1999.-Christmas by Editor

Pacific Press Publishing Company · Mountain View, California · Feb 20, 1907

1999.—Christmas.

By Editor

Is Christmas not the birthday of Christ? Will you tell me why you do not observe it?

It is admitted by all Christians, even Catholic authorities, that December 25 is not the birthday of Jesus. This is also shown from the Scripture record itself, which tells us that at the time Christ was born, shepherds were keeping their flocks by night in the fields. Yet we know that the winters are too cold for this purpose in Palestine, so that in the last of December the flocks are folded. For a time, a day in the early part of January was kept as the birthday of Christ. December 25 was evidently adopted because it was a great day among the heathen. As a clipping in the "Woman's National Daily" says, that day was celebrated as the birthday of Saturn, Theseus, Bacchus, and Buddha, who, it is said, were born on that day, and the half-converted Christians thought it would be easier to win the heathen by bringing Christ's birthday on the same day as these other gods and heroes of antiquity. The evidence seems very clear to us that Jesus was born in the autumn. He was baptized in the spring just before the spring Passover. He was thirty years old at the time when He entered on His ministry. He began His ministry about six months before that Passover. That would bring His birthday about September or October. But of this we have not Scriptural authority, no scripture mentions the making of any day His birthday. The Lord never designed that one single day should be observed to celebrate the birth of Christ, any more than He did that any single day should be celebrated in honor of the resurrection. The whole life of a Christian ought to be a celebration of both events.

2000.—Begotten not of Blood, etc. John 1: 13.

What good reason can you give why the "Word," Jesus Christ, is not the antecedent of the word "which" in the expression, "which were born," or as the new translation gives it "begotten," in John 1:13? In other words, may we not place the noun in the place of the pronoun and read, "Jesus Christ was born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God"? Why should "His own" be taken as the antecedent, rather than the Word whom John is introducing and giving a biography of? If John does not here refer to the immaculate conception of Jesus, then he does not mention it? And why should he omit so important a matter? If those that believe on His name were begotten of God, then how is Jesus the "only-begotten of the Father"?

The very text seems to us to demand the translation that is here given. "His own" is not taken as the antecedent of "which" of verse 13 (R.V.), but "THEM THAT BELIEVE on His name" is the antecedent. He was God's Son; "as many as received Him, to them gave He the right [or power or privilege] to become the children of God." He THE SON of God, they SONS of God; that is, those who believe on His name are born or begotten "not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." That is the very climax of Christ's coming into the world. He came into the world to bring God into human flesh in all its perfect power to overcome sin. To those who believe on Him, He gives the same power. The very language itself demands the construction that is placed upon it; in fact, it seems to us so plain that it admits of no construction whatever. Whether John mentions the miraculous conception of Jesus would have nothing to do with the reading of the text. We may not ask why the Lord did this or that, because He never stops to satisfy our curiosity; and yet it seems very clear to us that the fourteenth verse shows the very truth that our inquirer feels is omitted, "the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us." The aim of the book of John is not to give the nativity of Christ, but to give the power of His life in humanity. Christ was not begotten in just the way in which men are. He Himself declares, "I proceeded forth and came from God." John 8: 42. Just how this all is we do not know, but we do know this, that He was THE Son of God in a sense that no other was, because He was God; and yet just as truly are those who believe in Him begotten of God and become His children. 1 John 3: 1.

2001.—The Second Tithe.

Is the second tithe, as a part of the tithing system, obligatory upon the remnant church? Please give proof from the Bible.

We do not know of any Bible proof that is satisfactory to us that the second tithe as a part of the tithing system is obligatory upon the remnant church. Many have thought that there is an advantage in the use of the second tithe to support the various funds and necessities of the church, using that for all these various purposes, such as church schools, missionary offerings, etc.

2002.—Angels and Wings.

Why do you in picturing angels represent them with wings?

