Why It's OK to Have a Christmas Tree

At least three times in the last year, I have heard from Christians who are concerned that they shouldn't have a Christmas tree, or maybe shouldn't celebrate Christmas, because many Christmas customs are adopted from pagan customs. Some Christians worry that the date of Christmas was picked to replace pagan holidays such as Saturnalia (likely true), that the Christmas tree came from pagan rituals (uncertain, but possible), or that the star on the tree comes from star worship (not too likely, in my opinion).

To answer this concern, let me ask a very different question: is it OK for Christians to use the names for the days of the week and the months? The days of the week honor Norse gods: Sun day, Moon day, Tiw's day, Odin's day, Thor's day, Freya's day, Saturn day. Some of the months honor Greek and Roman gods (Janus, Mars, Aphrodite, Maia, Juno) while others honor deified Roman emperors (Julius, Augustus). But no one seems to have a problem with this, for a very good reason: when Christians say "Thursday," they are not worshipping Thor, and no one else thinks they are, either. The Bible prohibits idolatry, but idolatry consists of worshipping other gods. Worship is not something that one does unintentionally; it's a matter of the heart.

This is why it's OK to have a Christmas tree, give gifts, put a star on your tree, and celebrate Jesus' birth on December 25 (even if he wasn't born then). When I erect a Christmas tree, none of my neighbors thinks I am worshipping some old druid god, and I certainly have no intent to worship anything. In fact, to genuine pagans, my devout observance of Christmas in honor of Jesus is a testimony to my faith in Christ, not my worship of any other god.

Symbols and words are not permanently tainted merely because they are used by another religion ("I know and am convinced in the Lord that nothing is unclean in itself..." says Paul in Rom 14:14, referring to meat sacrificed to idols). Cults misuse baptism and the Lord's Supper, but that does not mean we should no longer baptize or share in communion. When Solomon built the first temple for God in the Old Testament, there had already been pagan temples for at least two thousand years. The design of Solomon's temple even had some similarities to Egyptian temples. The fact that temples were used by other religions did not make it wrong to build a temple to God or to use the temple as a metaphor for God's people. There are lots of other examples in the Bible of using (or redeeming) terms and symbols from the pagan world. Paul quotes the poem "A Hymn to Zeus" in Acts 17:28. While astrology and the worship of stars is condemned in the Bible, stars are repeatedly used as symbols of Jesus, Israel, and the church - so it is OK for you to put a star on your Christmas tree.

Finally, celebrating Christmas is allowable because the Scripture gives us personal freedom in such matters. In 1 Cor 8-10, Paul tells Christians not to participate in idol feasts, because idol feasts involved acts of worship to other gods, and everyone knew such feasts were designed to honor other gods. But in 1 Cor 10:25-33, Paul says that Christians can eat meat that was sold in an idol market, because it is not an act of worship, and the meat is not permanently tainted. Paul also says that Christians have freedom to celebrate religious holidays or not according to their own conscience, and even warns us not to condemn others for their decisions in these areas of freedom (Rom 14:1-14, Col 2:16-17). The Bible forbids worship of other gods - but celebrating Christmas by putting up a Christmas tree does not constitute worship, especially when we do it in honor of Jesus.

"Do not let what is for you a good thing be spoken of as evil, for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking [or celebrating Christmas or not!], but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit" (Rom 14:16-17). The Christian life is primarily about living out the virtues of Christ, empowered by the Holy Spirit. If Christmas is a good thing for you that leads you to think about Jesus, then enjoy it - but more importantly, make sure that your Christian life is primarily about things that really matter, not minor quibbles about Christmas.

The picture: The Nativity, by an unknown Ottonian, ca. 1025-1050.

Baptized with Water and Spirit

Question: What's the difference between water baptism and baptism by/ in/of/ with the Holy Spirit? If one is baptized in the Holy Spirit, does one need to be water baptized? What does it mean to be baptized by/in/of/with the Holy Spirit?

Quick answer: Baptism in the Spirit is the giving of the Spirit, and it happens at conversion. Water baptism is a meaningful ritual that symbolizes the giving of the Spirit and our conversion, and we should do it right away after conversion.

