The 1611 KJV | Blue Christmas

There are 2 essays on this page.

The 1611 King James Version in Today's Church

A Personal View

CONTENTS:

1: Should We Use the 1611 King James Version?
2: Black is White is Black…
3: Preface To The 1611 King James Version

1: Should We Use the 1611 King James Version?

At the outset I need to clarify the title above to avoid misunderstandings and offence: should a believer’s Bible of choice be the 1611 King James Version when there are other fine translations to choose from? Is this a fair question? After all, every genuine Bible scholar knows that the text of the venerable KJV has been a reliable foundation for meditation, evangelism and analytical study for literally centuries. But should our discussion end there?

Just recently I was reading a book that described the Authorised Version in this way: “The KJV is a highly reliable version of the Bible. And it rightly remains a very popular Bible version” (Gary F. Zeolla, Differences Between Bible Versions). Here is someone who, I assume, knows more than many of us, and in his estimation the KJV is “highly reliable”, although it’s not his preferred translation. But, aren’t there other versions that are more reliable (accurate) and comprehensible?[1] Wouldn’t it be generally helpful in some local assemblies and for personal study if other quality translations were more popular and central?[2]

In a self-defeating ironic twist, over the decades King James Version Onlyism’s implausible and fixated reasoning has resulted in a variety of publications and online sources that draw attention to the KJV’s shortcomings. In case you do not know, Onlyism claims that the KJV is the only version we should use because it’s the only Bible we can trust. But allegiance to a particular Bible translation won’t commend us to God. Infatuated and more extreme Onlyists believe that the KJV is a “perfect” translation, infallible, inspired and without error, God’s “original work of inspiration” as someone astonishingly put it.

But, truth be told, such definitions can only be applied to the original manuscripts, all of which have perished. Stated simply, all modern quality translations rely on internal and external evidence offered by a large number of ancient copies that contain Scripture text. Many thousands of these are in ancient Greek. These include portions or small fragments of manuscripts. KJV translators had only a fraction of the source material available to textual scholars today.

I won’t be exploring the challenging depths of KJVO dogmatism here, but if you’re interested, and unbiased, there are very good books on the subject. I can recommend The King James Only Controversy by James R. White (much vilified by Onlyists, which is a good sign), One Bible Only? by Roy E. Beacham and Kevin T. Bauder, The King James Version Debate by D. A. Carson and Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible by Mark Ward.

But if you research this subject, be warned: there is a strain of Onlyism that is particularly outspoken and noxious. Followers often parrot the abrasive or dogmatic personalities and general style of its key champions rather than thinking rationally for themselves. And along the way they often fail to acknowledge how we should treat others (Ephesians 4:29-32, 1st Peter 3:8-12, for example). To bring this into focus, one such follower on Christian social media called me a “liar”, and a “fundamentalist apostate”, whatever that is.

Moving on, it’s vital that Scripture texts are as accessible as possible. The revelation and light they offer should never be dimmed by anything that could be easily avoided. We should consistently do all we can to make the Bible as comprehensible as possible without sacrificing faithfulness to the original languages. Recently someone who wrote to me praised the “majesty” of the KJV text, suggesting perhaps that in some way its style offers an advantage over the “modern” versions. Maybe this view is to be expected among those who have fondly used the AV for decades or are under the leadership of those who will not teach from any other translation.

But the believer’s goal should always be accuracy and comprehensibility. It’s of little importance that some should have a fondness for a majestic form of English that’s hundreds of years out of date. Surely it goes without saying that anything that makes Scripture harder to understand—that even slightly impairs clarity—cannot possibly be a good thing. 2nd Corinthians 6:11-13 is a classic example that challenges most readers.

It can be demonstrated that the KJV’s archaic language does indeed make it harder to understand Scripture, even in the 1769 revision that is in common use today. (This edition differs from the original 1611 version in over 75,000 details, often due to printing errors.) Awkward out-of-date phrases are undeniably unhelpful. For example: “purchase to themselves a good degree”, “superfluity of naughtiness”, “fruits meet for repentance”, “the lively oracles”, “devour widows’ houses”, “altogether on a smoke”, “we do you to wit of the grace of God”, “thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing”, “they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them”, “in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest”, “clouted upon their feet”, “the scall”, and so on.

