencies. Every October 31 we see the clearest evidence of that fact.
The Druid priests in North Wales taught that the devils came out of the fire on this night. So bonfires were lit, to bring them out in droves! This is why outdoor night fires are today considered a part of the Halloween experience.
In North Wales, each family was told to build a bonfire and then throw stones into it, to bring out the devils and placate the dead. Prayers were offered. In the Scottish highlands, fortune telling was done by clairvoyants during the bonfire celebrations.
The problem has become so serious in our time, that, a couple years ago in Detroit, Mayor Coleman Young reported that 281 fires occurred on that night, up 20 percent from the 223 fires set on the previous Halloween.
Another ancient Halloween practice was prognostication. Events of the forthcoming year (which began the next day) were predicted. The spirits were thought to give this information to the priests on that special evening. By accepting these speculations as truth, the people came to fear the power of the priests even more. It is well-known, among spiritist mediums, that those people who follow horoscopes and go to fortune tellers are easier to control. If you want devils to harass your life, then go to the prognosticators, the fortune tellers.
Our only safety is in fleeing to Christ and pleading for His protection. If we do that, regardless of our past, we will be safe.
Even today, it is at the time of this October devil festival that the psychics (a modern name for spiritist mediums) write down and publish their predictions of the following year’s events. (It is of interest that lists of these predictions made by mystics have been compiled—and then checked out the following year. Only rarely does even one predicted event occur.) Have nothing to do with fortune telling, astrology, and horoscopes. Remember where they came from and the demon power controlling them.
After the papal edicts were given, adopting and "sanctifying" the October 31 festival into the church, the people were taught that, the next day, special masses must be said for the dead. Children were sent out to the homes on the evening before. The people were told to either give money or some other offering that night or fast the next day, so that departed souls might be released sooner from the suffering of purgatory. Because it was simpler to do, most gave Halloween offerings. In this way, the Druidic practice of begging food from home to home continued. The church of the Dark Ages was expert at absorbing pagan customs and then calling them "Christian."
There are those today who have tried to "Christianize" Halloween Eve even more. They dress their children in Biblical costumes and celebrate Halloween as a "harvest festival." But the origin of the night’s celebrations remains the same. We should not ape the world in observing special sacred days originated by Satan. Separation is needed, not compromise.
Vandalism on a major scale now plagues cities on that night. Not long ago, one U.S. city experienced three days of riots, arson, and mass destruction. For three days children and men seemed possessed, and the city seemed out of control.
Should we today celebrate this pagan night, which every witch, clairvoyant, wizard, and spirit medium will tell you is the outstanding occultic night in the year? Far better to keep our children home on that night, pray to God, and read the Bible! Dedicate year life anew to the true God, and shun the amusements and follies of the devil gods. Although very inviting, they will only bring you troubIe and misery, confusion of mind, and an empty life without happiness.
To conclude this chapter, here are two significant statements by historians:
"Druidic element: Unlike the familiar observance of All Souls, Halloween traditions have never been connected with Christian religious celebrations of any kind. Although the name is taken from a great Christian feast (Allhollows’ Eve), it has nothing in common with the Feast of All Saints and is, instead, a tradition of pre-Christian times that has retained its original character in form and meaning.
"Holloween customs are traced back to the ancient Druids . . Halloween fires are kindled in many places even now, especially in Wales and Scotland.
"Another, and more important, tradition is the Druidic belief that during the night of November 1 demons, witches, and evil spirits roamed the earth in wild and furious gambols of joy to greet the arrival of ‘their season’—the long nights and early dark of the winter months. They had their fun with the poor mortals that night, frightening, harming them, and playing all kinds of mean tricks.
"The only way, it seemed, for scared humans to escape the persecution of the demons was to offer them things they liked, especially dainty food and sweets. Or, in order to escape the fury of these horrible creatures, a human could disguise himself as one of them and join in their roaming. In this way they would take him for one of their own and he would not be bothered. That is what the people did in ancient times, and it is in this very form the custom has come down to us, practically unaltered, as our familiar Holloween celebration . .
"Roman element: In those countries that once belonged to the Roman Empire there is the custom of eating or giving away fruit, especially apples, on Holloween. It spread to neighboring countries: to Ireland and Scotland from Britain, and to the Slavic countries from Austria. It is probably based upon a celebration of the Roman goddess Pomona, to whom gardens and orchards were dedicated. Since the annual Feast of Pomona was held on November 1, the relics of that observance became part of our Holloween celebration, for instance the familiar tradition of ‘ducking’ for apples."—Francis X. Weiser, Handbook of Christian Feasts and Customs, 315-316.
"Our pagan forefathers kept several ‘cult of the dead’ rites at various times of the year. One of these periods was the great celebration at the end of the fall and the beginning of the winter (around November 1). Together with the practices of nature and demon lore (fires, masquerades, fertility cults) they also observed the ritual of the dead with many traditional rites. Since All Saints and All Souls happened to be placed within the period of such an ancient festival, some of the pre-Christian traditions become part of our Christian feast and associated with Christian ideas.
"There is, for instance, the pre-Christian practice of putting food at the graves or in the homes at such times of the year when the spirits of the dead were believed to roam their familiar earthly places. The beginning of November was one of these times. By offering a meal or some token of food to the spirits, people hoped to please them and to avert any possible harm they could do. Hence came the custom of baking special breads in honor of the holy souls and bestowing them on the children of the poor. This custom is widespread in Europe. ‘All Souls’ bread’ is made and distributed in Germany, Hungary, and in the Slavic countries.
