A LETTER FROM YOUR HEAVENLY FATHER!

A LETTER FROM YOUR HEAVENLY FATHER!

The following words come from the heart of God. After all
God loves you, and He is the Father you have been looking
for all your life. This is His Love Letter to you!

My Dear Child,

You may not know me, but I know everything about you. (Ps 139:1) I know when you sit down and when
you rise up. (Psalm 139:2) I am familiar with all your ways. (Psalm 139:3) Even the very hairs on
your head are numbered. (Matthew 10:29-30) For you were made in my image. (Genesis 1:27) In me you
live and move and have your being. For you are my offspring. (Acts 17:28) I knew you even before
you were conceived. (Jeremiah 1:4-5) I chose you when I planned creation. (Ephesians 1:11-12) You
were not a mistake, for all your days are written in my book.
(Psalm 139:15-16)

I determined the exact time of your birth and where you would live. (Acts 17:26) You are
fearfully and wonderfully made. (Psalm 139:14) I knit you together in your mother's womb. (Psalm
139:13) And brought you forth on the day you were born. (Psalm 71:6) I have been misrepresented by
those who don't know me.
(John 8:41-44)

I am not distant and angry, but am the complete expression of love. (I John 4:16) And it is my
desire to lavish my love on you. (I John 3:1) Simply because you are my child and I am your Father.
(I John 3:7) I offer you more than your earthly father ever could. (Matthew 7:11) For I am the
perfect Father. (Matthew 5:48) Every good gift you receive comes from my hand. (James 1:17) For I
am your provider and I meet your needs. (Matthew 6:31-33) My plan for your future has always been
filled with hope.
(Jeremiah 29:11)

Because I love you with an everlasting love. (Jeremiah 31:3) My thoughts toward you are countless
as the sand on the seashore. (Psalm 139:17-18) And I rejoice over you with singing. (Zephaniah
3:17) I will never stop doing good to you. (Jeremiah 32:40) For you are my treasured possession.
(Exodus 19:5) I desire to establish you with all my heart and all my soul.
(Jeremiah 32:41)

And I want to show you great and marvelous things. (Jeremiah 33:3) For if you seek me with all
your heart, you will find me.
(Deuteronomy 4:29)

So, Delight in me and I will give you the desires of your heart.
(Psalm 37:4)

For it is I who gave you those desires. (Philippians 2:13) I am able to do more for you than you
could possibly imagine.
(Ephesians 3:20)

For I am your greatest encourager. (2 Thessalonians 2:16-17) I am also the Father who comforts you
in all your troubles.
(2 Corinthians 1:3-4)

When you are brokenhearted, I am close to you. (Psalm 34:18) As a shepherd carries a lamb, I have
carried you close to my heart.
(Isaiah 40:11)

One day I will wipe away every tear from your eyes. And I will take away all the pain you have
suffered on this earth.(Revelation 21:3-4) I am your Father, and I love you even as I love my son,
Jesus.
(John 17:23)

For in Jesus, my love for you is revealed. (John 17:26) And to tell you that I am not counting
your sins. Jesus died so that you and I could be reconciled. (2 Corinthians 5;18-19) His death
was the ultimate expression of my love for you.
(I John 4:10)

I gave up everything I loved that I might gain your love.
(Romans 8:31-32)

If you receive the gift of my son Jesus, you receive me. (I John 2:23) And nothing will ever
separate you from my love again.
(Romans 8:38-29)

When it's time for you to Come home and I'll throw the biggest party heaven has ever seen. (Luke
15:7) I have always been your Father, and will always be your Father.
(Ephesians 3:14-15)

My question is....Will you be my child? (John 1:12-13) I am waiting for you. (Luke 15:11-32)

With Love, Your Father,
Almighty God

Thanksgiving

Every year millions of your citizens take part in a day dedicated to acknowledging the great blessings that have been bestowed upon them. It is a celebration unique in both form and purpose. For many it is a time for family and friends to come together in love and devotion. It is a time to rejoice and a time to give thanks to the One who made it all possible.



Although other countries have similar holidays, there has never been a people in history that owes their Creator a greater debt of gratitude than those who bare your name. Americans are hands-down the beneficiaries of the most extraordinary gifts ever bestowed upon one people.



But what have we done with these gifts, and how have we expressed our appreciation for these blessings? Today, Thanksgiving has become more about indulgence and excess than about genuine, heartfelt gratitude. Perhaps this is because these moral defects have become such a great part of American life. Today we worship the god of convenience and pleasure, not the God of moral purity. We seek out what makes us FEEL good, not what MAKES us good. And what have we gotten for it? Are we a better country because we can't tell the difference between freedom of speech and pornography? Has religious freedom somehow been strengthened by laws that make prayer in our schools a crime?



What does it say about the thankfulness a nation when snuffing out the life of an unborn child is actually defended as a sacred right? What does it say about the thankfulness a nation when its legislators proudly defend sodomy as the moral equivalent of one husband and one wife? And just how thankful to God can a nation really be, when at every turn, it removes Him from public life -- in the name of freedom, no less.

Today our moral and ethical compass is is built on the principal of "ME FIRST," and our obsession with "self" consumes our daily lives. In that world God is only allowed to make a guest appearance.



The original intent of Thanksgiving was truly noble and it still can be. Sadly this day has been threatened by our own arrogance. While we may offer up a quick prayer before "digging in," we conduct our lives as though God didn't exist. Perhaps Abraham Lincoln said it best.



"We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved these many years in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power as no other nation has ever grown.

But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own."



A Final Thought

When colonists first settled in this land, the days were hard but the future held a great hope. Today we seem to have everything, but our future looks so uncertain. Why does it have to be this way? Is it possible that the courageous men and women who built this nation truly depended on God Almighty to preserve them. It would certainly seem so. God was so real to them. He was spoken of with pride and confidence and most of all respect. Today we profane His name, mock His word, and dismiss His authority.

Finally, it would seem to us that the wealthiest nation in history would be better served on its knees before God in humble supplication and reflection. Furthermore, if it is truly thankful it should declare its gratitude by obedience and not just words.



Respectfully,

Blow the Trumpet

Thanksgiving day

Good News
November 1959
Vol. VIII, Number 11


QUESTION BOX

Your questions answered in these columns! Your opportunity to
have discussed those problems pertaining directly to members of
God's Church.

HOW SHOULD WE VIEW THE AMERICAN CUSTOM
OF CELEBRATING THANKSGIVING DAY?


The Thanksgiving holiday was established in comparatively
recent years. It is, of course, not mentioned in Scripture --
but the principle of attending and celebrating national holidays
is made clear in scripture.
Thanksgiving Day was established by the early colonists, not
by any divine authority. But this in itself does not make it
wrong to celebrate with good fellowship. Notice the example of
Jesus Christ. In John 10:22 we find that Christ attended the
"Feast of Dedication," which was established by the Jews years
before to commemorate the purification of the temple at
Jerusalem. That day was celebrated on the anniversary of the day
that the reestablishment of Divine workship occurred after
Antiochus Epiphanes had been vanquished and the Temple purified
about 165 B.C.
Jesus' attendance at that annual holiday clearly illustrated
that it is not wrong to attend or celebrate a national holiday
established for an honorable purpose. There was nothing wrong in
the Jew's celebrating the dedication of the temple and giving God
special gratitude on that day. God led Esther and Mordecai to
establish the Feast of Purin in commemoration of the miraculous
deliverance of the Jews from bloody Haman (see the last chapter
of Esther).
The national holidays celebrated by the Jews has, of course,
no special significance for the non-Jew -- just as Thanksgiving
Day holds no special significance for our non-American brethren
scattered around the world. God permits these customs only if
they do not get out of hand. WHAT GOD EXPRESSLY FORBIDS IS THE
OBSERVANCE OF PAGAN FESTIVALS WHICH WERE INVENTED AS DELIBERATE
SUBSTITUTES FOR THE PLAN AND PROGRAM OF GOD. We are not to adopt
in God's worship those customs which the heathen used in serving
their gods. But it is proper and fitting for national leaders to
set aside time for the whole nation to give God special thanks
for his unique bounty to this nation.
Thanksgiving Day was first celebrated by the Pilgrims in 1621
after their first harvest had been entirely reaped. On that day
they paid tribute to God for all their bountiful and undeserved
material and spiritual blessings. Thanksgiving Day gradually
became neglected and was revived during the Civil War as a day of
special national thanksgiving for preserving this nation. This
American thanksgiving day does NOT have a pagan origin despite
the claims of certain fringe sects. It is not usually celebrated
with pagan ceremonial customs in honor of pagan traditions and
gods, as are Christmas, Easter and Hallowe'en. If this national
holiday becomes corrupted, then it would be high time to reject
it -- but it generally is not so celebrated today.
This day of national thanksgiving can be enjoyed by our
brethren in America with an especially deep understanding because
we know that our personal and national prosperity have come
solely as the result of God's promise to Abraham -- and as a
result of His choice of this nation as the springboard for his
Church in this generation.
Our brethren in other nations do not celebrate this holiday
any more than we celebrate the Jews' feasts of Dedication and
Purim. What we all do celebrate are those divinely appointed
Holy Days and Festivals established by God in His Word for all
men. We NEVER regard a national holiday with the same respect,
awe and reverence as we do God's Sabbath and His Holy Days.
National HOLIDAYS are just that -- holidays, not Holy Days. They
are a time of secular pleasure and gratitude, nothing more.
But in the midst of the Thanksgiving season, let's not neglect
Paul's command in Ephesians 5:20 to "give thanks always." Let's
not make a mockery of God's special blessings to this nation.

Thanksgiving Day ... What does it mean to you?

The Plain Truth
November, 1969


Thanksgiving Day ... What does it mean to you?

To many Americans Thanksgiving Day means sumptuous turkey
dinners, family reunions and football games. Most seem to forget
that the very name of this traditional holiday means to give
thanks. But give thanks to whom? For what? And why?

by Eugene M. Walter


IN 1630 the little 350-ton "Arbella" was plowing westward
through the rough Atlantic to the Massachusetts coast. From its
deck John Winthrop preached a striking sermon that accurately
predicted America's future.
"Wee shall be," prophesied Winthrop, "as a Citty upon a
Hill, the Eies of all people are uppon us; soe that if wee shall
deale falsely with our god in this worke we have undertaken and
soe cause him to withdraw his present help from us, wee shall be
made a story and a by-word through the world."
Those are remarkable words! They indicate that at least some
of the early colonists sensed that their endeavors were being
favored by the hand of God.
These early settlers seemed to grasp that they were being
given very special opportunities, special blessings -- and
special responsibilities. For all this, the indications are, some
were grateful, at first.

The Early Thanksgivings

In 1621 the first American thanksgiving was held by Plymouth
colony. It was observed in gratitude for the ending of a
difficult year and a bountiful harvest. The native foods --
fruits and vegetables, wild turkeys, pumpkin pies and such --
constituted the fare of that first thanksgiving day and became
the traditional food for the day.
In succeeding years, thanksgiving festivals became very
popular in New England. The colonists celebrated thanksgiving
days in recognition of such happy events as good harvests and
victories over Indians. President Washington issued the first
presidential thanksgiving proclamation in honor of the new
constitution in 1789.
During the 19th century, an increasing number of states
observed the day annually, each appointing its own date.
As America grew, there was ever more to be thankful for. In
the years that had passed since John Winthrop's prophetic sermon,
America had truly become the "Citty upon a Hill." As the Civil
War ended, the downtrodden masses of the world looked expectantly
to America as the new land of hope and opportunity. Immigrants
from many lands arrived on American shores to try to catch the
American dream.
But success and prosperity were bringing the problems and
pitfalls which John Winthrop had so vividly foreseen. President
Lincoln also recognized these problems and was quick to act.

Lincoln's Sober Warning

"We find ourselves," Lincoln said, "in the peaceful
possession of the fairest portion of the earth, as regards
fertility of soil, extent of territory, and salubrity of climate
fundamental blessings. We toiled not in the acquirement or the
establishment of them."
On April 30, 1863, President Lincoln proclaimed a national
day of fasting and prayer. In making this proclamation he said:
"It is the duty of nations, as well as of men, to own their
dependence upon the overruling power of God ... and to recognize
the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by
all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the
Lord .... We have been the recipients of the choicest blessings
of heaven. We have been preserved, these many years, in peace and
prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power as no
other nation ever has grown; BUT WE HAVE FORGOTTEN GOD! We have
forgotten the gracious Hand which preserved us in peace, and
multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly
imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these
blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our
own."
President Lincoln saw a nation drunk with success not due to
its own efforts. He saw a nation taking all the credit and glory
to itself. This great president called upon the nation for a day
of fasting and prayer to confess this national sin before God.
That petition was heard -- and the nation was then spared.
Later that same year, on October 3, Lincoln proclaimed the
last Thursday of November as Thanksgiving Day -- a day to give
thanks to God for the multitudinous blessings He had bestowed.
(Today Thanksgiving Day is observed on the fourth Thursday of
November as set by Congress in December, 1941).

America's Greatest Years -- and Now

In the years that followed Lincoln, America rose to become
the greatest single power, and the most wealthy nation this world
has ever known.
At the zenith of her power, America's six percent of the
world's population possessed some 50 percent of the world's
wealth. In commodity after commodity, and in product after
product, America led the world.
But with the Korean War in the early 1950's, America began
to slip. Troubles began to mount on all sides -- at home and
abroad. Where, before, everything seemed to turn out in our
favor, now it seemed that nothing was turning out well.
What happened -- and what is continuing to happen? Why is
America fast losing its reputation as a "Citty upon a Hill"?
Today America is torn by strife and dissension. We have no
national goal. We have recklessly squandered our fabulous wealth,
and indescribably polluted our beautiful land.
Greed, selfishness and ingratitude form the warp and woof of
society. "Has the American Dream become the American damnation, a
formula for selfishness rather than equality and excellence?"
asks "Time" (Jan. 24, 1969).
Other nations are no longer impressed with America and the
way Americans do things. "Very few people are enamoured of the
American way of life," says British historian Sir Denis Brogan.
Historians are now speculating on whether the tenure of the
U.S. as the first power in the world will not also be one of the
briefest in history.
What does all this mean -- and what does it have to do with
Thanksgiving?
Just this: our careless, godless, decadent way of life has
stripped the value and meaning from the Thanksgiving Day holiday.

How to Make Thanksgiving Meaningful

There is nothing necessarily wrong with good food, family
reunions and football games on Thanksgiving Day. But all too many
use these activities wrongly and forget the purpose for the
holiday. Many glut themselves with far more food than they ought
to eat; few, however, stop to give God thanks for this food --
even on Thanksgiving Day.
Family reunions all too often turn out to be family brawls.
Many a tense Thanksgiving Day with relatives ends in violence.
And in recent years, there have been several cases of someone
jumping up from the Thanksgiving dinner to grab a gun and shoot
some member of his or her family!
Millions of others push and shove one another in large
crowds at football games and parades, and kill one another on the
highway as they madly strive to make sure they get their fair
quota of pleasure.
And where is the giving of thanks in all this? In the
overwhelming vast majority of the cases, it is nowhere to be
found! What a travesty!
As we observe Thanksgiving Day this year, we need to stop
and soberly reflect on why we have so much, why we are losing it
so fast, and where we are headed. As perhaps no other literature
you might read, our free book on "The United States and British
Commonwealth in Prophecy" will help you do this. If you have not
yet received your copy, write for it immediately.
But Thanksgiving is not just for Americans and should not be
limited to one day a year. It should be a daily occurrence for
all of us. We all have much to be thankful for -- all the time.
Now as never before, we need to stop and thank God for the
many blessings we still have -- and change from our wrong ways so
that the blessings we have lost can be restored.
If we fail to do this, and if we fail to acknowledge God as
the Giver of all our blessings, He will surely "withdrawe his
present help from us, [and] we SHALL BE made a story and a
by-word through the world."

The Plain Truth About CHRISTMAS

The Plain Truth About CHRISTMAS

Chapter 1, by Herbert W. Armstrong, copyrights 1952, 1972, 1974 Chapter 2, by Keith W. Stump, copyright 1985 Chapter 3, by John Halford, copyright 1985 Chapter 4, WCG, copyright 1986



Where did the world get. Christmas?...from the Bible, or from paganism? Here are the astonishing facts which may shock you! Test yourself. How much do you know of the origin of the Christmas tree--of "Santa Claus--of the mistletoe--of the holly wreath--of the custom of exchanging gifts?



Chapter 1

THE PLAIN TRUTH ABOUT CHRISTMAS

WHEN I was a very little boy, I was taught to hang up my stockings on Christmas eve. When I awakened the next morning, they were filled with small toys and sacks or little boxes of candy and nuts. And beside the mantle, from which my stockings hung, a Christmas tree had suddenly appeared, decorated with shiny tinsel. And on it hung presents. Other presents for us children were piled on the floor underneath. I was told Santa Claus had come down the chimney during the night and left all these things. But did I question what my parents had told me? Of course not. I accepted it--took it all for granted. Didn't you? Stop and think a moment! Very few have ever reflected on why they believe what they do--why they follow the customs they do, or from where those customs came. We were born into a world filled with customs. We grew up accepting them without question. Why? Sheep instinct? Well, not exactly. But by nature we do tend to follow the crowd, whether right or wrong. Sheep follow others to the slaughter. Humans ought to check up where they are going. How--when did Christmas originate? Does Christmas really celebrate the birthday of Christ? Was Jesus born on December 25th? Did the original apostles, who knew Jesus personally and were taught by Him, celebrate His birthday on December 25th? Did they celebrate it at all? If Christmas is the chief of the Christian holidays, why do so many non-Christians observe it? Do you know? Why do people exchange presents with family members, friends, relatives, at Christmas time? Was it because the wise men presented gifts to the Christ-child? The answer may surprise you. Most people have "supposed" a lot of things about Christmas that are not true. But let's quit "supposing" and get the facts!

What Encyclopedias Say

The word "Christmas" means "Mass of Christ," or, as it came to be shortened, "Christ-Mass." It came to non-Christians and Protestants from the Roman Catholic Church. And where did they get it? NOT from the New Testament--NOT from the Bible--NOT from the original apostles who were personally instructed by Christ--but it gravitated in the fourth century into the Roman Church from paganism. Since the celebration of Christmas has come to the world from the Roman Catholic Church, and has no authority but that of the Roman Catholic Church, let us examine the Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911 edition, published by that church. Under the heading "Christmas," you will find: "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 gravitated to Christmas." And in the same encyclopedia, under the heading "Natal Day," we find that the early Catholic father, Origen, acknowledged this truth: "... In the Scriptures, no one [who obeyed God] is recorded to have kept a feast or held a great banquet on his birthday. It is only sinners [like Pharaoh and Herod] who make great rejoicings over the day in which they were born into this world" (emphasis ours). Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1946 edition, has this: "Christmas (i.e., the Mass of Christ).... Christmas was not among the earliest festivals of the church...." It was not instituted by Christ or the apostles, or by Bible authority. It was picked up afterward from paganism. The Encyclopedia Americana, 1944 edition, says: "Christmas.... It was, according to many authorities, not celebrated in the first centuries of the Christian church, as the Christian usage in general was to celebrate the death of remarkable persons rather than their birth...." (The "Communion," which is instituted by New Testament Bible authority, is a memorial of the death of Christ.) "... 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, as no certain knowledge of the day of Christ's birth existed." Now notice! These recognized historical authorities show Christmas was not observed by Christians for the first two or three hundred years--a period longer than the entire history of the United States as a nation! It got into the Western, or Roman, Church, by the fourth century A.D. It was not until the fifth century that the Roman Church ordered it to be celebrated as an official Christian festival!


Jesus Not Born December 25th

Jesus was not even born in the winter season! When the Christ-child was born "there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night" (Luke 2:8). This never could have occurred in Judea in the month of December. The shepherds always brought their flocks from the mountainsides and fields and corralled them not later than October 15, to protect them from the cold, rainy season that followed that date. Notice that the Bible itself proves, in Song of Solomon 2:11 and Ezra 10:9, 13, that winter was a rainy season not permitting shepherds to abide in open fields at night. "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," says the Adam Clarke Commentary (Vol. 5, page 370, New York ed.). Continuing, this authority states: "During the time they were out, the shepherds watched them night and day. As...the first rain began early in the month of Marchesvan, which answers to part of our October and November [begins sometime in 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, 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..." Many encyclopedias and other authorities affirm that Christ was not born on December 25. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia frankly states this fact. The exact date of Jesus' birth is entirely unknown, as all authorities acknowledge. Chapter 2 of this booklet covers scriptures which at least strongly indicate it was in the early fall--probably September-- approximately six months after Passover. If God had wished us to observe and celebrate Christ's birthday, He would not have so completely hidden the exact date.


How This Pagan Custom Got into the Church

Then how did this pagan custom creep into the Western Christian world? The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge explains it clearly, in its article on "Christmas": "How much the date of the festival depended upon the pagan Brumalia (Dec. 25) following the Saturnalia (Dec. 17-24), 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." Remember, the Roman world had been pagan. Prior to the fourth century, Christians were few in number, though increasing, and were persecuted by the government and by pagans. But, with the advent of Constantine as emperor, who made his profession of Christianity in the fourth century, placing Christianity on an equal footing with paganism, people of the Roman world began to accept this now-popular Christianity by the hundreds of thousands. But remember, these people had grown up in pagan customs, chief of which was this idolatrous festival of December 25th. It was a festival of merrymaking, with its special spirit. They enjoyed it! They didn't want to give it up! Now this same article in the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge explains how the recognition by Constantine of Sunday, which had been the day of pagan sun worship, and how the influence of the pagan Manichaeism, which identified the SON of God with the physical SUN, gave these pagans of the fourth century, now turning over wholesale to "Christianity," their excuse for calling their pagan festival date of December 25th (birthday of the SUN-god), the birthday of the SON of God. And that is how "Christmas" became fastened on our Western world! We may call it by another name, but it's the same old pagan sun-worshipping festival still! The only change is in what we call it! You can call a rabbit a "lion," but it's still a rabbit, just the same. Again from the Encyclopaedia Britannica: "Certain Latins, as early as 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, who clung to January 6th, accused the Romans of sun worship and idolatry, contending...that the feast of December 25th, had been invented by disciples of Cerinthus...."


The Real Origin of Christmas

But if we got Christmas from the Roman Catholics, and they got it from paganism, where did the pagans get it? Where, when, and what was its real origin? It originated in ancient Egypt in the days of King Osiris and Queen Isis, and their son Horus, about 3,000 B.C. Yes, it stems from roots whose beginning was long before the Flood! From many ancient writings, considerable is learned of this man, who started in Egypt a great organized worldly apostasy from God that has dominated this world until now. After the untimely death of King Osiris, his wife, Isis, propagated the doctrine of the survival of Osiris as a spirit being. She claimed a full-grown evergreen tree sprang overnight from a dead tree stump, which symbolized the springing forth unto new life of the dead Osiris. On each anniversary of his birth, she claimed, Osiris would visit the evergreen tree and leave gifts upon it. December 25th was the birthday of King Osiris reborn as the son Horus. This is the real origin of the Christmas tree. Through her scheming and designing, Isis became the "Queen of Heaven," and Osiris under various names, became the reborn "divine son of heaven." Through the generations, in this idolatrous worship, Osiris also became, among the later Phoeniceans, Baal the Sun-god. In this false system, reintroduced at Babylon, after the Flood, by Nimrod (see Genesis 10 and 11), the "Mother and Child" (Isis and Osiris reborn) became chief objects of worship. This worship of "Mother and Child" spread over the world. The names varied in different countries and languages. In Asia the worship passed under the names of Cybele and Deoius. In Rome, Fortuna and Jupiterpuer. Even in Greece, China, Japan and Tibet is to be found the counterpart of the Madonna, long before the birth of Christ! Thus, during the fourth and fifth centuries, when the pagans of the Roman world were "accepting" the new popular "Christianity" by the hundreds of thousands, carrying their old pagan customs and beliefs along with them, merely cloaking them with Christian-sounding names, the Madonna and "Mother and Child" idea also became popularized, especially at Christmas time. Every Christmas season you'll hear sung and chanted dozens of times the hymn "Silent Night, Holy Night," with its familiar "Mother and Child" theme. We, who have been born in such a world, reared and steeped in these things all our lives, have been taught to revere these things as holy and sacred. We never questioned to see where they came from--whether they came from the Bible, or from pagan idolatry! We are shocked to learn the truth--some, unfortunately, take offense at the plain truth! But God commands His faithful ministers, "Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and show my people their transgression!" Shocking as these facts are, they are the plain facts of history and the Bible! The origin of Christmas goes back to ancient times. It is bound up in the apostasy which has gripped a deceived world these many centuries! In Egypt, it was always believed that the husband of Isis (Egyptian name for "Queen of Heaven") was reborn as the son Horus on December 25th. Through the influence of Egypt and, later, Babylon over civilization, the nations celebrated this famous birthday over most of the known world for centuries before the birth of Christ. December 25th is not the birthday of Jesus the true Christ! The apostles and early true Church never celebrated Christ's birthday at any time. There is no command or instruction to celebrate it in the Bible-- rather, the celebrating of birthdays is a pagan, not a Christian custom. Thus the ancient idolatrous "Mysteries," have been handed down through the pagan religions under new Christian-sounding names.


Origin of Holly Wreath, Mistletoe, Yule Log

Now where did we get this mistletoe custom? Among the ancient pagans the mistletoe was used at this festival of the winter solstice because it was considered sacred to the sun, because of its supposed miraculous healing power. The pagan custom of kissing under the mistletoe was an early step in the night of revelry and drunken debauchery--celebrating the death of the "old sun" and the birth of the new at the winter solstice. Mistletoe, sacred in pagan festivals, is a parasite! Holly berries were also considered sacred to the sun-god. The Yule log is in reality the "sun log." "Yule" means "wheel," a pagan symbol of the sun. Yet today professing Christians speak of the "sacred Yule-tide season"! Even the lighting of fires and candles as a Christian ceremony is merely a continuation of the pagan custom, encouraging the waning sun-god as he reached the lowest place in the southern skies! The Encyclopedia Americana says: "The holly, the mistletoe, the Yule log...are relics of pre-Christian times." Of paganism! The book 10,000 Answers to Questions, compiled by Frederic J. Haskins, says: "The use of the Christmas wreath is believed by authorities to be traceable to the pagan custom of decorating buildings and places of worship at the feast which took place at the same time as our Christmas." Also: "The Christmas tree is from Egypt, and its origin dates from a period long anterior to the Christian Era" (italics ours).


Yes, and Even Santa Claus!

But what about dear old Santa Claus? Is he as benevolent and holy as many suppose! The name "Santa Claus" is a corruption of the name "St. Nicholas," a Roman Catholic bishop who lived in the 4th century. Look in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, volume 19, pages 648-649, 11th edition, where you'll read: "St. Nicholas, bishop of Myra, a saint honored by the Greeks and Latins on the 6th of December.... A legend of his surreptitious bestowal of dowries on the three daughters of an impoverished citizen...is said to have originated the old custom of giving presents in secret on the Eve of St. Nicholas [Dec. 6], subsequently transferred to Christmas day. Hence the association of Christmas with Santa Claus...." Through the year, parents punish their children for telling falsehoods. Then, at Christmas time, they themselves tell their little children this "Santa Claus" lie! Is it any wonder many of them, when they grow up and learn the truth, begin to believe God is a myth, too? One little fellow, sadly disillusioned about "Santa Claus," said to a playmate, "Yes, and I'm going to look into this 'Jesus Christ' business, too!" Is it Christian to teach children myths and falsehoods? God says, "Thou shalt not bear false witness!" It may seem right, and be justified by human reason, but God says, "There is a way that seemeth right to a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death!" "Old Nick" also is a term for the devil! Is there a connection? Satan appears as an "angel of light," to deceive! (II Cor. 11:14; Rev. 12:9.) And so when we examine the facts, we are astonished to learn that the practice of observing Christmas is not, after all, a true biblical practice, but a human custom--one of the ways of Babylon our people have fallen into! But when it comes to the most important part of all in this Christmas observance--the Christmas shopping season--the buying and exchanging of gifts--many will exclaim triumphantly, "Well, at least the Bible tells us to do that! Didn't the wise men give gifts when Christ was born?" Again, we are due for some surprises, when we learn the plain truth. Let's look at the historic origin of trading gifts, then see exactly what the Bible does say about it.


Isn't Exchanging Gifts Scriptural?

From the Bibliotheca Sacra, volume 12, pages 153-155, we quote: "The interchange of presents between friends is alike characteristic of Christmas and the Saturnalia, and must have been adopted by Christians from the Pagans, as the admonition of Tertullian plainly shows." The fact is, this custom fastened upon people of exchanging gifts with friends and relatives at the Christmas season has not a single trace of Christianity about it, strange though that may seem! This does not celebrate Christ's birthday nor honor it or Him! Suppose someone you love has a birthday. You want to honor that person on his or her birthday. Would you lavishly buy gifts for everyone else, trading gifts back and forth with all your other friends and loved ones, but ignore completely any gift for the one whose birthday you are honoring? Rather absurd, when viewed in that light, isn't it? Yet this is exactly what people the world over are doing! They honor a day that is not Christ's birthday by spending every dime they can scrape together in buying presents to trade back and forth among friends and relatives. But I can say by years of experience, as I believe most pastors and ministers can say, that when the month of December rolls around, nearly all professing Christians forget to give gifts to Christ and His cause almost altogether! December often is the most difficult month to keep Christ's work from dying! People are too busy trading gifts to think of Him and His Work, it seems. Then, in January and even into February it seems they have to catch up from what they spent for Christmas, so they seldom get back to normal in supporting Christ and His Work before March! Now consider what the Bible says about the wise men giving gifts when Christ was born. It is in Matthew 2:1-11. "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews?... And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshipped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto HIM gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh." Notice, they inquired for the child Jesus, who was born KING of the Jews! Now why did they present gifts to Him? Because it was His birthday? Not at all, because they came several days or weeks after the date of His birth! Are we to see in this an example for us, today, to trade gifts back and forth among ourselves? No, notice carefully! They did not exchange gifts among themselves, but "they presented unto HIM gifts." They gave their gifts to Christ, not to their friends, relatives, or one another!


Gifts for a King

Why? Let me quote from the Adam Clarke Commentary, volume 5, page 46: "Verse 11. (They presented unto him gifts.) The people of the east never approach the presence of kings and great personages, without a present in their hands. The custom is often noticed in the Old Testament..." There it is! They were not instituting a new Christian custom of exchanging gifts with friends to honor Christ's birthday. They were following an old and ancient eastern custom of presenting gifts to a king when they came into his presence. They were approaching Him, born KING of the Jews, in person. Therefore custom required they present gifts--even as the Queen of Sheba brought gifts to Solomon--even as many people today take a gift along when they visit, for example, the White House for an appointment with the President. No, the custom of trading gifts back and forth does not stem from this scriptural incident at all, but rather, as quoted from history above, it is the continuance of an ancient pagan custom. Instead of honoring Christ, it invariably retards His Work, often sets it back, at the Christmas season every year.


Does It Really Honor Christ?

Now come two arguments often used to justify Christmas observance. (1) Many will reason this way: "But, even though the exact date of Jesus' birth is unknown, should we not select some date to celebrate as His birthday?" The answer is positively no! Did you not notice the statement quoted earlier from the Catholic Encyclopedia that sinners alone celebrate their birthdays? The celebration of birthdays is not a Christian, but a pagan custom, observed by sinners! (2) But, many still reason, "Even so--even though Christmas was a pagan custom, honoring the false sun-god, we don't observe it to honor the false god, we observe it to honor Christ." But how does GOD answer in His Word? "Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them [the pagans in their customs]...that thou inquire not after their gods, saying, How did these nations serve their gods? even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God: for every abomination to the Lord, which he hateth, have they done unto their gods" (Deut. 12:30-31). God says plainly in His Instruction Book to us, that He will not accept that kind of worship, even though intended in His honor. To Him, He says, it is offering what is abominable to Him, and therefore it honors, not Him, but false pagan gods. GOD says we must not worship Him according to the "dictates of our own conscience"--a term we often hear. But Jesus said plainly, "God is a spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth" (John 4:24). And what is truth? God's Word--the Holy Bible--said Jesus, is truth (John 17:17); and the Bible says God will not accept worship when people take a pagan custom or manner of worship and try to honor Christ with it. Again, Jesus said: "In vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men" (Matt. 15:9). Christmas observance is a tradition of men, and the commandments of God, as quoted, forbid it. Jesus said, further, "full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." That is precisely what the millions are doing today. They ignore the commandment of God. He commands, regarding taking the customs of the pagans and using them to honor or worship God: "Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God." Still, most people today take that command of God lightly, or as having no validity whatsoever, and follow the tradition of men in observing Christmas. We have professed to be Christian nations, but we're in Babylon, as Bible prophecy foretold, and we don't know it! "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues"--soon to fall--is the warning of Revelation 18:4. Make no mistake! God will allow you to defy and disobey Him. He will allow you to follow the crowd and the traditions of men. He will allow you to sin. But He also says there is a day of reckoning coming. As you sow, so shall you reap! Jesus was the living Word of God in Person, and the Bible is the written Word of God. And we shall be judged, for eternity, by these words! They should not be taken lightly or ignored.



Chapter 2

JESUS' BIRTH--THE UNTOLD STORY

Was Jesus born in December? If not, when was he born? And in what year? Anyway, what difference does it make? These are questions often asked. It is time they were answered!


A Visit to Bethlehem

In late December of each year, thousands of tourists flock into the small town of Bethlehem in the Judean Hills south of Jerusalem to participate in annual Christmas celebrations there. Some make the 6-mile journey from Jerusalem on foot. Upon arrival, they crowd with silent awe into the paved expanse of Manger Square in front of the revered Church of the Nativity, built over the traditional site of Jesus' birth. Inevitably, some of these tourists arrive in Israel unprepared. They have not thoroughly studied their guidebooks. As they step off their plane, they receive a real shock! November through early March is "winter" in Israel! The weather gets cold, especially at night. Often it rains--or even snows! Yet many arrive in Israel carrying luggage bulging with summer attire, reasoning that it is always hot and arrid in the Middle East. So they hurriedly purchase coats and sweaters in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem for their pilgrimage down to Bethlehem. Nevertheless, most of those who stand in Manger Square on December 25 each year--prepared and unprepared alike--fail to perceive the message being proclaimed by the very weather around them! Notice this plain testimony of your Bible: On the day of Jesus' birth "there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night" (Luke 2:8). The shepherds were living out in the open fields, tending their flock through the night. The point? Ask any biblical scholar, or any modern Israeli: This never could have occurred in Judea in the month of December--nor even in November, or late October for that matter! In ancient times as today, shepherds brought their flocks in from the fields and penned them in shelters not later than the middle of October! This was necessary to protect them from the cold, rainy season that usually followed that date. (The Bible itself makes it clear that winter in Palestine is a rainy season; see Ezra 10:9, 13; Song of Solomon 2:11.) Yet Luke 2:8 tells us that at the time of Jesus' birth, the shepherds were yet abiding in the fields--by night, at that! They had not yet brought their flocks home to the sheepfolds. Clearly the cold, rainy season had not yet commenced. Thus, on the basis of Luke's testimony alone, we see that Jesus could have been born no later than mid-October--when the weather is still pleasant at Bethlehem. A December 25 nativity is too late!


More Proof

Additional biblical evidence lends further support to the foregoing conclusion. Luke 1:24-38 informs us that the virgin Mary miraculously became pregnant with Jesus when her cousin Elizabeth was six months pregnant with a child who would later be known as John the Baptist. Jesus, then, would have been born six months after John. If we could know the time of John's birth, we could then simply add six months and know the time of Jesus' birth. Does the Bible reveal the general time of John's birth? Notice: Elizabeth's husband Zacharias was a priest at the temple in Jerusalem. Luke 1:5 records that Zacharias was "of the course of Abia [in Hebrew, Abijah]." In the days of King David of ancient Israel (10th century B.C.), the number of priests had so increased that they had to be divided into 24 courses or shifts, which would take turns in performing the priestly duties (I Chron. 24). Each course served one week at a time, beginning and ending on a weekly Sabbath day (II Chron. 23:8). The course of Abijah was the eighth course or shift in the rotation (I Chron. 24:10). The Talmud (collection of Jewish civil and religious laws and commentaries) records that the first course performed its duties in the first week of the first month of the Hebrew calendar. This month (called Abib or Nisan) begins about the start of spring in the Northern Hemisphere. The second course worked the second week. The third week--being the annual festival season of Passover and the Days of Unleavened Bread--found all 24 courses serving together, sharing the heavy duties of that special time. The third shift then took its turn during the fourth week of the year. Projecting forward, the eighth course--the course of Abijah, in which Zacharias served--worked the ninth week of the year. But Zacharias' course then stayed on at the temple to serve the 10th week also--the week of the annual Pentecost festival--along with all the other courses. It was during that two-week period of work--near the end of spring-- that the announcement by the archangel Gabriel came to Zacharias regarding his wife's imminent conception (Luke 1:8-20). When his two weeks'service was completed, Zacharias and Elizabeth went back to their home and Elizabeth conceived (verses 23-24)--sometime late in June or early July. The rest is a matter of biology and arithmetic. Elizabeth's sixth month of pregnancy would have been in December. She would have given birth three months later--in late March or early April of the following year. Six months after that, Jesus would have been born, in late September or early October--before the sheep were brought in from the fields, as we have seen! Clearly, Jesus was not born in December. Late September or early October was also the time of year that taxes were customarily paid--in the fall, at the end of the harvest. Joseph and Mary, it will be remembered, had journeyed to Bethlehem to be taxed (Luke 2:3-5). The fact that there was "no room for them in the inn" (Luke 2:7) also suggests the time of the autumn harvest, because the annual fall festivals occurring at that time attracted multitudes of Jews to Jerusalem and nearby towns, filling all available accommodations.


Jesus Born "Before Christ"?

An even more frequent question received from readers concerns the year of Jesus' birth. Few subjects are fraught with so much confusion and misunderstanding. This immediately brings up a preliminary question: How could Jesus have been born in a year "B.C."--Before Christ--as most authorities suggest? It would seem to be a contradiction in terms! First, understand that the manner of reckoning time according to B.C. and A.D. was devised hundreds of years after Jesus' birth. It was invented in the sixth century A.D. by a monk in Italy name Dionysius Exiguus. This Dionysius misunderstood the time of the reign of Herod the Great, king of Judea. So he reckoned the birth of Jesus to have occurred in December of the year 753 AUC (ab urbe condita--"from the foundation of the city [of Rome]"). In past ages, time was often reckoned using the founding of Rome as the starting point for counting. Thus, in Dionysius' new system, January 1, 754 AUC, became January 1,-- A.D. 1 (anno Domini, "in the year of the Lord"). That is, he assumed Jesus was born on December 25, just a week before January 1, A.D. 1.