Those who regularly read the KJV will come across a significant number of words that are no longer commonly used today, such as “cockatrice”, “hoised”, “cotes”, “stomacher”, “blains”, “fanners”, “scrabbled”, “strawed”, “froward”, “sackbut”, “wimples”, “habergeon”, “crookbackt”, “cieled”, “glistering”, “suretiship”, and so on.

No one can deny that the defunct language and style of the KJV clearly interfere with the clarity and readability of the text. We must wonder how that can ever be acceptable. It certainly isn’t helpful. No heartfelt appeal to the alleged importance of grand and majestic language will entirely justify a dead mode of expression. But worse than the outdated language is a lack of accuracy. Let’s briefly examine some of these.

Historic errors that were made during textual transmission were unwittingly included in the original KJV translation and first printing, and remain to this day. In the Book of Revelation you will find verses that contain errors that have no support in any ancient Greek manuscript. “It remains a fact that a dozen or so readings in the KJV find no support in any Greek manuscript whatsoever. In the last few verses of Revelation, a half dozen such inventions occur. These can be traced directly to the fact that Erasmus had to prepare a Greek manuscript for these verses by translating back from the Vulgate” (D. A. Carson, The King James Version Debate).

In Revelation 16:5 the words “shalt be” are not supported by any Greek manuscript. In Acts 9:6 the words “and he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? and the Lord said unto him” do not exist in any ancient manuscript. The passage at 1st John 5:7-8 is found in four late manuscripts, the earliest from the fourteenth century. In Matthew 23:24, some believe that “strain at a gnat” is an early printing error, which should read, “strain out a gnat”.

While reading through the KJV you will come across renderings that can obscure the meaning or sense of the original language: “found mules” for the correct “found water”, “God” for “judge”, “fish” for “soul”, “thou hast destroyed thyself” in place of the correct “he destroyed you”, “the master and the scholar” in place of “aware and awake”, “Abstain from all appearance of evil” rather than the more accurate “Abstain from every form of evil” (NKJV), “changed” rather than the more accurate “exchanged” (Romans 1:25), “to feed” for the more accurate “to shepherd”, “such as should be saved” for “those who were being saved”, “which is corrupt” for “which is being corrupted”, “world” rather than “age”, “Do violence to no man” for “Do not intimidate anyone”, “a lover of good men” rather than the more accurate “a lover of what is good”, “the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ” rather than the accurate “our great God and Savour, Christ Jesus”, “For in many things we offend all” for “For we all stumble in many ways”, “for the errors of the people” rather than “for the sins of the people committed in ignorance”, “every one that is joined unto them” for “anyone who is captured”, “Thou shalt not kill” for “Do not murder”, “Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?” for “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”, “churches” for “temples”, “itself” rather than “Himself” in reference to the Holy Spirit in Romans 8:26.

Although all reputable translations have their issues—none claims to be perfect—I’m bound to ask, Does the 1611 King James Version have more than we should allow? When a believer opens a Bible it’s his or her heart’s desire to clearly understand the text. In this context then, I’d take the view that it makes sense not to choose the KJV as a benchmark translation. This is especially true of those who are young or have recently accepted Christ as Saviour.

[1] Consider these translations: NASB, NET Bible, ESV, CSB, LSB, NIV, NKJV, Amplified Bible.

[2] We shouldn’t choose a Bible version based solely on its popularity or how passionately it is promoted by church leaders.

2: Black is White is Black…

Across the Internet on social media and on many Christian forums KJV Onlyists relentlessly grind out their idiosyncratic opinions on the magnificent pre-eminence of the so-called 1611 King James Version. Well, it’s a democracy after all. Many Onlyists have at their disposal a mountain of material that they repeatedly cut and paste in the belief that it will conclusively prove their position. It doesn’t.

Many Onlyists are obstinate to the point of foolishness. Typically, those who are more extreme in their views aren’t at all interested in what the original biblical languages say. In their thinking the text of the KJV (by this I mean the 1769 revision widely circulated today) is of much greater value than the original God-breathed words in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. But in defiance of such a belief, the vast majority of true believers around the world are devoted to understanding what was originally written by the prophets and apostles. They use their translations to help them better understand God’s living Word.

Long before the KJV came into existence men who were moved by the Holy Spirit penned the God-breathed infallible words of Scripture. A very long time before the first edition of the KJV was printed God’s chosen people were able to circulate and believe holy Scripture.