"In some sections of central Europe boys receive on All Souls’ Day a cake shaped in the form of a hare, and girls are given one in the shape of a hen (an interesting combination of ‘spirit bread’ and fertility symbols). These figure cakes are baked of the same dough as the festive cakes that people eat on All Saints’ Day and which are a favorite dish all over central Europe. They are made of braided strains of sweet dough and called ‘All Saints’ cakes" (Heiligenstriezel in German, Strucel Swiateczne in Polish, Mindszenti Kalácska in Hangarian)."—Francis X. Weiser, Handbook of Christian Feasts and Customs, 312-313.
"Nearly all forms of ancient sorcery and witchcraft were founded upon a belief in communion with the dead . . This custom of consulting the dead is referred to in the prophecy of Isaiah: ‘When they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? Isaiah 8:19.
"The same belief in communion with the dead formed the cornerstone of heathen idolatry. The gods of the heathen were believed to be the deified spirits of departed heroes. Thus the religion of the heathen was a worship of the dead . .
"The deification of the dead has held a prominent place in nearly every system of heathenism, as has also the supposed communion with the dead. The gods were believed to communicate their will to men, and also, when consulted, to give them counsel. Of this character were the famous oracles of Greece and Rome.
"The belief in communion with the dead is still held, even in professedly Christian lands. Under the name of spiritualism the practice of communicating with beings claiming to be the spirits of the departed has become widespread. It is calculated to take hold of the sympathies of those who have laid their loved ones in the grave. Spiritual beings sometimes appear to persons in the form of their deceased friends, and relate incidents connected with their lives and perform acts which they performed while living. In this way they lead men to believe that their dead friends are angels, hovering over them and communicating with them. Those who thus assume to be the spirits of the departed are regarded with a certain idolatry, and with many their word has greater weight than the Word of God . .
"Modern spiritualism and the forms of ancient witchcraft and idol worship—all having communion with the dead as their vital principle—are founded upon that first lie by which Satan beguiled Eve in Eden: ‘Ye shall not surely die: for God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof . . ye shall be as gods.’ Genesis 3:4-5. Alike based upon falsehood and perpetuating the same, they are alike from the father of lies." —Patriarchs and Prophets, 684-685
"In the name of Christ I would address His professed followers: Abide in the faith which you have received from the beginning. ‘Shun profane and vain babblings.’ 2 Timothy 2:16. Instead of putting your trust in witchcraft, have faith in the living God. Cursed is the path that leads to Endor or to Ekron. The feet will stumble and fall that venture upon this forbidden ground. There is a God in Israel, with whom is deliverance for all who are oppressed. Righteousness is the foundation of His throne."
Read more...
Where Did Christmas Come From?
Yes, where did Christmas come from? It did not begin at the birth of Christ; it began earlier! The December 25 celebration had nothing to do with His birth. It is an interesting story; one I think you will be interested in.
WHEN WAS JESUS BORN?—It is well-know among Biblical scholars that Jesus was not born in December, because the shepherds were never out in the fields with their sheep at that time.
"There were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night."—Luke 2:8.
Shepherds always brought their sheep in from the mountainsides and field and corralled them not later than October 15, to protect them from the cold, rainy season that followed. (Also read Songs 2:11 and Ezra 10:9, 13.)
"It was an ancient custom among Jews of those days to send out their sheep to the fields and deserts about the Passover [early spring], and bring them home at commencement of the first rain. During the time they were out, the shepherds watched them night and day. As . . the first rain began early in the month of March, which answers to part of our October, we find that the sheep were kept out in the open country during the whole summer.
"And, as these shepherds had not yet brought home their flocks [when Christ was born in Bethlehem], it is a presumptive argument that October had not yet commenced, and that, consequently, our Lord was not born on the 25th of December, when no flocks were out in the fields; nor could He have been born later than September, as the flocks were still in the fields by night. On this very ground the nativity in December should be given up. The feeding of the flocks by night in the fields is a chronological fact . . See the quotations from the Talmudists in Lightfoot."—Adam Clarke, Commentary, Vol. 5, 370.
The census of Caesar Augustus is mentioned in Luke 2:1-2, but historians are not certain when it was issued. But it is improbable that he would call for the citizens of the Roman Empire to return to their native homes, to be enrolled in the census in the middle of winter. Even his own armies avoided marching during the hazards of winter weather.
Many authorities believe that Christ was born in the spring of the year; but, in the wisdom of God, the date of Christ’s birth has been hidden from us.
Why, then, does all the world celebrate the birth of Christ—not merely in December—but on a certain day in December?
We need to know (1) What is "Christmas?" (2) How did Christmas get into the Christian church? and (3) Why did it enter back in those early days? Here are answers to these questions:
WHAT IS "CHRISTMAS?"—The word, "Christmas," means "Mass of Christ" or, as it came to be shortened, "Christ-Mass." It came to the modern world from the Roman Catholic Church. Unfortunately, they did not get it from the Bible, but from paganism. Read this:
"Christmas was not among the earliest festivals of the Church . . The first evidence of the feast is from Egypt. Pagan customs centering around the January calends [the pagan calendar] gravitated to Christmas."—Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911 ed., "Christmas."
Origen, an early Christian writer, said this about celebrating birthdays in the Bible:
"In the Scriptures, no one is recorded to have kept the feast or held a great banquet on his [Christ’s] birthday. It is only sinners [like Pharaoh or Herod] who make great rejoicings over the day in which they were born into this world."—Origen, quoted in Catholic Encyclopedia, 11th ed., "Natal Day."