Error Later Discovered

Later, it was discovered that Dionysius had been incorrect in his reckoning of the reign of Herod and hence of the commencement of the Christian era. Jesus had been born some years earlier than Dionysius had thought. But by then, the new chronology was in general use and it was too late to change! It has continued in use throughout most of the world to the present day. With that understanding, we can now proceed to determine the year of Jesus' birth. There are several ways of doing so. Notice, first, this ancient prophecy from the book of Daniel: "Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build from Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks..." (Dan. 9:25). The commandment or decree to restore and build Jerusalem was made in the seventh year of the reign of Artaxerxes I, king of ancient Persia (see Ezra 7:8)--according to the autumn-to-autumn reckoning of the Jews, in 457 B.C. The archangel Gabriel told Daniel that there would be a total of 69 prophetic weeks from that time until the public appearance of the Messiah. Sixty-nine weeks is equivalent to 483 days (69 x 7). A day of prophetic fulfillment is a year in actual time (Num. 14:34; Ezek. 4:6). So 483 prophetic days (69 prophetic weeks) is 483 years. Simple arithmetic now takes over. Four-hundred-eighty-three years from 457 B.C. (the year of the decree) brings us to A.D. 27--the year when Jesus, the Messiah, began his public ministry. (In calculating this, be aware that you must add 1 to compensate for the fact that there is no year zero.) Now consider further: It is generally understood that Jesus entered upon his ministry in the autumn of the year, immediately after his baptism. (His ministry lasted 3 1/2 years, ending in the spring, at Passover time.) In Luke 3:23 we learn that Jesus was "about thirty years of age" when he began his ministry. If he was about 30 years old in the autumn of A.D. 27, then he must have been born in the end of summer or early autumn and in 4 B.C.! (remember, there is no year zero.) It thus stands clearly revealed from Daniel's prophecy that Jesus was born in 4 B.C. But there is yet further proof!


Herod's Eclipse

Students of the Bible recognize that Jesus was born before the death of Herod the Great (Matt. 2:15, 19). When did Herod die? The first century A.D. Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, in Antiquities of the Jews (book XVII, chapter vi), tells of an eclipse of the moon late in Herod's reign. I have before me, as I write, the authoritative Solar and Lunar Eclipses of the Ancient Near East by Kudlek and Mickler. Its tables reveal that the lunar eclipse in question occurred on March 13, 4 B.C. Continuing with Josephus' account, we discover that sometime after the eclipse, Herod--afflicted with a painful and loathsome disease--went beyond the river Jordan to bathe himself in hot springs there. The cures he undertook were unsuccessful. His condition worsened and he returned to Jericho. There, in a wild rage, he plotted the deaths of many prominent Jews. He also ordered his own son, Antipater, slain. All these events required some months. Josephus further reveals (chapter ix) that Herod's death occurred sometime before a spring Passover. This Passover would have been 13 months after the eclipse, or the Passover of April, 3 B.C. This confirms our previously calculated 4 B.C. birthdate for Jesus. Further corroborating this, Josephus also records (XVII, viii, 1) that at his death, Herod had reigned 37 years since he had been declared king by the Romans. That had occurred in 40 B.C., a fact that Dionysius overlooked. Herod's death therefore took place late in 4 B.C.--more specifically, according to a Jewish tradition, on the seventh day of the lunar month Kislev in the Hebrew calendar (equivalent to November/December on the Roman calendar)--shortly after Jesus' birth in the early autumn of 4 B.C. This is the only date that is consistent with all the provable facts!


The "Star" of Bethlehem

A word is necessary at this point about the celebrated "Star of Bethlehem" (Matt. 2) that guided the wise men (Greek, Magi) across the deserts of the East to Bethlehem. The Plain Truth receives many letters about this each December. Scholars have tried to pinpoint the date of Jesus' birth by means of astronomical calculations related to the appearance of this mysterious "star." For centuries, theologians and astronomers have debated this perplexing question. Dozens of theories exist purporting to explain what this "star" actually was and when it appeared. Some hold it was a comet. Others postulate a nova (exploding star). Still others say it was a meteor, or a planet, or a conjunction of two or more planets. (A conjunction takes place when planets appear, from our earthly viewpoint, to briefly become a single bright object as their paths cross the sky.) Dates for proposed celestial phenomena usually range from 7 B.C. to 2 B.C. But the heart and core of the star controversy goes beyond matters of astronomy. To one who believes that the Bible is the Word of God and is to be taken at face value, the account of the star in Matthew's gospel can have only one explanation. It was clearly and incontrovertibly a miracle, of supernatural, not natural origin! What natural phenomenon in the heavens--whether comet, meteor, exploding star or planet--could "go before" the Magi and "stand over" a specific house to precisely pinpoint it (Matt. 2:9-11)? And if it was attributable to a nonmiraculous agency, how can we account that it appeared and reappeared to the Magi and apparently went generally unnoticed by others? Natural explanations are sheer astronomical foolishness! If the biblical account cannot be accepted in all its details, why should anyone believe it has any merit at all? The star was clearly a special miracle of God, of divine origin defying all the proposed natural explanations of liberal scholarship. It is quite possible that the Star of Bethlehem was simply an angel sent to lead the Magi to Jesus, since the Bible often symbolically uses stars to signify angels (Job 38:7; Jude 13; Rev. 1:20; 9:1; 12:14; et al.).


In Jesus' Name?

We have seen the proof that Jesus was born in the early autumn, not in the winter. But, some will ask, what difference does it make? Is it not the thought that counts? What is wrong with celebrating a day--any day--in honor of Jesus' birth? Each December, articles inevitably appear in newspapers and magazines pointing out the ancient origins of today's Christmas customs. All authorities agree that the customs surrounding Christmas--the Christmas tree, mistletoe, holly wreaths, yule logs, stockings on the hearth, exchanging gifts and so on--were practiced in connection with pagan religious celebrations centuries before the birth of Jesus. None are of Christian origin! Anciently, December 25 was the date of the pagan Roman Brumalia, the final day of the popular weeklong Saturnalia celebration, celebrated in honor of the god Saturn. It was the day of the "invincible sun"--a winter solstice festival. "Christmas" was not among the earliest festivals of the Church. It was not until the mid-fourth century that Pope Julius I decreed December 25 to be Christmas ("Christ-Mass") Day. He sought to overshadow the popular Brumalia by imparting "Christian" connotations to the day. But again, some will ask: What is so wrong with borrowing some of those early customs and using them to honor Jesus? May we not continue to celebrate December 25, as long as we do it in Jesus' name? Can pagan practices be "Christianized" in this way? More than 34 centuries ago, the rebellious children of Israel fashioned a pagan idol--a golden calf--in the wilderness (Ex. 32). It was the god Apis, the sacred Egyptian bull deity worshiped at Memphis on the Nile. Aaron declared that the pagan, Egyptian rites by which the Israelites worshiped the calf were "a feast to the Lord" (verse 5). Did God feel honored? Did he approve of their using pagan customs to worship him? Absolutely not! It was a great sin (verse 21), and 3,000 paid with their lives (verse 28)! They had deceived themselves that what they were doing was right. We are commanded not to seek to worship God with customs borrowed from other religions (Deut. 12:29-32). "Learn not the way of the heathen," God declares (Jer. 10:2). True Christians never meet paganism half way. Pagan worship--whether "in Jesus' name" or not--remains pagan worship! Christianity mixed with paganism is not Christianity at all. Righteousness has no fellowship with unrighteousness (II Cor. 6:14). God simply will not accept that type of false "worship." If God had wanted us to observe Christ's birthday, he would have given us the exact date and specific instructions on how to observe it. But he has not! Christmas is an invention of man, issuing from pagan worship.


Chapter 3
SO YOU ARE NOT KEEPING CHRISTMAS?

SO You have decided it's time to make some changes. This year you and your family are (sssh--don't let the neighbors know!)--not going to keep Christmas! But it isn't quite as easy as that though, is it? Christmas has become so much a part of most people's lives that not to observe it can mean a major disruption. No Christmas cards. What will Aunt Tess think? No relatives over for Christmas dinner. No decorations. No lights or Santa Claus. You'll have to try to avoid the office party, and you'd better write to the school explaining that you don't want little Fred to play an angel in the Christmas play. And no tree. I remember the first time we didn't have a tree. It had always been a feature in our house. We would go to a lot of trouble to decorate it beautifully, and then put it in the front window for all to see. A good-looking tree was a status symbol in our neighborhood and, though I do say it myself, ours was one of the best and most impressive. But we noticed in the Bible where God made some pretty pointed remarks about decorated trees. Check it for yourself in Jeremiah 10:3-4. God said it was a futile, pagan custom--a clear case of worshipping Christ in vain. So--no tree. Even though we knew we had done the right thing, we really missed that tree. The neighbors all had them, sparkling in their windows, but our window remained dark. We missed it so much that we cheated a bit. We put up a few decorations--not a tree, mind you, just a few bits and pieces to make the place look more cheerful. And we had a Christmas dinner, only we didn't call it that. It was only a celebration." We felt guilty about it, because we knew we had compromised. It was just that the old way seemed so comfortable and without a tree and all the rest of the paraphernalia, Christmas just didn't seem like--er, Christmas. Jesus Christ knew this would happen. He explained to His disciples that they would indeed miss some aspects of the old way of life, and that even as they learned the truth from him they would look back nostalgically from time to time. Jesus taught an important lesson in Luke 5:36-39: "No one puts a piece from a new garment on an old one; otherwise the new makes a tear, and also the piece that was taken out of the new does not match the old" (verse 36). Any seamstress understands that. New, unshrunk material cannot be used to patch old, worn garments. When it shrinks, it will tear the old cloth even worse than before. Jesus' second analogy is not quite so easy for us to follow in the 20th century: "And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; or else the new wine will burst the wineskins and be spilled, and the wineskins will be ruined. But new wine must be put into new wineskins" (verses 37-38). In New Testament times glass bottles were rare, so wine was often transported in animal skins, usually from goats. They made a strong, airtight and moisture-proof container, but you had to be careful. New wine that had not finished fermenting gave off gas that would expand the skins. A new wineskin had some "give" to it, and would allow for the expansion. But old, used skins lost their elasticity. They would burst. The wine would be spilled and the wineskin ruined. But why tell people that? Jesus Christ's business was not to give the multitude helpful household hints. Jesus was using a familiar situation to teach an aspect of Christian living.


Withdrawal symptoms

When someone begins to understand the teachings of the Bible, it is a totally new experience--unlike anything he or she has ever known--like new wine or an unused piece of cloth. Now, what most of us do is try to fit this new truth into our old way of life. That is only natural, because it is hard to change, and no one likes to admit having been wrong. The old way of life is familiar and comfortable, and we want to hang on to as much of it as possible. How about you? Perhaps you have fond memories of the Easter sunrise service, the fun of Halloween and those beautiful candlelight carol services down at the old family church. The truth comes smashing into inherited religious ideas and preconceived notions of right and wrong. It challenges comfortable beliefs, making you question things you have always done. This new way--even if it is right--sometimes seems like an unwelcome intruder, and you find yourself resenting it. Jesus warned us that that could happen: "And no one, having drunk old wine, immediately desires new; for he says, 'The old is better"' (verse 39). It is not surprising that so many people, even though they acknowledge the truth, still prefer to cling to their old beliefs. Or perhaps they do as my family did when we met the truth halfway, with a sort of "unChristmas" celebration. We didn't enjoy our "unChristmas." You never can if you know that you are compromising with what is right. We were trying to put our new wine in the old bottle, and we spoiled everything.


All the way

Don't make that mistake. If you are beginning to understand what it means to be a real Christian, realize that it is going to demand positive action on your part. You can't have it both ways, observing this world's customs and still expecting the blessing of the world tomorrow. "Why do you call Me 'Lord, Lord,' and do not the things which I say?" Jesus thundered (Luke 6:46). He expects total commitment. He demands that we come out of the Babylon of confusion that characterizes so much religion today. So along with the excitement of learning new truth comes the responsibility of making some painful decisions. Don't compromise. God does not want to take from us anything that is good. His way of life is filled with exciting experiences that mean something and lead somewhere, not empty, senseless but often very expensive rituals. As you take the plunge and follow God's way of life, you will begin to miss the "old wine" less and less. You will see it for what it is--a hollow counterfeit of the real thing. God is showing you the way to freedom from all that. Instead of looking back at the fraudulent ways of this world, you will begin to anticipate the excitement of helping others learn the truth in the world tomorrow.


Chapter 4
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

EACH YEAR our Personal Correspondence Department answers numerous inquiries regarding the holiday season.

1. You say that Christmas observance does not come from the Bible. Where does it come from, then?

Where Christmas customs came from is really no secret. You can read the origins of Christmas customs in encyclopedias and other reference works, as well as in newspaper and magazine articles that often appear during the Christmas season. The facts are readily accessible. At the end of December and the beginning of January festive celebrations were taking place in various nations of Europe centuries before Jesus was born! When that festive season rolled around, little children were filled with anticipation and excitement. The whole family got busily involved in putting up decorations. Boughs of holly and evergreen were assembled and placed about the house. The mistletoe was hung. A tree was chosen and decorated with ornaments. It was a season of giving and receiving presents, a time to sing songs, admire all the pretty lights and burn the Yule log. There were parades with special floats, sumptuous meals and merrymaking. All this and Jesus wasn't even born yet! In ancient times, many of the earth's inhabitants, realizing their dependence upon the sun for light, heat and the growing of crops, watched the sun's yearly course in the heavens with deep interest. At different seasons, feasts and celebrations were held to help, it was thought, the solar orb on its way. The end of December was an especially significant time in the Northern Hemisphere. The days were short. The sun was at its lowest point. Special festivals of thanksgiving and encouragement to the sun were held. When, at the winter solstice, the days began to lengthen, there was great celebration lasting into the first part of January. The sun--the light of the world--had been (re)born! Such festivities, once meant to honor the sun and its god, were freely adopted by the spreading and increasingly popular "Christian" religion. Why not, in the same way, honor Jesus--the real light of the world (even though He was not actually born in December)? The modern version of the Christmas tree is supposed to have originated in German lands in the Middle Ages. Since evergreens were green throughout the dead of winter, people looked upon them as especially imbued with life. It was in honor of the tree spirit or the spirit of growth and fertility that greenery was a prominent part of ancient pagan winter celebrations. The Romans trimmed trees with trinkets and toys at that time of the year. The Druids tied gilded apples to tree branches. To certain peoples an evergreen decorated with orbs and other fruit-like objects symbolized the tree of life in the garden in Eden. Branches of holly and mistletoe were likewise revered. Not only do these plants remain green through the winter months, but they actually bear fruit at that time, once again a type of the spirits of fertility. Still today, catching someone under a branch of mistletoe can serve as a convenient springboard for romantic activity. Few people stop to wonder what in the world such strange customs have to do with the birth of Jesus! The ancients lit festive fires in the last part of December to encourage the waning sun god, just as Christmas bonfires, candles and other lights burn today at the same time of the year. Use of the "Yule log," part of the "Yuletide" season, hearkens back to the ritual burning of a carefully chosen log by the Druids. The word Yule comes from the old Anglo-Saxon word hweol, meaning "wheel," a round wheel being an appropriate symbol for the sun. You thought the Christmas shopping spree was a 20th century phenomenon? Listen to how fourth-century writer Libanius described end-of-the-year gift-giving and partying in the ancient non-Christian Roman Empire: "Everywhere may be seen ... well-laden tables.... The impulse to spend seizes everyone. He who through the whole year has taken pleasure in saving ... becomes suddenly extravagant.... A stream of presents pours itself out on all sides" (as quoted in Christmas in Ritual and Tradition). Of all times in the year, it was indeed the season to be jolly. Drunkenness was widespread. Fortunately, however, the modes of transportation in those days did not lend themselves to the high rate of drunken-driver-induced traffic fatalities that are part of the Christmas season in many nations today. An important part of the pagan harvest festivities--beginning in October-November with what has become Halloween--involved good and bad spirits. In many lands, visitors--usually bringers of good or evil--made their appearance in the winter season. Through blending pagan legends with traditions about saints, certain figures emerged, with similar personalities. We recognize them today in different nations as Santa Claus, Father Christmas, St. Nicholas, St. Martin, the Weihnachtsmann, Pere Noel. Whatever name is used, all these winter visitors fulfill a similar role. These fictional persons--Christianizations" of the pagan Germanic deities- -clearly perpetuate certain folk-ritual themes wherein varying degrees of rewards and punishments were dealt out to the celebrants. Through the centuries these customs came to be centered around children. It is not too hard to see a connection between Santa using the chimney or the shoes and stockings hung by the fireplace and the ancient superstitions about hearth spirits. For thousands of years, especially among the Chinese, it was customary to sweep and scour the house in preparation for the visit of the hearth spirit. Each year, dressed in a pointed, fiery red cap and red jacket, this fire god traveled from the distant heavens to visit homes and distribute favors or punishments. Today he is welcomed in the Western world each Christmas season. Popular Christmas customs, as we can see, plainly reflect non-Christian legends and practices. Some of the very Christmas customs observed today were once banned by the Catholic Council of Rome, the English Parliament and the Puritans of New England. The logical question to ask is, What is there about Christmas that is Christian?

2. All right. So Christmas is based on pagan traditions and myths. What is wrong with borrowing some of those customs and using them to honor Jesus on His birthday?

If we are supposed to celebrate Jesus' birthday, why doesn't the Bible give us the date of that event? Elsewhere in the Scriptures, when God revealed certain days He wanted His people to observe, no room was left for doubt as to when those days occurred. The instructions were specific because God wanted His people to observe those particular days. Why, then, the silence as to which day Christ was born? The plain truth is that the Bible nowhere commands us to observe birthdays in the first place! But an even more important point to consider is this: When Jesus' name is applied to borrowed pagan ideas and practices, does Jesus really feel honored? After all, it was Jesus Himself who told His people Israel not to seek to worship Him with customs borrowed from other religions (Deut. 12:29-32). Time and again He made it clear through His prophets that He wanted His people to remain "cleansed ... of everything pagan" (Neh. 13:30, Revised Authorized Version).

3. Even though I have ceased to celebrate Christmas, is there anything wrong in continuing to exchange gifts out of the motive of giving rather than wanting to follow pagan customs?

There is nothing wrong with giving to others. Part of God's overall purpose for our existence is that we learn to give instead of seeking to get. But a Christian needs to be careful about giving a gift around Christmas time. The reason? Christians are to be lights to the world. They must set the example of righteous living. To engage in gift giving with those who are celebrating Christmas may give the appearance to them that you are participating right along with them in Christmas festivities. God tells us to come out of the religious system of this world and to be "separate" (11 Cor. 6:14-18). How can a person be separate from such goings on and continue at the same time to dabble in them? Why not give gifts at other times of the year when they will be appreciated as spontaneously sincere and heartfelt?

4. How do I tell my friends and relatives that I no longer wish to exchange presents?

With a smile! That's right. Show firmness, yet at the same time be relaxed and friendly about it. One of the biggest mistakes you can make is to come across as a religious fanatic fired up with purple-veined emotion on the subject. There's no need to make friends and relatives feel condemned and guilty by what you say. Your example will be testimony enough to them. Most of them haven't the faintest idea where Christmas customs came from or why they are following them. It's more superstition than it is religion. They're just doing what everyone around them does. Many of the problems arising from the Christmas season can be resolved if you apply three principles: (1) Stress your objection to the commercialism of the season. Immediately you have everyone, with the possible exception of some shopkeepers and commercial interests, on your side. Who can deny that Christmas is a crassly commercial holiday, that it is budget-bustingly expensive? Who would not--especially as general economic conditions worsen--rather spend the money on more needful items, like maybe heating the house? Who does not dread the wearisome Christmas shopping experience, the time-consuming uncertainty as to what to buy for whom? All you have to say is you've had enough of it, that when you give a gift you want to do it spontaneously instead of as a slave to some custom. After the initial shock wears off, most people will respect your stand and secretly wish they had the courage to do likewise. Some, in fact, heartened by your example, may do just that! (2) Maintain a sense of humor. Let's face it, cutting trees down and then setting them back up loaded with ornaments, the whole gift-trading rigmarole, the thought of an overweight, bearded individual decked out in flamboyant red and traveling through the air in a sled or some other conveyance when he is not slithering up and down someone's chimney--these and so many other traditions are ridiculous. Feel free to point that out. Who can deny it? (3) Put the burden of proof on those who are celebrating Christmas. It's not that there isn't overwhelming proof to back you up in your decision to cease celebrating Christmas. There certainly is. But most people have neither the time nor the interest for a detailed explanation. So shift the burden of proof to them. Say, in effect, "If you can show me where the Bible says I ought to observe Christmas, or where it says early Christians celebrated Jesus' birthday, I will celebrate it also!" The discussion will probably end very suddenly at that point. Of course, if the person to whom you are speaking shows an obvious interest in learning about the real origin of Christmas, you should be prepared to give an appropriate answer.

5. What happens if someone gives me a gift anyway? Should I return it?

If a person is testing you to see how deeply your religious convictions lie, returning the gift is a proper response. On the other hand, in cases where the person sincerely doesn't know or comprehend your stand, a polite note of thanks for the gift and a brief statement that you no longer observe the Christmas holiday may be sufficient. By the way, you will find that most people will stop giving you Christmas gifts anyway after a year or two of not receiving a gift from you in return.

6. My friends and relatives continue to send me Christmas cards. Should I write back to each of them and explain that I have quit celebrating Christmas?

A brief note to that effect may be in order. As with gifts, most people will cease sending Christmas cards when they stop getting them in return.

7. What do I tell my children now that they will no longer be receiving presents at Christmas?

Why not tell them the truth? Why not tell them that you have come to understand that the world is wrong in its observance of Christmas and that you are going to do God's will because it is better than Christmas? Be sure to emphasize the positive side--that God's way is better than Christmas. As proof of this, tell your children you are going to give gifts to them throughout the year because you love them all year long, not just on Christmas Day. That, in turn, is precisely what they can tell their friends who will be showing off their Christmas gifts. It is important not to leave a void in your children's lives by removing Christmas observance and putting nothing in its place. Arrange special activities with them often, and especially centering around the Holy Days God has ordained in the Scriptures--the days He does want us to observe. (For more information, write for our free booklet Pagan Holidays- or God's Holy Days--Which?)

8. Is there anything I can do to prevent my child from having to participate in Christmas activities at school?

One of the most important steps you as a Christian parent can take is to discuss the subject with the children's teachers, addressing the problem ahead of time. Politely inform the teachers involved that you do not observe certain holidays and that you do not want to have your children take part in celebrations centering around those days. Seek to avoid, as much as possible, leaving a teacher in a difficult situation with children to teach but not knowing what to have them do while others, for example, are drawing Santas. You can advise that your children may draw winter scenes or snowmen instead of things immediately associated with Christmas. If the whole class is having a Christmas party perhaps you could offer to come to school and take your children home that afternoon to relieve the teacher from having to find something else for them to do. In any case, try to be very cooperative with school officials. Above all, ask God for wisdom, grace and favor in their sight. Your children themselves, especially as they get older, will be a determining factor as to whether they become involved in worldly religious holiday activities at school or elsewhere away from home. You can't be with them every minute. This underlines the absolute need to provide positive instruction at home. If children are convinced in their own minds that they should not participate in certain activities, much of the battle is already won.

9. It is a standard policy for the company where I work to give all employees a Christmas bonus. Should I accept this bonus?

Bonuses given at the end of the year are usually not considered as Christmas gifts. They are often given in gratitude for work done throughout the preceding year. It is logical to wait until the end of the year before giving such a bonus, and Christmas seems to be as good an occasion as any. Most large companies are not interested one way or the other in the personal convictions of their employees and, when that's the case, there is no reason to refuse the bonus. If you are working for a smaller company where you know your employer personally, it may be advisable to mention to him or her that you don't celebrate Christmas. If he or she wants to give you the bonus regardless, as simply a gift or token of appreciation, you can accept it with a clear conscience.

10. Some relatives have invited me to their house for dinner on Christmas Day. Should I refuse the invitation?

Not necessarily. It depends on the nature of the occasion. Since you understand the truth about Christmas, to you the day will be just another ordinary day of the year. And to you the simple fact of eating a meal with others on that day is no different from eating one with them on any other day. What matters in this case, though, is how your relatives will regard the occasion. If they look on the meal as part of Christmas festivities and place religious significance upon it, then you would be out of place there. Your attendance could give the impression that you are observing Christmas with them or, if they know about your beliefs, that you are willing to compromise on your beliefs. On the other hand, if the meal is merely a convenient opportunity for a family get-together, and there is no objectionable connotation placed upon the meal, then it might be all right to accept the invitation. Better be prepared to answer some questions, though, because sooner or later the conversation is sure to focus on why you don't observe Christmas.

11. What should I say when someone wishes me "Merry Christmas"?

It is often sufficient to respond with a question such as "Where has this last year gone?" or "It's that time of year again, isn't it?" or "Do you think it is going to snow?" or even a parting statement on an entirely unrelated subject such as "Good-bye now" or "Have a good day!" The surprising fact is that few individuals will even notice that you haven't wished "Merry Christmas" in return, so meaningless is the expression. At other times, a smile and a "Thank you" (meaning you are grateful for their concern) may be more appropriate.

The Truth About Christmas

By
Art Braidic
and
Dennis Fischer



© 2000 Art Braidic & Dennis Fischer
All rights reserved.

* * *



H ave you ever wondered about Christmas? From the time you first found out there really was no Santa Claus, did you ever question other aspects of this incredible holiday – one that so much of the world takes for granted? Did you ever wonder where Christmas came from? Is it in the Bible? From where do all the unusual symbols surrounding the celebration of this day come? Why a Christmas tree? Where did the idea of Santa Claus originate? Why does Santa wear a red suit with fur? Why does he supposedly come down the chimney? Why are stockings left on the fireplace? Why is this day celebrated on the 25th of December? Where did the Christmas wreath come from, or the Yule log? How about the exchanging of gifts? What about mistletoe? What do all these symbols and festivities really mean? What does the Bible say about this holiday? And what is God’s perspective on these things? If you were surprised when you first discovered the truth about Santa Claus, you will be even more surprised by the rest of the story.



Childhood Memories


From our earliest childhood, most of us looked forward to Christmas more than any other holiday. We were given time off from school. Stores were decorated and downtown city streets were brightly lit. Additionally, many neighborhood homes would put up lights and other decorations. For weeks, we would anticipate and fantasize about all the presents we would receive. Then the whole family would go out looking for just the right tree. Once found, it was brought home and showered with tinsel, balls, and lights. The family would work together to decorate the tree to everyone’s delight. Then, as the great day arrived, we hung our stockings up and went to bed, hardly able to sleep because of our excitement about what the morning would bring. When morning came, we would run to the tree, and there we would kneel down before it and receive our gifts according to whether we had been "bad" or "good."


This was the experience of so many of us as we grew up. None of us ever questioned any of these things deeply. We simply took all of it for granted. When told that we celebrated all this to honor Christ, we did not study the Bible to find if any of it were true. Perhaps as some of us found out the truth about Santa Claus, we were somewhat disillusioned, but most of us did not question these practices any further.


Now, however, it is time! We need to make informed choices about this issue because it affects our worship of God and as such, our very salvation. It is time to follow the Bible’s admonition and "prove all things, and hold fast to that which is good" (1Thess. 5:21).



The Business of Christmas


Recently, Hallmark, one of the nation’s top three wrapping paper manufacturers announced that during the Christmas season, it will produce over 24,000 miles of wrapping paper. Additionally, the number of Christmas trees sold in Los Angeles alone will top 1.1 million. Further, Americans will spend over seven billion dollars on children’s toys during the Christmas season. Collectively, agencies and photo studios suit up and ship out as many as 20,000 Santa Clauses to malls, parades, and parties. It has been estimated that retail stores can generate $35,000 in additional income simply by having a photographer and a rented Santa Claus for the season. Further, it is estimated that mall traffic increases by 15% when Santa Claus is in one of the big stores.


The city of Los Angeles alone consumes over ten million kilowatt hours of electricity to support its Christmas lights. This is the average monthly usage for many third world countries. The average American family will receive 26 cards while 3000 letters addressed to Santa Claus will go through the Los Angeles Post Office alone. Additionally, 650 million Christmas packages will be sent to friends and loved ones through the mail during this season. The city of Beverly Hills will spend over one million dollars on their holiday decorations while See’s Candy will sell over 12 million pounds of candy. Tragically, however, 35% to 40% of Americans will become so depressed they will use alcohol or drugs to simply cope with the emptiness they feel at this "joyous" time of the year.


In this light, many religious leaders, reacting to the gross commercialism of Christmas have been heard to exclaim: "We ought to put Christ back in Christmas." The truth is Christ was NEVER in Christmas and He never will be!


As shocking as this may sound, Jesus Christ was not born on or near December 25. Further, the original apostles who knew Jesus personally never celebrated this holiday. Additionally, the Bible nowhere encourages the celebration of Christmas, but rather condemns such observances.



Christmas Is Not Christian!


The word "Christmas" comes from the term "Mass of Christ." Shortened, the term simply became "Christ-mass." The celebration of this holiday actually existed centuries before Jesus was born and did not enter Christianity until centuries after His death. This fact is confirmed by the testimony of both religious and secular authorities. The 1911 edition of the Catholic Encyclopedia illustrates that Christmas did not originate in Palestine but rather in Egypt.

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 gravitated to Christmas.

Origen (A.D. 186-238), a leading third century theologian and the man regarded by some to be the "father of Biblical criticism," wrote:

...In the Scriptures, no one is recorded to have kept a feast or held a great banquet on his birthday. It is only sinners [like Pharaoh and Herod] who make great rejoicings over the day in which they were born into this world. (1911 Catholic Encyclopedia, article Natal Day)

The celebration of Christmas was not embraced during the days of the apostles or the early New Testament church. Consider the words of the Encyclopedia Americana, 1944 edition which states:

Christmas... was, according to many authorities, not celebrated in the first centuries of the Christian church, as the Christian usage in general was to celebrate the death of remarkable persons rather than their birth.



The Origin of Christmas


Virtually all Biblical authorities and secular historians agree that the celebration of Christ’s birth did not enter the church until hundreds of years after Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection. It was not until the fifth century that the Roman Catholic church ordered this day to be celebrated. Furthermore, the church directed this celebration to take place on the same day as the pagan festival dedicated to worshiping the sun god.


The connection between Christmas and a variety of pagan practices is thoroughly documented. Not only the day, but its symbols, are intimately connected to religious practices embraced by the pagan world. William Walsh, a recognized authority on Christmas, writes:

...the Christmas festival...is a gradual evolution from times that long antedated the Christian period... It was over laid upon heathen festivals, and many of its observances are only adaptations of pagan to Christian Ceremonies. (The Story of Santa Klaus p. 58)

Walsh went on to explain that the celebration of Christmas was intimately connected to the Greek veneration of their god Dionysus (also called Bacchus). The Greeks paid homage to Bacchus with a celebration bearing his name (Bacchanalia).

It was on or about December 21st that the ancient Greeks celebrated what are known to us as the Bacchanalia or festivities in honor of Bacchus, the god of wine. In these festivities the people gave themselves up to songs, dances and other revels which frequently passed the limits of decency and order. (p. 65)

According to Walsh, the Romans celebrated the Bacchanalia as well as the Saturnalia during the same period as today’s celebration of Christmas.

...the Saturnalia, held in honor of Saturn, the god of time, began on December 17th and continued for seven days. These also often ended in riot and disorder. Hence the words Bacchanalia and Saturnalia acquired an evil reputation in later times. (p. 65)

The excesses and decadence practiced during this festival were legendary. Gerard and Patricia Del Re document this.

At its most decadent and barbaric, Saturnalia may have been the excuse among Roman soldiers in the East for the human sacrifice of the king of the revels. (The Christmas Almanac, p.16)

Why December 25?


Today, most of the world celebrates Christmas on the twenty-fifth of December. However, the actual date of Christ’s birth cannot be determined with absolute certainty. There is, however, strong biblical evidence that suggests Jesus was born in the fall. As for the celebration of December 25, this too, traces its roots directly to the pagan world.
Werner Keller writes in The Bible as History:

December 25 is referred to in documents as Christmas day in A.D. 324 for the first time. Under the Roman emperor Justinian [in the 500's] it was recognized as an official holiday. An old Roman festival played a major part in the choice of this particular day. December 25 in ancient Rome was the ‘Dies Natali Invictus,’ ‘the birthday of the unconquered,’ the day of the winter solstice and at the same time, in Rome, the last day of the Saturnalia, which had long since degenerated into a week of unbridled carnival... (p. 331)

The Encyclopedia Britannica adds some interesting insights with respect to the December 25th celebration of Christmas. Not only did the day coincide with the Roman celebration of Saturnalia, but other pagan deities are directly connected to this date.

...In the Roman world, the Saturnalia was a time of merrymaking and exchanging of gifts. December 25th was also regarded as the birth date of the Iranian Mystery god, Mithra, the Sun of Righteousness. On the Roman New Year houses were decorated with greenery and lights and gifts were given to children. To these observances were added the German and Celtic Yule rites...Food and good fellowship, the Yule log and Yule cakes, greenery and fir tree, gifts and greetings all commemorated different aspects of this festive season. Fires and lights, symbols of warmth and lasting life have always been associated with the winter festival, both pagan and Christian. (Vol. II, 1973)

Christmas is so inextricably linked to celebrations practiced by the ancient Roman world that if a Roman citizen of that day were somehow raised from the dead to live in our age, he would immediately recognize Christmas today as the same holiday celebrated so many centuries ago.


It is clear from the record of history that Christmas originated during pre-Christian times and was celebrated by the pagan world for centuries after the death of Christ. This day then became embraced by the Roman Catholic church in the fifth century. However, one very important question remains. Where did the pagans get their ideas regarding such a celebration?



The Tower of Babel


Virtually all pagan practices had their beginnings in the city of Babylon during the time of Nimrod. Nimrod was the grandson of Ham, the son of Noah (Gen. 10:6-8). He was the founder of Babylon (v. 10). Nimrod formed cities instead of going out and replenishing the earth as God had commanded Noah to do. One of Nimrod’s accomplishments was building the tower of Babel. Some believe he did this to protect people from the potential threat of another flood from God. The scriptures reveal that Nimrod was "a mighty hunter before the Lord" (Genesis 10:9). The word "before" is better translated "against" and it is clear that he became the first post-flood dictator. The name "Nimrod" is translated from the Hebrew word "marad" and literally means "he rebelled. Ancient traditions regarding this apostate leader show that he rebelled against God, and in so doing, created a worldwide apostasy. According to tradition, Nimrod married his own mother, Semeramis.


Then, upon his death, Semeramis began to teach that her son had been reincarnated in the form of a full-grown evergreen tree which supposedly sprang up from a dead tree stump. On each anniversary of Nimrod’s birthday, December 25, Semeramis would visit this evergreen tree, claiming that Nimrod would leave gifts for her there.


Through her politics and the use of her son’s name, Semeramis became the queen of Babylon, the home of the Chaldee Mysteries. She was also regarded as the "queen of Heaven" and "the mother of the divine son." After generations of these idolatrous practices and traditions, Nimrod came to be considered the son of Baal, the sun god. He and his mother became the chief entities of worship as a Madonna and child.


This belief and practice spread to Egypt, where the names of the gods were Isis and Osiris. The son Osiris was born December 25. In Asia it was Cybele and Deonius. In Rome they were called Fortuna and Jupiter. Throughout the world we still find the remnants of mother and child worship to this day. It is no surprise that this same system still exists at the end of the age. It is called "Mystery Babylon" (Revelation 17:5). Shockingly, it is disguised as Christianity and is still practiced in the celebration of Christmas.



From Paganism to Christianity


The great historian Will Durant described how paganism actually took upon itself Christianity and converted it to pagan purposes.

Christianity did not destroy paganism; it adopted it... From Egypt came the idea of a divine trinity... [and] the adoration of the Mother and Child... From Phrygia came the worship of the Great Mother... The Mithraic ritual so closely resembled the Eucharistic sacrifice of the Mass that Christian fathers charged the Devil with inventing these similarities to mislead frail minds. [Modern day] Christianity was the last great creation of the ancient pagan world. (The Story of Civilization, p. 595)

It is clear that a wide range of pagan practices became assimilated into the Roman Catholic church. It began with embracing the birthday of the sun god and establishing the date of this celebration as December 25.


It is interesting to note that the practice of sun worship began in early Egypt. There the priests would make a round wafer to represent the sun. The celebrants would eat the wafer, symbolizing the sun god’s life and the nourishment of man’s soul. Clearly, the church was embracing paganism in an attempt to increase its numbers and draw in a non-believing world. In reality, it was the church being absorbed by those who practiced beliefs totally contrary to Christianity. Alexander Hislop, in his book, The Two Babylons characterized it this way:

Long before the fourth century, and long before the Christian era itself, a festival was celebrated among the heathen at that precise time of the year, in honor of the birth of the son of the Babylonian queen of heaven; and it may fairly be presumed that, in order to conciliate the heathen, and to swell the number of the nominal adherents of Christianity, the same festival was adopted by the Roman Church, giving it only the name of Christ. This tendency on the part of Christians to meet paganism half-way was very early developed... (p. 93)

The church eventually adopted and merged several different pagan ceremonies to eventually end up with the modern day practice of Christmas and the New Year celebrations we witness today.



Christmas Through History


During the latter part of the third century, Deus Sol Invictus became the official deity of the Roman Empire. At that time, a great temple was built in honor of the sun and the sun’s birthday was officially set as December 25. This date was chosen because it was the accepted date of the winter solstice. Less than 100 years later, Emperor Constantine came to power in Rome. At the beginning of Constantine’s rule, it was a violation of Roman law to practice Christianity. Christians were hated by the state and were subjected to great persecution which included torture and even burning at the stake.


However, Constantine saw something in Christianity he believed could be very valuable in holding the empire together. Despite great persecution, Christians remained dedicated to their faith. This commitment so impressed Constantine that he issued "The Edict of Toleration" in 313 A.D. and made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire. As a result, state persecution of Christians stopped. However, the news was not all good. Because Christianity became the state religion, the church became very political and the doctrines embraced by the church were watered down and seriously compromised. Jesse Hurlbut describes this period in his book, The Story of the Christian Church.

...the establishment of Christianity as the state religion became a curse... Everybody sought membership in the church, and nearly everybody was received. Both good and bad, sincere seekers after God and hypocritical seekers after gain, rushed into the communion. Ambitious, worldly, unscrupulous men sought office in the church for social and political influence...

The services of worship increased in splendor, but were less spiritual and hearty than those of former times. The forms and ceremonies of paganism gradually crept into the worship. Some of the old heathen feasts became church festivals with change of name and of worship.