Long answer: Baptism is derived from washing images and rituals in the Old Testament. The OT prophets often promised that a new age was coming, called the new covenant or the messianic age. They eagerly awaited not only the coming of the Messiah, but also the giving of God’s Spirit on all of God’s people. The prophets often used water as a picture of the cleansing work of the Spirit. It would be a cleansing of the inner person, not just the ritual cleansing practiced under the Law (see esp. Ezek 36:25-27; also Isa 32:15-17, 44:3, Ezek 39:28-29, Joel 2:28-29, Zech 12:10, 13:1).

When John the Baptist began his ministry, he baptized with water. He described this as “a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.” His baptism also prepared the people for the “coming one,” who would baptize with the Spirit (Mk 1:4-8). That is, John’s water baptism was a picture of the giving of the Spirit from the Messiah. So “baptism with the Spirit” is a metaphor for receiving the Spirit. (By the way, there is no difference in meaning between the phrases by/in/with the Holy Spirit.)

But Jesus did not immediately give the Spirit. John tells us that the giving of the Spirit had to wait until after Jesus’ “glorification” – that is, his death, resurrection and ascension (John 7:37-39). This giving of the Spirit (= the baptism of the Spirit) happened first at the day of Pentecost (or maybe in the upper room, but I’ll save that for another post). Even the disciples had not yet received the Spirit, because they had to wait until Jesus’ atoning death.

Although most Christians no longer use the term this way, in the New Testament, “baptism with the Holy Spirit” is another picture of conversion. When we come to Christ, we receive the Holy Spirit, and are therefore baptized with the Holy Spirit (1 Cor 12:13; see also Rom 8:9, 14, 2 Cor 1:21-22, Gal 3:2-6, 4:6). Later in life, we may have many experiences where we sense the work of the Spirit through us. Acts describes these as “being filled with the Spirit” (Ac 4:8, 4:31, 13:9-10, and others).

After the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the church began to practice water baptism immediately upon conversion (Ac 2:41). The water ritual served as a picture of the Spirit baptism that was taking place at conversion. Immersing in water also became a picture of the believer’s union with Christ, dying and rising with him (Col 2:12).

Do we need to get baptized with water? For a full answer, see this post. A quick answer: we don’t need baptism for salvation, but the NT commands it, and it should be a ritual of celebrating our new life in Christ. You can go simple and just sign a marriage contract to get married – but why not have a wedding to celebrate?

Another common view: Pentecostals sometimes use the phrase “baptism in the Spirit” to refer to a significant experience of the Spirit later in one’s Christian life, accompanied by speaking in tongues. They use the term this way because they think all believers should have the same experience as the first disciples: belief in Jesus, and then some time later, baptism of the Spirit with speaking in tongues (as at Pentecost). However, if you read through Acts, you can see that the pattern of Pentecost is never exactly repeated, and is probably a unique historical event like the resurrection of Jesus. Further, the rest of the New Testament never indicates that baptism of the Holy Spirit is a later event, or that it is accompanied by speaking in tongues, or that all believers should speak in tongues.

How many churches can you belong to?

Q: How many churches can you belong to?

I haven't seen any statistics, but people who study the church have noticed that a growing number of Christians in America are involved with two churches. I know some people who primarily serve in one church, and are fed in another church. Other people split their time between two churches because they like different programs at each church, like worship in one church and the children's program in another.

The first thing we should consider is what we mean by church and belonging to. In the first century, Christians already used the word church in several ways: individual house churches (Rom 16:1, 5); all the churches in one town (Acts 11:22, Rev 2:1), and all Christians everywhere (Acts 9:31, Col 1:18). The most important meaning is the last one: all Christians are "baptized by one Spirit into one body" (1 Cor 12:13). So all true Christians, regardless of location or denomination, belong to the one true church. In the first century, Christians were "members" of one house church, but sometimes several house churches met together, and sometimes people (especially leaders) would visit other house churches.

So there is nothing wrong in principle with attending more than one church; in fact, it may be evidence of unity between Christians. But there is a second question: what does it mean to belong to a church? If we walk through the pages of the New Testament, we see a whole list of "one anothers" that should define our churches: love one another, value one another in humility, serve one another, build up one another, forgive one another, be united with one another, and show affection to one another (see here for 60 passages describing how Christians should treat one another). And that's only a start - we could add a whole list of other things that we should be doing as members of our churches.

With that in mind, we need to ask a question about motive: am I attending so that I can be part of the "one anothers" at both churches? Or am I only church two-timing - trying to get what I want from each church? It's possible to bless and be blessed by two churches - or it's possible to just take from each church and give nothing. Whether we attend one or two churches, we need to fully participate, giving and receiving.