HOW DID CHRISTMAS GET INTO THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH?—In one brief paragraph, the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge tells us how the December 25 holiday entered the Christian church:
"How much the date of the festival depended upon the pagan Brumalia [The December 25 celebration], following the Saturnalia [an eight-day December 17-24 festival preceding it], and celebrating the shortest day of the year and the ‘new sun’ . . cannot be accurately determined. The pagan Saturnalia and Brumalia were too deeply entrenched in popular custom to be set aside by Christian influence . . The pagan festival with its riot and merrymaking was so popular that Christians were glad of an excuse to continue its celebration with little change in spirit and in manner. Christian preachers of the West and the Near East protested against the unseemly frivolity with which Christ’s birthday was celebrated, while Christians of Mesopotamia accused their Western brethren of idolatry and sun worship for adopting as Christian this pagan festival."—New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, "Christmas."
Church leaders adopted a pagan holiday, in spite of the protests of some godly local pastors. It was considered idolatry to do this, since it was nothing more than a heathen day of worship. In addition, the day for this worship had been selected in honor of Mithra, the sun god. December 25 was dedicated to the keeping of his birthday. Therefore sincere Christians considered it to be a form of sun worship. The sun had reached its lowest angle in the sky on December 21 (the winter solstice), and the 25th was the first observable day in which it began rising in the noon sky. So December 25 had, for centuries, been celebrated as the "birth of the sun god."
But, back in those earlier centuries, earnest believers recognized that Christians dare not accept pagan practices or pagan holidays. These heathen customs are not found in the Bible as being used by Christians, so they ought to be shunned by conscientious Christians.
The Roman world was essentially pagan. Many converts to Christianity had come to enjoy those festivities and did not want to forsake them after baptism into the Christian church.
But when half-converted church members rose to positions of leadership in the Church, they made policy changes in agreement with contemporary heathen customs. And that is how we got Christmas.
"A feast was established in memory of this event [Christ’s birth] in the fourth century. In the fifth century the Western Church ordered it to be celebrated forever on the day of the old Roman feast of the birth of Sol [the Latin word for ‘sun’], as no certain knowledge of the day of Christ’s birth existed."—Encyclopedia Americana (1944 edition), "Christmas."
If the Bible contained no certain knowledge of when Christ was born, then we should not try to select a definite day on which to worship Him. Instead, we should remain with the only weekly worship day God ever gave us, the seventh-day Sabbath (Genesis 2:1-3, Exodus 20:8-11).
The above quotation spoke about a pagan feast back then, in honor of the yearly birth of Sol. That word means "sun" in Latin and was another name for Mithra, the sun god. A strong controversy arose in the Christian church over this apostasy by Western church leaders:
"Certain Latins, as early as [A.D.] 354, may have transferred the birthday from January 6th to December 25, which was then a Mithraic feast . . or birthday of the unconquered sun . . The Syrians and Armenians accused the Romans of sun worship and idolatry."—Encyclopedia Britannica, 1946 ed.
It was clearly understood by the faithful Christians that this pagan holiday should not be adopted as the memorial day of the birth of Christ.
HOW DID MITHRA WORSHIP BRING THESE THINGS INTO THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH?—In order to understand how and why Christmas came into the Christian church back in those early centuries, we need to understand the tremendous influence of pagan Mithraism in the first few centuries after the time of Christ—and how Christian leaders decided to adopt the customs of paganism in order to win the battle against it.
The following information is vital and comes from an earlier study by the present writer:
THE PLANETARY WEEK—The various days of the week were, in ancient times, called the first day, second day, etc.; for these were their Biblical names. But about the time of Christ they were given new names. The non-Christians began calling them the Day of the Sun, the Day of the Moon, etc., in honor of different heavenly bodies. This was known by the pagans as the "planetary week."
Each day was ruled over by a different god; but the most important of all gods was given the rule of the first day of the week, with the idea in mind that the first is always more important than that which follows it. The most important of all the heathen gods was given the rule over the first of the seven days. It was his day, the day of the Sun. And Mithra, the Sun god was worshiped each week on his day, the Sun day.
Now, although these names for the days of the week were new, the day devoted to the Sun god was not new. The worship of the sun arose from a devotion to that most powerful of natural objects. It was one of the most ancient forms of worship and is represented by solar-disk images found on nearly every continent of our world.
"Sun worship was the earliest idolatry."—A.R. Fausset, Bible Dictionary, page 666.
The Arabians appear to have worshiped it directly without using any statue or symbol (Job 31:26-27). Abraham was called out of all this when he went to the promised land. Ra was the Sun god of Egypt; and On (Heliopolis, which means "city of the sun" in Greek) was the center of Egyptian Sun worship (see the Hebrew of Jer 43:13).
Entering Canaan under Joshua, the Hebrews again encountered Sun worship. Baal of the Phoenicians, Molech or Milcom of the Ammonites, Hadad of the Syrians, and later the Persian Mitras or Mithra.
Shemesh was an especially important Sun god in the Middle East. Later, in Egypt, Aton was the name of the god of the Sun Disk. The temple at Baalbek was dedicated to Sun worship.
By associating with Sun worshipers, the Israelites frequently practiced it themselves (Lev 26:30, Isa 17:8). King Manasseh practiced direct Sun worship (2 Kgs 21:3, 5). Josiah destroyed the chariots that were dedicated to the Sun and worship processions (2 Kgs 23:5, 11-12). Sun altars and incense were burned on the housetops for the sun (Zeph 1:5). And Ezekiel beheld the "greatest abomination": direct Sun worship at the entry way to the temple of the true God. This was done by facing eastward to the rising sun (Eze 8:16-17).
MITHRA AND THE DAY OF THE SUN—All during those earlier centuries, there was no particular day that was used for heathen worship of the Sun god. But then, about the time of Christ, or a little before, the various days of the week were dedicated to specific pagan celestial gods—dies Solis—the day of the Sun, dies Lunae—the day of the Moon, and so on.