Too many KJV Onlyists have no time for the scholarly disciplines of textual criticism. They believe it’s literally a waste of time analytically evaluating ancient New Testament documents to reconstruct the original words of Scripture. They argue that textual criticism undermines the authority of Scripture, even though the scholars who worked on the original KJV (no longer in circulation) used similar methodology when constructing their text.

The same scholars would distance themselves from the claims of KJV/TR Onlyism. In their original Preface to the 1611 translation they wrote: “We affirm and avow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set forth by men of our profession…containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God.” This vital truth applies to the best of the translations currently in circulation. But Onlyists must disagree with the KJV translators. Many Onlyists insist that the KJV translation alone is the Word of God.

In online forums probably the most frustrating aspect of KJV Onlyism is its untenable and illogical opposition to every argument brought against it. But a cohesive and scholarly work that irrefutably validates the Onlyist position has never been produced. Ultimately the Onlyist’s best line of defence is a belief—a deeply engrained conviction—that God was providentially responsible for the text of the 1769 edition of the King James Version, (or other editions).

There are a good number of scholarly books that discredit the notion that the 1611 KJV version is the most dependable translation available. But the real problem here is dealing with an underlying mindset that stubbornly clings to an unstable tradition that’s hampered by misunderstandings and the misreading of facts. The big issue here is a deeply rooted bias against the balance of evidence.

Onlyists have off-pat answers for all the points mentioned above, but they still fail to produce a solid foundation on which to build their somewhat cultic beliefs. When confronted online by constructive evidence, or directed to authoritative resources, they tend to generalise and avoid specifics, and then accuse the other side of doing the same! After all, they have the best, they need listen to nothing more.

But worst of all, they go so far as to arrogantly tell us that because modern versions contain a corrupted text, the teachings in the KJV text are more pure and therefore superior. By using modern translations, they say, the Church and individual Christians are spiritually weakened and doctrinally compromised. The insulting irrationality of these opinions is truly astonishing!

My advice won’t be of much interest, but here it is anyway: it’s best not to engage with Onlyists at length. Black will become white, and reload-and-repeat will be your never-ending experience. You may make an honest mistake that will be torn apart.

We wish that Christ Himself and sound Bible doctrine would be uppermost on the minds of Onlyists. But all too often they give the impression that a single Bible translation has become the idolatrous centre of their affections.

3: Preface To The 1611 King James Version

Something for some Onlyists to consider:

By critically translating the Scriptures into common English, the KJV scholars were acknowledging that the Word of God existed free from all error in the original documents only (the autographs).

Quotes from their original preface, The Translators to the Reader:

“[There is no] cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.

“For whatever was perfect under the sun, where Apostles or apostolick men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?…

“We never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one… but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones one principal good…

“These tongues therefore [Hebrew and Greek] (the Scriptures, we say, in those tongues) we set before us to translate, being the tongues wherein God was pleased to speak to his Church by his Prophets and Apostles.

“There be many words in the Scriptures which be never found there but once… so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places… Now in such a case doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? …so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good; yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.”

The 1611 KJV translators are making it clear that:

a translation cannot be perfect; only the original in Hebrew and Greek was infallible (by God’s Spirit),
their principal translation had made former translations better,
and such were the demands of translating from Hebrew and Greek that the reader would benefit from marginal notes in those instances where the main translation was unclear.

* * *

Blue Christmas

The author of this essay believes Christmas[1] is firmly rooted in religious traditions and the ways of the world. Having this identity it offers a distracting alternative to the harsh and monotonous realities of life. Although opposition to Christmas is dismissed by many Christians, others are convinced it’s worthwhile taking a closer look at the overall impact of the festive season. Is Christmas really harmless? At the very least we should ask ourselves if it’s worthy of all the attention it receives.

Once Upon a Time, Long Before Christmas, there was History…

25th December—the Big Day. If you don’t already know, in the thinking of some the date itself serves as a warning that all is not well. They are convinced that if you travel to the somewhat misnamed “Holy Land” in late December and come across shepherds out in the fields at night watching over a flock, you might have to call for a doctor and a vet—it gets very cold indeed! Might be wet too.