The emergence of pagan practices in the church is well chronicled in history. Historian John Romer characterizes this subtle incursion this way:

Subtly, so subtly that the bishops themselves had not seen them, the old gods had entered their churches like the air of the Mediterranean. And they live still in Christian ritual, in the iconography and the festivals of Christianity. When Julian arrived in Antioch in 362... the great Christian city was in mourning, bewailing in the Levantine manner the annual death of Adonis, Venus’s beautiful lover. At Ephesus, though the sanctuary of Diana, goddess of the city, was taken down... her statues were carefully buried in dry sand. And when the Third Council of the church assembly at Ephesus solemnly voted that henceforth the Virgin Mary should be honoured with the title of Theotokos, the God-bearer, Ephesus, itself for centuries the city of the virgin hunter Diana, became the city of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God. In Egypt, too, the ancient sign of life, the ankh, which the gods had carried in their sculptures for thousands of years, was easily transformed into the Christian cross; the figure of Isis nursing her child Horus, Isis Lactans, became the figure of the Virgin with Jesus at her breast.

At Rome, Romulus and Remus were swapped for the biblical saints Peter and Paul. And still in the fifth century, the Pope had to stop the early morning congregation of St. Peter’s from walking up the church steps backwards so as not to offend Sol, the rising sun god. Similarly, 25 December, now Christ’s birthday, was also the day of Sol Invictus’ festival and Constantine’s birthday. This festival was celebrated by cutting green branches and hanging little lights on them, and presents were given out in the god’s name. Sol’s weekly festival Sol-day – Sunday – became the Christian Sabbath. Just as Apollo of Delphi had made a beautiful transformation to become the Roman Sol Invictus, so later he became a Christ of the sun. All three of them are sometimes pictured in their fiery chariots... with... radiant haloes. (Testament: The Bible and History, pp. 230-231)

Legalizing Christianity solved one problem for the church, but it caused another. Millions of pagans were suddenly made "Christians" literally overnight. These pagans had no desire to give up their pagan practices, however. Try as it would, the church could not prevail on the people to give up the paganism that they embraced. The church’s answer was to finally "Christianize" numerous pagan practices. Charles Guignebert, in his 1927 book, The Early History of Christianity, gave the following explanation:

Now at the beginning of the fifth century, the ignorant and the semi-Christians thronged into the church in numbers... They had forgotten none of their pagan customs... The bishops of that period had to content themselves with redressing, as best they could, and in experimental fashion, the shocking malformations of the Christian faith which they perceived around them... [To properly teach new converts] was out of the question; they had to be content with teaching them no more than the symbol of baptism and then baptizing them en masse, postponing until a later date the task of eradicating their superstitions, which they preserved intact... This "later date" never arrived, and the church adapted to herself, as well as she could, them and their customs and beliefs. On their side, [converts] were content to dress their paganism in a Christian cloak. (pp. 208-210)

This adopting of pagan festivals was not without opposition however. While many professing Christians welcomed the liberty to celebrate these pagan practices, others objected. Many at the time understood that such practices were rankly pagan, ungodly practices which should never have been brought into the church.The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge states the following.

The pagan Saturnalia and Brumailia 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 the 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.

Despite opposition by Christians committed to pursuing the teachings in scripture, pagan influence simply overwhelmed the church, transforming it into something far different from that raised up by Jesus through Peter and the apostles. This fact is confirmed by The Encyclopedia Americana which states:

Christmas... according to many authorities, was not celebrated in the first centuries of the Christian Church... 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.

As you can see, ancient rites practiced by the pagan world were eventually grafted into Christianity. Rome had been pagan centuries before the birth of Christianity and it simply was not going to abandon its false religion. When Emperor Constantine ordered Christianity placed on equal footing with paganism, people preferred their old ways. They enjoyed those things they had always known, and simply adapted the old to appear to conform to the new. They changed from worshiping the "sun" to worshiping the "Son" and this was done retaining all their old practices.


Most people today know little or nothing of the pagan origin of Christmas. They are unaware that faithful Christians first opposed these heretical practices. Additionally, most Christians today don’t understand that believers dedicated to keeping the truth of God were forced to go underground, some suffering martyrdom rather than allowing themselves to participate in such things.



Christmas: Its Symbols and Customs


The symbols and customs of Christmas convey powerful images of this holiday. Consider the Christmas tree, mistletoe, the holly wreath, and Santa Claus, just to name a few. These symbols stand as a constant reminder of the season of which they are so much a part. Religions have used symbols and traditions as a means by which to perpetuate their beliefs. Symbols are designed to add meaning to seasons and events.


The symbols of Christmas have great appeal to this holiday’s celebrants.However, after careful examination of these symbols and traditions, a much darker picture emerges. The truth is that Christianity has embraced as holy that which has its roots in religions totally contrary to the faith of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and the apostles. Consider the following symbols and beliefs.

The Christmas Tree


The Christmas tree is arguably the most prominent symbol of this season. Millions of people bring an evergreen tree into their homes and decorate it with beautiful glass balls, tinsel, and lights. These same millions would never think of the Christmas tree as an idol which God abhors. The tradition of bringing a tree into the home and decorating it came from a fable regarding Saint Boniface. According to tradition, Saint Boniface cut down the "great oak of Jupiter," a tree worshiped by pagan Teutons in Germany.


The story is that Saint Boniface came upon a band of heathens who were worshiping a huge oak tree. This band was about to offer a human sacrifice. Boniface intervened, stopping the sacrifice. He then ordered the tree cut down. Legend has it that a small fir tree sprang up in it’s place. Boniface proclaimed that this tree was the tree of life and represented Christ. Careful examination of this story reveals striking similarities to the story of Nimrod and Semeramis. As was mentioned earlier, after the death of Nimrod, his mother Semeramis declared that Nimrod was reincarnated in the form of an evergreen tree which sprung up overnight.



History reveals that the worship of trees and nature was a common practice among pagans and continues to this very day. Many people in the New Age movement believe that trees actually have feelings. Some even believe that trees have the ability to reason. This belief is not new at all. Socrates and Plato are both credited with embracing the same beliefs.


The presence of tree worship is woven throughout history. Even the ancient people of Palestine engaged in this practice. They would often tie the tops of trees together in groves and make a shrine to nature. On certain occasions, they would cut an image such as a phallic symbol in the tree and worship before it.


It is important to understand that such practices are abhorrent to God. The tenth chapter of the book of Jeremiah illustrates this point. Here, God commands his people to "learn not the way of the heathen." He then goes into great detail describing a tradition in which the heathen cut a tree out of the forest and decorate it. God goes on to characterize this tree as a graven image. Although many argue that Jeremiah is not referring to the Christmas tree, that argument misses the point. What God revealed through Jeremiah is that His children are to avoid practices that resemble those embraced by the pagan world. He did not say that it was appropriate to modify their practices and call them Christian. The Christmas tree is clearly a symbol of a faith that was vastly different from anything advocated by the scriptures and its origin in paganism is thoroughly supported by the testimony of history. Consider the words of Alexander Hislop.

The Christmas tree, now so common among us, was equally common in Pagan Rome and Pagan Egypt. In Egypt that tree was the palm tree; in Rome it was the fir; the palm tree denoting the Pagan Messiah, as Baal-Tamar, the fir referring to him as Baal-Berith.

The mother of Adonis, the Sun-God and great mediatorial divinity, was mystically said to have been changed into a tree, the son must have been recognized as the ‘Man the Branch.’ (The Two Babylons, p. 97)

Other credible works on the tradition of Christmas dramatically declare that the Christmas tree is intimately connected to faiths practiced by the pagan world. The book Christmas Folklore reveals the following:

Most people have heard that the Christmas tree originates in the tannenbaum and is some sort of vestige of Teutonic vegetation worship. This is partially true. However, the custom of using pine and other evergreens ceremonially was well established at the Roman Saturnalia, even earlier in Egypt. (p. 209)

The book Festivals, Holy Days, and Saints’ Days confirms that the origin of the Christmas tree can be traced to people who knew absolutely nothing about the Bible.

The Christmas tree... recapitulates the idea of tree worship...gilded nuts and balls symbolizing the sun...all the festivities of the winter solstice have been absorbed into Christmas day...the use of holly and mistletoe to the Druidic ceremonies; the Christmas tree [today reflects] the honors paid to Odin’s sacred fir... (p. 236)

It is clear that the Christmas tree is a powerful symbol and conjures many images concerning the celebration it pictures. However, there is one thing the Christmas tree is NOT – it is not Christian. Everything about the Christmas tree can be traced to beliefs that are strongly condemned in scripture. There is no connection between the Christmas tree and the birth of Christ. It is a pagan symbol that God condemns.


In 1974, United Press International, one of the world’s leading press agencies, carried an article regarding the origin of the Christmas tree. This article spoke volumes about this symbol that has come to be strongly embraced by the Christian world.

Toward the middle of winter, as the sun began setting further in the south, and the nights grew longer, ancient pagan priests put candles which they called fairy lights on trees in an attempt to lure the sun back toward the north. (December 17)

Today, millions of Christian homes around the world are adorned with evergreen trees every Christmas. Tragically, people fail to understand what these trees picture because they simply don’t ask. Ancient Israel was once indicted for engaging in practices that included the veneration of trees.

And the children of Israel did secretly [those] things that [were] not right against the LORD their God, and they built them high places in all their cities, from the tower of the watchmen to the fenced city. And they set them up images and groves in every high hill, and under every green tree: And there they burnt incense in all the high places, as [did] the heathen whom the LORD carried away before them; and wrought wicked things to provoke the LORD to anger: For they served idols, whereof the LORD had said unto them, Ye shall not do this thing. (2Kings 17:9-12)

Santa Claus


One of the most prominent images associated with Christmas is that of Santa Claus. Every year, children around the world long for his arrival, for he is the giver of gifts. Today, Santa Claus is depicted as a lover of children and a true giver. During the Christmas season, people are even encouraged to join his great army of elves so that children around the world can be touched by his goodness. So popular is Santa Claus that adults tell children stories of his exploits. These stories are conveyed with such conviction that children believe them without question. But who is Santa Claus? And where did his story begin?


Many articles and books have been written to explain that Santa Claus was a bishop by the name of Nicholas who lived in Asia Minor during the fourth century. It is true that such a bishop did exist but much of what is attributed to him is untrue. The second Vatican council formally acknowledged that many concepts associated with him actually came from pagan sources. William Walsh wrote:

Santa Claus comes form Saint Nicholas, the saint whose festival was celebrated in December and the one who in other respects was most nearly in accord with the dim traditions of Saturn as the hero of the Saturnalia. (The Story of Santa Klaus, p.70)

Tony Van Renterghem writes the following in his book, When Santa Was a Shaman: The Ancient Origins of Santa Claus & the Christmas Tree:

In the newly Christianized areas where the pagan Celtic and Germanic cults remained strong, legends of the god Wodan were blended with those of various Christian saints; Saint Nicholas was one of these. There were Christian areas where Saint Nicholas ruled alone; in other locations, he was assisted by the pagan Dark Helper. In other remote areas... ancient pockets of the Olde Religion controlled traditions.

Here the Dark Helper ruled alone. Sometimes in a most confusing manner, using the cover name of Saint Nicholas or ‘Klaus,’ without in any way changing his threatening, Herne/Pan, fur-clad appearance.

By absorbing such pagan feasts and traditions, the Christian Church turned Herne into Saint Nicholas’ captive, chained Dark Helper; none other than Satan the Dark One, symbolic of all evil...



In Holland and several other European countries, the Saint Nicholas figure is still highly esteemed. He appears as a tall, dignified, bearded, white-haired old man, dressed as a Catholic bishop, complete with a bizarre, quite un-saintly habit of riding through the skies on a white horse, followed by his Dark Helper. It seems that our Catholic saint inherited some of these customs from the pagan god Wodan, who has also been a bearded, white haired old man, also dressed in a hat and cloak, carried a staff, rode a white horse, and dragged along the same dark slave/helper on a chain. (pp. 96-97)

Renterghem continues to explain that in Holland, "Sinterklaas" was believed to reward good children with gifts, while "Zwarte Pier" carried a sinister rod and punished bad children. Renterghem stated that in Germany, Saint Nicholas’ Dark Helper was a frightening, horned little man brandishing a besom (broom). The Worldbook Encyclopedia provides some interesting insights into some of the traditions regarding Santa Claus.



Some of Santa Claus’s characteristics date back many centuries. For example, the belief that Santa enters the house through the chimney developed from an old Norse legend. The Norse believed that the goddess Hertha appeared in the fireplace and brought good luck to the home.

Other traditions from the Druidic time suggest that Santa’s red suit is a leftover from the times when ancient peoples worshiped the god of fire. Tradition has it that this fire god came down the chimney. Consider too, that in ancient times, Druid homeowners would leave a treat consisting of milk and pastries to appease this god who came down the chimney into their fireplace. This is how the tradition of leaving milk and cookies out for Santa began. The idea of placing stockings on the fireplace mantel also comes from this legendary pagan practice.


It is clear that the modern Santa traces his origins back to ancient pagan traditions. Over the centuries, names and customs may evolve. It is interesting that by rearranging the letters in the name "Santa," the name becomes "Satan." In light of the history of this character, it is hard to imagine that the author of this modern day figure we call Santa could be anyone other than Satan.



Christmas Presents


Most people believe the tradition of giving Christmas presents comes from the Bible. The assumption is that the wise men gave gifts to Jesus, therefore it is appropriate for us to give gifts to each other. However, careful examination of this tradition will reveal that gift giving has nothing to do with Magi or the gifts they presented to Christ. Both religious and secular history reveal a clear connection between giving gifts during the Christmas season and pagan practices. Consider the following insights concerning this practice.

The interchange of presents between friends is a like characteristic of Christmas and the Saturnalia, and must have been adopted by Christians from the Pagans, as the admonition of Tertullian plainly shows. (The Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. 12, p. 153)

Tertullian wrote in his work, On Idolatry that during the pagan feast of the Saturnalia which was celebrated in December, gifts were "carried to and fro." According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, exchanging gifts at this time of the year may have been influenced by similar customs practiced by the pagans on January 1.

"Gifts are exchanged by the French on January 1, by the Spanish and Italians on January 6, and by other nationalities on December 25. In most parts of Europe it was the Christ Child who brought the gifts. After the Reformation, the day itself was personified, and the figure of Father Christmas was later combined with St. Nicholas, [who later became] Santa Claus." (p. 659)

William Walsh provides additional insights into the tradition of exchanging presents.

Christmas gifts themselves remind us of the presents that were exchanged in Rome during the Saturnalia. In Rome, it might be added, the presents usually took the form of wax tapers and dolls – the latter being in their turn a survival of the human sacrifices once offered to Saturn. It is a queer thought that in our Christmas presents we are preserving under another form one of the most savage customs of our barbarian ancestors. (The Story of Santa Klaus, p.67)

Gifts to a King


It is important to understand that the wise men did not give gifts to each other. Additionally, the gifts they brought to Christ were not birthday presents. Jesus did not receive toys from these visitors, but rather unusual offerings that many believe carry great significance. It has been suggested that gold is a gift given to a king, frankincense a gift given to a priest, and myrrh a gift given to a condemned man. The latter because myrrh was used in preparing a body for burial. It is clear that the wise men presented gifts to Jesus because they understood Him to be a great King. The protocol at that time was to never approach the presence of kings or dignitaries without bearing a gift. Adam Clark’s commentary expresses it this way:



"The people of the east never approach the presence of kings and great personages without a present in their hands." (Vol. 5, p. 46)

The truth is that gift giving at this time of year is not scriptural and has no basis in the story of the wise men. The giving of gifts at this time of year came from the practice of the ancient Saturnalia.



Commercialism, Not Christianity


In the United States, retailers have glamorized Christmas as no other holiday. They lavishly decorate their stores, pipe in special music, and hire "Santa Clauses" all for one purpose: to lure shoppers into a spirit of consuming. So important is Christmas to the economy of the United States that the absence of such a holiday could literally paralyze the country. It has been suggested that 50% of annual profits enjoyed by retailers is generated by Christmas-related sales. Recently, an executive of one of America’s largest retail chains suggested that 75% of their profits were generated between Thanksgiving and Christmas.


Regardless of how Christmas has been packaged, it is a day dedicated to materialism wrapped in colorful paper, dressed up in a red suit, and swathed in soft fuzzy angel hair. People tell themselves they are worshiping Christ but this holiday is really about materialism and has nothing to do with Jesus Christ!



The Yule Log, Holly, Wreaths, and Mistletoe


Today, most people think the word "Yule" refers to the time of Christmas. However, this word is actually a derivative of the Nordic word geol. The Nordic people pronounced their "g" with our "y" sound. The word geol has two meanings. It can mean "noise and revelry" or it can mean "wheel." According to the Encyclopedia Britannica 11th Edition, the translation "wheel" reflected the shape of the sun and pictured the turn of the year. In essence, "Yule tide" defines a period of one month before and one month after the winter solstice which was a time of great revelry at year’s end. Alexander Hislop explains the assimilation of the Yule log into the Christmas tradition.

As Christianity spread to northern Europe, it met with the observance of another pagan festival held in December in honor of the sun. This time it was the Yule-feast of the Norsemen, which lasted for twelve days. During this time log-fires were burnt to assist the revival of the sun. Shrines and other sacred places were decorated with such greenery as holly, ivy, and bay, and it was an occasion for feasting and drinking.

Equally old was the practice of the Druids, the cast of priests among the Celts of ancient France, Britain and Ireland to decorate their temples with mistletoe, the fruit of the oak-tree which they considered sacred. Among the German tribes the oak-tree was sacred to Odin, their god of war. (The Christian Calendar, p. 22)

Gerard and Patricia Del Re explain that in the pagan world, fertility played a major part in worship and that winter vegetation was used to reflect this belief.

In midwinter, the idea of rebirth and fertility was tremendously important. In the snows of winter, the evergreen was a symbol of the life that would return...

Evergreens were used for decoration... Light was important in dispelling the growing darkness of the solstice, so a Yule log was lighted with the remains of the previous year’s log. (The Christmas Almanac, p. 18)

The book Christmas Folklore explains that the symbols of holly and mistletoe were borrowed from the Romans who used them to depict reproduction.

Many of the plants used at Christmas are symbols of fertility. Certainly any evergreen with its ability to return verdure in the barren months is appropriate, but by far the most interesting are the holly, the ivy, and the mistletoe.

Holly, with its pricking leaves, white flowers, and red berries symbolizes the male reproductive urge... holly is the male and the ivy is the female. This use of the plants was... borrowed by the Christians along with other customs of the Roman Saturnalia." (pp. 22-23)

The pagan custom of kissing under the mistletoe was part of the first steps in the revelry of the ancient Saturnalia. It came from the Druid superstition in the winter solstice that only good could pass by the parasitic plant.


As benign as these symbols may appear, make no mistake about it: they are deeply rooted in practices God condemns throughout the scriptures. God does not need the Yule log, holly, mistletoe, or any other form of vegetation used in the worship of false gods. The Bible records that while speaking to a woman from Samaria, Jesus said that God must be worshiped in spirit and in truth (Jn. 4:24). The belief that these symbols are legitimately connected to Christ’s birth is totally false. They are pagan to the core and should be forsaken.



The Birth of the Messiah


The belief that Jesus was born on or near December 25 has no basis in fact. Actually, this date has a very sullied past. It was the birthday of the sun god Mithra and of Nimrod and is connected with many vile practices associated with paganism. Virtually all credible records indicate that the early Church did not even celebrate birthdays. The World Book Encyclopedia reveals the following:

The exact date of Christ’s birth is not known. The early Christians did not celebrate His birth, because they considered the celebration of anyone’s birth to be a pagan custom. The first mention of the observance of Christ’s birthday appears about A.D. 200. For many years, several dates were used. December 25 was first mentioned in 336. (article "Christmas")



According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, it is impossible to identify the date of Christ’s birth. However, despite this, Catholic scholars have set that date as December 25.



Jesus Was Not Born in Winter


The scriptures reveal that at the time of Jesus’ birth, shepherds were "abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night" (Lk. 2:8). This could never occur in Judea during the dead of winter. At that time, shepherds brought their flocks in from the mountains and fields corralling them around October 15. This was done to protect the sheep from the cold wet weather during this time of year. Adam Clarke relates in his commentary that it was the custom of shepherds to send their sheep out in the spring, around the time of the Passover, and to bring them back at the beginning of the first rains (Vol. 5, p. 370). Werner Keller, in his book The Bible As History, provides some clear insight regarding this issue.

At Christmas-time Bethlehem is in the grip of frost, and in the Promised Land no cattle would have been in the fields in that temperature. This fact is born out by a remark in the Talmud to the effect that in that neighborhood the flocks were put out to grass in March and brought in again at the beginning of November. (pp. 331-332)

Notice that even the Talmud indicates that Jesus could not have been born anywhere near December 25.



When Was Jesus Born?



The Bible not only rejects a winter birth of the Messiah, but actually presents a strong case that Jesus was born in the autumn. This is because the scriptures provide benchmarks that can assist in determining when Jesus was conceived. The gospel of Luke (Lk. 1:5-17) records an event in which the angel Gabriel visited a priest named Zacharias and informed him that his wife Elizabeth would give birth to a son (John the Baptist). Gabriel made this announcement while Zacharias was serving in the temple. Luke indicates that Zacharias performed this service during "the course of Abia" (or Abijah). According to First Chronicles, Abijah served during "the eighth course" (1Chron. 24:10). The great Jewish historian Josephus wrote that each course was one week long with priests rotating so that each would serve twice during the year. In this case, Zacharias would have served from Iyar 27 through Sivan 5. This period would coincide with late May or early June.


Luke’s gospel goes on to state that Zacharias returned home immediately after his days of service were complete (Lk. 1:23). Shortly after his return, his wife Elizabeth conceived. This would mean her conception would have taken place during June or perhaps July at the latest. The birth of John the Baptist would therefore have taken place in the spring (March - April), probably during the time of the Days of Unleavened Bread.


But what does this have to do with the birth of Jesus? Luke’s gospel indicates that Gabriel also spoke to Mary and informed her that she would give birth to the Messiah (Lk. 1:26-36). When Mary asked how she would know this was true, Gabriel explained that her cousin Elizabeth was in her sixth month of pregnancy.

And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren. (Luke 1:36)

Mary then left her home to seek Elizabeth. When she arrived, Elizabeth confirmed that Christ had already been conceived in Mary (Lk 1:39-42). The time of this visit was during the winter, probably December or January. This being the case, Jesus would have been born nine months later – in other words, in the fall.


It is interesting to note that Jewish tradition believes the world was created on the first day of the civil year, the Feast of Trumpets, which occurs in mid-September or early October. Although the Bible does not specifically identify the exact date of Jesus’ birth, some authorities have suggested that He, too, was born on this day. Clearly, however, Jesus was not born on or near December 25 and any representation to the contrary is completely false.



The Wise Men


One of the most popular scenes depicted during the Christmas season is that of three wise men offering gifts to Jesus while He is in a manger. Some have suggested that these men were magicians or perhaps astrologers. However, this is simply not true. Halley’s Bible Handbook provides a credible explanation regarding the identity of these visitors.

These wise men came from Babylon, or the country beyond the land where the human race had its origin, the land of Abraham, land of the Jewish Captivity, where many Jews still lived. They belonged to the learned class, advisers of kings. Perhaps they were familiar with the Jewish Scriptures, and knew of the expectation of a coming Messianic King. It was the land of Daniel, and no doubt they knew of Daniel’s 70 weeks’ prophecy; and also Balaam’s prophecy about "A Star out of Jacob" (Numbers 24:17). They were men of high standing, for they had access to Herod. They are commonly spoken of as the "three Wise-men." But, the Scripture does not say how many. (pp. 418-419)

The traditional view is that there were three magi, or wise men. This view is held because of the number of gifts (gold, frankincense, and myrrh) mentioned in the scriptures. However, the gospels make no mention of a specific number of visitors. It has even been suggested that there may have been twelve, one representing each of the tribes of Israel. According to Halley, there may also have been a significant number accompanying the magi.

There were probably more, or at least they were with an entourage of scores or hundreds, for it would not be safe for a small group to travel a thousand miles over desert wastes that were infested with bandits (especially carrying gold). Their arrival in Jerusalem was of sufficient show of importance to stir the whole city. (p. 419)

Halley also explains that these wise men had four functions. The first was to pay homage to Christ as representatives from distant lands. It has been suggested that these men may have been the first Gentiles to worship the Messiah. The second function was to call attention to Jerusalem of the Messiah’s arrival. The third was to provide financial resources (the gifts) that would be used to pay for Joseph and Mary’s flight to Egypt with Jesus. And fourth, these wise men may have laid the groundwork in their country for the future preaching of the gospel. (Halley’s Bible Handbook, p.419)


It is also important to understand that contrary to most nativity scenes which show the wise men visiting Jesus in a manger, they actually visited Him in a home. Matthew’s gospel proves this conclusively.

And when they were come into the house, they saw the young Child with Mary His mother, and fell down, and worshiped Him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto Him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh. (Mt. 2:11)

Additionally, this visit may not have taken place until Jesus was several months old. According to the scriptures, the magi first visited Herod and explained the reason for their visit (Mt. 2:2). When Herod heard that the magi had come to visit the King of the Jews, he instructed them to return and inform him where this king might be found (Mt. 2:8). This was done because Herod feared such a king and wanted to have Him destroyed.


When the magi failed to return to inform Herod of the Messiah’s location, this evil ruler became enraged. He then ordered the murder of all male children two years old and younger in Judea and its surrounding areas (Mt. 2:16). Herod probably concluded, based on the discussions with the magi that several months had passed since Jesus’ birth. Therefore, he conservatively estimated that Jesus would be younger than two years old. Thus the order was given.



The First Noel


One of the most popular Christmas carols is the song "The First Noel." This song begins with the words "The first noel the angels did say..." Many Christians assume that noel refers to Christmas. However, this is not true. The word noel is of Celtic origin and comes from novo and hel. The word simply means "new sun," and again finds its roots in sun worship and ancient pagan religious practices based on the winter solstice. Once again, something that seems so beautiful on the outside has its roots in religious practices that go totally contrary to true Christianity.



Peace On Earth, Good Will Toward Men


Millions of Christians around the world believe that Christ came to bring peace on earth and good will toward men. This belief is based on the words found in Luke 2:14. There, an angel informs shepherds that the Messiah was born. At that moment, the shepherds heard an angelic chorus praising God with the words "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth, peace, good will toward men."


These words appear to be conveying that Christ was bringing peace to the world. However, this is not true; Jesus’ own words contradict the idea that His intent was to bring peace to mankind. Jesus clearly stated that His life produced conflict. This is because the truth that He taught compelled people to take sides – either the were for Him or against Him. Notice what He said.

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household. He that loveth father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. (Mt. 10:34-37)

It is ironic that even as a result of His birth, an act of great violence occurred. In response to Jesus’ birth, King Herod committed one of the most violent and bloody acts recorded in scripture. He conspired and carried out a plan to murder innocent children.

Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men. (Mt. 2:16)

With this understanding, how should Luke 2:14 be translated? When this verse is carefully examined, it is clear that the angels’ anthem was two-fold. First, it exalted God who reigns over everything. Second, the angels speak of peace, but a peace that comes only to men who seek God and on whom His favor rests. Jesus spoke of this peace to His apostles just hours before His death. On the eve of His crucifixion, Jesus said:

Peace I leave with you, My peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid. (Jn. 14:27)

With these words, Jesus was stating that there would be a special peace to those who followed Him. That peace is the peace of mind that comes from knowing God is actively involved in the lives of His children and that He will never forsake them. With this understanding, Luke 2:14 is better rendered "Peace on earth to men of good will." This is similar to the Knox Translation which states "And peace on earth to men that are God’s friends."


However, there are those who do not love God or His way. To those there can be no true peace, but only conflict. Jesus’ birth brought with it the potential for great peace as well as great war. It is interesting that when Christ returns to this earth to set up His millennial Kingdom, the world will be engaged in a great war. However, once the earth is conquered by the Messiah, there will be great world peace.



Should Christians Celebrate Christmas?


It is undeniable that Christmas is the most anticipated time of the year for millions of Christians. It is a time of beautiful music, delicious food, bright colors, and family reunions. However, there is one thing Christmas is not; it is not now, nor has it ever been, Christian.


The Puritans understood this vital point. William Prynne wrote the following during the time of King Charles:

Our Christmas lords of Misrule... were derived from the Roman Saturnalia and Bacchanalian festivals; which should cause all pious Christians eternally to abominate them. (Book of Christian Folklore, p. 8)

As innocent and appealing as this day may appear, it has at its very roots a dark and godless origin. Tom Flynn, in his book, The Problem with Christmas, provides a very interesting observation about the message Christmas sends.

If His purpose in coming was anything like what is supposed, then in celebrating His birthday each year Christians do violence, not honor, to his memory. For in celebrating a birthday at all, we sustain exactly the kind of tradition His coming is thought to have been designed to cast down. (p.42)



It is absolutely essential to understand that God hates a lie, no matter what form it takes. Satan himself was characterized as the father of lies (Jn. 8:44) and the deceiver of the whole world (Rev. 12:9). The scriptures also reveal that Satan appears as an angel of light. Is it any wonder that festivals honoring him would possess great beauty and appeal?


Some would argue that although the symbols are pagan, they have been stripped from the hands of paganism and offered to God. A leading evangelical minister once characterized these pagan symbols as "confiscated for Christ." This is not the first time such a claim has been made. Fifteen centuries before the birth of Christ, the children of Israel were led out of Egypt with a high hand. No sooner were they free from bondage than they wanted to return to the pagan practices they had just left. While Moses was receiving the ten commandments from God, the children of Israel appealed to Aaron to fashion a golden calf just like the idols of Egypt.

...the people gathered themselves together unto Aaron, and said unto him, "Up, make us gods, which shall go before us..." (Ex. 32:1)

Aaron consented to their request and instructed the children of Israel to gather their jewelry so that he could fashion it into an idol (Ex. 32:2-3). Aaron then made a molten calf and declared,

These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt. (Ex. 32:4)



Aaron then made a proclamation that seems unimaginable in light of the great miracles Israel witnessed in their deliverance. After making this idol, Aaron proclaimed "a feast to the Eternal." God was so angry at this behavior that He actually suggested to Moses that the children of Israel be wiped out.

Now therefore let Me alone, that My wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation. (Ex. 32:10)

It is clear God was furious with the Israelites for trying to "confiscate" the pagan religious practices of Egypt for use in worshiping Him. As the scriptures repeatedly demonstrate, God despises the perverse religions of man.



A Final Thought


Is Christmas Christian? The simple answer is "no;" it is an emphatic "no!" Christmas is not Christian; it is pagan to the core. Its images and symbols were embraced from pagan practices and should be abandoned by all true believers. While speaking to the children of Israel, God gave a strong admonition concerning the assimilation of false religions into the worshiping of Him.

Take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, after that they be destroyed from before thee; and that thou enquire not after their gods, saying, "How did these nations serve their gods? Even so will I do likewise."

Thou shalt not do so unto the Eternal thy God: for every abomination to the Eternal, which He hateth, have they done unto their gods; for even their sons and their daughters they have burnt in the fire to their gods. What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. (Deut. 12:30-32)

The Bible reveals that Jesus Christ will return to this earth and establish His millennial Kingdom. When He comes, will He find His children have returned to Egypt? And what about you? Will you accept the teachings of a world that embraces pagan practices and dresses them up as Christianity, or will you worship Him in spirit and in truth?