The sacred day of the Jews and Christians was the memorial of Creation—the true Sabbath—the seventh-day—the only weekly Sabbath given in the Bible. But, in marked contrast, the sacred day of paganism was the memorial of the Sun god—the first day of the week. His day was called "the Venerable Day of the Sun."
Sundaykeeping never occurred in the Old or New Testaments, nor was it commanded. In the time of Christ and the Apostles, the official religion of the Roman government did not have a sacred day, but gradually Sundaykeeping began to become common among the non-Christian people of the empire.
The planetary week, each day named after a different planet in the sky, played a very important part in the worship of the sun. By the time of Christ, Sun worship was most powerfully represented in Mithraism. Now, Mithra (also called Mithras) was originally an ancient god of Iran, and for centuries had been worshiped as the god of strength and war by the descendants of the Persians. But, by the first century A.D., Mithra had been transformed, oddly enough, into the leading Sun god—and foremost pagan god of any kind—throughout the Western civilized world. The Romans often called him by a new name, Sol Invictus, "the Invincible Sun."
During the early centuries of the Christian Era, Mithra was the greatest pagan rival of Christianity. And this was not without a carefully developed plan; for Satan had arranged that Mithraism would closely approximate, in several ways, the only true religion in the world—Christianity. It had such similar features as a dying-rising Saviour, a special religious supper, a special holy day out of the weekly seven—the Sun Day, and baptism of converts to the faith by having blood from a slaughtered bull sprinkled upon them. It counterfeited the religion of the true God more cleverly than any other religion up to that time in history.
Gradually, large numbers of non-Christians began observing Sunday as a holy day in honor of Mithra. He was especially adored by the Roman soldiers; for his worship included athletic feats of skill and "war-like manliness."
Gradually, the worship of the Invincible Sun became even more popular and widespread among the Roman Empire. Then, about 200 years after the last book of the Bible had been penned, Emperor Aurelian (A.D. 270-275) whose mother was a priestess of the Sun, made this solar cult the official religion of the empire. His biographer, Flavius Vopiscus, says that the priests of the Temple of the Sun at Rome were called pontiffs. They were priests of their dying-rising Saviour, Mithra, and vicegerents in religious matters next to him.
According to historical records, by this time (the middle of the second century) worldly Christians in Alexandria and Rome, in order to be better accepted by their pagan neighbors, began keeping Sunday. "Lord Mithra" was a favorite name given him by his pagan worshipers; and they called his day "the Lord’s Day."
The Christians in Alexandria and Rome, anxious to also copycat this aspect of paganism, began calling Sunday "the Lord’s Day," claiming that Sunday was the day mentioned in Revelation 1:10, even though it was obvious that this verse said nothing about Sunday.
In reality, when he spoke of the "Lord’s day" in Revelation 1:10, the Apostle John meant that he saw Christ on the Bible Sabbath; for Christ had earlier said that He was "Lord of the Sabbath" (Matt 12:8, Mark 2:28). The terms, "Lord’s day" and "day of the Lord," were repeatedly used in the Bible in describing the seventh-day Sabbath. It is the day unto the Lord (Ex 16:23, 25; 31:15; 35:2). It is the day of the Lord (Ex 20:10, Deut 5:14, Lev 23:3). It is the Lord’s holy day (Isa 58:13). It is the day blessed and hallowed by the Lord (Gen 2:3). God had called it "My holy day" (Isa 58:13).
Sun worship continued to be the official religion of the empire until Constantine I defeated Licinius in 323, after which it was replaced by Romanized Christianity.
In every historical incident that the present writer can locate, the only Christian leaders advocating Sundaykeeping prior to A.D. 400—were the Christian philosophers at Alexandria and the Christian bishops in the city of Rome.
Along about this time, a youngster was growing up that was destined to powerfully affect the Christian world for all time to come—a boy named Constantine.
CONSTANTINE AND A STATE CHURCH—On the retirement of Emperor Diocletian in A.D. 305, it was an uphill fight among several men for the coveted title of Emperor. Fighting continued on and off, from 305 till 323. But out of it, Constantine emerged as the sole ruler of the vast Roman Empire. The crucial battle occurred just north of Rome in October of 312. Just afterward, by the Edict of Milan, Constantine gave Christianity full legal equality with every other religion in the empire. More favors to the church soon followed.
Then, on March 7, 321, the first national Sunday Law in history was decreed. This was the first "blue law" to be issued by a civil government. Here is the text of Constantine’s Sunday Law Decree:
"Let all judges and townspeople and occupations of all trades rest on the Venerable Day of the Sun [Sunday]; nevertheless, let those who are situated in the rural districts freely and with full liberty attend to the cultivation of the fields, because it frequently happens that no other day may be so fitting for ploughing grains, of trenching vineyards, lest at the time the advantage of the moment granted by the provision of heaven be lost. Given on the Nones [seventh] of March, Crispus and Constantine being consuls, each of them, for the second time."—The Code of Justinian, Book 111, title 12, law 3.
Five additional Sunday Laws were to be issued by Constantine, within a very few years, to strengthen this, his basic one.
It is to be observed that Constantine’s Sunday Law was just that—a Sunday Law—and nothing more. It was a Sunday law that both Mithraists and compromising Christians could easily accept. In that law, Christianity is never mentioned. The day is called "the Venerable Day of the Sun" (venarabili die solis). This was the mystical name for the Day of Mithra, the Sun god. Both the heathen and the Christians well-knew this. It is a historical fact that, when Constantine issued that first imperial Sunday edict of 321, enforcing the observance of Sunday by the people of the Roman Empire—he was still a worshiper of Sol Invictus, "the Invincible Sun," as well as being the Pontifix Maximus (supreme pagan pontiff or priest) of Roman heathen worship as the state religion.