OK, it might not be as dramatic as all that, but the point is this: there’s no good reason to believe Christ was born in late December. In fact some are convinced there are non-Christian reasons why we eventually adopted the 25th as His birth date. We are told it was a significant date before the Christmas festival began, and predates the birth of Christ. Maybe so. Some have argued that September is much more likely than December.

Although it’s largely irrelevant in our modern secular society, it’s still worth pointing out that the Christian basis for Christmas has always been problematic.[2] Of course this statement assumes a strictly biblical definition of the Christian faith and the practices of the true Church. There are plenty of sincere Christians who recognise there are problems with Christmas and each December they are determined to put Christ back into it. But does the Jesus of the Bible really belong there?

There’s a big difference between the celebration of the Christmas Season and ancient Bible texts that tell us about the birth of Jesus the Christ. We can say with certainty that the first obvious Christmas celebration happened a long, long time after He was born. Shouldn’t we be thinking for ourselves rather than buying into whatever gets dumped on our laps, regardless of how religiously popular and churchy it is?

Christmas is an uncomfortable mix of Christian beliefs and non-Christian practices. It’s obvious that atypical Christian behaviour, like feasting, giving gifts and decorating trees, for example, have no direct association with Christ’s body, the Church. Some believe that a few centuries after the birth of Christ the big Christianised religion of the day allowed established traditions to get mixed up with Church practices and beliefs. With the passing of time celebrating the birth of Christ became an official so-called Christian festival that incorporated popular customs that have continued to the present day. So we are told.

From a scholarly and faith-based perspective nothing should compete with the authoritative content of The New Testament. But within the true Church this isn’t as straightforward as you might expect. It should go without saying that if you’re after the most accurate definition of the Christian faith, its practices and beliefs, then the New Testament is by far the most reliable ancient authority available. Many millions of intelligent Christians read it daily and consider it to be the only essential Word of God, even after 2000 years of cultural diversification.

Why does this unrivalled source of God-breathed revelation have nothing to say about one of the major celebrations in the so-called Christian calendar? (By the way, should we ask the same question about Easter?) The New Testament does indeed tell us about the birth of Christ, but there's nothing there about the Church’s big annual celebration of the birth of Christ.

There’s not one sentence that teaches us how important it is that local churches should set aside a very special day and season centred on Christ's birth. It's therefore reasonable to conclude it was never celebrated in the first place[3]. In no sense was it included in the comprehensive teaching of Christ authoritatively proclaimed by the apostles and laid out for us in detail throughout the New Testament.

Why then is the Christmas festival firmly established in modern churches that claim to be fully submitted to the final authority of Bible teaching? And more important still, what are the consequences of adopting a major non-biblical observance? Does it really matter? Where's the harm in it?

The Christmas festival's origins, widespread appeal and substantial problems (see below) bother some Christians. Those who claim allegiance to Christ should be concerned. When the lost world around us is preoccupied with something, shouldn’t we be at least a little bit cautious about adopting it ourselves? Stop for a moment and consider the worldly characteristics of the Christmas season in the light of 1st John 2:15-17:

“Do not love the world nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father, but is from the world. The world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God lives forever” (New American Standard Bible).

Church members and their spiritual leaders who are so enthusiastic about Christmas do not consider the objections highlighted on this page to be of any serious consequence. When did you last come across a church that publicly questioned the validity of Christmas or highlighted the stress and obsessive commercialism that stem from it year after year? True, in the overall context of church life it’s a side issue, but shouldn’t it be fairly addressed? Why should the Christmas Season get a free pass?

But we needn’t dwell too long on Christendom’s global preoccupation with Christmas. When you think it over, religion doesn’t matter much because the vast majority of people in the world get heavily involved with Christmas for reasons that aren’t remotely theological. Truth be told, it’s the unholy marriage of commercialism and man-made religious tradition that keeps ‘Xmas’ alive.

Conform and Spend

Irked by tacky worldliness and avaricious commercialism lots of Christians tell the world, “Christmas is all about Jesus. He’s the reason for the season, so let’s put Christ back into Christmas!” This problematic opinion draws attention to the unchristian character of a manic festival that drives most of us round the bend. It’s more about Santa, frantic shopping, fake snow and tidings of good beer than stirring up our responsibilities in Christ. How many adults really “Wish It Could Be Christmas Every Day” (famous song by 1970s' UK pop band Wizzard)? Not many.