Sabbath Test Part 2

Rebuttal to the Seven Most Popular
Arguments Advanced by Those Who Buy
and Sell on the Sabbath

~~~
Introduction
Who Decides How God is Worshiped?
O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself:
it is not in man that walks to direct his own steps
Jeremiah 10:23

S everal years ago a longstanding member of a major Protestant denomination began questioning some of the traditions of his church. Most notable among these traditions were the festivals and holy days taught by his pastor and embraced by his denomination his entire life.

As a child growing up, this man believed in these traditions. He loved Christmas with all its decorations and presents. He anticipated Easter with its candy and games. They were such great days. What was not to like?

Later, as a young adult, this devout man tried to see meaning and significance in these seasons, but eventually the things he had long thought to be true began to look less true. Oh, to be sure, Jesus’ birth is described in the Bible, but noticeably absent is any evidence of this event being celebrated by the apostles or the early New Testament church. And although Jesus’ resurrection consumes a significant portion of the gospels, the early church kept the Passover, not Easter. Even a casual study of these holidays revealed that their origin came not from the scriptures but rather from ancient Pagan festivals dedicated to honoring an endless array of deities, but never the God of the Bible.

The young man’s study would then take him to the Sabbath, and once again, another longstanding practice of the church seemed to directly contradict the Bible. As he continued to research this subject, he would discover that Jesus and His apostles as well as the first century Christians kept the seventh day (Saturday), not Sunday as he had been taught.

Overwhelmed by this new understanding, the young man approached his pastor for answers. However, instead of answers, all he seemed to get were excuses. His pastor argued that it doesn’t really matter which day a Christian observes because “God looks on the heart.” He then explained that Sunday worship and holidays such as Good Friday, Palm Sunday, Ash Wednesday, and Lent actually enhance the meaning of the “faith” and point believers to a deeper understanding of the gospel. Therefore, God couldn’t possibly be opposed to such traditions.

As this meeting progressed, the young man’s pastor vigorously defended each of the festivals kept by the church. At one point, he even argued that the world as we know it today, with all its complexities, made it impossible to keep the Sabbath as described in the Bible. He then argued that Christmas was a wonderful holiday because of its impact on children, while Easter was equally beautiful because it was a means to evangelize to unbelievers about a risen Christ. During this meeting, this pastor actually suggested that the holy days kept by Jesus and His disciples were legalistic and burdensome and those who keep them today are simply being self-righteous.

When the young man indicated that not one argument advanced by his pastor could be supported by scripture, his pastor became furious. He accused the young man of being pharisaical and intolerant. At one point, he even called him a “Judaizer.” He then suggested that the young man look into his heart for answers. But never once did he encourage him to look into God’s word for the truth.
One Last Question
As the young man began to leave his pastor’s office he paused and then asked this man he had trusted for so many years one last question. “Sir,” he said, “Does the Bible anywhere remotely hint that man has the authority to decide for himself how he may worship his Creator?”

There is a profound quality and strength to this question because it cuts to the very core of the faith proclaimed in the pages of your Bible. It is a question that should be on the lips of every true believer. Tragically, however, it is not.

Mankind down through the ages has always attempted to worship God on his own terms. As a result of this approach, man has crafted an endless array of faiths, all claiming to serve some higher power. Even within Christianity there are virtually hundreds of denominations with radically different beliefs. However, each of these denominations asserts that it is a “Bible believing church.” How is this possible?

A Question Answered

Although the young man’s pastor never answered his last question, the Bible most certainly does. The scriptures declare with great force that man does NOT have the moral authority to decide for himself how he will worship the Great Creator of Heaven and Earth. God alone has this authority. Furthermore, both the Old and New Testaments warn against thinking otherwise.
A Stern Warning
When speaking to the children of Israel, God once warned them to not inquire about other religions and to never attempt integrating those religions into the truth He was giving them (Dt. 12:30-31). He then expressed a powerful principle regarding how He is to be worshiped.
Whatsoever thing I command you, observe to do it: you shall not add thereto nor diminish from it. (Dt. 12:32)

Here God is stating that true faith is defined by Him, not by man. God alone has the moral authority to determine how He is to be worshiped. Furthermore, God commanded Israel to follow each of His instructions precisely as they were given. They were not to add to it or take anything away from it in any way, shape or form. Tragically, this is a principle that the ancient nation of Israel repeatedly ignored. The Bible is a chronicle of this defiance. Consider just two examples.

Example I

When Moses was on Mount Sinai receiving the Ten Commandments, the Israelites were demanding that Aaron fashion a golden calf so that they could have an idol to lead them (Ex. 32:1). Once this idol was crafted, Aaron had the audacity to proclaim it as a gift to the very God who had delivered these slaves out of bondage. With the idol in plain view of this newly emancipated people, Aaron declared “a feast to the Eternal.”
And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it; and Aaron made proclamation, and said, Tomorrow is a feast to the Lord. (Ex. 32:5)

Imagine the scope of this act. While God Himself was commanding Moses to refrain from making any graven images (the second commandment), Aaron was fashioning a golden calf for God’s people to worship! When God saw this attempt to build a faith using the traditions of Egypt, He was furious and even threatened to extinguish the Israelites for such defiance (Ex. 32:7-10).

Example II

Later, when Israel was a young monarchy under King Saul, God, through his prophet Samuel, gave them very specific instructions concerning how to prosecute a war with the Amalekites (1Sa.15:2-3). However, as the war progressed, Saul made some modifications to these instructions (verse 9).

When the battle was over, Samuel came to the king and asked why he hadn’t followed God’s word concerning the war they had just won (verses 10-14). Saul responded by explaining that he thought his approach would enhance Israel’s worship of the Eternal (verse 15). Imagine a man, even a king, actually thinking he knew better than God about worship. But that is exactly what Saul argued.

These are just two of many Old Testament examples where God’s children tried to “do Him one better” when it came to defining the faith. Regrettably, such examples of defiance are not limited to the ancient nation of Israel. The New Testament also describes several examples of God’s people thinking they could somehow decide for themselves how to worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

In Vain Do They Worship Me

The gospels of Matthew and Mark record an event in which Jesus was chastised by the religious leaders of His day because His disciples “transgressed the tradition of the elders” (Mt. 15:1-2, Mk. 7:1-5). Jesus responded to this accusation by rebuking these “pious” men because they held their traditions as having greater moral weight than God’s law. Notice what He said:

“...Well hath Isaiah prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. Howbeit in vain do they worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.” And he said unto them, “Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.” (Mk. 7:6-9)

A History of Defiance

Clearly, the story of mankind is a story of defiance. It is a story of man thinking that he can decide for himself how he will serve the God who made him. The danger of such arrogance is staggering and even threatens those who consider themselves true believers. Notice the sober warning Jesus gave concerning some who thought they could worship God on their terms.
Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of My Father which is in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name? And in Thy name cast out devils? And in Thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from Me, you that work iniquity. (Mt 7:21-23)

Here, the Messiah declares with great force that simply confessing “Jesus is Lord” is not enough. God requires action. The faith of His people must be a living faith (Jas. 2:20) – one that demonstrates a total commitment to the Great God of Heaven. Such a commitment is reflected in obedience to Him and His law.

With this in mind, the big question facing God’s people today is powerfully linked to the warning Jesus uttered when giving the Sermon on the Mount.

Are you obeying the God of Heaven - or have you
been captured by the traditions of men?

Part II of A Sabbath Test addresses the seven most popular arguments advanced by proponents of dining out on the Sabbath. For some, this activity has even become a tradition – one that defines a significant part of the day God himself calls HOLY.

Furthermore, although the overwhelming evidence in scripture instructs God’s people to refrain from this practice, it is still a common activity in His church today. It is even vigorously defended by many of its leaders. Furthermore, those who defend it often employ the same reasoning Sunday-keepers use for justifying the first day as their day of worship.

As you ponder each argument, ask yourself one very important question: “Does the Bible even remotely suggest that man has the authority to decide for himself how he may worship his Creator?” By understanding this one truth, the words that follow will become abundantly clear.

Argument #1

A Millennial Foretaste

And your ears shall hear a word behind you, saying,
This is the way, walk you in it, when you turn to the right hand,
and when you turn to the left.
Isaiah 30:21


One of the most popular arguments advanced by those who frequent restaurants on the Sabbath is that such a practice actually enhances the observance of this day. Notice the words of a longstanding evangelist who acknowledged that he and his wife often dine out on the Sabbath, particularly Friday evenings:

“I can’t imagine not going to a fine restaurant on the Sabbath. It’s a very millennial setting - a delicious meal and wonderful fellowship.”

This evangelist offers an interesting point. According to his reasoning, the setting at a fine restaurant makes the Sabbath more reflective of God’s Kingdom. But what would this leader say to those who cannot afford such an activity? Is their Sabbath somehow diminished because they must share this meal in their home? What about going to a pizza parlor or a fast food restaurant on the Sabbath? Would this be consistent with a picture of the millennium?

To be sure, going out to dinner at a fine restaurant is an experience that can bring great pleasure. It is also true that the millennium will be a time of unimaginable abundance and prosperity. But is there a connection between going to a restaurant on the Sabbath and the Kingdom it allegedly pictures? The answer to this question is an emphatic NO! In reality, dining out on the Sabbath not only contradicts God’s Kingdom, it actually embraces the kingdoms of men.

The fact that the meal takes place at an expensive restaurant does not make it any more appropriate than if it were a burger and fries at a local “fast food joint.” Such a practice does not keep this day SACRED or HOLY. It does not show deference to the Sabbath or its purpose. Instead, it is using time that belongs to the Creator of Heaven and Earth for one’s personal enjoyment. Regardless of how adamant this church leader is, this practice does not honor God nor does it picture His kingdom. To illustrate this truth, consider the following question:

Will there be restaurants open on the Sabbath
during the millennium?

It is doubtful that any serious Sabbath-keeping Christian would hesitate if asked this question. The answer is: “Of course not!” This being the case, how can an activity that will not be a part of God’s kingdom because it would go contrary to His law, somehow picture that kingdom? The plain truth is: it can’t!

The mistake in the reasoning of this evangelist is the belief that if something is beautiful and gives pleasure, it must be good. In other words, “it can’t be wrong if it feels so right.”

This same argument has been advanced by the Protestant world in defense of an endless array of traditions it holds dear. After all, Christmas is beautiful and teaches children about the birth of Jesus; it must be good. Easter is beautiful and teaches about His resurrection; it, too, must be good.

The belief that the goodness of something can be determined by the feeling it instills is not new. This line of thinking has been at the center of every heresy ever crafted by men seeking to worship God. Furthermore, it is never the standard God applies when determining righteousness.

The fact of the matter is that the way something looks and feels does not determine its moral standing with the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe. God alone is the True Judge of what is good and what is evil. He is the great Moral Authority. His judgments are reflected in His great moral code: the Ten Commandments. If man truly desires to know what pleases his Creator, he should ask Him. He should seek God’s wisdom in His word. When it comes to buying and selling on His Sabbath, God’s word is very clear. Notice what He conveys through His servant Nehemiah.

And if the people of the land bring ware or any victuals on the Sabbath day to sell, that we would not buy it of them on the Sabbath, or on the holy day... (Neh. 10:31)

Nehemiah’s words are not ambiguous. In fact, they couldn’t be more clear: God’s people are not to purchase goods and services on His Sabbath or holy days.

Later, Nehemiah would become even more forceful when addressing this issue. At that time, he actually locked the gates of Jerusalem and prohibited vendors from entering the city on the Sabbath day to sell their goods. He even threatened to use force to prevent these “entrepreneurs” from engaging in business on the Sabbath.
In those days saw I in Judah some treading wine presses on the Sabbath, and bringing in sheaves, and lading asses; as also wine, grapes, and figs, and all manner of burdens, which they brought into Jerusalem on the Sabbath day: and I testified against them in the Day wherein they sold victuals. There dwelt men of Tyre also therein, which brought fish, and all manner of ware, and sold on the Sabbath unto the children of Judah, and in Jerusalem. Then I contended with the nobles of Judah and said unto them, What evil thing is this that ye do, and profane the Sabbath day? Did not your fathers thus, and did not our God bring all this evil upon us and upon this city? Yet ye bring more wrath upon Israel by profaning the Sabbath. And it came to pass, that when the gates of Jerusalem began to be dark before the Sabbath, I commanded that the gates should be shut, and charged that they should not be opened till after the Sabbath: and some of my servants set I at the gates, that there should no burden be brought in on the Sabbath day. So the merchants and sellers of all kind of ware lodged without Jerusalem once or twice. Then I testified against them, and said unto them, Why lodge ye about the wall? If ye do so again I will lay hands on you. From that time forth they came no more on the Sabbath. (Neh. 13:15-21)

With this in mind, it is hard to imagine that this great servant of God would see the practice of going to a restaurant on the Sabbath as a picture of God’s millennial Kingdom. On the contrary, Nehemiah saw it as a threat to God’s people. In a very real sense, this champion of faith saw buying and selling on the Sabbath as a picture of something very ominous – CAPTIVITY! Notice his words:

Did not your fathers thus (buy and sell on the Sabbath), and did not our God bring all this evil (captivity) upon us, and upon this city? Yet you bring more wrath upon Israel by profaning the Sabbath. (Ne. 13:18)

Here, Nehemiah is declaring that the people of Judah were engaging in the very practice that led to their captivity in the first place. They were profaning God’s Sabbath. They desecrated this holy time by engaging in business. They were purchasing food on this sacred day.

Sabbath Conversation and Restaurants

Some have argued that going to a restaurant on the Sabbath is acceptable to God because of what is done there. After all, God’s people go there to talk about the Bible and the Kingdom. How could that not please Him?
Once again, this argument employs the same reasoning used by the Protestant world when they justify keeping Sunday as their Sabbath. After all, every Sunday they read the Bible, sing praises to God, and pray for His kingdom to return. That must be pleasing to Him, too, right? What Sabbath-keeping Christian really believes this argument?

Throughout human history, man has always attempted to justify his behavior by cloaking it in acts of goodness. However, when you get right down to it, talking about God while dining out on the Sabbath possesses about the same moral weight as talking about God while eating a ham sandwich. The problem is not with the conversation. It’s with the conduct.

Come Out of Her, My People

One of the great ironies of going to a restaurant on the Sabbath is that this practice actually mirrors one of the most popular traditions of this world. In the United States, more people frequent restaurants between Friday evening and Saturday evening than any other 24-hour period. There is even a major restaurant chain whose name captures the sentiments of this tradition. That sentiment is expressed in the saying “Thank God it’s Friday.”

Regardless of how hard one may defend the tradition of dining out on the Sabbath, it simply doesn’t reconcile with the scriptures. The plain truth is clear and direct. Dining out on the Sabbath is not Godly; it is WORLDLY! It is a tradition of men – one that is embraced by a world that couldn’t care less about the Great God of Heaven and His soon coming Kingdom. It is hard to imagine a practice that stands in greater defiance to the Creator and His law.

Tragically, thousands of God’s people see this practice as harmless. But make no mistake about it: God did not invent going to restaurants on His Sabbath. It is a tradition of a world that doesn’t know Him. God warns His people to beware of being ensnared by the practices of a society that is defiant to Him. Here is what He says.

And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. (Rev. 18:4)

Those who think that going to a restaurant on the Sabbath is an appropriate activity because it creates a millennial setting should think again. When that millennial Kingdom returns, God’s Sabbath and holy days will be honored in accordance with His instructions, not man’s traditions.

Argument #2

A Complex World

There is a way that seems right to a man,
but the ends thereof are the ways of death.
Proverbs 14:12


When giving a sermon regarding the proper observance of the Sabbath, a prominent minister in the Church of God addressed the issue of going to restaurants on this day. It was clear from his message that he saw nothing wrong with this practice. At one point, this pastor actually suggested that the complex nature of our world today makes it impossible to keep the Sabbath as prescribed in the scriptures. He specifically noted God’s instructions regarding buying and selling.

This man did not dispute the fact that in the Old Testament, buying and selling on the Sabbath went contrary to the scriptures. However, based on the nature of our contemporary world, not buying and selling would be so impractical as to actually be a stumbling block to God’s people.

According to this pastor, God’s people today often buy and sell on the Sabbath without even realizing it. He cited as proof the fact that most homes in the modern world are equipped with utilities such as gas, electricity, and water. This minister contended that as a result of using these services on the Sabbath, God’s people not only pay for them, but also make it necessary for utility companies to support their service with manpower on this day – a practice which technically violates God’s instruction prohibiting others such as “the stranger within thy gates” (Ex. 20:10) from working on behalf of His people on the Sabbath.

This highly respected minister has advanced a very unusual stream of logic in his argument. His reasoning is based on the premise that because you do not have authority over that which is beyond your control, you do not have to exercise such authority over that which is within your control. Therefore, buying and selling on the Sabbath is permissible in today’s world. It is interesting that this identical argument has been used prolifically by the Protestant world as justification for not keeping the Sabbath at all.

Rationalizing a Tradition

It is difficult to regard this argument as anything other than a brazen attempt to rationalize a practice that is nowhere supported in scripture. In essence, it is using technology and progress to invalidate God’s word. Following this argument to its logical conclusion, this minister is suggesting that if the world during the days of Nehemiah was as technologically advanced as it is today, Nehemiah would never have prohibited vendors from entering into Jerusalem and selling their goods on the Sabbath. Does anyone really believe this would be the case?

To illustrate how foolish such an argument is, consider how it could be used with respect to eating unclean foods. The argument would go something like this: Because all foods at restaurants are prepared on common working surfaces, clean foods come in contact with unclean foods. Therefore microscopic particles of unclean meats will attach themselves to the steak you just enjoyed at that five star restaurant. This being the case, you might as well order that lobster because you probably had some of it with the meal you just finished.

Would such an argument ever persuade you to order a ham sandwich the next time you go to a restaurant? Of course not! Because it is obvious that God expects His people to exercise authority over things they can control, not things they can’t. The choice of what you eat as well as when you eat it falls within that control. If you wouldn’t eat a ham sandwich because God’s law forbids it, why would you buy and sell on His Sabbath – which is forbidden by the same God?

The plain truth regarding eating out at restaurants on the Sabbath is revealed not only in the words of Nehemiah, but also in the example of God’s people throughout the Bible. There is not a hint that any of the champions of the faith engaged in such a practice.

It is true that Jesus’ apostles picked corn on the Sabbath (Mt.12:1-8), but noticeably absent from this act was any attempt by Jesus or the apostles to buy it. Furthermore, at no time did they try to hire others to pick it for them and prepare it. What the disciples were doing was tantamount to plucking an apple from a tree and enjoying a piece of fruit during a Sabbath walk. This act may have offended the Pharisees but it did not offend the scriptures. To compare this to going to a restaurant on the Sabbath is like comparing it to harvesting crops on the Sabbath. It simply is not what happened.

To the minister who advanced the argument of “a complex world,” consider the following questions concerning the millennial Kingdom God’s Sabbath pictures:

Will there be technology in the Kingdom? The scriptures suggest the answer is Yes.

Will homes in the Kingdom enjoy advances in technology? Again, the scriptures suggest the answer is Yes.

Will restaurants be open on the Sabbath during the Millennium? And will God’s people dine in them on the seventh day? Here, the scriptures are also clear.

Regardless of how technologically advanced God’s kingdom will be, one thing is for certain: His great moral code, the Ten Commandments, will be in effect, and His people will honor every one of them as He directs – including the fourth.

Argument #3

Strict Obedience is
Pharisaical

Well has Isaiah prophesied of you hypocrites,
as it is written, This people honor me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me
Mark 7:6


The most common assertion advanced by proponents of going to restaurants on the Sabbath is that those who refuse to do so are simply being self-righteous. This argument is unique in that it is not an affirmative defense of this practice, but rather an indictment of those who believe such a practice is wrong. In other words, this accusation is not proof that going to restaurants on the Sabbath is acceptable to God. It is rather a condemnation of those who would question such an activity.

It is interesting that this same assertion has been used prolifically by the Protestant world when condemning God’s people for keeping the Sabbath and holy days at all. It is also ironic that many of the leaders who systematically corrupted the doctrines of God’s church over the past fifteen plus years now regard those who held fast to the truth as “self-righteous Pharisee-types.”

What Is a Pharisee?

Today the term “pharisee” is one of the most pejorative in a “believer’s” lexicon. It implies that the recipient of this label is filled with arrogance and conceit and void of any compassion. It suggests that such people are legalistic – committed to works but not love. Pharisees are cold and insensitive. They are judgmental and cruel. They are quick to accuse and slow to forgive. And anyone who would question a practice as “innocent” as sharing a meal with brethren at a restaurant on the Sabbath must be a Pharisee. But does this term rightly describe those who refrain from going to restaurants on the Sabbath?

Those in God’s church who employ this label would be well advised to carefully consider what this accusation means and how God Himself understands this term. Just what is a Pharisee in God’s eyes? Furthermore, is it possible that those advancing this accusation are actually guilty of the very thing of which they accuse others?

To those who believe that opponents of going to restaurants on the Sabbath are being pharisaical, consider the following questions: Is eating unleavened bread during the spring holy days pharisaical? What about fasting on the Day of Atonement? Is that pharisaical? What about washing one another’s feet on the Passover? Or going to a far away place for eight days each fall? Are these practices pharisaical? What about abstaining from unclean meats? Or tithing? What about refusing to keep Christmas or Easter, even at the risk of great personal and professional harm? Is it pharisaical to conduct your life in such a way?

When it comes to the Sabbath, what about abstaining from work? Is that pharisaical? What about refusing to do your own pleasure on the Sabbath, or speaking your own words? Is that pharisaical?

If you were to ask these questions to the vast majority of “professing Christians,” they would probably answer “YES!” But what about God’s people? How would they regard the life God has called them to live? Is it pharisaical? More importantly, how does the God of your Bible view self-righteousness when it comes to worshiping Him?

To be sure, the attitude of self-righteousness is abhorrent to God and is a mortal enemy of His Kingdom. In a very real sense it is a form of idolatry, a violation of God’s law. In the first century, Pharisees were quick to quote the scriptures, but their lives were filled with a great sense of self-importance.

However, there was something very unique about these religious leaders that set them apart from the great heroes of the faith. These pious men relied on the traditions of the elders to define their faith. They saw these traditions as being even more influential in their lives than God’s law. Jesus considered this hypocrisy so vile that during the last days of His life, He excoriated the Pharisees because they reeked with such arrogance (Mt. 23). With this in mind, some very important questions need to be addressed with respect to going to restaurants. Consider the following:

Is refusing to go to a restaurant on the Sabbath pharisaical? In other words, is it based on a tradition or on God’s word?

Is refusing to buy or sell on the Sabbath pharisaical? In other words, is it based on a tradition or on God’s word?

When Nehemiah contended with the leaders of Judah because they were buying and selling on the Sabbath, was he just being a Pharisee?
Jesus Versus the Pharisees

One of the greatest indictments ever leveled by Jesus Christ against the religious leaders of His day was that these learned men embraced traditions they thought possessed greater moral weight than God’s law. Imagine having such arrogance! These men actually thought they knew better than God Himself when it came to how the GREAT CREATOR should be worshiped. Jesus saw this attitude as repugnant and He did not mince words when condemning it. He began by blasting their hypocrisy.

Well has Isaiah prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, this people honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. (Mk. 7:6)

Jesus then exposed their faith as worthless. It was void of any substance because it was driven by the contrivances of man. It was not God’s law they loved. It was their traditions.

Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the traditions of men... (Mk: 7:7-8)

At this point Jesus thundered a crushing indictment against these spiritual leaders for their attempt at refashioning God’s law. He put their behavior in God’s perspective and the picture was not pleasant.

Full well you reject the commandment of God that you may keep your tradition. (Mk.7:9)

It is important to understand that Jesus was NOT excoriating the Pharisees for being too careful in keeping God’s law. His condemnation was that they rejected that law. Here are His exact words.

FULL WELL YOU REJECT THE COMMANDMENT OF GOD THAT YOU
MAY KEEP YOUR OWN TRADITION.

God’s people today should be in fear of those words. They are dreadful indeed and reflect the judgement of God Himself. If man embraces traditions instead of honoring God’s law, they make the law of none effect. When it comes to dining out on the Sabbath versus refraining from such a practice, which is driven by tradition?

The Bible makes it absolutely clear that the traditions of men have no place in the worship of God. Furthermore, those who believe they can decide for themselves what is acceptable to the Creator of Heaven and Earth should consider what the great prophet Jeremiah said about man’s capacity to make such decisions.

O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walks to direct his own steps. (Jer. 10:23)

Despite what mankind believes, humanity has never had the capacity to decide for himself how to worship the God of the Bible. Every attempt at this endeavor has only met with failure.

The scriptures reveal that God is the Great Moral Authority of the Universe. It is His wisdom that must be sought and honored. During His earthly life, Jesus Christ understood this timeless principle – and this understanding guided every decision He ever made. The Bible states without ambiguity that even Jesus did not rely on His own wisdom. Notice His own words:

I can of my own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not my own will, but the will of the Father which has sent me. (Jn. 5:30)

If Jesus wouldn’t rely on His own wisdom, why would anyone who calls himself a true believer try to do differently? The scriptures make it abundantly clear that God is not impressed with how man navigates his moral path (see: Pro. 14:12; Jer. 17:9).

God’s word also reveals that man’s wisdom is driven by a love of self, not a love of righteousness. However, God loves righteousness – and His law, the Ten Commandments, reflect that love. The Bible declares that God’s heart is inclined toward those who have a deep respect for His word. Notice what God reveals through the prophet Isaiah.

...To this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite of spirit and trembles at my word. (Isa. 66:2)

There is a profound truth in this verse. Here, God is revealing that His law is to be treated with great deference and respect. In a very real sense, it is to be feared. Tragically, the Pharisees of Jesus’ day failed to reflect a proper reverence for God’s word. They thought they “could do Him one better” when it came to the scriptures. They were wrong. Tragically, their mistake has been repeated for two thousand years.

To those who claim that a person who refrains from going to a restaurant on the Sabbath is just being pharisaical, ask yourself the following.

Who trembles at God’s word?

Who loves its hope and fears its consequences?

Nehemiah certainly did. His bold words regarding buying and selling on the Sabbath are a testimony to how committed he was to God’s law (Ne.13:15-21). Now consider this: when it comes to God’s church today, who is most like that great servant? Those who eat out on the Sabbath, or those who don’t?
It is not the self-righteous that refrain from going to restaurants on the Sabbath. It is the self-righteous who believe you can do otherwise. They are the ones who “spin” God’s word to fit their traditions. They see God as tolerant of anything they do. To these “New Covenant Pharisees,” God has this warning:

Every work will come into judgement
Ecclesiastes 12:14

The argument that God will somehow give His people a “free pass” to dine out on the day He made holy reflects the height of arrogance. In a very real sense, it is pharisaical. It makes the law of God of none effect. It reflects a total disregard for God’s word.

However, God’s instructions are firm. His law is absolute. God’s word does not require man’s “spin,” it requires man’s obedience. Buying and selling on the Sabbath is a test of that obedience. The self-righteous will ignore that test. Those who tremble at His word will heed it.

Which best describes you?


Argument #4

I’m Not Responsible

And the lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel
your brother? And he said, I know not:
Am I my brother’s keeper?
Genesis 4:9


One of the most popular arguments advanced by proponents of dining out on the Sabbath is that those who serve them would be working anyway. This being the case, there is no apparent violation of the fourth commandment which prohibits the labor of a “manservant” or “maidservant” under the Sabbath-keeper’s authority (Ex. 20:10).

Even if you accept this argument as valid, it misses a critical point. The issue of whether or not one goes to a restaurant on the Sabbath is not about those who work at the restaurant on this day; it is about the Sabbath-keeper, and how he or she honors the fourth commandment. In other words, even though some may choose to work, what about those who choose to obey?

What does God expect of those people
concerning their behavior on His Sabbath?

Today we live in a world where the overwhelming majority of people on earth break God’s law without a second thought. This is because that law is not real to them nor is the Great God who fashioned it. There are few places where this attitude of indifference is more apparent than mankind’s approach to God’s Sabbath and holy days. For the most part

On a typical Friday evening or Saturday afternoon, mankind engages in a variety of enterprises. Many enjoy recreational activities and hobbies. Some spend time with family and friends. Others catch up on an endless array of household chores. But almost no one thinks of this time as the Sabbath of the Eternal. For most, this period belongs to them. Friday evening is their time. Saturday is their day.

A Typical Sabbath in the World

Among the endless array of activities engaged in on the Sabbath is WORK – the pursuit of a “living.” For many businesses, the Sabbath is the most profitable day of the week. It is a time when consumers have money to spend and businesses have products for them to spend it on. Regrettably, many of God’s people can be counted among those consumers.
The argument of those who believe it is okay to go out to a restaurant on the Sabbath because it isn’t work suggests that God is only concerned with the person selling the goods and services, not those purchasing them. Does this really make sense? Furthermore, is there an example in the scriptures that even remotely suggests such a practice is acceptable to God? Once again, the answer is NO!

When Nehemiah contended with the elders of Judah over engaging in commerce, as either the provider of goods or the consumer of them, he did not qualify his words. His warning was clear and direct and to suggest otherwise is a distortion of scripture. Nehemiah was so passionate regarding his opposition to engaging in commerce on the Sabbath that he actually threatened to use physical force against those who defied his word (Neh.13:15-21).

The argument that because a restaurant would be open anyway and therefore it is permissible in God’s sight to avail oneself of their services is simply not true. That argument is driven by a desire to justify a behavior that is nowhere found in the scriptures. Not only does the Bible instruct the restaurant personnel to cease from their labor, but it also commands the Sabbath-keeper to refrain from supporting that labor.

Additionally, to suggest that the Sabbath-keeper bears no responsibility for restaurant personnel working on this day is not entirely true. In a 2003 interview with a representative of one of the leading family restaurant chains in the United States, it was revealed that on a typical Sabbath, one of their stores serves approximately 600 customers. When asked what this restaurant would do if only 300 customers patronized their store, a representative stated, “We would reduce our manpower because the demand would not be as great.” This representative was then asked what would happen if no one visited the restaurant on the Sabbath. He responded, “The answer to this question is obvious. We would close on that day.”

With this in mind, if as few as six Sabbath-keepers frequent that restaurant on the Sabbath, their level of responsibility for that restaurant being open is one percent. In other words, those who profess to keep the Sabbath are one percent responsible for that restaurant’s decision to break this commandment. This is a fact that the representative acknowledged.

This is not to suggest that those who work at the restaurant would become Sabbath-keepers if their restaurant was closed on Saturdays. What it is saying is that the personnel in this restaurant who break the Sabbath are being compelled to do so for many reasons. When it comes to their specific labor at a restaurant, one percent of those reasons would be directly linked to God’s own people.

It is true that the decision to work on the Sabbath rests solely in the hands of restaurant personnel. But it is equally true that the decision to support that labor rests solely in the hands of those who purchase their goods and services. With this in mind, ask yourself one question: would Jesus ever compel them to work that one percent? The bottom line regarding this argument is really quite simple: You may not be able to prevent restaurant personnel from working on the Sabbath. But you most certainly can prevent them from working for you on that day!


Argument #5

It Preaches the Gospel

Let your light so shine before men, that
they may see your good works, and
glorify your Father in heaven
Matthew 5:16


One of the newer arguments advanced by people who frequent restaurants on the Sabbath is that by engaging in this practice, God’s people can actually preach the gospel. The thinking here is that restaurant personnel will see how polite and respectful God’s people are. Additionally, if there are children with them, they will also see how well behaved they are. Therefore, going to a restaurant on the Sabbath is an opportunity to “let your light shine” and to show the world there is a better way.

If this argument is true, why stop at restaurants? What about an amusement park? Certainly they would appreciate being witnessed to by God’s people on His Sabbath, wouldn’t they? How about the people who work at a bowling alley? Or a movie? What about a sporting event? Certainly a Saturday afternoon baseball game would be a great place to show fans and vendors alike how a child of God conducts himself.

Perhaps a golf course would work. This would be an ideal place to let your light shine. When one of the players in your foursome misses a three foot putt and begins to take God’s name in vain, you could remind him of the third commandment. However, don’t forget to duck if you do. Tragically, there are some who have actually suggested that each of these activities can be appropriate on the Sabbath for this very reason – it preaches the gospel.

The idea that a Sabbath meal at a restaurant is a godly activity because it affords His people an opportunity to be a witness to the world the would be silly if it wasn’t so serious. In reality, this argument actually mocks God’s word as well as the very Kingdom His Sabbath pictures.

A Gospel of Defiance

To be sure, the scriptures exhort God’s people to let their light shine (Mt. 5:16). Additionally, it is also true that one of the great commissions to the church is to preach the gospel of the Kingdom as a witness (Mt. 24:14). But what does going to a restaurant on the Sabbath say about these two very important scriptural directives? In reality, this activity says plenty, but none of it is good.

Those who go to restaurants on the Sabbath don’t honor God’s word – they actually defy it. Consider what this behavior is saying – it says: “Don’t take the Bible or God too seriously.” It says, “our children obey us, but we don’t obey our Father in Heaven when it comes to His instruction concerning the Sabbath.” It says, “We believe in God’s millennial Kingdom; we just don’t believe in picturing that Kingdom at this moment.”

In essence, this single act shouts before the God of Heaven the same declaration that every false religion has cried out down through the ages:

“I have the authority to decide
for myself how I will worship
the God who made me!”
To those who believe you can pick and choose what you will and will not do on the Sabbath, consider how many times man has attempted to worship the Creator on his own terms and it met with God’s approval. The answer is zero. Man has spent his entire history in such an endeavor and God has always rejected it. Consider just a few examples. Adam and Eve attempted to decide for themselves how they would worship God. How successful were they? What about those at the tower of Babel? How does history remember them? Even the great King Solomon consented to idolatry when he allowed his pagan wives to construct shrines to their gods in Israel. The scriptures indicate that this act greatly displeased the Eternal (2Ki.1:4-9).

In the New Testament church, many tried to craft a faith on their own and were severely indicted for it. The apostle Peter spoke of teachers who brought “damnable heresies” into the church (1Pet. 2:21). Additionally, the apostle John warned God’s people about a proliferation of false prophets, each bringing their own ideas on how to worship the King of the Universe (1Jn. 4:1). Such an approach didn’t work for them and it won’t work for anyone doing the same today. The point here is very simple: God is worshiped on His terms, PERIOD.

Despite this truth, thousands of God’s people are convinced that by letting their light shine at a restaurant on the Sabbath they can somehow turn the profane into that which is holy. This mistake has been made by countless thousands who have sought to justify their behavior and argue that their disobedience somehow has God’s blessing. It has never worked in the past, and there is no evidence that this trend is changing.

Justification, Not Faith

There are numerous stories illustrating how God’s people can fool themselves into believing that their behavior somehow has the blessing of the very King of the universe, despite the fact that it appears to go contrary to the scriptures. The following story reflects how man can spin a behavior into something that he is convinced actually looks godly.

The “Godly” Coach

Several years ago, a baptized member of God’s church left the faith and pursued a career as a high school teacher. In addition to teaching, this young man became a very successful basketball coach. His teams won championships and many of his players went on to play at some of the leading universities in the country.

When asked why he would coach on the Sabbath, this “believer” explained that what he was doing was in a sense “preaching the gospel” because he was teaching his players about fair play and sportsmanship. He argued that he was building character in young men and positively molding their lives. He then asked, “How could God be unhappy with that?”

This story is a typical example of how man can justify anything he does. The coach knew about God’s law regarding the Sabbath. Sadly, he thought he could decide for himself how he would honor that law and the God who made it.

The True Gospel

To those who have advanced the argument that dining out on the Sabbath in an appropriate activity because “It Preaches the Gospel,” ask yourself the following question:

What is a greater witness to this world,
your presence at a restaurant on the Sabbath,
or your absence?

As you think about this question, consider what lies ahead for those who work at restaurants on the Sabbath. The day will come when they will know about God and His Great Kingdom. At that time, they will understand God’s purpose for the Sabbath and they, too, will honor this great commandment.

Additionally, when God’s Kingdom is established on earth, its citizens will understand why God’s people today did certain things and refrained from doing others – including purchasing goods and services on His Sabbath. They will know that by refraining from buying and selling on the Sabbath, God’s people were not only honoring the Great Creator, they were also expressing a genuine hope for all mankind – a hope that all people would one day enter into God’s Sabbath rest. This is the true witness God’s people must proclaim. It is one that will be affirmed by the very government of God when His Kingdom returns. The gospel is NOT proclaimed by your presence at a restaurant on the Sabbath. It is, in fact, proclaimed by your absence.

To those who believe that God approves of well-intended Sabbath-keepers eating out at a restaurant on His day and letting their light shine, think of how many people down through the ages have sincerely believed that God approved of their method of worship. You might like to start with 19 men on four commercial jetliners on September 11, 2001. They thought they were doing God’s work, too.

Argument #6

Moderation and Balance

Who can understand his own error?
Psalm 19:12


One of the most common arguments advanced by people in God’s church today is that although one should not make a habit of going to restaurants on the Sabbath, it would not be wrong to engage in such a practice on occasion. In other words, it could be done in moderation and balance.

To be sure, the Bible does encourage moderation. This quality is a virtue that reflects discipline and self-control, which are essential components to the Christian walk. However, does the Bible remotely suggest that God approves of moderation when it comes to going contrary to His law? In other words, can you imagine anyone arguing that adultery is appropriate if done in moderation? That stealing is acceptable if done in balance?

When it comes to sin,
God prohibits moderation. He hates it!

To illustrate this point, how would God respond if His people wanted to go to an amusement park once every six months on the Sabbath? Or play golf every six weeks on His day? What about painting a room on the Sabbath? Or working on the family car every 5000 miles during the time God set apart as holy?

It is doubtful that any true Sabbath-keeper would see these activities, regardless of how infrequently they were done, as anything less than a clear violation of the fourth commandment. Those who think otherwise are just fooling themselves.

God’s law concerning His Sabbath makes many provisions for its observance. But it also outlines prohibitions. This is not done because God is some tyrant in the sky, but rather because He is a Master Architect who created the Sabbath and its great purpose.

When God instructed the children of Israel to “remember the the Sabbath and keep it holy,” He indicated that as a result of their obedience, they would know Him (Ex. 31:12-17). This alone should make honoring the fourth commandment among the highest of priorities. What could be more important than knowing the GREAT GOD and His plan? But how does one keep the Sabbath holy?

Specific Instructions

The Bible is filled with very specific instructions concerning how God’s Sabbath is to be kept. Additionally, the scriptures provide numerous examples of how the great champions of faith honored this commandment. Noticeably absent from these instructions and examples is any hint that buying and selling – even in moderation – is permitted on this day. It simply is not there.

On the contrary, God’s word indicates that buying and selling on the Sabbath is one of the primary reasons the nations of Israel and Judah went into captivity over 2500 years ago. This was the point Nehemiah was trying to hammer home when he contended with the nobles of Judah over their reckless disregard of this day (see Neh. 13:15-21).
Moderation or Compromise?

The argument of “Moderation and Balance” advanced by proponents of dining out on the Sabbath has the appearance of maturity and wisdom. After all, balance is the antithesis of excess. How could such a thing ever be wrong? However, when it comes to going to restaurants on the Sabbath this argument is not about balance. It is simply an attempt to compromise God’s law.

The fact of the matter is that God’s law forbids moderation in many areas. Consider just a few: God’s law prohibits lying in moderation, stealing in moderation, coveting in moderation, killing in moderation, cursing in moderation, or building an occasional graven image. Such “balance” is abhorrent to God. When it comes to the Sabbath, God’s law prohibits working in moderation, doing your own pleasure in moderation, and compelling others to work on your behalf in moderation. That law also prohibits buying in moderation as well as selling in moderation.

Appropriate Sabbath Activities

Although God’s law outlines certain prohibitions concerning the Sabbath, it also outlines numerous activities that enhance the honoring of this great commandment. In reality, the command to honor God’s Sabbath is among the most affirmative in the Decalogue. Here are just some of the things you can engage in on that day:

Rest from your labor.

Fellowship with God’s people.

Study His word.
Pray to Him.

Refrain from worry.

Meditate on His way.

Sing praises to Him.

Be nourished by His servants.

Anticipate His Kingdom.

Celebrate God’s way with family.

Teach your children.

Delight in the great hope He has given you.

Serve God’s people.

Comfort the weak.

Encourage the strong.

Embrace the lonely.

And in all of this, God’s word instructs His people to DELIGHT in this day, knowing that the Sabbath stands as evidence that God’s hope for all mankind will one day be accomplished!
A Great Blessing

The Sabbath pictures God’s great millennial Kingdom. It is a day filled with hope and rich in meaning. God’s people should see it as nothing less. The Sabbath is a day that provides a glimpse into a Kingdom that will be absent of suffering. That Kingdom will be a time of great peace, great prosperity, great health, and great hope. It will be a time when ignorance and superstition will be replaced with the knowledge of a loving God and Father. Honoring the Sabbath that pictures that Kingdom is nothing less than a tremendous privilege and blessing. It should fill all of God’s people with a sense of purpose and hope, and most of all, it should fill them with THANKSGIVING.

King David once wrote a psalm dedicated to the Sabbath (Psa. 92). It contains some of the most inspiring words ever recorded in scripture. The day will come when those words will be fulfilled. For now, God’s people can act out that great Kingdom every week. And to do so, they do not need an occasional visit to an amusement park, an occasional movie, or an occasional meal at a restaurant. Such practices do not reflect that Kingdom in the slightest, even if done in “moderation and balance.”

Argument #7

An Ox in the Ditch

I can of my own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge:
and my judgment is just: because I seek not my own will,
but the will of the Father which has sent me
John 5:30


One of the more popular arguments for going to restaurants on the Sabbath is based on the principle of “an ox in a ditch.” This argument is driven by the belief that circumstances beyond the Sabbath-keeper’s control might necessitate having to purchase a meal on the Sabbath. Therefore, because emergencies do arise from time to time and take a variety of forms, it is up to the conscience of the “believer” to determine if it would be appropriate to go to a restaurant on God’s day.

This is a very interesting argument primarily because it has very little to do with an ox and more to do with Prime Rib or Chicken Tarragon. In other words, as a general rule, the advocates of this reasoning are using it to justify buying and selling on the Sabbath, as opposed to exploring how God truly wants His people to manage genuine emergencies. This is made evident when advocates of this argument begin to define what constitutes an “ox in a ditch.” For most, just about anything meets this criteria. Consider some reasons actually advanced by leaders in God’s church as “an ox in a ditch.”

“A new family attended services for the first time and we wanted to be hospitable. Therefore we took them to a restaurant.”

“A large group wanted to discuss the sermon and their children were getting hungry.”

“We were going to attend a church activity that evening, but didn’t want to drive several miles home to eat before the sun set.”

“I’m a bachelor. I always eat out. If I had a wife,
I’d stay home.”

“We were running late to services, and were really hungry. So we went to a fast food restaurant to get a quick bite to eat.”

“We were so busy yesterday, we couldn’t go shopping.”

These are just a few of dozens of “reasons” God’s people have advanced as legitimate emergencies justifying going to a restaurant on the Sabbath – in other words, “an ox in a ditch.” But the real question that needs to be addressed is:

Where is the ox and where is the ditch?

If God’s people are going to invoke the principle of “an ox in a ditch” to justify dining out on the Sabbath, they would be well advised to understand the principle the Messiah was conveying when giving this lesson.

An Ox in a Ditch

When Jesus gave this very important principle regarding the Sabbath, He was dining at the home of a prominent Pharisee. Also there was a man suffering from “dropsy,” an abnormal and painful accumulation of fluid in the tissue of the body. Some believe this man was placed in front of Jesus in an attempt to see if He would heal on the Sabbath.

Jesus seized upon this moment to teach a valuable lesson about compassion. He began by asking these religious leaders if it was wrong to heal on the Sabbath. When they did not answer Him, Jesus healed the man. Perhaps anticipating a reaction from these “pious” leaders, Jesus posed another question:

Which of you shall have an ass or an ox fallen into a pit, and will not straightway pull him out on the Sabbath day? (Lk. 14:5)

Jesus’ question silenced these men because it not only appealed to their understanding of the scriptures, but to rabbinical law which also provided for such acts of mercy. By invoking the law, Jesus was cutting through all the potential arguments these men may have been crafting. However, His words and actions were saying much more. The point He was making was that sometimes life does not go according to plan. There can be unexpected twists and turns. In short: an ox can fall into a pit.

The action Jesus took illustrated that when there is danger to life or property, God understands and even expects His children to take measures to correct the problem, even if it occurs on His Sabbath. In other words, save the ox.

This principle can be applied to other situations in life. There may be a time when the car breaks down or an injury occurs. These are not planned events. They are unforseen emergencies. The fact is that our lives can be interrupted by events that are simply beyond our control.
However, there is a principle here that must be respected. The ox in a ditch is the exception, not the rule. In other words, just because you had to change a flat tire last Sabbath does not mean it is okay to set up an auto repair business that is open seven days a week.

A Genuine Emergency

There are times when purchasing something on the Sabbath might be appropriate based on the principle of an ox in a ditch. For example: suppose you are taking a Sabbath walk and notice an elderly gentleman has collapsed on the sidewalk. When you approach to offer assistance, he informs you that he is diabetic and asks if you could buy him a specific kind of candy bar. Across the street is a convenience store and in your pocket is a five dollar bill. This is an ox in a ditch. This act is not about engaging in business on the Sabbath. It is about healing on the Sabbath. This being the case, there may be times when it might be necessary to buy food on this day. But this should only take place in a genuine emergency where the alternative may be catastrophic.

Additionally, it is important to understand what an ox in a ditch is not. Poor planning is not an ox in a ditch. A messy home that is not ready for company is not an ox in a ditch. Running into old friends that you haven’t see in years is not an ox in a ditch. An ox in a ditch is something to regret, not something to anticipate – or even celebrate.

Furthermore, when Jesus gave the lesson of an ox in a ditch, it was in the context of healing, not dining. The principle is there to be sure, but it is not to be manipulated. To do so would be a HUGE mistake. Those who use Jesus’ teaching regarding an ox in a ditch to justify going to restaurants on the Sabbath should ask themselves, “is it really an emergency?” Or is it possible that you are just exploiting for your own benefit the compassion and mercy of the very Savior who made provisions for dealing with a real tragedy that may arise on God’s holy Sabbath?

A Final Thought

The Sabbath is a day with profound meaning. It was created by God as evidence that He has an incredible plan for mankind. That plan reflects a great wisdom and an infinite love for His children. God made the Sabbath so that His children could know Him and the hope of His Kingdom. The Sabbath pictures that Kingdom. And those who honor it honor what it pictures.

When God gave the command to remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy, He wasn’t simply instructing the children of Israel to be aware of when this day occurs. It is not simply a cognitive test of knowledge. The Sabbath is a test of faith. A test to see if His people will declare their loyalty to Him and His kingdom (Ex. 16:4).

Honoring God’s Sabbath is done by acting out that kingdom every week. In a very real sense, God’s Sabbath is His signature on a great moral code Jesus described in one word: LOVE. Honoring this day as God instructed is the profound responsibility of every true Christian. But there is more. To keep the Sabbath as God commands is also a great privilege. One that is known by so few. God’s people should see it as an honor bestowed upon them by none other than the King of Eternity.

Does it matter which day is kept as the Sabbath? YES! Because the Great God said it does. Does it matter how that day is kept? YES AGAIN! Because the Great God said it does.
Finally, does man have the authority to decide for himself how he will honor the day God sanctified? Think about that question very carefully the next time you pick up a menu on the Sabbath.

Appendix I

Seven Prohibitions

Every time one of God’s people goes to a restaurant on the Sabbath or holy day, he or she is transgressing numerous aspects of the fourth commandment. Consider what God specifically prohibited His people from doing on this day.

You shall not acquire food on the Sabbath.

God actually rebuked the Israelites when they attempted to engage in this practice. His exact words were, “How long refuse you to keep my commandments and my laws?” (Ex. 16:26-28) He uttered them after the Israelites went out to gather food (manna) on the Sabbath.

You shall not prepare food on the Sabbath.

God specifically instructed the Israelites to do their meal preparation on the sixth day (Ex. 16:23). Furthermore, at no time did He suggest that they could commission others to prepare it for them on the Sabbath. He actually indicated that the preparation day was given to “prove” the Israelites and to test their obedience (Ex. 16:4).

You shall not go outside your place on the Sabbath.

God revealed this specific aspect of His command because the Israelites went outside the camp to obtain food on the Sabbath (Ex. 16:29). Furthermore, God was furious with this practice and He made that fact abundantly clear.

At this point, it is interesting to note that the only way God’s people today can avail themselves of a restaurant on the Sabbath is to go outside of “their place.” They must literally go out into the world where God’s Sabbath is being profaned and avail themselves of this sin. Despite this fact, many believe God somehow condones this practice.

You shall not labor on the Sabbath.

God first addressed the issue of work on the Sabbath when He made the seventh day. At that time, the Great Creator of heaven and earth rested from His labor (Gen. 2:2-3). Later, when giving the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai, God made reference to this rest. Through the Sabbath commandment, God is declaring that our lives should be like His. Labor should not be a part of this day – directly or indirectly.

Additionally, God knew that there were only two broad sources of labor – the work you perform, and the work that is performed for you. The fourth commandment addresses both types. First, you shall not do any work on the Sabbath. That addresses your part. Secondly, no one who comes into your sphere of influence shall be compelled to labor on your behalf. This includes family, servants, strangers, and even livestock. That part addresses everybody else his people would come in contact with on the Sabbath. Everyone else on earth is outside the camp and God already forbid His people to go there (Ex. 16:29).

When God gave the fourth commandment, His intent was very clear: work profanes the day He consecrated – to engage in such a practice is to desecrate that which is sacred (Ex. 20:8-11).

You shall not direct a servant to labor on the Sabbath.

God’s plan for man is that he will ultimately be free from the tyranny of ignorance and sin. The Sabbath pictures that freedom. It is not by accident that when giving the fourth commandment, God reminded His people that they were once slaves in Egypt (Dt. 5:15). It is for this very reason that every Sabbath God’s people are to be liberators. In other words, they are to declare everyone they come in contact with FREE. Nowhere in the commandment does it remotely hint that God condones His people going back into “Egypt” to avail themselves of the very sin they were once a part of (Dt. 5:14-15). The Sabbath is about liberty, not slavery.

You shall not direct an unbeliever to work on the Sabbath.

Whether one is a believer or a skeptic, bond or free, rich or poor, young or old, God’s people are not to allow them to labor on their behalf on His day.

Those who are ignorant of God’s law may not understand why the faithful would be so considerate of them. But God’s people do understand. By releasing the unbeliever from labor on the Sabbath, they are acting out what their King will ultimately do when He returns to earth.

You shall not buy or sell on the Sabbath.

Throughout history, there has been an inextricable link between money and labor. Furthermore, God is very much aware of this link. For this reason, He inspired both Nehemiah’s words and his actions when dealing with the issue of buying and selling on the Sabbath.

If the Israelites during the days of Moses had honored God’s Sabbath as it was revealed to them, there would never have been a reason for buying and selling – and this would not have been an issue to Nehemiah or to God’s church today. Regrettably, that did not happen.

When Nehemiah commanded the Jews to refrain from buying and selling on the Sabbath, he was not introducing a new aspect to the fourth commandment. He was reminding God’s people of where this sin can lead – CAPTIVITY (Neh. 13:15-21). That one word should carry an enormous weight with God’s church today. The Great Law Giver was not bluffing when He indicted the nations of Israel and Judah for profaning the Sabbath. History bears out this painful truth.
Appendix II

Amending God’s Law


There are those who believe the scriptures can be somewhat misleading with respect to God’s instructions concerning proper Sabbath observance. These “believers” argue that God’s law must be understood in the context of the entire Bible. Although this is true, it also brings with it considerable risk. For example: many professing Christians manipulate the scriptures in an attempt to accommodate pre-conceived ideas about what God is saying in His word. As a result, man has concocted an endless array of beliefs. Sadly, this practice has even raised its ugly head within God’s church.

Nowhere is this fact more evident than in the church’s understanding of the fourth commandment – specifically the issue of going to restaurants on the Sabbath. Although the Bible clearly prohibits this practice, many of God’s people, including its leaders, believe it is permissible. They justify this practice by employing semantical arguments when applying God’s word in their lives. In essence, they re-write God’s law to accommodate their actions.

The following are seven examples of how the original command is modified in the minds of many in the church today. These modifications expand the commandment to accommodate the belief that God approves of going to restaurants on His Sabbath. And although those who engage in this practice may not literally desire to change the wording of the command, they most definitely alter its meaning by their behavior.

These modifications are intended to illustrate how radical certain beliefs are. This is done by expressing how they would look if God Himself actually stated them. As you read each example ask yourself if the amended command is really what God intended when He Gave the fourth commandment.

Example I: A Matter of Personal Labor

Original Command:

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shall you labor and do all your work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God: in it you shall not do any work... (Ex. 20:8-10).

Amended Command:

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shall you labor and do all your work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God: in it you shall not do any work. However, you may compel others to labor on your behalf provided they are not under your direct authority or responsibility.

Surprisingly, there are many in God’s church today who believe the fourth commandment is limited in scope. In other words, although it prohibits His people from engaging in labor, it does not prohibit them from orchestrating the labor of others for their benefit. As a result of this thinking, many contend that when God gave His law regarding the Sabbath, He intentionally made provisions for His people to be the beneficiary of the labor of others, under certain conditions. Furthermore, they contend that going to a restaurant on the Sabbath is such an condition.

Although many may write the amended command differently with respect to style, those who go to restaurants on the Sabbath concur with the substance of this modified rendering of God’s law. The question is: do you? Ask yourself: do these words really sound like they express the wisdom of the Holy One of Israel? Was it God’s intent to simply shield His people from profaning the day He set apart? Or was He expressing a greater eternal truth about His Kingdom?

Today, all too many in God’s church advance an endless stream of technical arguments in an attempt to circumvent God’s law. But in the final analysis, God’s word is clear. When He told his people they were not to work on the Sabbath, He was declaring that labor profanes the day He made HOLY! Even God Himself ceased from His labor on this day. Does anyone sincerely believe He would avail Himself of the labor of someone else?

The point God was making when He uttered the fourth commandment was that Israel was not to be a party to profane work in any way, shape, or form on this day unless it specifically related to a Levitical duty (Mt. 12:1-5). Going to a restaurant on the Sabbath is not such a duty. It is a pleasure that God’s law prohibits.

Example II: A Matter of Children

Original Command:

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shall you labor and do all your work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God: in it you shall not do any work, you nor your son nor your daughter... (Ex. 20:8-10).

Amended Command:

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shall you labor and do all your work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God: in it you shall not do any work, you nor your son nor your daughter. However, you may compel others such as aunts, uncles, cousins, grandparents, nephews and nieces, as well as that guy you refer to as “Uncle Bob,” to labor on your behalf.

This amended command is intended to illustrate where semantical arguments can lead. Those who try to affix a very narrow interpretation of God’s commandments do so in order to broaden the path they wish to take. In other words, many conclude: “the Bible only mentions ‘my servants’, ‘my family,’ and ‘my livestock.’ It doesn’t mention those that belong to someone else. Therefore, I can do anything I wish with that which is not mine.”

At this point it, is important to understand that when God gave His Great Moral Code, it was to provide the Israelites with His perfect wisdom as well as His desire for all mankind. One only has to consider what the world will look like when Jesus Christ returns in power and glory to understand this truth. At that time, all will honor His law the way He intends. Where do you think dining out on the Sabbath will fit in that Kingdom?
The point is that God never intended for His people to look for loopholes in His commandments. Ultimately, when He dispenses His judgment, we will understand this truth. At that time, all will know that there are no loopholes.

Example III: The Treatment of Servants

Original Command:

Keep the Sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord your God has commanded you. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God: in it you shall not do any work, you nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant... (Dt. 5:12-14).

Amended Command:

Keep the Sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord your God has commanded you. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God: in it you shall not do any work, you nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant. However, you may compel someone else’s manservant or maidservant to labor on your behalf, provided they genuinely desire to work and are appropriately compensated for it.

Perhaps the most popular argument advanced by people attempting to justify going to restaurants on the Sabbath is that those working in the restaurant are not their servant – and the command only refers to “your servant.” Therefore, the amended command must be in keeping with God’s intent.

However, this thinking fails to understand God’s purpose for commanding the Israelites to free their servants from labor on the Sabbath. That purpose was powerfully conveyed by God when He gave the original command. The Great Law Giver told the Israelites, and He tells His people today, “You were once a servant in the land of Egypt” (Dt. 5:15).

The question God’s people today should ask themselves is: Would God want me to go back into spiritual Egypt and avail myself of the same bondage I was once in? The answer should be obvious.

Example IV: The Treatment of Animals

Original Command:

“Keep the Sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord your God has commanded you. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God: in it you shall not do any work, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your ox, nor your ass, nor any of your cattle (Dt. 5:12-14).

Amended Command:

“Keep the Sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord your God has commanded you. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God: in it you shall not do any work, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your ox, nor your ass, nor any of your cattle However, you may compel other beasts of burden such as camels, elephants, etc. to labor on your behalf provided they are not treated with cruelty. Furthermore, if you must use an ox or an ass, you may do so provided it does not belong to you. Therefore, you may procure it from an unbeliever in the same way you may procure the services of a manservant or maidservant.

It is doubtful that any true child of God would advance the argument that certain animals could be forced to labor on the Sabbath while other animals are exempt from labor. However, for those who believe it is appropriate to go to restaurants on the Sabbath, this amended command must ring true. After all, why would God extend more mercy to an animal than He would to a person created in His own image?

Example V: The Treatment of Strangers

Original Command:

“Keep the Sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord your God has commanded you. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God: in it you shall not do any work, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your ox, nor you ass, nor any of your cattle, nor the stranger that is within your gates... (Dt. 5:12-14).

Amended Command:

“Keep the Sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord your God has commanded you. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God: in it you shall not do any work, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your ox, nor you ass, nor any of your cattle, nor the stranger that is within your gates. However, you may compel the stranger that is outside your gate to labor on your behalf, provided he or she is not forced to labor against his or her will.”

Those who dine out on God’s Sabbath have argued that although the server at a restaurant is an unbeliever (“stranger”), God permits His people to avail themselves of his or her labor because the “stranger” in this case is not under the believer’s authority. In other words, the “stranger” is not “within the gates” of the believer. But is this really true? Does the believer possess no authority over the restaurant employee? This question can be answered with the following illustration: Imagine you are at a restaurant and the service is horrible. The meals are prepared incorrectly and the server in totally unresponsive to you and your guests. When you politely informed him of your concern over the level of service, he responds, “You can’t talk to me like that! I don’t work for you!” Would you honestly agree with his assessment?

The belief that restaurant employees are not under your authority is simply not true. But even if it was, does it make any difference to God? When it comes to the treatment of a “stranger” or brother on the Sabbath, God’s people are not to involve themselves in labor, directly or otherwise.

Perhaps the most important facet of God’s command with respect to the treatment of “strangers” is that God’s people were once “strangers” themselves. However, He delivered them out of the bondage of ignorance and sin into the liberty of His truth. It is a HUGE mistake to think that God would somehow permit His people to return to the world they were delivered from simply to benefit from its sin.

Statement VI: Buying and Selling

Original Command

And if the people of the land bring ware or any victuals on the Sabbath day to sell, that we should not buy it of them on the Sabbath, or on the holy day... (Neh. 10:31)


Amended Command



And if the people of the land bring ware or any victuals on the Sabbath day to sell, that we should not buy it of them on the Sabbath, or on the holy day. In other words, you are not to spend the entire day purchasing food or other necessities. However, you may spend abbreviated portions of the Sabbath to purchase provisions for you or your family as long as you remember to attend services and be with My people.



Some leaders in God’s church today contend that Nehemiah’s indictment of buying and selling on the Sabbath was limited to the scope of purchases being made. According to their reasoning, the Jews in Jerusalem were going into the open market for the entire day and purchasing provisions for their homes. These provisions would last for several days and even longer in many cases. This would be tantamount to buying several hundred dollars worth of groceries today as well as performing other errands. As a result, the entire day was spent in activities totally unrelated to the Sabbath. The assumption here is that it is acceptable with God if only an hour or two are spent in activities totally unrelated to the Sabbath.



These leaders argue that Nehemiah would never have addressed this issue if God’s people invested a more abbreviated period of time doing family errands or some other activity. Furthermore, they contend that sharing a meal with brethren at a restaurant does not distract God’s people from the Sabbath, it actually keeps them connected to this day.



However, this reasoning represents a massive leap in logic. Nowhere does Nehemiah mention the length of this activity (buying and selling) as an issue, but rather the activity itself. Notice that Nehemiah was not attempting to restrict this practice, he was attempting to eliminate it altogether. It is true that God’s people may have spent the entire day purchasing goods and services, but that ignores a bigger question: why were they there at all? Nehemiah’s remedy was designed to address the latter.



The big question God’s people should ask themselves is this: Why would God allow His people to procure ANY food on His Sabbath when He actually prohibited the children of Israel from doing such a thing when they wandered in the Sinai desert (Ex. 16:16-25)?

Sabbath Test Part 1

Why God’s People Should Refrain from Going to Restaurants
on the Sabbath and Holy Days