Constantine intended that the law be a political means of uniting all contending religions into one giant compromising conglomerate: the Christian church. He believed that this would make the empire stronger and better able to defend itself against the marauding northern tribes. But Christian leaders in Rome saw it as a great victory for the authority of the Roman Bishop (later given the title of "pope") over all other Christian congregations. And that is what happened.
CHURCH ENFORCEMENT—The Roman bishop had encouraged Constantine to enact that law. Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea (270-338), generally considered to be Constantine’s outstanding flatterer in the church, made this remarkable statement:
"All things whatsoever it was duty to do on the [seventh day] Sabbath, these we [the church] have transferred to the Lord’s day [Sunday]."—Commentary on the Psalms, in Migne, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 23, Col. 1171.
Commenting on this heaven-daring statement, one historical writer made this comment:
"Not a single testimony of the Scriptures was produced in proof of the new doctrine. Eusebius himself unwittingly acknowledges its falsity and points to the real authors of change. ‘All things,’ he says, ‘whatever that it was duty to do on the Sabbath, these we have transferred to the Lord’s day.’ But the Sunday argument, groundless as it was, served to embolden men in trampling upon the Sabbath of the Lord. All who desired to be honored by the world accepted the popular festival."—Great Controversy, 574.
This was the beginning of something new and ominous within the Christian church. Rome, itself, the capital of the mammoth empire, was more licentious, dissipated, and political than any other city. The Christian leaders in that city were more liberal and corrupt than Christian leaders elsewhere. Gripped by a concern to meet the world’s standard and dabble in the power politics of the empire, the Roman bishop had Constantine convene church councils so the apostasy could spread outward to other Christian churches.
In A.D. 325, the Council of Nicaea met; at which time the church leaders decreed that all must honor the resurrection of Christ by keeping the pagan Easter festival, but only on a certain Sunday of each year. Immediately, following this ruling, Constantine issued an imperial order, commanding all Christians everywhere to obey the decrees of that council. Church and State had united; and, whenever in history this has happened, persecution of religious dissenters has eventually followed. Trouble was ahead for the people of God.
PERSECUTION BEGINS—From A.D. 350, onward, the persecution of Christians by their fellow Christians began.
In order to placate church and government authorities, there were those who attempted to keep both days—Sabbath as well as Sunday holy—thus endeavoring to obey God as well as man; for religious persecution against non-observance of Sunday was growing stronger.
For this reason, Sozomen, a church historian of that time, told us this:
"[Many Christians] were assembling together on the Sabbath as well as on the first day of the week, which custom is never observed at Rome or at Alexandria."—Sozomen, quoted in Ecclesiastical History, book 7, chapter 19; now in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series, Vol. 2 (Luke 16:13, Acts 5:39).
Even at this late date, Rome and Alexandria continued to be the only bulwarks of strict Sundaykeeping.
The keeping of both days might seem a practical solution, but it wasn’t. The seventh-day Sabbath was the divinely ordained day for the worship of the Creator. God had never changed it. The Sun day was a man-made institution of worship in honor of a pagan god. To obey both was impossible (Matt. 6:24).
This was exactly the problem the three Hebrew worthies faced at Dura (Read Daniel 3.) Those three men were not, at that time, forbidden to worship the true God. They need only bow down, that day, with others in an appearance of worship to the false. But, of course, to do so would show an acceptance of heathen worship.
And this they could not do. They would rather die first. They would rather lose their lives than lose something that many in our day consider to be of little value—the Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment given by the God of Heaven Himself. Thus it was that Christmas—the birthday of the Sun god—and Sunday sacredness both came into the Christian church; because early church leaders in Rome and Alexandria, working with government leaders, wanted to unite Christianity with Mithraism—by requiring Mithraic practices in the worship of Christ.
Gradually, more and more Sabbathkeepers were slain until, by the eleventh century, there were only a few people left who kept the Bible Sabbath.
Read more...
WHEN WAS JESUS BORN?—It is well-know among Biblical scholars that Jesus was not born in December, because the shepherds were never out in the fields with their sheep at that time.
"There were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night."—Luke 2:8.
Shepherds always brought their sheep in from the mountainsides and field and corralled them not later than October 15, to protect them from the cold, rainy season that followed. (Also read Songs 2:11 and Ezra 10:9, 13.)
"It was an ancient custom among Jews of those days to send out their sheep to the fields and deserts about the Passover [early spring], and bring them home at commencement of the first rain. During the time they were out, the shepherds watched them night and day. As . . the first rain began early in the month of March, which answers to part of our October, we find that the sheep were kept out in the open country during the whole summer.
"And, as these shepherds had not yet brought home their flocks [when Christ was born in Bethlehem], it is a presumptive argument that October had not yet commenced, and that, consequently, our Lord was not born on the 25th of December, when no flocks were out in the fields; nor could He have been born later than September, as the flocks were still in the fields by night. On this very ground the nativity in December should be given up. The feeding of the flocks by night in the fields is a chronological fact . . See the quotations from the Talmudists in Lightfoot."—Adam Clarke, Commentary, Vol. 5, 370.
The census of Caesar Augustus is mentioned in Luke 2:1-2, but historians are not certain when it was issued. But it is improbable that he would call for the citizens of the Roman Empire to return to their native homes, to be enrolled in the census in the middle of winter. Even his own armies avoided marching during the hazards of winter weather.