Believing defenders of Christmas are sincere and their intentions honest. For many true Christians Christmas is an opportunity to express their appreciation of the incarnation story. Fair enough, but there are other things they don’t appreciate. Each year the marked deficit in their post-Christmas bank balances will tell a story that’s anything but heart-warming. From October to the hectic January sales the Christmas season is a moneymaking frenzy that bamboozles the population out of billions year upon year. Consider for a moment that UK Christmas shoppers will spend around £9 billion in the week before Christmas Day. Just one week. That’s around £53,000,000 an hour.*

Would you not agree that our minds are regularly manipulated and conditioned by the world to the point we can’t escape the toxic spirit of the Christmas season? Aren’t we tirelessly enticed to spend, spend and then spend some more? And the pressure to do what everybody else is doing is immense. Should we just go with the flow? Does it matter? Is anyone bold enough to do whatever it takes to break free from this hectic cycle? In truth, many are compromised by Christmas to the extent that they are incapable of coming to terms with its harmful consequences.

Let’s face it, at Christmas the little children—bless them—can get greedy. Who can blame them. Expectations are high. Most of them would be put out if they didn’t get lots (and lots) of gifts on Christmas morning. Mammoth advertising campaigns see to it that they know what they want. This Christmas many parents will once again spend a small fortune on gifts that may well lie forgotten within a few months. Adults must conform or be considered a disappointment.

Recent research by a toy manufacturer (!) suggests that £1 billion is wasted each Christmas on children’s toys possibly because 8 out of 10 children are “disappointed” with their gifts. This is all the more surprising when we learn that on average £378 is spent on each child. Maybe this waste of money is caused by friends and family who are clueless—76% don’t know what gifts to buy for kids.

Rampant commercialism often results in challenging debt that can spiral out of control and take a long time to sort out. In the U.S. the average person can face around $1000 of Christmas debt.[4] Unsurprisingly finance companies are tripping over themselves to cash in on this foolishness by offering “Christmas Debt Consolidation Loans” that promise to ease the burden. But nailing debt to debt will always be a short-sighted solution.

British door to door lenders can arrange loans for low income families to help them get over the Christmas period, but the interest can be shamelessly extortionate. In one publicised example £155 was paid back to clear a £100 loan. This is simply cashing in on people’s misery. There’s so much pressure on families to spend at Christmas that they willingly get into debt that in some cases can take a full 12 months to clear. A vicious cycle indeed.

An independent UK company that deals with debt £10,000 and over recorded a 275% surge in calls due solely to the demands of a Christmas season. Generally UK household debt is rising at a faster rate than in the U.S. and most major European countries. The average UK household debt (excluding mortgages) stands at £8500. Over 8 million Britons are recognised to be in serious debt. The last thing they need is Christmas madness.

A recent survey estimated that over a third of Britons would spend more than their expected budget at Christmas. The financial demands of the festive season are one reason why personal debt in the UK is estimated at £1400 billion. This essay was written in Northern Ireland where the average household is almost £7000 in debt. Christmas just piles on the pressure. And financial worries partly explain another Christmas problem.

Depression, Aggravation and Isolation

We all believe that Christmas should be a time for all the family, although nobody would be foolish enough to suggest we should rely on it for family bonding. We rightly consider ourselves privileged if we cherish happy memories of cosy family times around the tree opening presents. That’s fine, but there’s another side to the story here.

There are those who have very different Christmas memories and each year triggers another wave of difficult emotions. There are many reasons for bad experiences at Christmas. Life comes with no guarantees at any time of the year but unhappiness can cut more deeply when expectations are foolishly high. The Christmas ideal comes complete with an absurdly contrived positivity. Why do we tolerate it? Where does godly wisdom go at Christmas?

These crazy, heightened and unrealistic expectations saturate our newspapers, TV programmes, Internet sites and magazines. Our minds are programmed and conformed. But don’t you agree that the harsh reality of day-to-day living in our modern society often paints an altogether different picture? For example, it’s an uncomfortable thought that many will soon spend their first Christmas without a loved one. There will be an empty chair. Life is hard. The Christmas Season is a prescribed and eagerly anticipated merrymaking that can quickly become a nasty mess when the real world brings more than its fair share of problems and heartaches.