~~~
Introduction

A Worldly Tradition

Wherefore come out from among them,
and be you separate, says the Lord...
2 Corinthians 6:17

I n the professing Christian world, there is a very popular tradition that takes place every Sunday – one that is practiced by virtually millions of churchgoers throughout the United States. This tradition is simple but very telling. It begins when the “believer” will wake up, prepare the family for church, then drive off to a sanctuary of his or her choice. There, services will last between one and two hours. After services and some brief fellowship, the family will leave the sanctuary to pursue any one of a variety of recreational activities.

Included among these activities is going to a restaurant and sharing a delicious brunch with family and friends. What could be more enjoyable? The picture of a Sunday brunch after church is something that could fill a Norman Rockwell painting. But is there something wrong with this picture?

To those familiar with God’s Sabbath and holy days, one particular error is easy to detect. That error is the day Protestants keep as their day of worship. The Bible clearly identifies the seventh day (Saturday) as God’s true Sabbath, not Sunday, as so many assume. The true Sabbath was created by God Himself at the very beginning when Adam and Eve were less than one day old. Additionally, the scriptures make it clear that this day was created for a special purpose – a purpose linked to a great Plan God has for all mankind.

The Bible also indicates that God’s true Sabbath has been honored by the great heroes of faith down through the ages. Moses kept it. King David and the prophet Samuel kept it. Ezra and Nehemiah kept it. John the Baptist kept it. Joseph and Mary kept it. Peter, James, and John, as well as all of the apostles kept it. Paul and the New Testament church, including the Gentile churches, kept it. Jesus kept the Sabbath. Additionally, the Bible reveals that God Himself rested on this day. The point here is that the Sabbath is alive and well, and has been so throughout human history. Furthermore, God’s Sabbath is still honored by His true church today.
But is there something else wrong with this “Norman Rockwell” picture? Is there an error that is more subtle – one that even God’s true church today may be committing? Is our observance of the Sabbath beginning to resemble the way Protestants observe Sunday? Is the Sabbath simply a day to get together with God’s people and enjoy a little “R&R,” or is there more to honoring this time God called “holy”?

A Day of Recreation?

In the Protestant world, recreation is as much a part of their day of worship as any sermon given at church. Additionally, Sunday brunch at a local restaurant has been established as one of the most popular traditions practiced by those who consider themselves Bible “believers.”

But what does the Bible say about such a tradition? Additionally, how does God’s true church view this practice? Is it a harmless activity? Or is it a dangerous sin, disguised as harmless? Furthermore, has this tradition captured those whom God has called according to His purpose and as a result placed them in grave danger? At the center of this great debate, one question stands as paramount.
What does God Almighty
think of this tradition?

The Sabbath is a critical part of God’s great moral code, the Ten Commandments. Each of these wonderful laws reflects the very mind of God Himself and was written personally by Him (Ex. 31:18). It is also important to understand that God’s word provides very specific instructions concerning how His Sabbath is to be kept. It outlines appropriate as well as inappropriate activities for this day.

The following are seven Biblical truths that reveal how the God of the Bible views His Sabbath as well as how He desires it to be understood by His people. Specifically addressed is the issue of going to restaurants on His day. However, it will be easy to see that these keys address many other aspects concerning how God’s people are to “remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.” Each truth is presented as an argument for God’s word to stand as the unimpeachable authority on this subject. Therefore, human reasoning does not take center stage in these keys. God’s wisdom is what is sought – and His spirit will reveal His understanding.


The First Key
God’s Sabbath is Holy

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy
Exodus 20:8

The Sabbath rest is so important to God that He established it on the seventh day of creation. It was actually a part of His creation. God made the Sabbath. It just didn’t happen by chance. By this creative act, the Great Sustainer of all that exists concluded the beginning of man’s extraordinary journey on this planet. He also indelibly stamped this day with a “mark” of spiritual perfection. The Bible reveals that this mark will have a profound effect on God’s people and their ultimate destiny.

The Sabbath was designed to be a weekly memorial of God’s physical as well as His spiritual creation. In a very real sense, it is a continual reminder of the Creator and His plan for man. Because of this, God made the Sabbath holy. The book of Genesis reveals that when doing so, He integrated spiritual properties into this day – properties that would make this day unique. Notice what God’s word says about the creation of the very first holy day, the Sabbath.

On the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. (Gen. 2:2)

The word “sanctified” in this verse is very interesting. Literally translated it means “to consecrate” or “to purify.” In other words, God set this day apart from all other days and when doing so He placed His blessing on it. He made it HOLY!

The Bible declares the Sabbath is a sacred day – and not one to be taken lightly. God Himself “hallowed” it. Notice what He revealed about His Sabbath when introducing the fourth commandment to His servant Moses:

For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it. (Ex. 20:11)

When God created the Sabbath He elevated it to a special state – He made it HOLY. Only God has the power to make something HOLY, and when He does, it is SACRED and PURE. It reflects the qualities of God Himself. At this point, man can do one of two things: he can honor what God has set apart as HOLY, or he can PROFANE it.

Why Did God Sanctify the Sabbath?

The Bible makes it absolutely clear that God set the Sabbath day apart from all other days – He “blessed” the Sabbath and “hallowed” it. But why would He do such a thing? What purpose could God possibly have for making one day of the week different from every other day? And why would He make this day holy? Why would the Great Creator place His blessing on it? God’s word answers these questions and in doing so reveals why His people should have such a profound respect for this day.

When speaking to the children of Israel, God declared that His Sabbath was a sign between Him and His people. Notice what He says about this sign.

Verily my Sabbaths you shall keep: for it is a sign between me and you throughout your generations... (Ex. 31:13)

The word “sign” in this verse is used several times throughout the Bible when describing the Sabbath. It comes from the Hebrew word owth and can be translated as “signal,” “beacon,” “evidence,” or “mark.” It is a term of profound strength and significance. Here God is saying that His Sabbath is a link between His people and their God. Additionally, the Great Creator reveals that He made the Sabbath so that man would know Him. But there is more to this extraordinary day. Later in this same verse, God states that His Sabbath points to a remarkable hope regarding God’s plan for mankind. Notice what He says.

...that you might know that I am the God that doth sanctify you. (Ex. 31:13)

Notice the power of these words. Here, God is revealing that He made the Sabbath holy because it is to stand as evidence that He intends to do the very same thing to His earthly family. God’s plan for mankind is that they will also be holy. God set apart the Sabbath so that man could know that He has also set apart His people.

Ultimately, the fulfillment of this holy purpose will take place when God’s children are born into His Family as literal sons and daughters. When describing this birth, the apostle John proclaimed that God’s family would be just like Him.

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it does not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. (1Jn. 3:2)

Imagine being like the God who made the universe. Imagine possessing His love, His virtue, and His wisdom. But that is exactly what is going to happen to those who yield to His authority. The apostle Peter wrote that we are to be partakers of the very nature of God himself (2Pe. 1:4). This is the destiny that awaits all of God’s people. Furthermore, it is a destiny pictured by His Sabbath.
A Gateway to Holiness

The Bible reveals that God wants His people to be holy even as He is holy (1Pe. 1:15-16). The Sabbath is a gateway into that holiness. It is a link between corruptible man and an incorruptible God. It stands as proof that God will deliver on His promise to bring a great Kingdom to this earth. God has also promised that His saints will rule with Jesus Christ in that Kingdom (Dan. 7:18).

When God’s people honor His Sabbath, they are not simply obeying a command, they are declaring their desire to be the recipients of that promise. In other words, by keeping the Sabbath holy, every child of God is not only saying, “Thy kingdom come,” but also, “Your will be done in me.”

This being the case, every true believer should show great deference to the day that points to their part in eternity itself. Their conduct on the Sabbath should reflect a dignity befitting a king or priest commissioned to serve in that Kingdom (Rev. 5:10). That behavior should not be common or profane, but rather filled with virtue and godliness. Every future leader in God’s Kingdom should reflect a great respect for the wisdom that imagined this day at the very beginning. Their conduct should make it clear that the Sabbath is different. It is not a worldly day. It is a Godly sign.

Remember the Sabbath

The scriptures reveal that while the descendants of Israel were in the Sinai Desert, God commanded them to “remember the Sabbath” (Ex. 20:8). However, equally important to God is that His people know HOW to “remember the Sabbath.” God wants us to HONOR and RESPECT this day, not simply be aware of when it takes place. After all, most Bible scholars know that God’s Sabbath falls on the seventh day, they simply do not keep that day holy. They profane the day God “sanctified.”

However, God’s people must be different and their conduct on the Sabbath must also be different. That conduct should reflect an understanding that the Sabbath is unique. It is a day with great purpose, a HOLY purpose.

The Sabbath Belongs to God

The Bible makes it clear that the Sabbath is God’s day. It is called the Sabbath of the Eternal. God repeatedly refers to it as “My Sabbath” (Ezk. 20:12-24). The point here is that the seventh day belongs to God and as such it is not to be contaminated by man. Everything we do on this day should be directed toward our Father in heaven and His purpose for us.

At this point, it is important to understand a profound truth about God’s Sabbath day. Contrary to popular belief, this day is not about relaxation and comfort. It is not about personal pleasure. The Sabbath is about connection and spiritual rejuvenation. It is about holiness. God’s word is clear and direct: His Sabbath is HOLY.

Tragically, there are some who sincerely believe that they can engage in certain pleasures on this day. One such pleasure is dining out at a restaurant on a Friday evening or Saturday afternoon. Some leaders in God’s church have even suggested that such a practice can actually picture God’s millennial Kingdom.

However, this thinking is a grave mistake. In reality, going to a restaurant on the Sabbath does not honor this day, it actually profanes it. It embraces one of the most popular traditions of the secular world. If one truly desired to picture the millennium on the Sabbath, he would never dine out. WHY? Because it doesn’t picture the millennium at all. In the millennium there will be no restaurants operating on the Sabbath. At that time all people will honor this day as God commands.

A Millennial Government

In this context, consider that Jesus Christ will soon return in all His glory to govern the earth as its God King. At that time, He will rule with a rod of iron (Rev. 19:15), and the saints will share rulership with Him (Rev. 20:3-4). This being the case, what will these resurrected saints teach the world about going to restaurants on the Sabbath? The answer is obvious. They will teach God’s truth regarding this wonderful day. Furthermore, they will correct anyone ever attempting to engage in such a practice.

This being the case, how could God’s Family of kings and priests (Rev. 5:10) teach others not to go to restaurants on the Sabbath, if in their lifetime, they frequented such establishments – in the name of God’s Kingdom no less? It just doesn’t make sense. It is a total contradiction.

To illustrate this point, consider the following. Imagine the time when God’s kingdom is established on earth. Its citizens will be comprised of those who survived the horrible devastation that took place during the last days. These citizens will know nothing of God’s law or His plan for man.

However, it is now time for them to be taught these great truths by God’s resurrected saints. With this in mind, imagine that you are commissioned to teach these people about the Sabbath. As the lesson begins, one of them asks you the following question. “If it was wrong for me to work in a restaurant on the Sabbath, why did you permit me to work for you?” Now imagine that Jesus Christ is standing next to you as you prepare to respond. After all, He is the Lord of the Sabbath (Mk. 2:27). He should be very interested in what you have to say. This being the case, how would you answer this question? What would you tell this young millennial citizen?

At this point, it is important to understand that God’s people today are ambassadors of His soon-coming Kingdom. They represent its ways and its laws. In a very real sense, their lives proclaim the gospel. By their example, God’s people act out His Kingdom every day, including the Sabbath. The truth is that if a representative of God’s Kingdom went to a restaurant on His Sabbath or holy day, that person would be engaging in a practice that contradicts the very Kingdom he or she represents. To do so would be nothing short of rank hypocrisy.

However, it does not have to be that way. God’s people not only proclaim their faith by what they do, but also by what they do not do. Refraining from dining out on the Sabbath can make a powerful statement about the God we serve and the Kingdom we represent. To illustrate this point consider a different conversation with a citizen of the millennium. Imagine this citizen asking one of the saints the following. “When I worked at a restaurant I would often see you. I even waited on you occasionally. However, I never saw you on the Sabbath or holy days. Why?”

Imagine the wonderful lesson that could be taught to this potential child of God. Perhaps you could begin by explaining why the Eternal instructed the ancient nation of Israel to make sure no one worked on their behalf on His Sabbath – including their servants and even the unbeliever. You might actually quote the very words of God himself when giving the fourth commandment. Notice what He said.

Keep the Sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord your God commanded you. Six days you shall labor and do all your work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God: in it you shall not do any work, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your ox, nor your ass, nor any of your cattle, nor the stranger that is within your gates; that your manservant and your maidservant may rest as well as you. (Dt. 5:12-14)

At this point, you might explain why God would insist that servants were to be released from working on the Sabbath. After all, God clearly commanded this to be done. The question is why? It is no small matter that God provided the answer.

And remember that you were a servant in the land of Egypt, and that the Lord your God brought you out thence through a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm: therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the Sabbath holy. (Dt. 5:15)

Notice what God is revealing to Israel in this verse. Immediately after instructing them to not compel servants or strangers to work on His Sabbath, He tells them why. It is because they (the Israelites) were once enslaved. Imagine what is being conveyed by this Great Law-giver. Israel was enslaved by a nation that had no clue regarding the true God. Egypt worshiped idols. This pagan nation practiced a faith that was light years from that described in the pages of your Bible. Furthermore, it did so because it did not know better. Tragically, when the Israelites lived in Egypt, they eventually lost the faith that filled the lives of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. They, too, engaged in the same idiolatry as their masters.

But now they were free – because God had made them free. He personally delivered them from the bondage inflicted on them by a godless society. But what does this have to do with God’s people today?

Deliverance from Egypt

The scriptures reveal that just as the children of Israel were enslaved in Egypt until God miraculously delivered them, those whom He has called in this present age were also once enslaved in spiritual Egypt. God’s people today were once in bondage. We once believed the things the world believed, taught the things the world taught, and practiced the things the world practiced. We even profaned God’s Sabbath and holy days. We did so because we did not know better.

However, our calling reveals that a Great Deliverer has again rescued His people from a world that does not know Him or His way. For this reason, God’s people today should never compel the unbeliever to work on their behalf on the Sabbath. They must refrain from this practice because they were miraculously delivered from this very practice themselves.

With this in mind, God’s people must understand that the Great Deliverer would no more permit His people today to return to this world and its sin than He would permit the Israelites of yesterday to return to Egypt and their sin. As much as some may want to go back to Egypt, God forbids it and warns of its consequences. Notice what He says.

And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, My people, that you be not partakers of her sins, and that you receive not of her plagues. (Rev. 18:4)

Consider these words in the context of dining out on the Sabbath. In order to engage in this practice, God’s people must return to a world that does not know Him. In the Old Testament that world was called Egypt. In the New Testament it is called Babylon. But make no mistake about it, these worlds are one and the same.

Come Out of Egypt

When God commanded His people to cease from working on the Sabbath and to not compel others to work on their behalf, He was making a powerful statement. He was commanding His people to COME OUT OF EGYPT, to COME OUT OF BABYLON! In other words, God’s people are not to be a part of the very sin that once gripped their lives.

This is the answer God’s resurrected saints will share with the countless millions who will learn about their Deliverer when His Kingdom is restored to this earth. Although the world today is truly in bondage, God’s people stand as proof that it will not always be that way. By refusing to allow the slave of this world to labor for them on God’s Sabbath, His people are proclaiming a great hope – a hope that one day all who are enslaved will be free. At that time they, too, will “remember the Sabbath and keep it HOLY.”


The Second Key
A Day of Rest

Let us therefore fear, lest a promisebeing left us
of entering into His rest,any of you should seem to
come short of it
Hebrews 4:1

The book of Genesis indicates that when God created the Sabbath on the seventh day, He rested from his labor (Gen. 2:2). He did not do this because He was tired (Isa. 40:28), but rather because of the profound purpose He envisioned for this holy time. The Sabbath stands as proof that God has a spiritual plan for mankind. To impress this upon His people, He also commanded them to cease from their labor on this day. Notice what He said when giving the fourth commandment:

But the seventh day is the Sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant nor thy maid servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates. (Ex. 20:10)

When God gave this command, He was very specific. His prohibition against laboring on His Sabbath included everyone under the authority of the master of the house, including animals. The point here is that God wanted everyone to cease from their labor just as He had ceased from His. Consider the scope of this command: servants were not to work, children were not to work. Even the stranger (non-believer) under the authority of an Israelite was to cease from labor on God’s Sabbath. Clearly this command was far reaching in scope. It touched everyone His people would come in contact with.

This hardly looks like an appropriate place to look for a technicality that would somehow enable a child of the True God to have his own way on this day. For example: imagine two Israelites deciding to swap servants on the Sabbath, then compelling the borrowed servant to work. After all, both Israelites could argue that the command was not broken because the servant working on their behalf was technically not THEIR servant. Furthermore, although their real servant was working for someone else, each man could argue that he, the servant’s true master, did not direct the labor. Someone else was responsible for that. Therefore, each Israelite master could argue that He was obeying God’s command.

Or perhaps one of them could argue that the command only prohibited the labor of servants, strangers, and children, but did not mention wives. Therefore, he could compel his spouse to work every Sabbath and still be right with God. Come to think of it, the command only mentions the ox and the ass, as well as cattle not working (Dt. 5:14) but says nothing about any other animals. Therefore, it must be permissible to compel them to labor on the Sabbath and the holy days if the master so desired.

If this scenario seems a little far fetched, think again. In reality it is very similar to one advanced by many people in God’s church today in defense of going to a restaurant on the Sabbath. These “Sabbath-keeping” patrons often reason that restaurant employees who labor to prepare and serve meals on this day are not THEIR servants, but rather are the man-servant or maid-servant of the restaurant owner. Therefore, in a technical sense it would not be violating the fourth commandment to compel these people to work because the command only refers to “YOUR manservant,” not one that belongs to someone else.

Additionally, the command specifically mentions “the stranger WITHIN your gates” but says nothing about the stranger OUTSIDE your gates. Once again, God must consider this practice acceptable or He would have been more specific when giving the command.

Now ask yourself, how impressed would God be with this type of argument? Furthermore, do you think the proponents of such reasoning sincerely desire to obey God? Or, do they appear to be more interested in finding a way to circumvent His law. It is true that God alone can rightly judge in this matter, but make no mistake about it, HE WILL JUDGE!

A Point of Agreement

Almost all Sabbath-keepers would agree that those who work in restaurants on the seventh day are transgressing the fourth commandment – they are engaging in profane labor on this day. This being the case, why would any Sabbath-keeper think that he or she could patronize such a business? By doing so they become the beneficiary of an activity God forbids. To a certain degree, they actually direct that activity by placing orders. How could this practice NOT be in violation of God’s law?

Can anyone honestly argue that by going into a restaurant and purchasing its products, a Sabbath-keeper is not responsible in part, for the labor of its employees? At the very least, they are condoning this sin by their patronage. Furthermore, does anyone really believe that Moses, based on his understanding of the fourth commandment, would actually permit such a practice on the day God calls HOLY?

God’s people can attempt to fool themselves by using semantical arguments to rationalize this behavior if they wish. But if we are truly honest with ourselves, we know that such a practice is wrong.

A Command Regarding Strangers

When giving the fourth commandment, God stated that He prohibited “the stranger within thy gate” from performing any labor on the Sabbath. Consider what is being said here. The “stranger” is an unbeliever – one who does not embrace the faith. The world today is filled with such people. There are virtually billions who do not know the true God or His plan for mankind. As a result, these people think nothing of working on the Sabbath and holy days.

However, even though this is the case, God’s position regarding His Sabbath will not be compromised. His command is unwavering – the stranger shall not be compelled to labor on behalf of His people. The unbeliever may, through ignorance, choose to profane God’s Sabbath, but they are not to be encouraged to do so by those God has called. The Great Creator forbids it.

With this in mind, consider the “stranger” spoken of in the days of Moses and those who work in restaurants today. The similarities between them are truly striking. Both are ignorant of God’s law and His plan for mankind. Both, because of that ignorance, will break God’s law, including His Sabbath, unless prevented from doing so by someone who knows better. Additionally, both the “stranger” of the 15th century B.C. and the 21st century restaurant worker are bound to comply with directions given to them by their masters – those who exercise authority over them. This being the case, should God’s people ever order the “stranger” to work on their behalf on God’s Sabbath? The fourth commandment says NO! The “stranger” should never be compelled to work on behalf of the “believer.” God forbids it. Furthermore, the day will come when that stranger will know why God gave such a command – and will deeply appreciate what God’s people did on his or her behalf. In reality, this obedience on the part of God’s people demonstrates a profound respect for both God’s law as well as the “stranger” who does not yet understand it.

“Within Thy Gates”

There is another term included in the fourth commandment that is very interesting. The expression “within thy gates” has been at the center of some discussion among many people in God’s church. Actually, this term can have several meanings. For example, it can mean “inside your house,” “ on your property,” or even “within the city walls.” The implied meaning of this verse takes the principle even further. In essence, it is saying that God’s people are not to compel anyone under their authority to work on the Sabbath. Therefore, if you have the power to prevent someone from laboring on your behalf on God’s Sabbath, you must exercise that power. In other words, if you can prevent someone from working on your behalf, you need to do so.

It is true that you may not be able to prevent them people working for others on God’s day, but you most assuredly can prevent them from working for you. And God’s command is to YOU.
Another Technicality

There are some who have suggested that the fourth commandment is not prohibiting God’s people from compelling the unbeliever to work on the Sabbath, but rather from compelling the unbeliever to work against his or her will on that day. In other words, God’s people are not to force their religion on those who do not believe as they do. Therefore, if the stranger truly wishes to labor on behalf of the believer, he should be permitted to do so.

This is a very radical view of God’s law. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the scriptures that supports such an understanding. When giving His command regarding the Sabbath, God was not crafting some elaborate labor code. He was proclaiming a Great spiritual law. A critical element of that law involved working on the Sabbath. Simply put, it was NOT to be done. God’s people were under direct orders from their Creator to not labor on His day, nor were they to allow others to labor for them. This law applied to believer and unbeliever alike. The point here is that even if restaurant personnel desire to work on your behalf on the Sabbath, you are not to permit it. Tragically, when it comes to many of God’s people today, this command is totally ignored.

The Manservant and the Maidservant
Furthermore, the waiters and waitresses working at a restaurant are in reality “servants.” Many restaurants even call them “servers.” They are in essence contracted by patrons to perform a specific task. They are to represent the interests of their customers. Additionally, when God’s people dine out on the Sabbath, they do so with the full understanding that someone else will prepare the meal, someone else will serve the meal, and someone else will clean up after the meal is finished. In that capacity, restaurant personnel assume the role of a “manservant” or “maidservant.”

With this in mind, consider what God commands His people to do regarding the treatment of servants on the Sabbath. God declared that our servants are to do NO WORK on that day (Ex. 20:10). Even if they are strangers, (non-Christians), they are not to labor on behalf of God’s people! In a very real sense, this is one way God’s people can be identified. They do not compel others to do what they themselves would not do on His Sabbath. Such labor is a violation of the fourth commandment!

More Technical Arguments
Some have argued that restaurant personnel are technically not working for them but rather for the restaurant owner. Therefore, the Sabbath-keeper is not responsible for their labor. If this is true, would it be acceptable with God, if His people contracted a mechanic to work on the family car on the Sabbath? After all, he is employed by someone else and the work is being done outside your gate. Or, what about a dry cleaning business or a hair salon? Could their services be employed on the Sabbath? After all, technically, they are not your servants either, and the command only prohibits your servant from working, not someone else’s servant. Both common sense and God’s word says such reasoning flies in the face of His law. In a very real sense, those who embrace this form of logic are in reality advocating work by proxy. Who really believes God approves of such behavior?