If your involvement at two churches blesses other Christians and blesses you, then it may be a good thing. I have a small group Bible study that has people from four churches, and it helps build up all four churches. I attend other churches when they invite me to preach. But if you are just a consumer at both churches, then you should work on engaging in the "one anothers" at just one church.

This Generation Will Not Pass Away (Matthew 24:34)

Question: In Matt 24:34, Jesus says "I tell you the truth, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened." But we are still awaiting his return. I know in this text, the word 'generation' also means race, or as I heard before, 'people of the Promise'. How do you explain this passage?

Matthew 24:34 has troubled interpreters throughout Christian history! So although there are several proposed answers, none of them is entirely satisfactory. You mentioned the idea that the Greek word genea can be translated as race rather than generation. However, there are no other passages in the NT where race is the best way to translate genea. The NIV, NASB, and NLT never translate genea as race. So the best way to read the verse is as it is translated, implying that Jesus' prophecies would be fulfilled within one generation, about 40 years after his words.

The best solution is found in the context. In Jesus' sermon so far, he has listed a number of signs. These signs have to do with when the Temple will be destroyed (24:2). In fact, all of the events described in vv. 5-25 actually happened in the 40 years after Jesus gave this sermon, and the Temple was destroyed in AD 70. There was persecution, there were false Christs in the wilderness, there was an "abomination of desolation" (the presence of Gentiles in the holy place), and there were wars and earthquakes. And although we know that the Gospel had not yet been literally preached to all nations (Matt 24:12), Paul was quite willing to say that the Gospel had been "proclaimed to all creation under heaven" (Col 1:23) by the 50s.

Jesus makes it quite clear that these signs are not signs of the end (Matt 24:8), but signs of the end of the Temple. Jesus only clearly speaks of his return in 24:29-31. He says that "after the tribulation of those days," the Son of Man will return. In other words, the signs that will occur within a generation are the signs of the destruction of the Temple, but the return of Christ will be at some point after the destruction of the Temple. That time is unknown to everyone, even the Son (24:36, 42-44). The "these things" of v. 34 refers to the "these things" of v. 33 and v. 8 - which are all signs of the destruction of the Temple.

So the destruction of the Temple will happen within a known period of time (one generation, 40 years), but the return of Christ will happen at an unknown time. The "immediate" language is related to what the rest of the chapter teaches: we must always be ready for the immediate return of Christ. Since the fall of Jerusalem, every generation of Christians has had to be ready for Christ to return.

This is admittedly not a perfect explanation! But here are the other options: 1) Jesus predicted his return within 40 years, but he was wrong; 2) Jesus did return within 40 years, but in some metaphorical fashion rather than literally; 3) "this generation" refers not to Jesus' generation, but the future generation right before Christ returns. None of these explanations really fit the evidence of the passage very well.

How does this matter to Christians today? Jesus gives the relevance in the following parables (24:45-25:30): Jesus' followers must be busy doing his work, since he could come back for "inspection" at any moment. In the first parable, the slave wrongly thought that his master would be late; in the second parable, the bridesmaids wrongly thought that the bridegroom would come early. The point of the parables is not to panic about the imminent return of Christ, but rather to keep busy doing the work of a disciple of Jesus.

The picture: The crowning of Aragorn from Return of the King. Tolkien's portrayal of the prophesied king is influenced by the Bible's portrait of Jesus as returning King. Tolkien's publisher picked the title Return of the King for the third volume of Lord of the Rings; Tolkien was reportedly quite irate that the title "gave away the whole story."

More on Good Eye / Bad Eye (Matthew 6:22-23)

In my last post, I explained that the "good eye" and "bad eye" of Matthew 6:22-23 likely refers to generosity and stinginess. Here's a little more on that topic. (Warning! Bible nerdiness alert!)

The word for "good" here is haplos, which can be translated as simple, single, sincere, healthy, or generous. While haplos does not occur elsewher in the NT, the cognate words haplous (same meaning) and haplotetos (sincerity, simplicity or generosity) occur ten times. In Rom 12:8, 2 Cor 8:2, 9:11, 9:13, and James 1:5, haplotetos has the meaning of generosity. In the others (2 Cor 1:12, 11:3, Eph 6:5, Col 3:22), it means sincerity or simplicity. The LXX uses the word twice to refer to generosity, in 1 Chron 29:17 and Prov 11:25. Since the surrounding context, Matthew 6:19-34, is about money, it seems better to see haplos as a reference to generosity.