Many authorities believe that Christ was born in the spring of the year; but, in the wisdom of God, the date of Christ’s birth has been hidden from us.
Why, then, does all the world celebrate the birth of Christ—not merely in December—but on a certain day in December?
We need to know (1) What is "Christmas?" (2) How did Christmas get into the Christian church? and (3) Why did it enter back in those early days? Here are answers to these questions:
WHAT IS "CHRISTMAS?"—The word, "Christmas," means "Mass of Christ" or, as it came to be shortened, "Christ-Mass." It came to the modern world from the Roman Catholic Church. Unfortunately, they did not get it from the Bible, but from paganism. Read this:
"Christmas was not among the earliest festivals of the Church . . The first evidence of the feast is from Egypt. Pagan customs centering around the January calends [the pagan calendar] gravitated to Christmas."—Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911 ed., "Christmas."
Origen, an early Christian writer, said this about celebrating birthdays in the Bible:
"In the Scriptures, no one is recorded to have kept the feast or held a great banquet on his [Christ’s] birthday. It is only sinners [like Pharaoh or Herod] who make great rejoicings over the day in which they were born into this world."—Origen, quoted in Catholic Encyclopedia, 11th ed., "Natal Day."
HOW DID CHRISTMAS GET INTO THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH?—In one brief paragraph, the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge tells us how the December 25 holiday entered the Christian church:
"How much the date of the festival depended upon the pagan Brumalia [The December 25 celebration], following the Saturnalia [an eight-day December 17-24 festival preceding it], and celebrating the shortest day of the year and the ‘new sun’ . . cannot be accurately determined. The pagan Saturnalia and Brumalia were too deeply entrenched in popular custom to be set aside by Christian influence . . The pagan festival with its riot and merrymaking was so popular that Christians were glad of an excuse to continue its celebration with little change in spirit and in manner. Christian preachers of the West and the Near East protested against the unseemly frivolity with which Christ’s birthday was celebrated, while Christians of Mesopotamia accused their Western brethren of idolatry and sun worship for adopting as Christian this pagan festival."—New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, "Christmas."
Church leaders adopted a pagan holiday, in spite of the protests of some godly local pastors. It was considered idolatry to do this, since it was nothing more than a heathen day of worship. In addition, the day for this worship had been selected in honor of Mithra, the sun god. December 25 was dedicated to the keeping of his birthday. Therefore sincere Christians considered it to be a form of sun worship. The sun had reached its lowest angle in the sky on December 21 (the winter solstice), and the 25th was the first observable day in which it began rising in the noon sky. So December 25 had, for centuries, been celebrated as the "birth of the sun god."
But, back in those earlier centuries, earnest believers recognized that Christians dare not accept pagan practices or pagan holidays. These heathen customs are not found in the Bible as being used by Christians, so they ought to be shunned by conscientious Christians.
The Roman world was essentially pagan. Many converts to Christianity had come to enjoy those festivities and did not want to forsake them after baptism into the Christian church.
But when half-converted church members rose to positions of leadership in the Church, they made policy changes in agreement with contemporary heathen customs. And that is how we got Christmas.
"A feast was established in memory of this event [Christ’s birth] in the fourth century. In the fifth century the Western Church ordered it to be celebrated forever on the day of the old Roman feast of the birth of Sol [the Latin word for ‘sun’], as no certain knowledge of the day of Christ’s birth existed."—Encyclopedia Americana (1944 edition), "Christmas."
If the Bible contained no certain knowledge of when Christ was born, then we should not try to select a definite day on which to worship Him. Instead, we should remain with the only weekly worship day God ever gave us, the seventh-day Sabbath (Genesis 2:1-3, Exodus 20:8-11).
The above quotation spoke about a pagan feast back then, in honor of the yearly birth of Sol. That word means "sun" in Latin and was another name for Mithra, the sun god. A strong controversy arose in the Christian church over this apostasy by Western church leaders:
"Certain Latins, as early as [A.D.] 354, may have transferred the birthday from January 6th to December 25, which was then a Mithraic feast . . or birthday of the unconquered sun . . The Syrians and Armenians accused the Romans of sun worship and idolatry."—Encyclopedia Britannica, 1946 ed.
It was clearly understood by the faithful Christians that this pagan holiday should not be adopted as the memorial day of the birth of Christ.
HOW DID MITHRA WORSHIP BRING THESE THINGS INTO THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH?—In order to understand how and why Christmas came into the Christian church back in those early centuries, we need to understand the tremendous influence of pagan Mithraism in the first few centuries after the time of Christ—and how Christian leaders decided to adopt the customs of paganism in order to win the battle against it.
The following information is vital and comes from an earlier study by the present writer:
THE PLANETARY WEEK—The various days of the week were, in ancient times, called the first day, second day, etc.; for these were their Biblical names. But about the time of Christ they were given new names. The non-Christians began calling them the Day of the Sun, the Day of the Moon, etc., in honor of different heavenly bodies. This was known by the pagans as the "planetary week."
Each day was ruled over by a different god; but the most important of all gods was given the rule of the first day of the week, with the idea in mind that the first is always more important than that which follows it. The most important of all the heathen gods was given the rule over the first of the seven days. It was his day, the day of the Sun. And Mithra, the Sun god was worshiped each week on his day, the Sun day.
Now, although these names for the days of the week were new, the day devoted to the Sun god was not new. The worship of the sun arose from a devotion to that most powerful of natural objects. It was one of the most ancient forms of worship and is represented by solar-disk images found on nearly every continent of our world.
"Sun worship was the earliest idolatry."—A.R. Fausset, Bible Dictionary, page 666.