The point here is that God’s people should not try to find an angle that will enable them to avoid having to obey the Great Moral Authority of the universe. Instead, they should diligently seek His wisdom regarding how they should conduct their lives. When it comes to compelling others to labor on the Sabbath, God’s word is very straightforward and its intent is not difficult to understand. God has commanded His people to NOT labor on this day, nor are they to direct others to work for them.

A Matter of Life and Death

At this point, it is critical to understand that the Sabbath is so important to God that He actually outlined the consequences for failing to honor this day. God said that breaking the Sabbath was a capital crime. Notice His words.

Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever doeth any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death. (Ex. 31:13)

So important is this point that four chapters later, God reiterated this same statement of condemnation.

Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. (Ex. 35:2)

With these words, God was not simply issuing an idle threat. He was serious – DEAD serious. Regrettably, He had to prove this fact to the Israelites as they wandered in the wilderness.

Picking Up Sticks

The book of Numbers records an incident in which the children of Israel would witness God’s judgment in this matter first hand. At this time, a man recklessly went out to gather sticks for the purpose of making a fire on the Sabbath. When this trespass was discovered the man was arrested and detained.

At this point, Moses and Aaron went to God to determine the man’s fate. Sadly, it was not going to be good. For his indifference toward God’s command, the man would suffer the greatest penalty. Moses records God’s judgment concerning this sin.

While the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man that gathered sticks upon the Sabbath day. And they that found him gathering sticks brought him unto Moses and Aaron, and unto all the congregation. And they put him in ward, because it was not declared what should be done to him. And the LORD said unto Moses, The man shall be surely put to death: all the congregation shall stone him with stones without the camp. And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died as the Lord commanded Moses (Nu. 15:32-36)

When this man was caught breaking the Sabbath, God intervened directly and powerfully. There was no doubt regarding how He viewed this trespass. His judgment was both swift and severe.
Today we do not see God intervening in such ways, and therefore few fear to transgress His commands. But this must be understood. God does not intervene miraculously in every case. If He did, men and women would be dropping like flies all around us. Instead, God acts directly in first-time events so that there is a record left for us showing God’s judgment in such matters.

The example of the man gathering sticks on the Sabbath is an illustration of enormous value. It reveals God’s true standard, and the ultimate fate of those who think they can disobey Him.

Regrettably, because many of God’s people have been influenced by the values and standards of this world, they have become desensitized to God and His law. This is a grave mistake. Furthermore, this mistake is repeated every time God’s people go to a restaurant on His Sabbath. By doing so, they become willing participants in causing others to labor on their behalf in clear violation of His command.

A Stern Warning

Six thousand years ago, Satan told Eve “eat,” and “you surely won’t die” (Ge. 3:4). Sadly, she ate and ultimately perished. Today there are some who teach God’s people that it is acceptable to go to restaurants on the Sabbath. They say, “eat and you won’t die.” However, God clearly states that if we work on His Sabbath, we WILL die! Furthermore, when we compel or even permit others to work for us, we are ultimately responsible.


The Third Key
A Matter of Business

And if the people of the land bring ware or any victuals
on the Sabbath day to sell, that we would not buy it of them
on the Sabbath, or on the holy day...
Nehemiah 10:31

When God gave Israel His instructions regarding the observance of the Sabbath, He told His people that they were not to make a fire on the seventh day.

Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the Sabbath day. (Ex. 35:3)

A Lesson from a Fire

There are two major views concerning what is meant by the term “fire” in this verse. Some believe that fires of any kind (personal or commercial) were not to be kindled on the Sabbath. Others have argued that the “fire” being referred to is an industrial or commercial fire. The latter argument is advanced because of the belief that there would have been family campfires on the Sabbath when the Israelites were wandering in the wilderness.

At this point, it is important to understand that God’s command does not prohibit having a campfire on the Sabbath, but rather the building of a campfire on this day. It is very possible that the Israelites gathered sticks on the preparation day and built family campfires prior to the beginning of the Sabbath. When the Sabbath arrived, they would toss an occasional piece of wood on the fire to sustain it. At the very least, this is possible.

However, when it comes to building or even sustaining a commercial fire, a significant amount of work would be required. Furthermore, such a fire would serve no purpose on the Sabbath. Remember, the Sabbath is a day of rest and the building (or sustaining) of a large industrial fire on this day would clearly violate the fourth commandment.

Today God’s people would never think of creating a commercial fire for industry or manufacturing on the Sabbath. They would rightly understand that this would constitute a clear violation of the fourth commandment. However, when it comes to the fire necessary for cooking food at a restaurant, many have somehow made the mistake of thinking such a practice is acceptable. But in reality, this is not true.

The food processing industry is no different than any other commercial enterprise. Furthermore, when it comes to preparing meals, God commanded Israel to refrain from cooking their own food on the Sabbath (Ex. 16:5,23), let alone hiring someone else to do it for them. Instead, they were to prepare their meals the day before so that no work was done on God’s day.

However, God’s instructions regarding the proper observance of His Sabbath went far beyond commanding His people to refrain from labor on this day. Because the Sabbath is HOLY, God provided specific examples of how it could be contaminated. One such way was to engage in business on this day. God said such behavior is wrong and that it profaned His Sabbath.

Buying and Selling

Nothing more clearly defines a commercial enterprise than the exchanging of money. Simply put, it is fees for services, supply and demand, a market-driven economy. But what does God’s word say about this practice on His Sabbath?

One of the greatest servants of God in all the Bible was a man named Nehemiah. As a cupbearer to the Persian king Artaxerxes, Nehemiah held a position of considerable prominence. However, when he heard of conditions in Jerusalem, he forsook a life of comfort and returned to the city of his forebears. This hero of faith was instrumental in rebuilding the walls of this great ancient place.

Nehemiah was also painfully aware of the tragic story of Judah’s captivity. Furthermore, he understood one of its chief causes. That cause was its contempt for God’s Sabbath and specifically its practice of buying and selling on this day. Nehemiah’s passion regarding this issue is legendary in the scriptures and is captured in a book that bears his name.

This great servant condemned every aspect of engaging in business on God’s Sabbath and thoroughly excoriated those who participated in this practice. He began His indictment by identifying the vendors who were selling products to God’s people on this day. Notice what he says.

In those days saw I in Judah some treading wine presses on the Sabbath, and bringing in sheaves, and lading asses; as also wine, grapes, and figs, and all manner of burdens, which they brought into Jerusalem on the Sabbath day: and I testified against them in the day wherein they sold victuals. There dwelt men of Tyre also therein, which brought fish and all manner of ware, and sold on the Sabbath unto the children of Judah, and in Jerusalem. (Neh. 13:14-16).

What could be more clear? Here, Nehemiah testified against these vendors because he knew that God did not want His people to buy and sell on the Sabbath day, even if it was only food that was being purchased. Furthermore, it didn’t make any difference if the people preparing the food were non-believers such as those from Tyre. The point here is that God’s instructions are very clear in this matter. His people are not to conduct business of any nature on His holy Sabbath – as a buyer or a seller.

This being the case, why would anyone think that a Christian should be able to go to a restaurant on the Sabbath? Dining at a restaurant is in fact conducting business! Only this time, the Sabbath-keeper is the consumer – a role that is absolutely essential in any commercial enterprise. Therefore, when God’s people go to a restaurant on His Sabbath, they are doing exactly what He said NOT to do.

More Technicalities

There are some who have suggested that Nehemiah’s indictment is against those doing business with MERCHANTS selling food in open markets, not specifically restaurants. Therefore, in a very technical sense, God appears to be silent on the subject of dining out on the Sabbath. But could this possibly be true? Why would God forbid buying food at a market, while permitting buying the same food at a restaurant? The only difference is that the restaurant must labor even more because they must also prepare the food. Why would God make such a distinction? Furthermore, what message does this send about His Sabbath being HOLY?

Despite all the parsing of words, the real point Nehemiah was clearly making in his indictment was that Judah should not take part in any commercial business on the Sabbath – nor were they to patronize such businesses on this day. Any other understanding is simply manipulating the scriptures in an attempt to advance one’s personal preferences.

A Scathing Indictment

Nehemiah was so furious at this practice that he actually threatened to use force to remove these “entrepreneurs” from Jerusalem if they persisted in engaging in business on the Sabbath.

Then I contended with the nobles of Judah, and said unto them, What evil thing is this that ye do, and profane the Sabbath day? Did not your fathers thus, and did not our God bring all this evil upon us, and upon this city? Yet ye bring more wrath upon Israel by profaning the Sabbath. And it came to pass, that when the gates of Jerusalem began to be dark before the Sabbath, I commanded that the gates should be shut, and charged that they should not be opened till after the Sabbath: and some of my servants set I at the gates, that there should no burden be brought in on the Sabbath day. So the merchants and sellers of all kind of ware lodged without Jerusalem once or twice. Then I testified against them, and said unto them, Why lodge ye about the wall? If ye do so again, I will lay hands on you. From that time forth came they no more on the Sabbath. (Neh. 13:17-21)

Whether one wishes to believe it or not, those who go to restaurants on the Sabbath are engaging in a commercial enterprise. This enterprise involves the purchase of goods, the contracting of labor, the agreeing on a price, as well as appropriate methods of payment. There is even a provision for the payment of bonuses (tips) in this business transaction. Furthermore, in this business relationship the restaurant patron possesses a considerable level of authority over personnel. These patrons define what they will purchase, how it will be prepared, and when it will be delivered. Additionally, they have expectations of personnel as well as products, and reserve the right to exercise disciplinary action if expectations are not met. Patrons can lodge complaints, refuse payment, and even engage the services of governmental agencies that protect the rights of consumers. They can do this because they ARE CONSUMERS. They are participants in a very real business transaction. The restaurant understands this principle well and to think otherwise is simply untrue.

Engaging in business with the food services industry, as either the retailer or the consumer, is the very conduct that inspired Nehemiah’s righteous indignation. And make no mistake about it, he was indignant. With this in mind, here is a question to consider:
Would Nehemiah think differently
about buying and selling today?

The Fourth Key
A Matter of Pleasure

They walked not in my statutes, and they despised my judgments,
which if a man do, he shall even live in them;
and my Sabbaths they greatly polluted...
Ezekiel 20:13

Just prior to Israel going into captivity, God directed the prophet Isaiah to indict them because of their wanton disregard of His law. His message made it clear that Israel was in grave danger. Notice the force of His words.

Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins. (Isa. 58:1)

When Isaiah wrote these words, Israel saw themselves as God’s chosen people. In fact, they were even quite religious. This is not unlike God’s church today. However, what they did not seem to realize was that they were sinning by not obeying God’s law regarding His Sabbath. This fact is made evident twelve verses later.

If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honorable; and shalt honor him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words... (Isa. 58:13)

This verse contains several elements that God’s people today should carefully consider when deciding how they will honor the Sabbath. It addresses things to avoid as well as things to embrace when keeping this day holy.

First, consider the words “turn away your foot from the Sabbath.” Today this phrase would be better translated, “Take your dirty feet off My holy day!” From God’s point of view, His people were trampling all over the day He sanctified – the day He set apart – the day He made sacred. This was done because Israel sought their own pleasure on this day. They wanted to pursue what appealed to them. By this statement, God makes it abundantly clear that we are not to seek personal enjoyment on His Sabbath. It is true that the Sabbath was made for man (Mk. 2:27), but it is God’s day (Ex. 31:13-17). Therefore, His people are to honor His instructions regarding how it is to be kept.

Secondly, when God addressed the issue of “pleasure” on His Sabbath, His instructions were very clear. His people were to turn away from doing their pleasure on this day. But what does this mean?

The word “pleasure” used by Isaiah in this verse comes from the Hebrew chephets. This term means something that possesses personal value – that which gives pleasure or enjoyment. Therefore, God was instructing His people to avoid physical activities which cater primarily to personal pleasure. Tragically, this is exactly what dining out on the Sabbath is. It is something that is geared toward personal pleasure. It is what millions of Americans and Europeans do for entertainment and recreation every single day and especially on the Sabbath.

Some Interesting Facts

According to the American National Restaurant Association (ANRA), the food services business is among the largest of the entertainment industries. It is currently the largest private-sector employer in the entire country. This business now provides 11.7 million jobs, even out-distancing the bloated U.S. government.

Additionally, according to the ANRA, the restaurant industry in the United States has become so vast that four out of ten people eat at some form of food preparation establishment every day. Furthermore, during 2002, eating venues provided over 54 billion meals at a whopping cost of $407.8 billion to consumers. All this took place in 870,000 restaurants where the average American spent $846.00 to eat out during the year.

Ironically, ANRA statistics also indicate that the most popular day of the week for dining out is Saturday. With this in mind, God’s people must ask themselves: Is the Sabbath their favorite day to dine out? If the answer to this question is “yes,” then consider for a moment why. Is it to fulfill God’s word, or is it to fulfill our own pleasure?

The Sabbath is Honorable

A third element of God’s instructions regarding His Sabbath is that His people are to call the Sabbath “honorable” (Isa. 58:13). This word means that which is “heavy,” even “glorious.” The point is that the Sabbath is to carry an enormous weight of respect and dignity in the believer’s eyes. It was created holy by God Himself and His people must show it great deference.

This is the very reason that God gave specific instructions regarding how His Sabbath is to be kept. God does not want us to dishonor this wonderful day by our mundane practices. Going to restaurants on the Sabbath deprecates God’s day. Whether we want to admit it or not, dining out on the Sabbath shows disrespect toward the great dignity this day was designed to carry. The fact that this practice is convenient does not change anything.

The Sabbath Is to Be a Delight

Perhaps the most important instruction recorded by Isaiah concerning the Sabbath is that God wants His people to call this day a “delight.” Regrettably, some have put a unique twist on these words. Many have interpreted them to mean that we are to do things to make the Sabbath a delight. In other words, find something that gives pleasure and do it on the Sabbath. After constructing such a premise, many in God’s church contend that going out to eat causes them to do less work, and thus makes the Sabbath more enjoyable. Therefore, going to a restaurant on God’s Sabbath is a delight and is in keeping with the words recorded by Isaiah.

Such an interpretation is a HORRIBLE DISTORTION of the scriptures! God did not create the Sabbath to insure that man would have one day of personal enjoyment every week. He created this day so that our natural pursuit of personal desires would not so consume our lives that they would estrange us from the very God who made us. In other words, the Sabbath is not a day to seek personal pleasures, but rather to reject them. It is a day dedicated to embracing that which is holy.

But what does it mean to call the Sabbath a delight? What is the delight? To better understand what God was conveying with this instruction, consider what He specifically said:

If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honorable; and shalt honor him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words... (Isa. 58:13)

Here God is not telling His people to make the Sabbath a delight. He is instructing them to call it a delight. God’s people should delight in the great Kingdom the Sabbath pictures. That Kingdom will be a time of unimaginable abundance. The Sabbath is evidence that God will deliver that Kingdom and establish it when Jesus Christ returns in power and glory. In that hope is the delight He spoke of.

Those who believe they need to go to a restaurant on the Sabbath to “delight” in this day fail to grasp the great joy of this sacred time. Consequently, they feel a need to do something “worldly” on this day to make it more joyous. What a terrible mistake.

God created the delight that fills each Sabbath. His instruction to His children is to recognize that joy and celebrate it in their worship of Him. The Sabbath is a day to look forward to with great anticipation. It is not a day of inconvenience. It is a day of joy and hope when God’s children assemble together and appear before their King.

An Exquisite Exception

The Sabbath truly is a great “delight.” It is a perpetual reminder of God’s power over the physical as well as the spiritual universe. Through Isaiah, God is appealing to His people to see the Sabbath for what it really is. If the world today with all its suffering could get just one brief glimpse of what this day pictures, it most definitely would call the Sabbath a DELIGHT. But there is more.

The word “delight” used by Isaiah when describing God’s Sabbath is very interesting. It literally means “luxury” or “delicate.” The point God is making is that His Sabbath is a luxurious delicacy. We are to call it so because it is a day that is set aside to be different. It is an exquisite exception from the other days of the week.

All week long, God’s people are in a kind of bondage. We are forced to labor in order to provide for our physical needs. Every day we are subjected to a continual barrage of chores and deadlines. We are rushed and harried as we struggle to meet an endless array of obligations. Then comes the Sabbath.

A Day of Liberation

The Sabbath pictures liberation and freedom from bondage. It pictures the great hope of God’s Kingdom. It is a unique day in which we can finally stop doing the labor, chores, and mundane activities of life. On the Sabbath we can come out of this world for one day, and picture a time when this world will be delivered into the hands of the King of kings.

The Sabbath is a delight, not because we are out having fun, amusing ourselves and being entertained. It is a delight because we have a special time set aside to seek our Maker. In a very real sense, the Sabbath is a time when the bride shares moments with the Bridegroom.

God’s people should actually consider His holy Sabbath as an appointment – a date with her fiancé. She should look forward with a deep longing to the Sabbath because it offers the luxury of twenty-four hours of rest from a world that is defiant to God. Furthermore, it replaces that time with a period of celebrating the transcendent hope of eternal life, living and working together with our Father and elder brother, Jesus Christ.

The Sabbath is a great DELIGHT and God’s people should DELIGHT in it. God created the Sabbath as a time of immense hope. His people must see that hope and rejoice in it, not try to improve on it.

The Fifth Key
A Day of Preparation

Gather the people together, men, and women,
and children, and the stranger that is within your gates,
that they may learn, and fear the Lord your God,
and observe to do all the words of this law
Deuteronomy 31:12

The scriptures indicate that God was so opposed to His people engaging in profane labor on the Sabbath that He actually designated the sixth day as a period to prepare for this holy time. Even the Great Creator prepared for His Sabbath. Notice what He did.

Then said the LORD unto Moses, Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a certain rate every day, that I may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or not. And it shall come to pass, that on the sixth day they shall prepare that which they bring in, and it shall be twice as much as they gather daily. (Ex. 16:4-5)

Here, God declares that he rained a double portion of manna on the sixth day with the express purpose of “proving” the Israelites. In other words, He did this to see if they were truly committed to obeying Him. If they were, they would gather enough food on Friday to satisfy their needs for both that day and the next. They would then cook all of it on the preparation day. Notice the instructions Moses gave to God’s people.

On the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for one man: and all the rulers of the congregation came and told Moses. And he said unto them, This is that which the LORD hath said, Tomorrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the LORD: bake that which ye will bake today, and seethe that ye will seethe; and that which remaineth over lay up for you to be kept until the morning. And they laid it up till morning, as Moses bade: and it did not stink, neither was there any worm therein. And Moses said, Eat that today; for today is a Sabbath unto the LORD: to day ye shall not find it in the field. Six days ye shall gather it; but on the seventh day, which is the Sabbath, in it there shall be none. And it came to pass, that there went out some of the people on the seventh day for to gather, and they found none. (Ex. 16:22-27)

These verses reveal that God had to supernaturally intervene to provide a way for the Israelites to honor His Sabbath. In this case, He not only provided twice as much food on the preparation day, but He also miraculously preserved it so that it would not spoil.

The point to all of this is that God intended for His Sabbath to be treated differently. It was HOLY TIME. Furthermore, He would personally make sure His people had a way to keep it holy.

But what about the Israelites who failed to prepare adequately? What were they to do? Were they to go out and buy food from someone else on the Sabbath? Absolutely not! God did not give them an alternative food source when they failed to prepare on the sixth day. The scriptures state “they found none.”

Is there a lesson for God’s people today in the action He took so very long ago? It would certainly seem so. Based on His clear instructions to the children of Israel, perhaps we should ask ourselves a very important question: is it right for us to go outside our spiritual camp and buy from others on the Sabbath if we fail to adequately prepare for this day?

The Significance of the Preparation Day

Today almost all of God’s people understand the great significance of His Sabbath and holy days. These appointed times declare a great plan that was envisioned by Him before the world was created.

With this in mind, consider what God could be teaching His people with a preparation day. If the Sabbath pictures God’s kingdom (Heb. 4:9-10), could the sixth day reveal that His people must properly prepare themselves in order to enter into that kingdom? In other words, if we do not make ourselves ready for God’s millennial rest, will God allow us to be a part of it? Additionally, will we prepare for that kingdom by following His instructions, or do we think we can forge our own path and do it a different way? It is clear that some believe the latter because Jesus actually warned against such thinking. Notice His words:

Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity. (Mt. 7:21-23)

When Jesus spoke of those who worked iniquity, He was referring to people who did not keep His law. A cornerstone of that law is His Sabbath. With this in mind, is it possible that Jesus’ warning could also apply to those who refuse to honor His instructions concerning the preparation day? After all, these instructions were given to ensure that God’s people could keep the Sabbath holy as He intended. Remember, He did it to “prove “ them (Ex. 16:4-5).

Now consider a sobering thought – could people in God’s church today ultimately be crying out “Lord, Lord” to Jesus Christ when His final judgment comes because they failed to obey the fourth commandment, including the appropriate preparation for it? Furthermore, does the convenience of dining out on the Sabbath actually make the preparation day somehow less meaningful to God’s people? After all, today there is no sense of urgency with respect to preparing food for the Sabbath. This is because it is so convenient to gather brethren and head off to a popular restaurant on this day.

Furthermore, if God’s people refuse to prepare for His Sabbath, why should He think they would prepare for His Kingdom? These are serious words and should not be taken lightly. Notice what God said to Israel because of their cavalier attitude regarding His Sabbath and how they prepared for it.

How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws? See, for that the Lord hath given you the Sabbath, therefore He giveth you the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place. Let no man go out of his place on the seventh day. (Ex. 16:28)

Here, God is rebuking the children of Israel for their failure to honor His Sabbath. Specifically, He was condemning their lack of preparation. In essence, God was conveying to His people three critical elements concerning eating on the Sabbath. These elements were as follows.

1) Food was not to be acquired on the Sabbath
2) Food was not to be prepared on the Sabbath
3) His people were not to leave “their place” on the Sabbath.

Notice that God said, “let no man go out of his place” on the Sabbath. With these words, He did not mean that individuals could not leave their tent for any reason as evidenced by the fact that they left their tents when Moses assembled them on the Sabbath and holy days. Additionally, Jesus Himself dined at the homes of others on the Sabbath (Lk. 14:1-6).

The point God was making with these instructions was that the Israelites were not to leave the community where God’s people were camped. Furthermore, they had no need to do so. God had already provided food on the sixth day. Now consider this. If God prohibited the Israelites to go outside their camp to acquire food on the Sabbath, why would He permit that practice today? The answer is HE WOULDN’T!

In reality, those who dine out on the Sabbath are breaking every aspect of God’s command with respect to eating. Consider what they do. They acquire food on the Sabbath. They have it prepared for them on the Sabbath. And they go outside the community of faith to procure the food as well as to consume it. Tragically, many of God’s people rationalize every one of these practices. Even more tragic is the fate that awaits them if they fail to repent of this sin.

It is also important to understand that God’s instructions to Israel were given a thousand years before Nehemiah was even a twinkle in his father’s eye. Simply put, His people were not to go out into a world of unbelievers on the Sabbath. This command seems so obvious and is totally consistent with God’s character. The Sabbath is holy. This being the case, why would God’s people even want to be a part of a society that profanes this day?

Virtually every person working in a restaurant on the Sabbath is breaking God’s command. Furthermore, they trespass against this wonderful law every time they comply with orders given to them by their patrons, including God’s people. With this in mind, do you really want to give that order?


The Sixth Key
A Mark and a Warning

And there shall be, like people, like priests:
and I will punish them for their ways,
and reward them their doings
Hosea 5:9

The book of Revelation describes an event in which a powerful political leader known as the “beast” and an apostate religious figure known as the “false prophet” cause the vast majority of people on earth to receive a special mark (Rev.13:16). Those who refuse will suffer great persecution and even death (verse 15). However, those who receive this mark will suffer the wrath of Almighty God (Rev. 14:9-10).

God’s church has rightly understood this mark to be a rejection of the true Sabbath and holy days and the embracing of false religious customs and festivals. This understanding is drawn in part because of the remarkable contrast that can be drawn between God’s Sabbath and this “mark.” The mark of the beast even has the appearance of being a counterfeit Sabbath.

To illustrate this point, consider the following: one is called a mark (Rev. 13:16), the other is called a “sign” (Ex. 31:13,17). The mark of the beast is placed in the right hand and the forehead (Rev. 13:16). The Sabbath, which is a part of God’s law, is placed in the right hand and as frontlets between the eyes (Dt. 6:6-8). The mark of the beast is very popular: “all received it.” The Sabbath is very unpopular, almost all reject it. Those who refuse the mark will be persecuted by the Beast. Those who receive the mark will be punished by God. But there is more. Perhaps the most unique quality of the mark of the beast, is its connection to buying and selling. Notice what the apostle John writes when describing this “mark.”

And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark... (Rev. 13:17).

With these words you almost get the impression that while God is commanding His people to refrain from buying and selling on the Sabbath, the beast, under the direct authority of Satan the devil (Rev. 13:2), is doing the very opposite. He is declaring that unless you reject the Sabbath, he will make it impossible for you to ever buy and sell. With this in mind, is it possible that the rejection of God’s Sabbath is defined more by engaging in business on this day than any other activity? After all, commerce drives so much of man’s physical existence. A leading industrialist once put it this way, “nothing happens in this world until something gets sold.” The point here is that the exchange of money represents a huge part of man’s profane existence. This practice touches virtually everyone on earth.
This is a fact that is undoubtedly not lost on Satan the devil. He knows all too well what makes the world go‘round. This being the case, it is almost certain that this great deceiver (Rev. 12:9) will use commerce to persuade God’s people to reject their Creator. In essence, he will attempt to compel them to profane the Sabbath by buying and selling on that day. If they refuse, they will never be able to buy and sell. What an incredible test of faith that would be! It is true that Satan will use the beast to deceive all the people on earth to accept his mark, but the real target will be God’s people.
The Consequences of Disobedience

The Bible indicates that the nation of Israel rejected God’s Sabbath and was destroyed as a nation because of that defiance. The twentieth chapter of the book of Ezekiel describes Israel’s rebellion against God’s law concerning the Sabbath, as well as God’s reaction to their rebellion.

And I gave them My statutes, and showed them My judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them. Moreover also I gave them My Sabbaths, to be a sign between Me and them, that they might know that I am the Lord that sanctify them. But the house of Israel rebelled against Me in the wilderness: they walked not in My statutes, and they despised My judgments, which if a man do, he shall even live in them; and My Sabbaths they greatly polluted: then I said, I would pour out My fury on them in the wilderness, to consume them. (Ezk. 20:11-13)

Notice what God said He would do because of Israel’s contempt for His Sabbath – “I will pour out My fury upon them to consume them” (verse 13). He even reiterated this point eight verses later. Now compare what God said He would do to a Sabbath-breaking Israel with what He said would befall those who had the mark of the beast.
And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb... (Rev. 14:9-10)

This is further evidence of the link between God’s Sabbath and Satan’s counter sabbath. Furthermore, at the center of this link is the issue of buying and selling. This alone should cause every true Christian to take serious stock of how they are treating this day. But if that wasn’t enough, there is another warning.

A Warning of Captivity

The scriptures reveal that despite God’s appeal for Israel to repent, they persisted in rebelling against Him and His law. Furthermore, nowhere was this rebellion more apparent than in their flagrant disregard of His Sabbath. Like so many today, Israel failed to appreciate what this day truly means and the great Kingdom it pictures. As a result of this indifference, they thought nothing of ignoring God’s instructions regarding the proper observance of His day. The result was devastating.

Because of this defiance, God allowed the nation He raised up to be routed and led into a horrible captivity by the ruthless Assyrian empire. Furthermore, as a result of this crushing defeat, Israel completely lost the Sabbath, and with it, their identity as the people of God. Today they are known as the lost ten tribes of Israel.

A Horrible Mistake Repeated

Regrettably, Israel was not the only nation under God that wanted to do things their own way – including how they honored the Sabbath. The southern kingdom of Judah also fell victim to their own moral devices and would pay a heavy price for it. They, too, contaminated God’s Sabbath and were taken captive because of this sin. This time it was the Babylonian empire under the rule of Nebuchadnezzar that conquered God’s people and removed them from their land.

However, after seventy years of captivity, the Jews were allowed to return to Jerusalem and renovate part of the city. At that time, Nehemiah noticed that some who had returned were still profaning the Sabbath by engaging in business on this day. Fearing that God would punish His people again for this sin, Nehemiah argued powerfully to correct the wrong – a practice he called “evil.” Notice what he writes.

Then I contended with the nobles of Judah, and said unto them, What evil thing is this that ye do, and profane the Sabbath day? Did not your fathers thus, and did not our God bring all this calamity upon us, and upon this city? yet ye bring more wrath upon Israel by profaning the Sabbath. (Neh. 13:17-18)

It is clear that the sin which caused Judah to be taken captive was transgressing the fourth commandment. Tragically, these returning exiles were making the same mistake that caused that captivity in the first place. But what exactly were they doing wrong? They were buying and selling food on the Sabbath!

In those days saw I in Judah some treading wine presses on the Sabbath, and bringing in sheaves, and lading asses; as also wine, grapes, and figs, and all manner of burdens, which they brought into Jerusalem on the Sabbath day: and I testified against them in the day wherein they sold victuals. (Neh. 13:15)
The sin that caused God’s people to go into captivity was doing work, as well as conducting business (buying and selling) on the day God made holy. Regrettably, this great sin continues in God’s church to this very day.

A Misguided Opinion

There are some who argue that the Jews during the time of Nehemiah were not going to a restaurant on this day, but rather were purchasing goods in the open market. Therefore, Nehemiah was not specifically addressing the issue of restaurants in his indictment of the nobles of Judah.

However, this argument is only technically true. What was being set up in the city were small booths. There, merchants would offer a variety of products. Some sold handicrafts. Some sold merchandise. However, others were selling food products – and the scriptures bare this out.

The word “victuals” used in Nehemiah’s indictment, comes from the Hebrew word tsayid. This word means, “game,” “lunch,” or that which is “taken in hunting.” This being the case, Nehemiah was excoriating the Jews for buying FOOD on the Sabbath. This practice was similar to God’s people today buying a meal from a hamburger stand or catering truck. But does this really make a difference? Does anyone honestly think Nehemiah would give a free pass to the Jews if, instead, they were sitting down to eat at a five star restaurant? Tragically, some do.

Men of Tyre

At this point, it is important to reiterate that the vendors who were selling the food on the Sabbath were non-believers just as they are today. They were from the city of Tyre.
There dwelt men of Tyre also therein, which brought fish, and all manner of ware, and sold on the Sabbath unto the children of Judah, and in Jerusalem. (Neh. 13:16)

It is clear that the vendors who were selling on the Sabbath did not know God. They were totally ignorant of His law and His plan for man. However, this “shortcoming” was irrelevant to Nehemiah. To him ignorance was no excuse. This truth is born out in the action Nehemiah would take.

Nehemiah’s Options

At this point, it is important to understand that there were numerous options available to this servant of God. For example, he could easily have reasoned: “these people are going to sell their wares regardless of what we do. Therefore, what difference does it make?” Or, he could have said, “We are not causing them to work. They would be working anyway.” Finally, Nehemiah could have drawn his conclusions based on the practice of his predecessors. He could have thought, “Other respected men of the past have purchased foodstuffs on the Sabbath, why should I pass judgment in such a thing? After all, it will only stir up contention.”

Each of these responses were available to this leader of God’s people so very long ago. Furthermore, they remain so to the leaders in God’s church today. Sadly, today many of God’s ministers seem content to take a different path than that taken by Nehemiah. They balk when confronting this issue.

However, the faithful and uncompromising Nehemiah did not hesitate when addressing what he saw was an egregious evil. And make no mistake about it, that is exactly how he viewed buying or selling on the Sabbath. To him this practice represented a mortal threat to God’s people. Furthermore, he realized that the very future of his nation hung in the balance on this issue. Therefore, He took immediate action. Notice what he did.

Then I contended with the nobles of Judah and said unto them, What evil thing is this that ye do, and profane the Sabbath day? Did not your fathers thus, and did not our God bring all this evil upon us and upon this city? Yet ye bring more wrath upon Israel by profaning the Sabbath. And it came to pass, that when the gates of Jerusalem began to be dark before the Sabbath, I commanded that the gates should be shut, and charged that they should not be opened till after the Sabbath: and some of my servants set I at the gates, that there should no burden be brought in on the Sabbath day. (Neh. 13:17- 19)

With these words, Nehemiah was warning Judah that they were in captivity in no small part because they had profaned the Sabbath. Specifically, they were buying and selling on that day.

God’s servant was so concerned over this sin that he took what could only be regarded as radical measures. He expelled the street vendors from the city. Furthermore, when they returned the following Sabbath, Nehemiah was furious. He actually threatened them with physical force if they dared to return to sell their products on God’s day.

So the merchants and sellers of all kind of ware lodged without Jerusalem once or twice. Then I testified against them, and said unto them, Why lodge ye about the wall? If ye do so again I will lay hands on you. From that time forth they came no more on the Sabbath. (Neh. 13:20)

The example of Nehemiah’s uncompromising love of God’s law is a great lesson for all Christians everywhere. This champion of faith boldly confronted those who were complicit in causing God’s people to profane His Sabbath. His remedy was forceful and reflected God’s thinking about engaging in commerce on the day He made HOLY. Furthermore, God not only abhorred this practice then, but His opinion on the subject has not changed to this very day.

Today it would be impossible to do what Nehimiah did during Judah’s captivity. God’s people do not have that kind of power or influence. Therefore, they couldn’t possibly lock up restaurants to prevent believers from buying food on the Sabbath. However, God’s people can do something else. They can lock the vendors out of there lives on God’s day. Regrettably, many, including their leaders, don’t.

Legislating Righteousness

Recently, many leaders in God’s church have introduced a very interesting reason for not passing judgment in the matter of dining out on God’s Sabbath. They contend that it is not the role of the church to “legislate righteousness.” What they fail to understand is that God has already performed this task. Furthermore, His position on this subject is as clear as any ever addressed in the scriptures.

At this point it is important to understand that although the church does not legislate righteousness, it most assuredly administers it. This is a responsibility God’s leaders have been entrusted with. Additionally, the consequences for failing to teach God’s people about His law and how it is to be applied is a HUGE mistake. Consider what Jesus Christ said about this omission.

Whosoever shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of heaven. (Mt. 5:19)

Jesus’ words should make every true and faithful servant of God carefully consider the things he does as well as the things he teaches others to do. The scriptures are very clear on this. God’s ministers are duty-bound to represent Him, not man. Because of this, God’s judgment on them will be greater. The bottom line is this: the ministry is responsible for proclaiming God’s word to His children – whether it is popular or not.

A Minor Point

Some leaders in God’s church have also suggested that going to restaurants on the Sabbath represents only a very small aspect of Sabbath observance. They contend that the Sabbath is much broader in scope and to place so much emphasis on one piece of the command diminishes the rest of God’s holy day. Although this reasoning appears to be sound, consider how much of the fourth commandment is impacted by dining out on the Sabbath.

Work is being performed at the request of the believer, in clear violation of the commandment (Ex. 20:10).

A servant is being compelled by the believer to labor on his behalf, in clear violation of the commandment (Dt. 5:14).

An unbeliever (stranger) is being compelled to work for the benefit of the believer, in clear violation of the commandment (Ex. 20:10).

Food is being acquired on the Sabbath by the believer, in clear violation of the commandment (Ex. 16:26-29).

Food is being prepared on the Sabbath at the request of the believer, in clear violation of the commandment (Ex. 16:23-24).

The believer has to go outside the camp on the Sabbath, in clear violation of the commandment (Ex. 16:29).

The believer is engaged in the purchase of goods and services on the Sabbath, in clear violation of the Commandment (Ne. 10:31).

The believer is involved in the pursuit of personal pleasure on the Sabbath, in clear violation of the commandment (Isa. 58:13-14).

These are just some of the points of God’s law that are violated with impunity when those whom He has called decide they can do as they wish on His day. The fact is that dining out at a restaurant on the Sabbath violates more tenets of the fourth commandment than if one chose to chop down trees on his property from dawn to dusk.

Returning to Nehemiah

Nehemiah realized that improper Sabbath observance posed a great threat to God’s people. Additionally, he understood that honoring God’s holy day could make the difference between being taken captive and being delivered from captivity.

Is it possible that God’s church today is being challenged with a similar lesson? And at the end of this challenge lies two possible destinations: CAPTIVITY or SAFETY.


The Seventh Key
A Perfect Example

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus.
Phillippians 2:5

Virtually everyone who considers himself a Christian would acknowledge that Jesus Christ is the example God’s children must follow in their spiritual walk. The apostle Paul affirmed this truth in his epistle to the church at Philippi. There, he exhorted believers to put on the very mind of Christ (Phil. 2:5). Additionally, the apostle Peter wrote that Jesus left His followers an example that should be emulated (1Pet. 2:21). It is hard to imagine anyone being a greater authority regarding the proper conduct for God’s children on the Sabbath than Jesus. After all, He is the “Lord of the Sabbath” (Mk. 2:27). He is the Master Architect of this day and its great purpose. Every step He took on the Sabbath was dedicated to fulfilling that purpose. So the logical question must be:

How did Jesus honor the Sabbath?

The gospels speak prolifically concerning Jesus’ actions on the Sabbath. And although he was accused by the religious leaders of His time of profaning this day, the truth is that He didn’t come close to doing such a thing. Jesus’ movements, His words, and His conduct on the Sabbath created a living portrait of God’s Kingdom. His behavior spoke of hope and consolation that would be restored to this world only a short time from now. Consider some of the things that defined the Sabbath that Jesus kept:
He assembled with other Jews in the synagogue.
He healed the sick.
He shared meals.
He took walks with close friends.
He criticized self-righteous religious leaders.
He inspired hope in the weak.
He stayed in constant contact with His Father.

Noticeably absent from the scriptures is any hint that Jesus spent even one “mite” on this day. The Messiah loved the Sabbath. He knew every minute facet of the time He sanctified. If we are truly His people, then we must direct our steps as He did His.

An Extraordinary Example?

Although Jesus undoubtedly provided meals for His family during His lifetime on earth, there is no example of Him doing so in the New Testament. However, one example does appear in the Old Testament and it speaks volumes about how God approaches that which is holy.

This event took place while the children of Israel wandered in the wilderness. At that time, God commanded them to refrain from going outside the camp to gather manna on the Sabbath. But God did not simply let them go hungry on His day. He provided a double portion of manna on the sixth day. Additionally, this Great Provider supernaturally intervened to prevent the manna from spoiling on the Sabbath.

What God did with respect to this act may be far more special than meets the eye. Most believe God rained a double portion of food for the Israelites on the “preparation day” (Friday), because He did not want them to work on His Sabbath. Although this is true, is it also possible that by this act, God was honoring His own law. In other words, what Israel saw was that even God will not profane His Sabbath by engaging in physical labor on that day.