We do not make the pictures ourselves or many times we would make them very differently. We get the best that we can, those which will in some way teach some lesson. Like all human work, there is more or less imperfection in them. Sometimes angels appeared in the form of men, generally so. Isaiah 6, however, would seem to indicate that the seraphim, an order of angels, had wings, "Above Him stood the seraphim; each one had six wings; with twain he covered his face, and with twain he covered his feet, and with twain he did fly." See verses 2 and 6. There are also other passages which would seem to indicate the same thing.

2003.—Salvation of Children.

Does the scripture, "Suffer the little children to come unto Me, and forbid them not," include children who have not yet reached the age of understanding? What of children who live to be but a year old?

The Bible is not written to satisfy our curiosity. Its precepts, its warnings, its proffers of mercy and forgiveness, come to responsible men and women. Those who are not responsible we may leave with God. Children that are not old enough to believe or repent, innocent little ones, we may leave with Him, and may know that it will be all well with them. Christ died to redeem man from the consequences of Adam's sin. Children die because they are children of Adam, but having no conscious sin of their own, we do not know why they will not be saved. There are precious promises that come to parents, such as Deut. 30: 19: "Therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live." The bereaved and believing parents can safely leave all those things with God and know that it shall be well.

2004.—The Wicked Dead. Mark 9: 43.

Do the wicked dead sleep? If not, in what condition are they? Please explain Mark 9: 43, "Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched."

Of the dead we read in Ps. 146: 4, "His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish." And again in Eccl. 9: 5, "For the living know that they shall die; but the dead know not anything, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten. As well their love, as their hatred and their envy, is perished long ago; neither have they any more a portion forever in anything that is done under the sun." And in Job 14: 21, "His sons come to honor, and he knoweth it not; and they are brought low; but he perceiveth it not of them." So thruout the fifteenth chapter of First Corinthians, death is spoken of as a sleep. See also Dan. 12: 2. The passage in Mark above quoted does not refer to immediately after death, but to the judgment. The word rendered "hell" in Mark 9: 42, 45, 47 is from the word "Gehenna," which is the Greek form of the Valley of Hinnom. The Valley of Hinnom was just outside of Jerusalem, celebrated anciently, according to Jeremiah, for the sacrifices which were there offered to Moloch. The altars in it were afterward destroyed and it was made a place of refuse for the city of Jerusalem, the Valley of Tophet, where were cast bodies of malefactors and the offal of the city. Constantly, worms preyed upon this pestilential mass, and to consume the remainder of it constant fires were kept burning. Therefore the Valley of Hinnom became a symbol for absolute and utter destruction of all that was cast into it. "Where their worm dieth not" simply means that the thing cast under its power would not escape; "where the fire is not quenched" is that the fire would be unquenched till it burned up what was cast into it. See Isa. 51: 8, where it is said of man that "the moth shall eat them up like a garment, and the worm shall eat them like wool," that is, utterly destroy them. Compare 2 Chron. 36: 19-21 with Jer. 17: 27. These scriptures show that Jeremiah's fire which should not be quenched was the fire that was not quenched until it burned the house of God in Jerusalem. Of course, then it went out. The same thought is clearly expressed in Matt. 3: 12, where the wicked are likened unto chaff. It is declared, "He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." The whole thought of the entire figure is absolute and utter destruction, and the inability of man to stay these destructive agencies until they have done their work.

2005.—God's Working. John 5: 17.

Jesus said to the Jews, "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work." There are those who say that God Himself worked. How is this?

Did not Jesus say that "God worketh hitherto"? Is it possible for life to do anything else than work? God is continually pouring out His life for the inhabitants of the universe, caring for them by His infinite power, nurturing them by His love. Many things, of course, the father does thru others. For instance, He created the world thru Christ. He sends messages of love and power and sympathy and help thru His holy angels. He works thru men that are consecrated to Him. And yet it is the power of the Godhead by which Christ wrought, and it is by the power of His Spirit that the deed is wrought by angels or men. Surely, the great God of heaven works for all His creatures and thru all His creatures, and all those who truly acknowledge Him will work with Him.