We briefly considered the all-to-common pressures related to debt that’s fuelled by unwise spending habits. Beyond doubt this is just one of many reasons why there are more suicides and serious bouts of depression at Christmas than at any other time of the year. The Samaritans receive more crisis calls over Christmas than at any other time of the year. Statistics show that doctors prescribe more tranquillizers and anti-depressants throughout the Christmas Festival. More people go to specialists with mental problems at or because of Christmastime. Marriages are under more pressure during the Christmas period.

MORI UK polls have found that one in six says that Christmas is a time of year he or she dreads and, peculiarly, 11% of parents won’t even see their children on Christmas Day. It’s ironic too that family togetherness over the Christmas and New Year holiday season results in a significant increase in domestic violence.

Majority Rule?

It seems that these glaring inconsistencies are insignificant to those who are heavily into the irrationality of seasonal cheer. “Don’t be so grouchy. Make the most of it. Lighten up!” But, should we ignore the evidence and simply give in to majority rule?

Out there in the world, the real problem of Christmas lies in the modern individual’s inability to be an individualist. It’s true that society in general is no longer brainwashed en masse by objectionable religious dogma, but it’s always easier to run with the in-crowd. Far too many are OK with being conditioned and shaped by the classic Christmas template. Surely as unique individuals it’s time to start thinking for ourselves rather than conforming to the seasonally adjusted expectations of others.

When the case has been made, opinions and facts shared, we can either sweep this festive shambles under the carpet or face up to the fact there’s something seriously wrong with Christmas. The Christmas Season belongs to the world—in what sense did it come from Christ and the Holy Spirit? Being of the world, it has a tendency to favour those with the fewest problems and the least stress while inevitably putting more pressure on those who struggle to cope.

The dominant characteristics of the Christmas Festival clash with the fullness of the “teaching of Christ”[5] in the Bible. The "pattern of sound teaching" (2 Timothy 1:13) we treasure in the New Testament has nothing to say about a major celebration of Christ's birth. In fact, Christmas must be read into Scripture because it cannot be explicitly expounded from it. For example, I recently came on a video message by a very well known Bible teacher. It was entitled: "Christmas in the Words of Christ".

It's impossible to demonstrate from Scripture that the Christmas Festival came from God. Therefore it's fitting to ask, if the Lord didn't instruct the Church about the need for Christmas in His all-sufficient teaching, where did this massive religious observance come from? How did it originate? What is the power behind it? There is always a controlling power at work, either of God or of the devil.

We are called to be strangers in a corrupt world (in principle consider 1st Peter 2:11). But all too often we’re right at home in the thick of it. We have our hands in our pockets while rosy sentiment and big business overthrow biblical values and derail common sense.

[1] “The word for Christmas in late Old English is Cristes Maesse, the Mass of Christ, first found in 1038, and Cristes-messe, in 1131” (Catholic Encyclopedia).

[2] A number of online resources are worth looking at in this regard. There are religious websites out there that clearly lose the plot, but a few contain challenging and educational information. Just do a search for “pagan Christmas”, or something similar. David Pawson may be considered a reliable source of useful information, although some may disagree with his reading of history here and there. Beyond doubt there are real issues with Christmas and Advent that clash with many biblical principles and the character of historical, pre-Roman Catholic Christianity as revealed throughout the pages of the New Testament.

[3] As Christians perhaps we should think in principle about Paul’s response to a body of believers who were making a big fuss over special days and seasons, just as they had done before they came to Christ and joined a local church. In a letter he told them he was afraid for them because of their beliefs. Consider Galatians 4:8-11 and Colossians 2:6-3:3. At the very least it's clear that those who have accepted Christ have no need of a religious calendar. Christ's Church has no need of Christmas.

In an attempt to justify celebrating Christmas, some Christians counteract this relevant principle in Galatians by appealing to the points raised by Paul in Romans 14. But when all is said and done, can we really imagine mature spiritual leaders throughout the early decades of the Church adding Christmas to the complete body of teaching God had given them by His Spirit? Would they have made a big fuss about any kind of festival that was advanced by flawed, objectionable religion, and in real-world practice was shot through with the spirit of the world? Really? If Scripture is silent about a very significant religious observance centred on Christ's birth, is it wise for us to promote it today?

[4] Revised note: In 2022 household debt in America reached $16 trillion. A huge number of Americans are literally living on borrowed money.

[5] 2nd John v. 9.

* All statistics 2010. Essay edited 2022.