The Arabians appear to have worshiped it directly without using any statue or symbol (Job 31:26-27). Abraham was called out of all this when he went to the promised land. Ra was the Sun god of Egypt; and On (Heliopolis, which means "city of the sun" in Greek) was the center of Egyptian Sun worship (see the Hebrew of Jer 43:13).
Entering Canaan under Joshua, the Hebrews again encountered Sun worship. Baal of the Phoenicians, Molech or Milcom of the Ammonites, Hadad of the Syrians, and later the Persian Mitras or Mithra.
Shemesh was an especially important Sun god in the Middle East. Later, in Egypt, Aton was the name of the god of the Sun Disk. The temple at Baalbek was dedicated to Sun worship.
By associating with Sun worshipers, the Israelites frequently practiced it themselves (Lev 26:30, Isa 17:8). King Manasseh practiced direct Sun worship (2 Kgs 21:3, 5). Josiah destroyed the chariots that were dedicated to the Sun and worship processions (2 Kgs 23:5, 11-12). Sun altars and incense were burned on the housetops for the sun (Zeph 1:5). And Ezekiel beheld the "greatest abomination": direct Sun worship at the entry way to the temple of the true God. This was done by facing eastward to the rising sun (Eze 8:16-17).
MITHRA AND THE DAY OF THE SUN—All during those earlier centuries, there was no particular day that was used for heathen worship of the Sun god. But then, about the time of Christ, or a little before, the various days of the week were dedicated to specific pagan celestial gods—dies Solis—the day of the Sun, dies Lunae—the day of the Moon, and so on.
The sacred day of the Jews and Christians was the memorial of Creation—the true Sabbath—the seventh-day—the only weekly Sabbath given in the Bible. But, in marked contrast, the sacred day of paganism was the memorial of the Sun god—the first day of the week. His day was called "the Venerable Day of the Sun."
Sundaykeeping never occurred in the Old or New Testaments, nor was it commanded. In the time of Christ and the Apostles, the official religion of the Roman government did not have a sacred day, but gradually Sundaykeeping began to become common among the non-Christian people of the empire.
The planetary week, each day named after a different planet in the sky, played a very important part in the worship of the sun. By the time of Christ, Sun worship was most powerfully represented in Mithraism. Now, Mithra (also called Mithras) was originally an ancient god of Iran, and for centuries had been worshiped as the god of strength and war by the descendants of the Persians. But, by the first century A.D., Mithra had been transformed, oddly enough, into the leading Sun god—and foremost pagan god of any kind—throughout the Western civilized world. The Romans often called him by a new name, Sol Invictus, "the Invincible Sun."
During the early centuries of the Christian Era, Mithra was the greatest pagan rival of Christianity. And this was not without a carefully developed plan; for Satan had arranged that Mithraism would closely approximate, in several ways, the only true religion in the world—Christianity. It had such similar features as a dying-rising Saviour, a special religious supper, a special holy day out of the weekly seven—the Sun Day, and baptism of converts to the faith by having blood from a slaughtered bull sprinkled upon them. It counterfeited the religion of the true God more cleverly than any other religion up to that time in history.
Gradually, large numbers of non-Christians began observing Sunday as a holy day in honor of Mithra. He was especially adored by the Roman soldiers; for his worship included athletic feats of skill and "war-like manliness."
Gradually, the worship of the Invincible Sun became even more popular and widespread among the Roman Empire. Then, about 200 years after the last book of the Bible had been penned, Emperor Aurelian (A.D. 270-275) whose mother was a priestess of the Sun, made this solar cult the official religion of the empire. His biographer, Flavius Vopiscus, says that the priests of the Temple of the Sun at Rome were called pontiffs. They were priests of their dying-rising Saviour, Mithra, and vicegerents in religious matters next to him.
According to historical records, by this time (the middle of the second century) worldly Christians in Alexandria and Rome, in order to be better accepted by their pagan neighbors, began keeping Sunday. "Lord Mithra" was a favorite name given him by his pagan worshipers; and they called his day "the Lord’s Day."
The Christians in Alexandria and Rome, anxious to also copycat this aspect of paganism, began calling Sunday "the Lord’s Day," claiming that Sunday was the day mentioned in Revelation 1:10, even though it was obvious that this verse said nothing about Sunday.
In reality, when he spoke of the "Lord’s day" in Revelation 1:10, the Apostle John meant that he saw Christ on the Bible Sabbath; for Christ had earlier said that He was "Lord of the Sabbath" (Matt 12:8, Mark 2:28). The terms, "Lord’s day" and "day of the Lord," were repeatedly used in the Bible in describing the seventh-day Sabbath. It is the day unto the Lord (Ex 16:23, 25; 31:15; 35:2). It is the day of the Lord (Ex 20:10, Deut 5:14, Lev 23:3). It is the Lord’s holy day (Isa 58:13). It is the day blessed and hallowed by the Lord (Gen 2:3). God had called it "My holy day" (Isa 58:13).
Sun worship continued to be the official religion of the empire until Constantine I defeated Licinius in 323, after which it was replaced by Romanized Christianity.
In every historical incident that the present writer can locate, the only Christian leaders advocating Sundaykeeping prior to A.D. 400—were the Christian philosophers at Alexandria and the Christian bishops in the city of Rome.
Along about this time, a youngster was growing up that was destined to powerfully affect the Christian world for all time to come—a boy named Constantine.
CONSTANTINE AND A STATE CHURCH—On the retirement of Emperor Diocletian in A.D. 305, it was an uphill fight among several men for the coveted title of Emperor. Fighting continued on and off, from 305 till 323. But out of it, Constantine emerged as the sole ruler of the vast Roman Empire. The crucial battle occurred just north of Rome in October of 312. Just afterward, by the Edict of Milan, Constantine gave Christianity full legal equality with every other religion in the empire. More favors to the church soon followed.