It is true that God never tires, however, that is not why He rests on the Sabbath. He ceases from His work because even He respects the Sabbath and its purpose. On the seventh day of creation, God set the Sabbath apart from all other days. He made it HOLY! Is it possible that every Sabbath since then, God sustains its purpose and keeps it HOLY? Based on all the evidence we have in the scriptures, the answer to this question is YES.

Privileges and Restrictions

There are many things that can be enjoyed on the Sabbath, but there are some things that must be avoided. Going to a restaurant is most definitely one of them. This practice contradicts every part of God’s Kingdom. It forces labor, it involves commerce, it inspires competition, and it separates those who work on this day from the joy that keeping the Sabbath brings. It is true that you cannot prevent restaurant personnel from working. But you CAN prevent them from working for you.

As the Lord of the Sabbath, Jesus’ conduct on this day honored His Father in a way we simply cannot grasp. But we certainly can take that model and act on it instead of trying to improve on it.

A Final Thought

When the Great Architect of Heaven and Earth created the physical universe, He was executing a critical part of a plan that would ultimately bring mankind into His Family. As a part of that physical creation, God fashioned the stars and planets as well as created the sun and the moon. His purpose for doing this was not simply to beautify the sky. When describing this work, notice what God’s word says.

And God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years...” (Gen. 1:14)

Here God declares that the astronomical bodies are for signs and seasons. These two words have profound meaning and express the great commitment God has to His Plan of salvation. The word “sign” in this verse is owth and can be translated as a “signal,” “beacon,” or a “mark.” It is the same word used by God when describing His Sabbath (see Ex. 31:13, 17). But there is more. The Hebrew word for “seasons” in this verse is moed and can be translated “appointed times.” God’s appointed times are His holy days.

God’s Sabbath and holy days represent the blueprint of a plan that was borne out of the infinite love of the greatest Being in existence. That Being wants His people to trust His wisdom regarding how to honor the Sabbath and holy days and He has provided the moral guidance in this area. His people should reject anything that does not reflect that guidance. When it comes to going to restaurants on the Sabbath where do you truly think He stands?

Jesus Christ once said that His people were to be lights in a world of darkness (Mt. 5:14-16). They are to let their light shine. One way they can do this is by properly keeping the Sabbath. That Sabbath is a beacon that illuminates the identity of the true God – the Creator.

Today, we live in a world where every single day of the week is honored by some religion. However, the Sabbath is only kept by people who profess a belief in the true God. The lost ten tribes of Israel abandoned the Sabbath – and with it their identity as God’s people. God’s Sabbath is a reminder of not only who He is, but of who His people are.

A Unique Sign

The Sabbath is also a sign. A sign gives people important information. It directs individuals to something or some place. The Sabbath is a sign from God directing man toward Him and His Kingdom (Heb. 4:4-9).

However, the Sabbath points both ways. While it is a sign to us identifying who the Creator is, it is also a sign to God that identifies who His people are. Through it, the Great Creator of heaven and earth not only sees WHO keeps His Sabbath, He sees the WAY in which it is kept. Our conduct on the Sabbath is a sign to Him. It reveals the degree of our love and dedication to His way. To see it as anything else is a great mistake.
The Sabbath is a sign, a test, if you will. It is God’s indicator of whether we will walk under His authority or not (Ex. 16:4). The way we honor the Sabbath is our declaration to God that we yield to that authority. The Sabbath is a GREAT TEST.

WILL YOU PASS IT?

Jesus and same sex marriage

blowthetrumpet.org




T he debate over the morality of same-sex marriage has so intensified that it has even found its way into theological circles. Today major professing Christian denominations are even investigating the possibility of allowing homosexuals full access to the church, including becoming members of its clergy. In broader religious circles there has even emerged arguments that seek to redefine the traditional Bible wisdom concerning marriage and its application to same-sex couples.

This now brings us to the question of the day. What was and is Jesus’ opinion of same-sex marriage? Did He ever address this issue during His ministry?

Although same-sex marriage does not consume vast numbers of pages in your Bible, marriage itself is addressed with considerable force. Furthermore, the Messiah’s allusion to it makes a clear statement regarding this issue. To best understand the Biblical perspective on homosexual unions we must go back to the very beginning.

The book of Genesis reveals that when God created the first man (Adam) He made a profound but often misunderstood statement about him. Notice what He said.

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him. (Gen. 2:18)

These words are not born out of discovery. In other words, God didn’t somehow arrive at this understanding after He saw what He had created. His words are instead revelation. Here, the Great Creator of all that exists is declaring that man, whom He has just formed out of the dust of the earth was never intended to be a solitary creature. God made him with the express intent to share life with a special companion. And He knew exactly how to accomplish this.

And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (Gen. 2:21-23)

What follows are words that will echo down through the teachings of the sacred scriptures—and for good reason. God binds Adam and Eve in marriage and announces that the union this first human couple has been joined into shall be the standard for all mankind.

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. (Gen. 2:24)

There were undoubtedly many ways God could have addressed human relationships at this time, but it is clear that He distinguished the one between a man and a woman as unique and special. Not only did He create male and female with profound emotional links, but He also made them biologically compatible. Simply put, man and woman fit together physically.

The words employed in Genesis when joining Adam and Eve together in a God ordained relationship would later be used when addressing the significance of marriage. Jesus Christ employed them when speaking to the religious leaders of His day. At that time He defended the purpose of marriage and indicated that this was why God created the sexes.

The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for any reason? And He answered and said unto them, “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,” And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together let not man put asunder. (Mt. 19:3-6)

Here the Messiah is stating with great force that the reason God created man and woman was for the express purpose of marriage. Furthermore, never once did He remotely hint that marriage could be just as legitimate if entered into by people of the same sex. Despite this fact pro-homosexual advocacy groups claim otherwise. In a sense they see marriage as a human institution and therefore it may be altered any way humans see fit.

However, Jesus said differently. He attributed marriage to God: “What therefore God hath joined together let not man put asunder.” Now ask yourself: whom did He join together? The answer: man and woman. It is the husband and wife that become one flesh. The intimacy they enjoy is unique to heterosexual unions.


The Purpose of Marriage

Marriage is the first step in building a family. This is a fact that God is all too familiar with. When God joined the first man and woman together, He was revealing a far greater lesson that will be played out with spectacular pageantry. The apostle Paul understood this truth and remarkably invoked the words used in Genesis. He begins by outlining the roles of the husband and wife. Notice what Paul wrote.

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourishes and cherishes it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

Paul then returns to the words used when Adam and Eve were married after which he explains what it all means.

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. (Eph. 5:22-32)

The great mystery is that the God ordained purpose of marriage is that it pictures the ultimate union of Christ and His Bride, the Church. There is coming a time when a wonderful wedding will take place.

And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigns. Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honor to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife has made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints. And he said unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he said unto me, These are the true sayings of God. (Rev. 19:6-9)

Here the ultimate marriage is between Christ and His bride who the scriptures say: “has made HERSELF ready.

A Final thought

Everything about marriage in the Bible cries out that God designed it to be celebrated between a man and a woman. Those who argue otherwise do not have the strength of the scriptures to defend them. On the contrary, same-sex unions mock marriage and its purpose.

The Gay Propaganda Machine

T he following article was written by Mr. Cliff Kincaid under the title

“The Gay Propaganda Machine.”

It was published on November 11, 2005 on the Accuracy in Media website.


The Gay Propaganda Machine

By Mr. Cliff Kincaid

In a blatant violation of journalistic ethics, Time magazine assigned a homosexual reporter, John Cloud, to write the recent Time cover story on homosexual teenagers but did not disclose his conflict of interest to its readers. The story, The Battle Over Gay Teens, was the cover story in the October 10 issue.

The National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality has denounced Cloud for having "a long history of promoting the gay political agenda while disguised as a mainstream reporter." It says that he used to work for the Washington City Paper, an alternative newsweekly, and authored a sympathetic look at gay bathhouses, where homosexuals have anonymous sex. Cloud has been given awards by the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association and the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD).

It's no surprise, therefore, that the 2004 GLAAD annual report reveals that the organization's corporate sponsors include Time, Inc. and Time Magazine, in addition to Time Warner, People Magazine, ABC News, Fox Entertainment Group, HBO, and MTV Networks.

Meanwhile, Peter LaBarbera, executive director of the Illinois Family Institute, has brought to our attention the fact that last February the NewsHour on PBS featured essayist Richard Rodriguez favorably commenting on a book by C.A. Tripp that argued that "Lincoln was predominantly homosexual." LaBarbera responded: "The sad truth is that homosexual historians like C.A. Tripp are now applying Alfred Kinsey's shoddy research methods to history-against heroes and national figures who cannot defend themselves from the grave. Every reputable Lincoln scholar dismisses the 'gay Lincoln' thesis as baseless; much of it arises from the application of decadent present-day values to a past age when homosexual behavior was universally regarded as taboo and an egregious sin. For example, every Lincoln historian without a "gay" agenda dismisses the notion that just because Lincoln bunked with his friend Joshua Speed (as many men did, due to a shortage of beds); it is evidence he was homosexual.
"Now, homosexual activists are routinely asserting as fact that 'Lincoln was gay,' just as they once lied about the 'fact' that 10 percent of the population was "gay." It is the duty of all reputable Lincoln historians to aggressively repudiate this lie and not to give in to current political correctness by treating it seriously. What a pity it will be if schoolchildren across the country are to be taught this falsehood-or even that Lincoln 'might have been gay'-in their studies of the 16th President."

Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of the AIM Report and can be reached at cliff.kincaid@aim.org

Moral Depravity Directory

Is homosexuality a mental disorder

Blowthetrumpet.org



I n 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality as a mental disorder from the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-II). This decision was a significant victory for homosexual activists, and they have continued to claim that the APA based their decision on new scientific discoveries that proved that homosexual behavior is normal and should be affirmed in our culture.

This is false and part of numerous homosexual urban legends that has infiltrated every aspect of our culture. The removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder has given homosexual activists credibility in the culture, and they have demanded that their sexual behavior be affirmed in society.


What Really Happened?

Numerous psychiatrists over the past decades have described what forces were really at work both inside and outside of the American Psychiatric Association-and what led to the removal of homosexuality as a mental disorder. Dr. Ronald Bayer, a pro-homosexual psychiatrist has described what actually occurred in his book, Homosexuality and American Psychiatry: The Politics of Diagnosis. (1981)

In Chapter 4, "Diagnostic Politics: Homosexuality and the American Psychiatric Association," Dr. Bayer says that the first attack by homosexual activists against the APA began in 1970 when the APA held its convention in San Francisco. At that time homosexual activists decided to disrupt the conference by interrupting speakers and shouting down and ridiculing psychiatrists who viewed homosexuality as a mental disorder.

In 1971, homosexual activist Frank Kameny worked with the “Gay Liberation Front” to demonstrate against the APA's convention. At the 1971 conference, Kameny grabbed the microphone and yelled,

"Psychiatry is the enemy incarnate. Psychiatry has waged a relentless war of extermination against us. You may take this as a declaration of war against you."

Meanwhile, homosexuals forged APA credentials and gained access to exhibit areas in the conference. There they threatened anyone who claimed that homosexuals needed to be cured.

Mr. Kameny had found an ally inside of the APA named Kent Robinson who helped the homosexual activist present his demand that homosexuality be removed from the DSM. At the 1972 convention, homosexual activists were permitted to set up a display booth, entitled "Gay, Proud and Healthy." Kameny was then permitted to be part of a panel of psychiatrists who were to discuss homosexuality.

Prior to the APA's 1973 convention, several psychiatrists attempted to organize opposition to the efforts of homosexuals to remove homosexual behavior from the DSM. Organizing this effort were Drs. Irving Bieber and Charles Socarides who formed the Ad Hoc Committee Against the Deletion of Homosexuality from DSM-II. The DSM-II listed homosexuality as an abnormal behavior under section "302. Sexual Deviations." It was the first deviation listed.

After much political pressure, a committee of the APA met behind closed doors in 1973 and voted to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder from the DSM-II. Opponents of this effort were given 15 minutes to protest this change, according to Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, in Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth. Satinover writes that after this vote was taken, the decision was to be voted on by the entire APA membership. However, prior to this the National Gay Task Force purchased the APA's mailing list and sent out a letter to the APA members urging them to vote to remove homosexuality as a disorder. No APA member was informed that the mailing had been funded by this homosexual activist group.
According to Satinover, "How much the 1973 APA decision was motivated by politics is only becoming clear even now. While attending a conference in England in 1994, I met a man who told me an account that he had told no one else. He had been in the gay life for years but had left the lifestyle. He recounted how after the 1973 APA decision, he and his lover, along with a certain very highly placed officer of the APA Board of Trustees and his lover, all sat around the officer's apartment celebrating their victory. For among the gay activists placed high in the APA who maneuvered to ensure a victory was this man-suborning from the top what was presented to both the membership and the public as a disinterested search for truth."

Dr. Socarides Speaks Out

Dr. Charles Socarides has set the record straight on how homosexuals inside and outside of the APA forced them to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder. This was done without any valid scientific evidence to prove that homosexuality is not a disordered behavior.

Dr. Socarides, writing in Sexual Politics and Scientific Logic: The Issue of Homosexuality states:

"To declare a condition a 'non-condition,' a group of practitioners had removed it from our list of serious psychosexual disorders. The action was all the more remarkable when one considers that it involved an out-of-hand and peremptory disregard and dismissal not only of hundreds of psychiatric and psychoanalytic research papers and reports, but also a number of other serious studies by groups of psychiatrists, psychologists, and educators over the past seventy years…"

Dr. Socarides went on to write:

"For the next 18 years, the APA decision served as a Trojan horse, opening the gates to widespread psychological and social change in sexual customs and mores. The decision was to be used on numerous occasions for numerous purposes with the goal of normalizing homosexuality and elevating it to an esteemed status.

"To some American psychiatrists, this action remains a chilling reminder that if scientific principles are not fought for, they can be lost-a disillusioning warning that unless we make no exceptions to science, we are subject to the snares of political factionalism and the propagation of untruths to an unsuspecting and uninformed public, to the rest of the medical profession, and to the behavioral sciences."


THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DSM

The DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) is the most widely used diagnostic reference book utilized by mental health professionals in the United States.

It's a manual by which all diagnostic codes are derived for diagnosis and treatment - every single physician (an estimated 850,000*) in the United States refers to this book in order to code for a diagnosis. In plain English, what does this mean? It means that for over 30 years physicians have been prevented from properly diagnosing homosexuality as an aberrant behavior and thus, cannot, recommend a course of treatment for these individuals.

Prior to that time, homosexuality had been treated as a mental disorder under section "302. Sexual Deviations" in the DSM-II. Section 302 said, in part: "This category is for individuals whose sexual interests are directed primarily toward objects other than people of the opposite sex, toward sexual acts … performed under bizarre circumstances. … Even though many find their practices distasteful, they remain unable to substitute normal sexual behavior for them." Homosexuality was listed as the first sexual deviation under 302. Once that diagnostic code for homosexuality was removed, physicians, including psychiatrists, have been prevented from diagnosing homosexuality as a mental disorder for more than three decades.

*American Medical Association statistic, 2002.

Tracking Depravity

W hat was once a behavior that was kept in the “closet,” homosexuality has now taken center stage in its battle for acceptance. Below are links to news stories concerning homosexuality’s march toward being recognized as a legitimate lifestyle. This is just a small fraction of articles being carried in journals across the United States.
~~~

Iowa Judge Issues Stay on Own Gay Marriage Ruling
Friday 31, 2007
Associated Press
DEMOINS, IOWA — Judge Robert Hanson said he issued the stay about noon. Earlier, he had told the county attorney to instruct the Polk County recorder to stop accepting same-sex marriage applications. By the time Recorder Julie Haggerty stopped taking applications around 11 a.m., her office had accepted 21 applications. After applying, one couple obtained a judge's waiver of Iowa's three-day waiting period for marriage licenses.
~~~
Gay Rights Bill Passes Oregon House

Wednesday April 18, 2007
Associated Press

SALEM, Ore. — Same-sex couples would receive the same benefits as married couples, and gays and lesbians would be protected against discrimination under bills approved Tuesday by the Oregon House.

~~~
Judge Upholds Illinois School's Ban on 'Be Happy, Not Gay' Shirt

Wednesday April 18, 2007
Associated Press

CHICAGO — Two Neuqua Valley High School students won't be able to wear T-shirts saying "Be Happy, Not Gay," to school on Thursday following a judge's ruling. U.S. District Judge William T. Hart ruled in favor of the high school Tuesday in a preliminary injunction that would have allowed the students to wear the shirts the day after Wednesday's National Day of Silence.

~~~
Disney to Allow Same-Sex Couples to Have Fairy Tale Weddings

Thursday April 7, 2007
Reuters
LOS ANGELES — The Walt Disney Co. has changed its policy to allow same-sex couples to participate in a popular Fairy Tale Wedding program it runs mainly at its two U.S. resorts and cruise line, a Disney spokesman said on Thursday.
~~~

Judge tosses Lawsuit by Parents Opposed to Gay Marriage Lessons

Friday February 23, 2007
Associated Press

BOSTON — A federal judge on Friday threw out a lawsuit filed by parents who wanted to keep their young children from learning about gay marriage in school. U.S. District Judge Mark Wolf said federal courts have decided in other cases that parents' rights to exercise their religious beliefs are not violated when their children are exposed to contrary ideas in school.
~~~
Mary Cheney and Partner Are About to Be Moms
Wednesday December 6, 2006
Washington Post. com
Mary Cheney, the vice president's openly gay daughter, is pregnant. She and her partner of 15 years, Heather Poe, are "ecstatic" about the baby, due in late spring, said a source close to the couple.

~~~

Pedophile Party Blames 'Far Right' for Campaign Collapse
By Kate MonaghanCNSNews.com CorrespondentNovember 22, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - A Dutch political party that failed to qualify to participate in the country's general election Wednesday has blamed harassment from "far right" elements that took issue with its pro-pedophilia platform.
~~~

Homosexual Group Urges 'Buying for Equality' Over Holidays
By Randy HallCNSNews.com Staff Writer/EditorNovember 21, 2006
One of the nation's largest homosexual advocacy groups issued a buyer's guide on Monday to help "fair-minded consumers" make purchasing decisions this holiday season based on a company's score regarding equality for GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender) people.

~~~

S. Africa Parliament OKs Gay Marriages
Tuesday November 14, 2006
Associated Press
The South African parliament on Tuesday approved new legislation recognizing gay marriages _ a first for a continent where homosexuality is largely taboo.
~~~

Landscapers Condemned for Refusing Business With Gay Couple
Thursday November 9, 2006
Associated Press

HOUSTON — A few short weeks ago, Garden Guy was just a mom-and-pop landscaping business that promoted itself as "making Houston beautiful since 1991" and promised to treat its customers with respect and honesty. Since then, though, the business has been vilified around the world as a bunch of bigots because its Christian conservative owners refused to do work for a gay couple.

~~~
Battle Lines Drawn in NJ Over Same-Sex 'Marriage'
Friday October 27, 2006
CNS News

The New Jersey Supreme Court's decision to have the state Legislature tackle the issue of same-sex "marriage" has divided an already partisan state Senate and Assembly, and the repercussions may impact New Jersey's bitterly contested U.S. Senate race.

~~~

Gay rights books 'may be forced on schools'
Tuesday October 17, 2006
UK Telegraph
Primary school teachers may be required by new ''sexual orientation" laws to make gay rights books available in class, a Christian group claimed yesterday. Children would have to read books such as Hello Sailor, The Sissy Duckling and Daddy's New Roommate, which are on a Government-recommended reading list for challenging ''homophobia".

~~~

Minneapolis Police Suspend Christian Psychologist

Thursday August 31, 2006
CNS News

Pro-family groups are defending a psychologist who screens potential officers for the Minneapolis Police Department after he was suspended because of his past affiliation with an Illinois group that opposes special legal recognition for homosexuals.

~~~

States Addressing Gay Domestic Violence

Sunday August 27, 2006
CNS News

Even though his scalp would be bloodied from getting slammed against a door or his neck splotched with fingerprint-shaped bruises, Patrick Letellier's injuries were often dismissed as nothing more than rough "sex play."

~~~
California Assembly Sends 'Jill and Jill Up the Hill,'

Tuesday August 22, 2006
CNS News

The Democrat-controlled California Assembly on Monday passed what conservatives describe as a homosexual indoctrination bill. The bill, SB 1437, says California public schools may neither teach nor sponsor any activity that "reflects adversely" on anyone because of their sexual orientation.

~~~
West Point Thesis Challenges Army Gay Policy, Wins Award

Monday, August 7, 2006
San Francisco Chronicle
WASHINGTON — Alexander Raggio says he was 16 when he learned one of his relatives was gay — and watching that person's struggle gave him a grim introduction to discrimination against gays.

~~~

Gay rights groups push to define status of domestic partners
Monday, August 7, 2006
San Francisco Chronicle
A new strategy to win legal recognition for same-sex couples is emerging in Colorado, a state that is a bulwark of the conservative Christian movement. At least one constitutional amendment to ban marriage for same-sex couples is expected to be submitted here today for the statewide November ballot. But some gay rights organizations in the state are not fighting it.

~~~

UK 'Gay Police Association' Investigated for 'Faith Crime'
Wednday July 26, 2006
CNS News

Britain's "Gay Police Association" (GPA) is under investigation by Scotland Yard for possibly committing a "faith crime" when it ran a newspaper advertisement claiming that Christianity was the cause of a jump in violence against homosexuals.
~~~

War Forces Cancellation of WorldPride Parade

Monday July 24, 2006By Julie Stahl, CNSNews.com Jerusalem Bureau Chief Jerusalem (CNSNews.com) - An international celebration of homosexuality will take place as scheduled in Jerusalem next month, but organizers of the WorldPride event now say they've postponed a planned LGBT parade through the streets of Jerusalem.
~~~

Three-year-olds to be taught about gay relationships

Fri, July 21, 2006
The Daily Mail

Children as young as three should be taught about same-sex relationships in a bid to stamp out homophobia in schools, it was claimed yesterday. The National Union of Teachers, the country's largest teaching union, sparked outrage by demanding that nursery staff help to educate children about gay families. It claims it is too late to wait until youngsters arrive at primary school to learn about the subject because some three-year-olds are already using homophobic language.

~~~

Spain to Teach Children From Age 10 to Accept Homosexuality

Monday July 17
Life Site

MADRID, Spain, July 17, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Spanish children as young as 10 will be taught pro-homosexual material as part of a new school curriculum, the Telegraph reported Friday.

The socialist government revealed plans last week to include teaching about the homosexual lifestyle in the schools, emphasizing the normalcy of homosexual relationships. The general secretary for education, Alejandro Tiana, said the move was necessary because “children need to learn there are various types of families.”

~~~

U.S. Episcopalian Leaders Reject Temporary Ban on Gay Bishops
Tuesday June 20, 2006
Associated Press
COLUMBUS, Ohio — Episcopal clergy and lay delegates Tuesday rejected a demand from fellow Anglicans that they temporarily stop electing gay bishops, leaving little chance the proposal could be revived at a national church meeting.
~~~
Church 'could be forced to bless gay weddings'
Saturday June 10, 2006
The Telegraph UK

New Government proposals on equality could require clergy to bless homosexual "weddings" or face prosecution, the Church of England said yesterday.

~~~

Oral Arguments Today in Same-Sex Marriage Case
Wednesday May 31, 2006
CNS News
The highest court in New York heard a challenge to the state's marriage laws on Wednesday. Curtis Woolbright, who along with his partner Daniel Reyes is suing to marry in New York, compared the ban on same-sex marriage to the ban on interracial marriage during the civil rights era.
~~~

California's 'Gay History' Bill Advances
Friday May 5, 2006
CNS News
A California Senate committee has approved a bill requiring "gay history" to be included in public school textbooks. The bill now moves to the full Senate, where a vote may come next week. Not requiring textbooks to include homosexuals' and transgenders' contributions to California history amounts to "enforced invisibility," said Sen. Sheila Kuehl, the Democrat lesbian who introduced the bill.
~~~
Appeals Court Sidesteps Gay Marriage Constitutional Question
Friday May 5, 2006
Associated Press
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court on Friday sidestepped whether it was unconstitutional under federal and state law to deny gays and lesbians the right to marry, leaving the issue to state courts to decide.
~~~
Gay marriage battles loom across US
Friday March 31, 2006
Reuters News
BOSTON (Reuters) - Citing polling that suggests opposition to same-sex marriages is receding, gay rights advocates expressed confidence on Friday that such weddings would spread, despite a ruling by Massachusetts' highest court that bars homosexuals from other states from marrying there.
~~~
Gay Couples Challenge Conn. Marriage Laws
Tuesday March 21, 2006
Associated Press
A lawyer for eight gay couples argued in court Tuesday that Connecticut's marriage laws illegally create a separate class of people based on sexual orientation.
~~~
Minister defends performing gay marriages
Thursday March 2, 2006
The Santa Rosa Press Democrat
The church trial of Presbyterian minister Jane Adams Spahr opened in Santa Rosa this morning with the evangelist defending her decision to perform marriage ceremonies for gay couples.
~~~
Gay rights activists hold rally
Thursday February 23, 2006
Montgomery Advertiser
About 75 gay rights activists braved the cold Sunday afternoon and stood on the steps of the state Capitol listening to speeches and singing songs of equality. The event marked the sixth anniversary of the death of Billy Jack Gaither, who was beaten and stabbed to death because he was gay. A failed bill in the House of Representatives that would have added sexual orientation to the state's hate crimes law was on the minds of several of the speakers and attendees.
~~~
DePaul University Offers Degree Program in Queer Studies
Monday February 20, 2006
Chiago Tribune
College student Eric Oliver sits in the classroom's front row, ready to learn about Italian poet Dante and Catholic theologian St. Thomas Aquinas and their views on morality and sin. But this isn't a religion, philosophy or literature class. It's an introductory course in queer studies, and for the next 90 minutes, Oliver and his classmates study the history of same-sex desire, the biology of gender identity and government reactions to homosexual behavior. It is no longer remarkable that the subjects are taught, but on this day, it is notable where the discussion is taking place.
~~~
Gay-rights activist dies after winning legal fight
Sunday February 19, 2006
Associated Press
POINT PLEASANT -- A cancer-stricken law-enforcement officer who sought to have her pension benefits extended to her longtime domestic partner died early Saturday.
~~~
Online game addresses gay-rights uproar
Sunday February 19, 2006
Associated Press
SAN JOSE, Calif. (AP) - A gay-rights uproar in the popular World of Warcraft online game has spurred the game's maker to review its treatment of gay players.
~~~
Casey, speaking at gay rights event, vows to fight discrimination
Sunday February 19, 2006
Associated Press
PHILADELPHIA - State treasurer Bob Casey, Sen. Rick Santorum's leading Democratic challenger, told an audience at an event sponsored by a gay rights organization that if elected he would fight discrimination "wherever I find it."
~~~
Washington Governor Signs Gay Rights Bill

Tuesday January 31, 2006
Associated Press

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - Gov. Chris Gregoire signed a gay civil rights bill into law Tuesday, though the law may be held in limbo if opponents are successful in forcing a referendum. The measure adds "sexual orientation" to the state law that bans discrimination in housing, employment, insurance and credit.

~~~
Washington State Passes Gay Civil Rights Measure

Saturday January 28, 2006
Associated Press

OLYMPIA, Wash. — Before he died of AIDS, the state's first openly gay lawmaker asked a friend for a promise: that he would keep working on gay civil rights legislation.

~~~
Gay Group Plans Big Turnout for White House Easter Egg Roll

Friday January 20, 2006
Associated Press

NEW YORK — Three months before the annual Easter egg roll at the White House, the usually festive event is already taking on a divisive edge because of plans by gay- and lesbian-led families to turn out en masse in hopes of raising their public profile.

~~~
Md. Judge Rules Ban on Gay Marriage 'Discriminatory'

Friday January 20, 2006
Associated Press

BALTIMORE — A judge on Friday struck down a 33-year-old Maryland law against same sex marriage, agreeing with 19 gay men and women that it violates the state constitution's guarantee of equal rights.

~~~

First Female and Gay Speaker Elected to New York City Council

Wednesday January 4, 2006
Fox News

NEW YORK — New York's City Council on Wednesday elected its first woman and first openly gay leader, a position widely regarded as the second-most powerful seat in city government.

~~~

Frank: 'Angry' Fight Ahead on Gay Marriage in Massachusetts

Friday December 30, 2005
Associated Press

WASHINGTON — Rep. Barney Frank sees an "angry, divisive" fight ahead for Massachusetts if a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage reaches the 2008 state ballot.

~~~

Suspected Lesbian Students Sue Christian School for Expulsion

Thursday December 29, 2005
Associated Press

RIVERSIDE, Calif. — Two 16-year-olds who were expelled from a Lutheran high school because they were suspected of being lesbians have sued the school for invasion of privacy and discrimination.
~~~
Gay Couples Register for Unions in Britain

Monday December 5, 2005
Associated Press

LONDON — Gay couples in Britain began registering for civil partnerships Monday as a law took effect giving them many of the same legal rights as married heterosexuals. Scores showed up at town halls across the country, eager to claim the benefits and official recognition — although not the official title "marriage" — for which some have waited decades.

~~~

Alaskan Judge Protects Benefits for Same-Sex Couples

Saturday October 29, 2005
Associated Press

ANCHORAGE, Alaska — The Alaska Supreme Court ruled Friday it is unconstitutional to deny benefits to the same-sex partners of public employees, a victory for gay rights advocates in one of the first states to pass a constitutional ban on gay marriage.

~~~
Conn. to Recognize Out-Of-State Civil Unions

Tuesday September 20, 2005
Associated Press

HARTFORD, Conn. — Connecticut will recognize civil unions and possibly domestic partnerships from other states and foreign countries when a new law allowing civil unions takes effect here Oct. 1.

~~~
California Legislature Approves Gay Marriage

Tuesday September 20, 2005
Associated Press

SACRAMENTO, Calif — Gay rights supporters cheered loudly from the gallery as California lawmakers became the first in the country to approve a bill allowing same-sex marriages. But their celebration may be short-lived.

~~~

Calif. Court Upholds Gay Parents' Rights

Tuesday August 23, 2005
Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO — In the latest ruling to recognize rights of same-sex couples, the California Supreme Court has said gay and lesbian couples who raise children are lawful parents and must provide for their children if they break up.

~~~
Kanye West Calls for End to Gay Bashing

Thursday August 18, 2005
Associated Press

NEW YORK — Kanye West says "gay" has become an antonym to hip-hop — and that it needs to be stopped. During an interview for an MTV special, the 27-year-old rapper launched into a discussion about hip-hop and homosexuality while talking about "Hey Mama," a song on his upcoming album, "Late Registration."

~~~
Woman Wins Right to Have 'Gay' Vanity Plates

Thursday July 28, 2005
Associated Press

SALT LAKE CITY — The state of Utah can't block a woman from using her license plate to tell the world "GAYSROK," a judge has ruled.

~~~

TV Network for Gays, Lesbians to Debut

Monday June 27, 2005
Associated Press

NEW YORK — The man who's molding Logo, the new network for gays and lesbians, grew up in rural Illinois, attended Oral Roberts University and counted that cheesy keyboard solo on "Freeze Frame" as his big moment during gigs with his college band the Ozones. At first glance, Brian Graden hardly seems too hip for the room.

~~~

ACLU Sues School Over Gay Pride Shirt Ban

Wednesday November 24, 2004
Associated Press

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — The American Civil Liberties Union on Tuesday sued a southwest Missouri school district for prohibiting a high school student from wearing gay pride-themed T-shirts.

~~~
Pentagon Agrees Not to Sponsor Boy Scouts

Tuesday November 16, 2004
Associated Press

CHICAGO — The Pentagon has agreed to warn military bases worldwide not to directly sponsor Boy Scout troops, partially resolving claims that the government has engaged in religious discrimination by supporting a group that requires members to believe in God.

~~~

Teen Promotes Own Homosexuality in School Election

Tuesday April 27, 2004
Associated Press

RALEIGH, N.C. — An openly gay student is fighting to campaign in his high school election with posters that read: "Gay Guys Know Everything!" and "Queer Guy for Hunt High."

Are Homosexuals really pro marriage

blowthetrumpet.org


T oday the debate concerning same-sex marriage has advanced into legislatures across the country. Those in favor of legalizing such unions argue that homosexuals simply want to be included in this long-standing institution. Many claim that gays and lesbians are actually pro family—that they simply want to be a part of something heterosexual couples enjoy as an expression of mutual love. But is this true? Below are the words from those who drive this movement. These chilling admissions reveal that the crusade to enter into normalcy is actually a war to destroy it. Even marital fidelity has become one of its targets.

Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says: "Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play." (quoted in "Now Free To Marry, Canada's Gays Say, 'Do I?'" by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)
Chris Crain, the editor of the Washington Blade has stated that all homosexual activists should fight for the legalization of same-sex marriage as a way of gaining passage of federal anti-discrimination laws that will provide homosexuals with federal protection for their chosen lifestyle. Crain writes: "...any leader of any gay rights organization who is not prepared to throw the bulk of their efforts right now into the fight for marriage is squandering resources and doesn't deserve the position." (Washington Blade, August, 2003).
Michelangelo Signorile, writing in Out! magazine, has stated that homosexuals should, "...fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely … To debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution. … The most subversive action lesbians and gays can undertake-and one that would perhaps benefit all of society-is to transform the notion of 'family' altogether." (Out! magazine, Dec./Jan., 1994)
Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater "understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." He notes: "The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness." (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)
Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said: "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. … Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. … We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality." (partially quoted in "Beyond Gay Marriage," Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)
Evan Wolfson has stated: "Isn't having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? … marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. "(quoted in "What Marriage Is For," by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)
1972 Gay Rights Platform Demands: "Repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit…"

The sounds of a reprobate mind

blowthetrumpet.org



T he following are expressions of acceptance of homosexual marriages by some of the “moral” voices of our land. As you read them consider the words of Jesus Christ when describing the last days.

“Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.” (Lk. 17:28-30)

~~~

"Each individual's journey through life is unique. Some will make this journey alone, others in loving relationships - maybe in marriage or other forms of commitment. We need to ponder our own choices and try to understand the choices of others. Love has many shapes and colors and is not finite. It can not be measured or defined in terms of sexual orientation." From the Statement of Affirmation and Reconciliation by the Quaker meeting in Aotearoa.

Isaiah: Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! (Isa. 5:20)

~~~

"Because marriage is a basic human right and an individual personal choice, RESOLVED, the State should not interfere with same-gender couples who choose to marry and share fully an equally in the rights, responsibilities, and commitment of civil marriage." The Marriage Resolution, by the Marriage Project of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.

Our answer: If it is a human right, may small children marry? In truth, marriage is a divine institution created by none other than God Almighty. He establishes the rules—and has done so at the beginning.

~~~

"Then hugs. And kisses. Love was being expressed. Love that finally had found a tiny crack from which to shine." Rev. Ed Evans is the pastor of First Congregational United Church of Christ in Vancouver, WA, commenting on same-sex marriage ceremonies he was performing in Multnomah County, OR.

God Almighty: If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

~~~

"Promoting hatred and bigotry in the name of God is what destroys society, not the marriage of two loving people of the same gender." Raymond Miller.

Our Answer: Promoting sodomy, as the moral equivalent of heterosexual unions is the crown jewel of arrogance. No society ever endured when it acknowledged the legitimacy of homosexuality.

~~~

"A loving man and woman in a committed relationship can marry. Dogs, no matter what their relationship, are not allowed to marry. How should society treat gays and lesbians in committed relationships? As dogs or as humans?" Posting to an Internet mailing list; used by permission of the author.

Our Answer: It was God who created marriage and as such He alone should determine how it should be honored and by whom. On this the Scriptures are clear and resolute. The Bible calls homosexuality an ABOMINATION. Anyone else’s opinion is irrelevant.

~~~

"JRT:" "Marriage is a sacrament that two loving people bestow upon each other. I do not regard gender as an issue here. What is important is their love and desire to live together in a committed lifelong relationship."

Jesus Christ: “Have you not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,” And said, “For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh.”

~~~

Rabbi Shmuley Boteach: "...what two gay men do in the privacy of their bedroom is totally different. Unlike polygamy or incest, no rational person can argue that two men having gay sex is going to undermine the legal institution of marriage. Those that do are probably more interested in attacking gays than protecting marriage."

Moses: There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.
~~~

Anon: "Actually, I believe the best solution would be to remove government from the business of marriage altogether. Marriage should be a sacred trust between two consenting individuals and, if they wish, their families and houses of worship, not individuals and the government. We are treading in very dangerous waters when we ask the government to regulate personal relationships, especially something with the religious overtones of marriage."

Our Answer: What if the individuals were a father and his daughter? What about a brother and a sister? How about a forty year old man and a seven year old boy? What if they all consent? Should such marriages be condoned by a “sacred trust?”

~~~

Anon, "There is no reason that the federal government, or anyone for that matter, should restrict marriage to a predefined heterosexual relationship. Because it is the right of the homosexual legally, socially, and economically, matrimony between lesbian and gay couples should be accepted in the United States. Because our country has been founded on the Constitution, in which all men are created equal; we cannot deny the basic human and legal right of marriage to a class of individuals due to their sexual preference."

James Madison (Author of the Constitution): “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” [1778 to the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]

~~~

Charles Johnson: "For gays who may have been viciously rejected by family and friends because of their sexual orientation, having legally and socially legitimate kin would have psychological benefits which cannot be ignored. Also, allowing gays to marry would help encourage stable, married life while discouraging the flamboyant and often promiscuous fringe lifestyle of some of the most vocal homosexual activists. Thus, gay marriage would not only bring the social benefits of stabler relationships to gays; it would also help end much of the ignorance, confrontationalism, and social stigmata--and thus the ostracism, brutal violence, and self-loathing--associated with homosexuality today."

The Apostle Paul: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man…Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator…For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly… And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient. (Ro. 1:21-28)

In their own words

blowthetrumpet.org

About Science, Morality and Philosophy

A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., MBA, MPHShirley E. Cox, DSWJeffrey W. Robinson, Ph.D.



T he following article was published in the Salt Lake City Tribune, in a slightly abbreviated form, on May 27th, 2001.

The Salt Lake City Tribune has published several articles in recent months regarding homosexuality. While many of the articles are well-written, they do not reflect the scientific literature. In fact, the social advocacy of many of the articles seems to suggest a greater reliance on politics than on science.

Leaving aside the politics of the issue, perhaps it is time to examine the innate-immutable argument about homosexual attraction. First of all-although the issue is enormously complex and simply cannot be reduced to a matter of nature vs. nature-the answer to that debate is probably "yes" - it is likely that homosexual attraction, like many other strong attractions, includes both biological and environmental influences.

