Having grown up believing that Christmas is pagan and not to be observed by Christians, one classic scriptural misinterpretation I had was believing Jeremiah 10 condemned Christmas trees.
Read the passage for yourself here.
When I became of age and seriously began to "prove" my childhood faith to myself, I "proved" that God despised the practice of cutting down a tree from the forest, putting it on a stand, and decking it with gold and silver. Jeremiah described this so clearly, so explicitly -- how better could he have spelled out the plain truth about Christmas trees?
I later realized that my understanding of this passage was chiseled and fashioned by what my church had already taught me. I was already "suspicious" of Christmas, so I was quick to cling to conclusions when I saw such words (especially in the King James Version) as "tree," "axe," "deck," "gold," "silver," and "workman" (which I mistakenly understood to be synonymous with "lumberjack"). What else could this be except the modern Christmas tree? I thought. How could everyone be so blind?
Well, it took me a few more years myself to begin to see.
The chapter is properly understood when seen in its context of idolatry.
In this chapter, the Lord references "gods," "idols," and "images" (verses 11,14); in the KJV they are "gods," "graven image," and "molten image." Since when is there a commandment against using a tree as decoration? There is none. Why should God be angry with that? But He is sorely opposed to idolatry.
We see, therefore, that God opposes the practice of fashioning an image or statue (of any material) that is to be used as an idol -- an object of worship. Anything that takes the place of the true God -- whether a wooden idol, another person, or your own pride -- falls under the category of "idolatry," but in this context, God is specifically addressing the use of literal idols.
I have never known anyone to worship a Christmas tree. Now that I observe Christmas and have a decorative tree, I know with certainty that I do not worship it. It is not worshiped by those who view Christmas in the spiritual sense in which it's intended, and neither is it worshiped by those who see Christmas as a mere secular holiday as an excuse to party and accumulate material goods.
If a thing is not worshiped, and if it's not made by pagans to be an object of worship, it's not an idol. Is this not sensible?
Moreover, in verse 5 of Jeremiah 10, God mocks these idols by saying they are "upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne [i.e., carried], because they cannot go." In whose imagination might a Christmas tree appear to walk and talk? My artificial Christmas tree does not resemble anything that walks and talks; it resembles a blue spruce. It doesn't have a face, head, torso, arms, or legs. It's a bushy tree!
Was the tree of life in the Garden of Eden an idol? It had fruit that, if eaten, would provide eternal life. Who would label that tree an idol, or even a symbol of idolatry? No one. And no one assigns Christmas trees with the divine attributes of the tree of life of Genesis, so how can one conclude they are idols?
No matter how much someone wants to make it a sinister object of false worship, the Christmas tree is merely a decoration. If indoor decorative trees are an abomination, then let's ban the popular plastic ficus trees from Wal-Mart.
I don't question the sincerity of those Christians that are anti-tree and anti-Christmas, for I was one of them, and I know I was sincere. But I do know that my rejection of all things Christmas gave me a deficient understanding of the Incarnation, which is crucial and at the heart of Christianity. This all-important emphasis, I fear, is what anti-Christmas Christians are missing out on.
Instead, they're too busy cramming modern-day Christmas trees into the pages of the Old Testament.
6 comments:
Bravo again Darren!!! Yes, cults like those in Armstrongism and Jehovah's Witness who do reject Christmas do have a deficient understanding of the incarnation and probably have a non-chalant attitude toward it. That's why in Armstrongism you have Jesus as merely a "newscast reporter" to announce a "Wonderful World Tomorrow" and in Jehovah's Witness you have Jesus as a second god (Mighty God) under the Almighty God (God the Father) in which after his spiritual (not physical) ressurection he became Michael the Archangel once more. Only in Messianic Judaism (and the trinitarian elements in Church of God Seventh Day) that do reject Christmas in some way seem to have the essentials in tact.
Yes, Darren, it's true Jeremiah 10 is referring to forming idols...so a fragrant evergreen decoration is no sin. But how do you justify all those idols that Catholics put everywhere? In their gardens, on their walls, their jewelry, statues of Mary and saints and crucifices galore? If they aren't objects of worship, why do they KISS them? Stop worshipping objects of wood and stone. Turn your worship upward to your Holy Father. (And I don't mean the Pope!)
Hi Darren, this verse has always troubled me. I mean doesn't it say For one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman with the axe. They deck IT (the tree) with silver and with gold. They fasten IT (the tree) with nails and with hammers that IT (the tree) move not. Please correct me if I'm wrong but I think the phrase "work of the workman" describes the manner in which the tree was cut. In other words isn't the "cutteth tree" a result of a "workman with an axe?" What I mean to say is, isn't a felled tree a result of someone using an AXE? Please respond. Peace.
Daryl, please forgive me for the very long delay in responding to your comment.
I don't think it matters how the tree was cut. The point is that idols were fashioned from the wood. And that's not what Christmas trees are.
Am I missing something? I don't want to sound dismissive about your concern.
Hi Darren,
I'm sorry for this long delay also.
"Am I missing something?"- Darren
Well I just am still trying to wrap my head around the phrase "work of the hands of the workman with the axe." I honestly see verse 3 as only about the chopping of a tree and not the carving of an idol. I have this strong conviction that modern translations lie to you about verse 3 by adding "chisel" and that the KJV alone has the proper rendering of verse 3. In other words I see the phrase "work of the hands of the workman" as "chopped tree" not some chiselling into wood. Also why the transition from IT verse 4 to THEY verse 5? Doesn't a change in pronouns imply a change in topic? So how can verse 5 be referring to the same thing as verse 4? Thanks for your time.
Post a Comment