Then, on March 7, 321, the first national Sunday Law in history was decreed. This was the first "blue law" to be issued by a civil government. Here is the text of Constantine’s Sunday Law Decree:
"Let all judges and townspeople and occupations of all trades rest on the Venerable Day of the Sun [Sunday]; nevertheless, let those who are situated in the rural districts freely and with full liberty attend to the cultivation of the fields, because it frequently happens that no other day may be so fitting for ploughing grains, of trenching vineyards, lest at the time the advantage of the moment granted by the provision of heaven be lost. Given on the Nones [seventh] of March, Crispus and Constantine being consuls, each of them, for the second time."—The Code of Justinian, Book 111, title 12, law 3.
Five additional Sunday Laws were to be issued by Constantine, within a very few years, to strengthen this, his basic one.
It is to be observed that Constantine’s Sunday Law was just that—a Sunday Law—and nothing more. It was a Sunday law that both Mithraists and compromising Christians could easily accept. In that law, Christianity is never mentioned. The day is called "the Venerable Day of the Sun" (venarabili die solis). This was the mystical name for the Day of Mithra, the Sun god. Both the heathen and the Christians well-knew this. It is a historical fact that, when Constantine issued that first imperial Sunday edict of 321, enforcing the observance of Sunday by the people of the Roman Empire—he was still a worshiper of Sol Invictus, "the Invincible Sun," as well as being the Pontifix Maximus (supreme pagan pontiff or priest) of Roman heathen worship as the state religion.
Constantine intended that the law be a political means of uniting all contending religions into one giant compromising conglomerate: the Christian church. He believed that this would make the empire stronger and better able to defend itself against the marauding northern tribes. But Christian leaders in Rome saw it as a great victory for the authority of the Roman Bishop (later given the title of "pope") over all other Christian congregations. And that is what happened.
CHURCH ENFORCEMENT—The Roman bishop had encouraged Constantine to enact that law. Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea (270-338), generally considered to be Constantine’s outstanding flatterer in the church, made this remarkable statement:
"All things whatsoever it was duty to do on the [seventh day] Sabbath, these we [the church] have transferred to the Lord’s day [Sunday]."—Commentary on the Psalms, in Migne, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 23, Col. 1171.
Commenting on this heaven-daring statement, one historical writer made this comment:
"Not a single testimony of the Scriptures was produced in proof of the new doctrine. Eusebius himself unwittingly acknowledges its falsity and points to the real authors of change. ‘All things,’ he says, ‘whatever that it was duty to do on the Sabbath, these we have transferred to the Lord’s day.’ But the Sunday argument, groundless as it was, served to embolden men in trampling upon the Sabbath of the Lord. All who desired to be honored by the world accepted the popular festival."—Great Controversy, 574.
This was the beginning of something new and ominous within the Christian church. Rome, itself, the capital of the mammoth empire, was more licentious, dissipated, and political than any other city. The Christian leaders in that city were more liberal and corrupt than Christian leaders elsewhere. Gripped by a concern to meet the world’s standard and dabble in the power politics of the empire, the Roman bishop had Constantine convene church councils so the apostasy could spread outward to other Christian churches.
In A.D. 325, the Council of Nicaea met; at which time the church leaders decreed that all must honor the resurrection of Christ by keeping the pagan Easter festival, but only on a certain Sunday of each year. Immediately, following this ruling, Constantine issued an imperial order, commanding all Christians everywhere to obey the decrees of that council. Church and State had united; and, whenever in history this has happened, persecution of religious dissenters has eventually followed. Trouble was ahead for the people of God.
PERSECUTION BEGINS—From A.D. 350, onward, the persecution of Christians by their fellow Christians began.
In order to placate church and government authorities, there were those who attempted to keep both days—Sabbath as well as Sunday holy—thus endeavoring to obey God as well as man; for religious persecution against non-observance of Sunday was growing stronger.
For this reason, Sozomen, a church historian of that time, told us this:
"[Many Christians] were assembling together on the Sabbath as well as on the first day of the week, which custom is never observed at Rome or at Alexandria."—Sozomen, quoted in Ecclesiastical History, book 7, chapter 19; now in A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, second series, Vol. 2 (Luke 16:13, Acts 5:39).
Even at this late date, Rome and Alexandria continued to be the only bulwarks of strict Sundaykeeping.
The keeping of both days might seem a practical solution, but it wasn’t. The seventh-day Sabbath was the divinely ordained day for the worship of the Creator. God had never changed it. The Sun day was a man-made institution of worship in honor of a pagan god. To obey both was impossible (Matt. 6:24).
This was exactly the problem the three Hebrew worthies faced at Dura (Read Daniel 3.) Those three men were not, at that time, forbidden to worship the true God. They need only bow down, that day, with others in an appearance of worship to the false. But, of course, to do so would show an acceptance of heathen worship.
And this they could not do. They would rather die first. They would rather lose their lives than lose something that many in our day consider to be of little value—the Sabbath of the Fourth Commandment given by the God of Heaven Himself. Thus it was that Christmas—the birthday of the Sun god—and Sunday sacredness both came into the Christian church; because early church leaders in Rome and Alexandria, working with government leaders, wanted to unite Christianity with Mithraism—by requiring Mithraic practices in the worship of Christ.
Gradually, more and more Sabbathkeepers were slain until, by the eleventh century, there were only a few people left who kept the Bible Sabbath.
Read more...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