The phrase "evil eye" (ophthalmos poneros) has much more certainty about its meaning, since it always means stingy or greedy (Deuteronomy 15:9, Proverbs 23:6, Proverbs 28:22, Matthew 20:15). In the OT, the Hebrew raa ayin (evil eye) is translated as selfish or stingy. (The LXX translates the phrase with baskanos, stingy, in Proverbs, but leaves it as poneuresetai ho ophthalmos sou, your eye does evil, in Deuteronomy, probably because Proverbs and Deuteronomy were translated by different translators.)

Not all gospels scholars agree exactly with this interpretation, although most mention it as a possibility. There seem to be two reasons to doubt. First, the saying has an exact parallel in Luke 11:34-36, and there the context is not about money, but rather is connected to another saying about light (although note the mention of greed in Luke 11:39). In many cases, Matthew and Luke arrange the same sayings of Jesus in different contexts, so some scholars feel that Jesus' good eye/bad eye saying was not necessarily originally about money. Second, although haplos can mean generous, the phrase haplos opthalmos is not found elsewhere, so its exact meaning cannot be confirmed. Some scholars suggest a meaning for eye here that approximates heart, or draws on Greek biological conceptions of how the eye works.

To be honest, despite the doubts of some gospels scholars, I think this one is a slam dunk. I think that the more well-known metaphorical phrase "evil eye" caused Jesus to coin a new phrase, "good eye." The phrase "good eye" already existed in Prov 22:9, but Jesus used haplos instead of agathos (Heb. tov), probably to create an image of health vs. sickness. Even if Matthew is the one who placed the saying in this context (which is not certain), it illustrates that Matthew thought that the saying was about money.

The hard part, as usual with the sayings of Jesus, is obedience. Being generous is often hindered or completely stopped by our slavery to "mammon" or our worry about our own needs.

The picture: The Sermon on the Mount, from Kurtze Postill Herrn Phillippi Melanthonis vber die Euangelia der furnemesten Fest, 1545. Courtesy of the Digital Image Archive, Pitts Theology Library, Candler School of Theology, Emory University.

Harrowing of Hell?

Question: I recently heard Tony Campolo mention the Apostles' Creed and how basically it was an almost perfect summation of the right "stuff" to believe as an Evangelical. Upon seeking it out and reading the different versions for myself there was one part included in some versions that didn't sit well with me... "he descended into hell." Is this true? Did Christ really descend into hell between his crucifixion and resurrection? - K.L.

Many Christians throughout history have believed that Jesus went to hell during the three days after his death, either experiencing full punishment for our sins, or preaching to the damned, or releasing OT faithful from imprisonment (the so-called "harrowing of hell"). However, the four gospels say nothing about where Jesus was during those three days.

Why do some people believe in Jesus' descent to Hell? First, some later versions of the Apostles' Creed include the phrase "He descended into Hell," but the earliest versions don't include that phrase. (The phrase first shows up in the seventh version of the creed, in the works of Rufinus of Rome in AD 390.)

Second, some interpret 1 Pet 3:18-20 to mean that Jesus was in Hell; but most NT scholars don't think that's what Peter meant. It's a very difficult passage to understand, but it has several possible interpretations. When Peter says "He preached to the spirits in prison," it may be referring to spirits who are now in prison, but were not when he preached to them. We also don't know if he is referring to human spirits or demonic spirits. Other passages describe the cross as a proclamation of victory against the evil powers (Eph 3:10, Col 2:15). Peter may even be referring to the Spirit of Christ being preached through Noah, as he earlier said in 1 Peter 1:10-11.

Third, some people think that Ephesians 4:8-10 refers to Jesus' descent to Hell. But the passage, read carefully, probably refers to Christ's descent to earth, not Hell (note how the NIV and NLT correctly translate this passage).

So what's the bottom line? The idea that Jesus descended into Hell does not have firm scriptural support, although some believe in it based on 1 Peter 3:18-20. We should normally avoid building significant doctrines based on a single difficult passage. Whichever way you believe on this issue, this is a relatively minor issue, not one that Christians should fight over. Christ's victory on the cross and at the empty tomb is far more important than what happened during the three days between them.

The picture: Descent of Christ to Limbo, Andrea da Firenze, 1365.