What is clear, however, is that the scientific attempts to demonstrate that homosexual attraction is biologically determined have FAILED. The major researchers now prominent in the scientific arena-themselves gay activists-have in fact arrived at such conclusions.

Researcher Dean Hamer (1993), for example, attempted to link male homosexuality to a stretch of DNA located at the tip of the X chromosome, the chromosome that some men inherit from their mothers. Referring to that research, Hamer offered some conclusions regarding genetics and homosexuality.

"We knew that genes were only part of the answer. We assumed the environment also played a role in sexual orientation, as it does in most, if not all behaviors..."(Hamer and Copeland, 1994, p. 82).

"Homosexuality is not purely genetic...environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay...I don't think we will ever predict who will be gay" (Mitchell, 1995).

Citing the failure of their research, Hamer & Copeland further write,

"The pedigree failed to produce what we originally hoped to find: simple Mendelian inheritance. In fact, we never found a single family in which homosexuality was distributed in the obvious pattern that Mendel observed in his pea plants" (1994, p. 104).

What's more interesting is that when Hamer's study was duplicated by Rice et al with research that was more robust, the genetic markers were found to be nonsignificant. Rice et al concluded:

"It is unclear why our results are so discrepant from Hamer's original study. Because our study was larger than that of Hamer et al, we certainly had adequate power to detect a genetic effect as large as reported in that study. Nonetheless, our data do not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation at position XQ 28" (Rice et al, 1999, p.667).

Simon LeVay, in his study of the hypothalamic differences between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men, offered the following criticisms of his own research:

"It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.

"The INAH 3 is less likely to be the sole gay nucleus of the brain than a part of a chain of nuclei engaged in men and women's sexual behavior.... Since I looked at adult brains, we don't know if the differences I found were there at birth, or if they appeared later." (Nimmons, 1994, p. 64).

Indeed, in commenting on the brain and sexual behavior, Dr. Mark Breedlove, a researcher at the University of California at Berkeley, demonstrated that sexual behavior can actually change brain structure. Referring to his research, Breedlove states:

"These findings give us proof for what we theoretically know to be the case-that sexual experience can alter the structure of the brain, just as genes can alter it. It is possible that differences in sexual behavior cause (rather than are caused) by differences in the brain" (Breedlove, 1997, p. 801).


Our Perception of Science Alters Politics

LeVay made an interesting observation about the emphasis on the biology of homosexuality. He noted,

"...people who think that gays and lesbians are born that way are also more likely to support gay rights" (1996, p. 282)

The third study, which was conducted by Bailey and Pillard, focused on twins. They found a concordance (both twins homosexual) rate of 52% among identical twins, 22% among non-identical twins and a 9.2 % among non-twins. This study actually provides support for environmental factors. If homosexuality were in the genetic code, all of the identical twins would have been homosexual (1991).

Prominent research teams Byne and Parsons, and also Friedman and Downey, each concluded that there was no evidence to support a biologic theory, but rather that homosexuality could be best explained by an alternative model where "temperamental and personality traits interact with the familial and social milieu as the individual's sexuality emerges" (Byne and Parsons, 1993; Friedman and Downey, 1993).
Are homosexual attractions innate? There is no support in the scientific research for the conclusion that homosexuality is biologically determined.


Is Change Possible?

Is homosexuality immutable? Is it fixed, or is it amenable to change? The 1973 decision to delete homosexuality from the diagnostic manual of the American Psychiatric Association had a chilling effect on research. The APA decision was not made based on new scientific evidence-in fact, as gay activist researcher Simon LeVay admitted, "Gay activism was clearly the force that propelled the APA to declassify homosexuality" (1996, p. 224).

In reviewing the research, Satinover reported a 52% success rate in the treatment of unwanted homosexual attraction. (Satinover, 1996, p. 186). Masters and Johnson, the famed sex researchers, reported 65% success rate after a five-year follow-up (Schwartz and Masters, 1984, pp. 173-184). Other professionals report success rates ranging from 30% to 70%.

An article in the Monitor on Psychology reviewed the research of Dr. Lisa Diamond, a professor at the University of Utah and concluded that "Sexual identity is far from fixed in women who aren't exclusively heterosexual"(Murray, 2000, p. 15; Diamond, 2000).

What is more intriguing is the research of Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, the prominent psychiatrist and researcher at Columbia University. Dr. Spitzer was the architect of the 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from the diagnostic manual, a gay affirmative psychiatrist, and a long time supporter of gay rights. His current study focused on whether or not individuals can change. His preliminary conclusions are:

"I am convinced from the people I have interviewed, that for many of them, they have made substantial changes toward becoming heterosexual...I think that's news...I came to this study skeptical. I now claim that these changes can be sustained"(NARTH, 2001).

What was most interesting was Dr. Spitzer's response to a journalist who inquired what he would do if his adolescent son revealed his homosexual attraction. Dr. Spitzer said that he hoped that his son would be interesting in changing and would get some help. It is interesting to note that Dr. Spitzer has received considerable "hate mail" and complaints from his colleagues because of his research. Is homosexuality immutable? Hardly. There is ample evidence that homosexual attraction can be diminished and that changes can be made.


Comparative Levels of Mental Health: The Data

What is particularly disturbing is the lack of attention paid by the media to the research evidence reported in the Archives of General Psychiatry which concluded that gay, lesbian and bisexual people were at higher risk for mental illness, specifically suicidality, major depression and anxiety disorder (Ferguson et al, 1999; Herrell et al).

While one might suggest that society's oppression of homosexual people may be the cause of such mental illness, this may not be the case. In fact, this study corroborated the findings of a well-conducted Dutch study, and Dutch society is a very gay-affirming and gay friendly society (Sandfort et al, 2001). Bailey (of the twin study) offered other possible reasons for significantly more mental illness in homosexual individuals:

"Homosexuality represents a deviation from normal development and is associated with other such deviations that may lead to mental illness, or another possibility is "that increased psychopathology among homosexual people is a consequence of lifestyle differences associated with sexual orientation."

An additional possibility offered by Bailey: "behavioral risk factors associated with male homosexuality such as receptive anal sex and promiscuity." He noted that it would be a shame if "sociopolitical concerns prevented researchers from conscientious consideration of any reasonable hypothesis" (Bailey,1999, p. 883-884).

Regarding change and the right to treatment, lesbian activist Camille Paglia offered the following observations:

"Homosexuality is not 'normal.' On the contrary it is a challenge to the norm...Nature exists whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction...No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous...homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait...

"Is the gay identity so fragile that it cannot bear the thought that some people may not wish to be gay? Sexuality is highly fluid, and reversals are theoretically possible. However, habit is refractory, once the sensory pathways have been blazed and deepened by repetition-a phenomenon obvious in the struggle with obesity, smoking, alcoholism or drug addiction.... helping gays to learn to function heterosexually, if they wish, is a perfectly worthy aim.

"We should be honest enough to consider whether homosexuality may not indeed be a pause a the prepubescent stage where children anxiously band together by gender.... current gay cant insists that homosexuality is 'not a choice,' that no one would choose to be gay in a homophobic society. But there is an element of choice in all behavior, sexual or otherwise. It takes an effort to deal with the opposite sex; it is safer with your own kind. The issue is one of challenge versus comfort." (Paglia, 1994, pp. 70, 72, 76, 77, 78, 91).

Gay activist Doug Haldeman, at a recent meeting of the American Psychological Association, focused on the right of individuals who were unhappy with their homosexual attraction to pursue treatment and change. He stated,

"A corollary issue for many is a sense of religious or spiritual identity that is sometimes as deeply felt as is sexual orientation. For some it is easier, and less emotionally disruptive, to contemplate changing sexual orientation, than to disengage from a religious way of life that is seen as completely central to the individual's sense of self and purpose....

"However we may view this choice or the psychological underpinnings thereof, do we have the right to deny such an individual treatment that may help him to adapt in the way he has decided is right for him? I would say that we do not" (Haldeman, 2000, p. 3).

Finally, lesbian activist and biologist Dr. Anne Fausto-Sterling of Brown University offers some interesting insight. Referring to the "born-that-way" argument, she states,

"It provides a legal argument that is, at the moment actually having some sway in court. For me, it's a very shaky place. It's bad science and bad politics. It seems to me that the way we consider homosexuality in our culture is an ethical and a moral question" (Dreifus, 2001).

When asked about how much of her thinking about change in sexuality comes from her own life, Fausto-Sterling responded,

"My interest in gender issues preceded my own life changes. When I first got involved in feminism, I was married. The gender issues did to me what they did to lots of women in the 1970's: they infuriated me. My poor husband, who was a very decent guy, tried as hard as he could to be sympathetic. But he was shut out of what I was doing. The women's movement opened up the feminine in a way that was new to me, and so my involvement made possible my becoming a lesbian.

"My ex and I are still friends. It is true. I call myself a lesbian now because that is the life I am living, and I think it is something you should own up to. At the moment, I am in a happy relationship and I don't ever imagine changing it. Still, I don't think loving a man is unimaginable." (Dreifus, 2001).


A Moral-Philosophical Issue, or a Scientific Issue?

LeVay concludes:

"First, science itself cannot render judgments about human worth or about what constitutes normality or disease. These are value judgments that individuals must make for themselves, while possibly taking scientific findings into account. Second, I believe that we should as far as possible, respect people's personal autonomy, even if it includes what I would call misguided desires such as the desire to change one's sexual orientation" (LeVay, 2000, p. 12).

Gay-activist researcher Dean Hamer makes a revealing statement about science and morality. He states,

"...biology is amoral; it offers no help in distinguishing between right and wrong. Only people, guided by their values and beliefs, can decide what is moral and what is not" (Hamer and Copeland, 1994, p. 214).

Homosexuality is an issue of ethics and morality. Individuals who experience unwanted homosexual attractions have a right to treatment aimed at reducing those attractions. Whether or not others agree with that choice is not as important as respecting their right to make the choice. In fact, tolerance and diversity demand that they do so.

References

Bailey, J. M. (1999). Homosexuality and mental illness. Archives of General Psychiatry, 56, pp. 883-884.

Bailey, J. M. & Pillard, R. C. (1991). A genetic study of male sexual orientation. Archives of General Psychiatry, 48, pp. 1089-1096.

Breedlove, M.S. (1997). Sex on the brain. Nature, 389, p. 801.

Byne, W. & Parsons, B. (1993). Human sexual orientation: the biological theories reappraised. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, pp. 228-239.

Diamond. L.M. (2000). Sexual identity, attractions, and behavior among young sexual minority women over a 2 year period. Developmental Psychology, 36 (2), pp. 241-250.

Dreifus, C. (2001). Exploring what makes us male or female. New York Times, Science Section, January 2.

Ferguson, D. M, Horwood, L.J. & Beautrais, A.L. (1999). Is sexual orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in young people? Archives of General Psychiatry, 56, pp. 876-880.

Friedman, R. C. & Downey, J. (1993). Neurobiology and sexual orientation: current relationships. Journal of Neuropsychiatry, 5(2), pp. 131-153.

Haldeman, D. (2000). Gay rights, patients' rights: the implementation of sexual orientation conversion therapy (Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association), Washington, D. C., August.

Hamer, D.(1993). A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation. Science, 261, p. 321.

Hamer, D & Copeland, P. (1994). The science of desire. New York: Simon and Schuster

Herrell, R., Goldberg, J., True, W.R., Ramakrishnan, V., Lyons, M., Eisen, S. & Tsuang, M. T. (1999). Sexual orientation and suicidality. Archives of General Psychiatry, 56, pp. 657-661.

LeVay, S. (1996). Queer Science. Cambridge, MIT Press.

LeVay, S. (2001). Sexual orientation: the science and social impact. 12. Retrieved April 3, 2001 from: http:members.aol.com/_ht_a/slevay/page12.htm.

Mitchell, N. (1995). Genetics, sexuality linked, study says. Standard Examiner, April 30.

Murray, B. (2000). Sexual identity is far from fixed in women who aren't exclusively heterosexual. Monitor on Psychology, 31 (3), p. 15.

National Association For Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (2001). Press Release. Prominent psychiatrist announces new study results-some gays can change. May 9.

Nimmons, D. (1994). Sexual brain. Discover, 5, 3, pp. 64-67.

Paglia, C. (1994). Vamps and tramps. New York: Vintage Books.

Rice, R., Anderson, C., Risch, N., & Ebers, G. (1999). Male homosexuality: absence of linkage to microsatellite markers at Xq28. Science, 284, pp. 665-667.

Sandfort, T. G., de Graaf, R., Bijl, R. V. & Schnabel, P. (2001). Same-sex behavior and psychiatric disorders. Archives of General Psychiatry, 58, pp. 85-91.

Satinover, J. (1996). Homosexuality and the politics of truth. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books.

Schwartz, M. F. & Masters, W. H. (1984). The Masters and Johnson treatment program for dissatisfied homosexual men. American Journal of Psychiatry, 141, pp. 173-181.

Homosexuals and child molestation

From blowthetrumpet.org



T here is a saying the goes “There are lies. There are damned lies. And there are statistics.” The point is that people can use numbers to advance a point when, the real facts support a different conclusion altogether. To illustrate this principle in action consider the claim of virtually all homosexual advocacy groups when defending themselves against the charge that there is a link between homosexual behavior and child molestation. Here is how they wage their defense.

Homosexual activists routinely claim that most child molesters are “heterosexual” males. Now this is a real statistical fact. But does it reflect a reliable truth. Since the overwhelming percentage of the population (98-99% according to the National Opinion Research Center) is heterosexual it is only logical that they would commit the highest number of molestations. However, a true examination of the facts indicate that homosexuals pose a far more serious threat to children than do heterosexuals.

For example: Dr. Stephen Rubin of Whitman College conducted a ten-state study of sex abuse cases involving school teachers. The study involved 199 cases. Of those, 122 male teachers had molested girls, while 14 female teachers had molested boys. He also discovered that 59 homosexual male teachers had molested boys and four female homosexual teachers had molested girls. In other words, 32 percent of those child molestation cases involved homosexuals. Nearly a third of these cases come from only 1-2% of the population.

In her book, Kinsey, Crimes & Consequences, Dr. Judith Reisman describes a very telling study involving molestation rates of self-confessed sexual predators. The study compared the molestation rates of self-confessed homosexual and heterosexual child molesters. In a sample of 153 homosexual molesters, they confessed to a total of 22,981 molestations. This is equivalent to 150 children per molester. Self-admitted heterosexual molesters admitted to 4,435 molestations. This comes to 19.8 victims per molester. One prominent researcher concluded that homosexuals “sexually molest young boys at an incidence that is occurring at five times greater than that committed by heterosexual predators.

This high rate of molestations by homosexuals is consistent with other studies conducted during the past several decades. Here are just a few studies that show homosexuals molesting children at epidemic rates:
The Los Angeles Times conducted a survey in 1985 of 2,628 adults across the U.S. Of those, 27% of the women and 16% of the men had been sexually molested. Seven percent of the girls and 93% of the men had been molested by adults of the same sex. This means that 40% of child molestations were by homosexuals. (Los Angeles Times, August 25-6, 1985)

In 1984, a Vermont survey of 161 adolescents who were sex offenders found that 35 of them (22%) were homosexuals. (Wasserman, J., “Adolescent Sex Offenders—Vermont, 1984” Journal American Medical Association, 1986; 255:181-2)

In 1991, of the 100 child molesters at the Massachusetts Treatment Center for Sexually Dangerous Persons, a third were heterosexual, a third were bisexual, and a third were homosexual. (Dr. Raymond Knight, “Differential Prevalence of Personality Disorders in Rapists and Child Molesters,” Eastern Psychological Association Conference, New York, April 12, 1991)

In 2000 Drs. Freund and Heasman of the Clark Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto reviewed two studies on child molesters and calculated that 34% and 32% of the sex offenders were homosexual. In cases these doctors had handled, 36% of the molesters were homosexuals. (Freund, K. “Pedophilia and Heterosexuality vs. Homosexuality,” Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 1984; 10:193-200

The point to this is that while homosexual advocacy organizations claim the greater risk of child molestation comes from heterosexuals, the statistics indicate that as a percent of the population the risk of being molested by a homosexual is remarkably higher. While homosexuals comprise only 1-2% of the population, they are responsible for one third of all child molestations.

The Innate-Immutable Argument

from "Born that way" theory
The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science

In Their Own Words: Gay Activists Speak About Science, Morality, Philosophy

A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D., MBA, MPHShirley E. Cox, DSWJeffrey W. Robinson, Ph.D.


The following article was published in the Salt Lake City Tribune, in a slightly abbreviated form, on May 27th, 2001.


The Salt Lake City Tribune has published several articles in recent months regarding homosexuality. While many of the articles are well-written, they do not reflect the scientific literature. In fact, the social advocacy of many of the articles seems to suggest a greater reliance on politics than on science.
Leaving aside the politics of the issue, perhaps it is time to examine the innate-immutable argument about homosexual attraction. First of all-although the issue is enormously complex and simply cannot be reduced to a matter of nature vs. nature-the answer to that debate is probably "yes" - it is likely that homosexual attraction, like many other strong attractions, includes both biological and environmental influences.
What is clear, however, is that the scientific attempts to demonstrate that homosexual attraction is biologically determined have failed. The major researchers now prominent in the scientific arena-themselves gay activists-have in fact arrived at such conclusions.
Researcher Dean Hamer (1993), for example, attempted to link male homosexuality to a stretch of DNA located a the tip of the X chromosome, the chromosome that some men inherit from their mothers. Referring to that research, Hamer offered some conclusions regarding genetics and homosexuality.
"We knew that genes were only part of the answer. We assumed the environment also played a role in sexual orientation, as it does in most, if not all behaviors..."(Hamer and Copeland, 1994, p. 82).
"Homosexuality is not purely genetic...environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay...I don't think we will ever predict who will be gay" (Mitchell, 1995).
Citing the failure of their research, Hamer & Copeland further write,
"The pedigree failed to produce what we originally hoped to find: simple Mendelian inheritance. In fact, we never found a single family in which homosexuality was distributed in the obvious pattern that Mendel observed in his pea plants" (1994, p. 104).
What's more interesting is that when Hamer's study was duplicated by Rice et al with research that was more robust, the genetic markers were found to be nonsignificant. Rice et al concluded:
"It is unclear why our results are so discrepant from Hamer's original study. Because our study was larger than that of Hamer et al, we certainly had adequate power to detect a genetic effect as large as reported in that study. Nonetheless, our data do not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation at position XQ 28" (Rice et al, 1999, p.667).
Simon LeVay, in his study of the hypothalamic differences between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men, offered the following criticisms of his own research:
"It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain.
"The INAH 3 is less likely to be the sole gay nucleus of the brain than a part of a chain of nuclei engaged in men and women's sexual behavior....Since I looked at adult brains, we don't know if the differences I found were there at birth, or if they appeared later." (Nimmons, 1994, p. 64).
Indeed, in commenting on the brain and sexual behavior, Dr. Mark Breedlove, a researcher at the University of California at Berkeley, demonstrated that sexual behavior can actually change brain structure. Referring to his research, Breedlove states:
"These findings give us proof for what we theoretically know to be the case-that sexual experience can alter the structure of the brain, just as genes can alter it. [I]t is possible that differences in sexual behavior cause (rather than are caused) by differences in the brain" (Breedlove, 1997, p. 801).
Our Perception of Science Alters Politics
LeVay made an interesting observation about the emphasis on the biology of homosexuality. He noted, "...people who think that gays and lesbians are born that way are also more likely to support gay rights" (1996, p. 282)
The third study, which was conducted by Bailey and Pillard, focused on twins. They found a concordance (both twins homosexual) rate of 52% among identical twins, 22% among non-identical twins and a 9.2 % among non-twins. This study actually provides support for environmental factors. If homosexuality were in the genetic code, all of the identical twins would have been homosexual (1991).
Prominent research teams Byne and Parsons, and also Friedman and Downey, each concluded that there was no evidence to support a biologic theory, but rather that homosexuality could be best explained by an alternative model where "temperamental and personality traits interact with the familial and social milieu as the individual's sexuality emerges" (Byne and Parsons, 1993; Friedman and Downey, 1993).
Are homosexual attractions innate? There is no support in the scientific research for the conclusion that homosexuality is biologically determined.
Is Change Possible?
Is homosexuality immutable? Is it fixed, or is it amenable to change? The 1973 decision to delete homosexuality from the diagnostic manual of the American Psychiatric Association had a chilling effect on research. The APA decision was not made based on new scientific evidence-in fact, as gay activist researcher Simon LeVay admitted, "Gay activism was clearly the force that propelled the APA to declassify homosexuality" (1996, p. 224).
In reviewing the research, Satinover reported a 52% success rate in the treatment of unwanted homosexual attraction. (Satinover, 1996, p. 186). Masters and Johnson, the famed sex researchers, reported 65% success rate after a five-year follow-up (Schwartz and Masters, 1984, pp. 173-184). Other professionals report success rates ranging from 30% to 70%.
An article in the Monitor on Psychology reviewed the research of Dr. Lisa Diamond, a professor at the University of Utah and concluded that "Sexual identity is far from fixed in women who aren't exclusively heterosexual"(Murray, 2000, p. 15; Diamond, 2000).
What is more intriguing is the research of Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, the prominent psychiatrist and researcher at Columbia University. Dr. Spitzer was the architect of the 1973 decision to remove homosexuality from the diagnostic manual, a gay affirmative psychiatrist , and a long time supporter of gay rights. His current study focused on whether or not individuals can change. His preliminary conclusions are:
"I am convinced from the people I have interviewed, that for many of them, they have made substantial changes toward becoming heterosexual...I think that's news...I came to this study skeptical. I now claim that these changes can be sustained"(NARTH, 2001).
What was most interesting was Dr. Spitzer's response to a journalist who inquired what he would do if his adolescent son revealed his homosexual attraction. Dr. Spitzer said that he hoped that his son would be interesting in changing and would get some help. It is interesting to note that Dr. Spitzer has received considerable "hate mail" and complaints from his colleagues because of his research.
Is homosexuality immutable? Hardly. There is ample evidence that homosexual attraction can be diminished and that changes can be made.
Comparative Levels of Mental Health: The Data
What is particularly disturbing is the lack of attention paid by the media to the research evidence reported in the Archives of General Psychiatry which concluded that gay, lesbian and bisexual people were at higher risk for mental illness, specifically suicidality, major depression and anxiety disorder (Ferguson et al, 1999; Herrell et al).
While one might suggest that society's oppression of homosexual people may be the cause of such mental illness, this may not be the case. In fact, this study corroborated the findings of a well-conducted Dutch study, and Dutch society is a very gay-affirming and gay friendly society (Sandfort et al, 2001).
Bailey (of the twin study) offered other possible reasons for significantly more mental illness in homosexual individuals: "homosexuality represents a deviation from normal development and is associated with other such deviations that may lead to mental illness," or another possibility is "that increased psychopathology among homosexual people is a consequence of lifestyle differences associated with sexual orientation." An additional possibility offered by Bailey: "behavioral risk factors associated with male homosexuality such as receptive anal sex and promiscuity." He noted that it would be a shame if "sociopolitical concerns prevented researchers from conscientious consideration of any reasonable hypothesis" (Bailey,1999, p. 883-884).
Regarding change and the right to treatment, lesbian activist Camille Paglia offered the following observations:
"Homosexuality is not 'normal.' On the contrary it is a challenge to the norm...Nature exists whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single relentless rule. That is the norm. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction...No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous...homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait.....
"Is the gay identity so fragile that it cannot bear the thought that some people may not wish to be gay? Sexuality is highly fluid, and reversals are theoretically possible. However, habit is refractory, once the sensory pathways have been blazed and deepened by repetition-a phenomenon obvious in the struggle with obesity, smoking, alcoholism or drug addiction....helping gays to learn to function heterosexually, if they wish, is a perfectly worthy aim.
"We should be honest enough to consider whether homosexuality may not indeed be a pause a the prepubescent stage where children anxiously band together by gender....current gay cant insists that homosexuality is 'not a choice,' that no one would choose to be gay in a homophobic society. But there is an element of choice in all behavior, sexual or otherwise. It takes an effort to deal with the opposite sex; it is safer with your own kind. The issue is one of challenge versus comfort." (Paglia, 1994, pp. 70, 72, 76, 77, 78, 91).
Gay activist Doug Haldeman, at a recent meeting of the American Psychological Association, focused on the right of individuals who were unhappy with their homosexual attraction to pursue treatment and change. He stated,
"A corollary issue for many is a sense of religious or spiritual identity that is sometimes as deeply felt as is sexual orientation. For some it is easier, and less emotionally disruptive, to contemplate changing sexual orientation, than to disengage from a religious way of life that is seen as completely central to the individual's sense of self and purpose....
"However we may view this choice or the psychological underpinnings thereof, do we have the right to deny such an individual treatment that may help him to adapt in the way he has decided is right for him? I would say that we do not" (Haldeman, 2000, p. 3).
Finally, lesbian activist and biologist Dr. Anne Fausto-Sterling of Brown University offers some interesting insight. Referring to the "born-that-way" argument, she states,
"It provides a legal argument that is, at the moment actually having some sway in court. For me, it's a very shaky place. It's bad science and bad politics. It seems to me that the way we consider homosexuality in our culture is an ethical and a moral question" (Dreifus, 2001).
When asked about how much of her thinking about change in sexuality comes from her own life, Fausto-Sterling responded,
"My interest in gender issues preceded my own life changes. When I first got involved in feminism, I was married. The gender issues did to me what they did to lots of women in the 1970's: they infuriated me. My poor husband, who was a very decent guy, tried as hard as he could to be sympathetic. But he was shut out of what I was doing. The women's movement opened up the feminine in a way that was new to me, and so my involvement made possible my becoming a lesbian.
"My ex and I are still friends. It is true. I call myself a lesbian now because that is the life I am living, and I think it is something you should own up to. At the moment, I am in a happy relationship and I don't ever imagine changing it. Still, I don't think loving a man is unimaginable." (Dreifus, 2001).
A Moral-Philosophical Issue, or a Scientific Issue?
LeVay concludes: "First, science itself cannot render judgments about human worth or about what constitutes normality or disease. These are value judgments that individuals must make for themselves, while possibly taking scientific findings into account. Second, I believe that we should as far as possible, respect people's personal autonomy, even if it includes what I would call misguided desires such as the desire to change one's sexual orientation" (LeVay, 2000, p. 12).
Gay-activist researcher Dean Hamer makes a revealing statement about science and morality. He states,
"...biology is amoral; it offers no help in distinguishing between right and wrong. Only people, guided by their values and beliefs, can decide what is moral and what is not" (Hamer and Copeland, 1994, p. 214).
Homosexuality is an issue of ethics and morality. Individuals who experience unwanted homosexual attractions have a right to treatment aimed at reducing those attractions.
Whether or not others agree with that choice is not as important as respecting their right to make the choice. In fact, tolerance and diversity demand that they do so.
References
Bailey, J. M. (1999). Homosexuality and mental illness. Archives of General Psychiatry, 56, pp. 883-884.
Bailey, J. M. & Pillard, R. C. (1991). A genetic study of male sexual orientation. Archives of General Psychiatry, 48, pp. 1089-1096.
Breedlove, M.S. (1997). Sex on the brain. Nature, 389, p. 801.
Byne, W. & Parsons, B. (1993). Human sexual orientation: the biological theories reappraised. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, pp. 228-239.
Diamond. L.M. (2000). Sexual identity, attractions, and behavior among young sexual minority women over a 2 year period. Developmental Psychology, 36 (2), pp. 241-250.
Dreifus, C. (2001). Exploring what makes us male or female. New York Times, Science Section, January 2.
Ferguson, D. M, Horwood, L.J. & Beautrais, A.L. (1999). Is sexual orientation related to mental health problems and suicidality in young people? Archives of General Psychiatry, 56, pp. 876-880.
Friedman, R. C. & Downey, J. (1993). Neurobiology and sexual orientation: current relationships. Journal of Neuropsychiatry, 5(2), pp. 131-153.
Haldeman, D. (2000). Gay rights, patients' rights: the implementation of sexual orientation conversion therapy (Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association), Washington, D. C., August.
Hamer, D.(1993). A linkage between DNA markers on the X chromosome and male sexual orientation. Science, 261, p. 321.
Hamer, D & Copeland, P. (1994). The science of desire. New York: Simon and Schuster
Herrell, R., Goldberg, J., True, W.R., Ramakrishnan, V., Lyons, M., Eisen, S. & Tsuang, M. T. (1999). Sexual orientation and suicidality. Archives of General Psychiatry, 56, pp. 657-661.
LeVay, S. (1996). Queer Science. Cambridge, MIT Press.
LeVay, S. (2001). Sexual orientation: the science and social impact. 12. Retrieved April 3, 2001 from: http:members.aol.com/_ht_a/slevay/page12.htm.
Mitchell, N. (1995). Genetics, sexuality linked, study says. Standard Examiner, April 30.
Murray, B. (2000). Sexual identity is far from fixed in women who aren't exclusively heterosexual. Monitor on Psychology, 31 (3), p. 15.
National Association For Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (2001). Press Release. Prominent psychiatrist announces new study results-some gays can change. May 9.
Nimmons, D. (1994). Sexual brain. Discover, 5, 3, pp. 64-67.
Paglia, C. (1994). Vamps and tramps. New York: Vintage Books.
Rice, R., Anderson, C., Risch, N., & Ebers, G. (1999). Male homosexuality: absence of linkage to microsatellite markers at Xq28. Science, 284, pp. 665-667.
Sandfort, T. G., de Graaf, R., Bijl, R. V. & Schnabel, P. (2001). Same-sex behavior and psychiatric disorders. Archives of General Psychiatry, 58, pp. 85-91.
Satinover, J. (1996). Homosexuality and the politics of truth. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books.
Schwartz, M. F. & Masters, W. H. (1984). The Masters and Johnson treatment program for dissatisfied homosexual men. American Journal of Psychiatry, 141, pp. 173-181.

Are Homosexuals Born Gay

O ne of the most persistent claims made by homosexual activists is that they are "born gay" or that their sexual orientation emerges in early adolescence and is fixed and unchangeable. This assertion has been advanced in an attempt to “normalize” a behavior that has traditionally been regarded as deviant. One of the proof sources cited by adherents of this belief is the finding of the American Psychological Association.

The APA features a section on its web site that deals with sexual orientation. To the question, "Is Sexual Orientation a Choice?" the APA answers:

"No, human beings can not choose to be either gay or straight. Sexual orientation emerges for most people in early adolescence without any prior sexual experience. Although we can choose whether to act on our feelings, psychologists do not consider sexual orientation to be a conscious choice that can be voluntarily changed."

In a follow up question, "Can Therapy Change Sexual Orientation?" the APA answers:

"No. … The reality is that homosexuality is not an illness. It does not require treatment and is not changeable."

However, research from professional organizations like the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuals (NARTH) disputes the APA's position.

Great cultural and legal changes have taken place in our society because of this Homosexual Urban Legend. However, it is slowly being debunked. This is being accomplished not only by highly credible research conducted by conservative psychologists and psychiatrists, but also by the admissions of homosexual researchers themselves.

Dr. Robert Spitzer, a NARTH associate, was one of the main forces behind the American Psychiatric Association's 1973 decision to remove homosexuality as a mental illness from the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM). Dr. Spitzer is now convinced that men and women who have a homosexual orientation can change through therapy. His most recent findings were published in Archives of Sexual Behavior (Vol. 32, No. 5, October 2003, pp. 403-417).

NARTH summarized his findings on its web site. Dr. Spitzer interviewed some 200 men and women who reported changes from homosexual to heterosexual orientation that lasted five years or longer. According to Spitzer, his findings show that "the mental health professionals should stop moving in the direction of banning therapy that has, as a goal, a change in sexual orientation."

One of the most compelling articles to dispel the notion that homosexuality is genetically determined, fixed, and unchangeable is: "The Innate-Immutable Argument Finds No Basis in Science: In Their Own Words: Gay Activists Speak About Science, Morality, Philosophy," by Drs. A. Dean Byrd, Shirley Cox, and Jeffrey W. Robinson. This essay is published on the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality web site.

The authors of this study carefully quote a number of homosexual researchers who have worked for years to locate a "gay gene" or some other genetic basis for homosexuality. They have failed and are now admitting that such evidence may never be found.

Homosexual researcher Dean Hamer, for example, attempted to link male homosexuality to a bit of DNA located at the tip of the X chromosome. He has written: "Homosexuality is not purely genetic…environmental factors play a role. There is not a single master gene that makes people gay. . . . I don't think we will ever be able to predict who will be gay."

Homosexual researcher Simon LeVay, who studied the hypothalamic differences between the brains of homosexual and heterosexual men noted: "It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain."

Homosexual researchers Bailey and Pillard conducted the famous "twins study" quoted by homosexual activist groups to promote the idea that being "gay" is genetic. The study found that among those twins studied, the researchers found a rate of homosexuality of 52% (both twins homosexuals); 22% among non-identical twins; and a 9.2% rate among non-twins.

This was hailed by homosexual activists groups and by the media as supposedly proving that homosexuality is genetic. The study actually proved the opposite. As Byrd, et al, note: "This study actually provides support for environmental factors. If homosexuality were in the genetic code, all of the identical twins would have been homosexual."

In short, the three most famous studies in recent years that homosexual activists use to claim that homosexuality is genetic prove no such thing. In fact, two of the authors of these studies admit their research has not proven a genetic basis to homosexuality.


Catholic Psychiatrists Offer Insights

In June, 2002, Catholic psychiatrists with the Catholic Medical Association in Pewaukee, Wisconsin, sent a letter of concern to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and offered to help the Catholic Church deal with its scandals over priests with same-sex attractions. The letter of concern notes:

"There is no verifiable evidence that same-sex attraction is genetically determined. If same-sex attraction were genetically determined, identical twins would always have the same sexual attraction pattern. Numerous studies of twins have shown that this is not the case. And there are numerous studies documenting change of sexual attraction pattern.”

A Final Thought

Despite the relentless attempts by the pro-homosexual community to prove they were created “gay,” this is simply not true. Not only does this assertion contradict credible medical research; it goes totally contrary to scripture. First, the Bible condemns homosexuality as an abominable sin. Beyond that the scriptures proclaim that God doesn't tempt man that way. In other words He would never put something in man that cannot be changed and then blame man for its existance. James, the brother of Jesus put it this way.

Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempts he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust has conceived, it brings forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, brings forth death. (Jas. 1:13-15)

What caused Homosexuality

Regent University’s Law Review for spring, 2002, is entirely devoted to a discussion of various aspects of homosexuality, including the origins and causes of homosexual behaviors. The Law Review includes a study, "Homosexuality: Innate and Immutable?” by Dr. A. Dean Byrd and Stony Olsen.

After discussing the lack of evidence on the genetic origins of homosexuality, Dr. Byrd and his associate detail the various environmental factors that can lead a person into a homosexual lifestyle.


Gender Confusion:

Dr. George Rekers, an expert on Gender Identity Disorders, is author of dozens of scholarly research papers on homosexuality and wrote Growing Up Straight: What Every Family Should Know About Homosexuality in 1982. He is also editor of Handbook of Child and Adolescent Sexual Problems, published in 1995. Dr. Rekers stated in 1995, that "Gender nonconformity in childhood may be the single common observable factor associated with homosexuality. Some of the typical childhood factors leading to homosexuality are: feeling of being different from other children; perception of father as being distant, uninvolved and unapproving; perception of mother being too close, too involved; diminished or distorted masculinity or femininity; premature introduction to sexuality; and gender confusion.


Failure to Internalize Maleness:

Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, president of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality has written: "Homosexuality is a developmental problem that is almost always the result of problems in family relationships, particularly between father and son. As a result of failure with father, the boy does not fully internalize male gender identity, and develops homosexuality. This is the most commonly seen clinical model."

Dr. George Rekers, writing in Growing Up Straight, observes: "Many studies of homosexual patients as well as of nonpatient homosexuals have established a classic pattern of background family relations. The most frequent family pattern reported from the male homosexuals includes a binding, intimate mother in combination with a hostile, detached father."


Sexual Abuse by Same-Sex Predator:

In studies conducted by Diana Shrier and Robert Johnson in 1985 and 1988, males who had been sexually abused as children were almost seven times as likely as non-molested boys to become homosexuals.

Dr. Gregory Dickson recently completed a doctoral dissertation on the pattern of relationships between mothers and their male homosexual sons. His paper is entitled: "An Empirical Study of the Mother/Son Dyad in Relation to the Development of Adult Male Homosexuality: An Object Relations Perspective."

Dr. Dickson's study is reviewed on the NARTH web site. His study sheds new light on the relationship between early childhood sexual abuse and a child's later involvement in homosexual behaviors. According to Dickson, an alarming 49% of homosexuals surveyed had been molested compared to less than 2% of heterosexuals.

His study affirms previous findings of Dr. David Finkelhor (1984), which found that boys victimized by older men were four times more likely to be currently involved in homosexual behaviors than were non-victims. As Finkelhor observed: "It may be common for a boy who has been involved in an experience with an older man to label himself as homosexual (1) because he has had a homosexual experience and (2) because he was found to be sexually attractive by a man. Once he labels himself homosexual, the boy may begin to behave consistently with the role and gravitate toward homosexual activity." (Child Sexual Abuse: New Theory and Research, New York: The Free Press, 1984).

Dr. Dickson's study suggests that sexual abuse should be considered in evaluating the factors that contribute to the development of adult homosexual behaviors. Dickson writes: "An experience of sexual abuse could possibly contribute to the sexualizing of the unmet needs for male affection, attention, and connection."

Dr. Dickson continues: "Given the relational deficits [with his mother] experienced by the male child, it is also possible that the molestation, as devastating as it may have been emotionally, simultaneously may be experienced by some of the boys as their first form of adult male affection, as well as something relational that is not shared in common with his mother."

Counselor Dr. Robert Hicks, author of The Masculine Journey, has written: "…In counseling gay men for twenty years, I have not had one yet whom I would say had a normative childhood or normative adolescent development in the sexual arena. More often than not I have found stories of abusive, alcoholic, or absent (physically and emotionally) fathers: stories of incest or first experiences of sex forced upon them by older brothers, neighborhood men, or even friends. I sometimes find these men have had early exposure to pornography…."


Final Thought

In summary, the most credible research to date on homosexuality-and research conducted years ago-demonstrates that no one is "born gay." The homosexual is suffering from a developmental problem, which frequently starts out in childhood as gender confusion, family dysfunction, or molestation.

From a Christian perspective, homosexual behavior is also labeled a sin and a sexual perversion. It is a behavior that must be repented of. The sin is akin to allowing oneself to become addicted to pornography or to drugs. These behaviors can be overcome-but the person must want to change!

Embracing Depravity

W hen writing to the church at Rome, the apostle Paul made an extraordinary observation concerning how a society blessed by God could lose all contact with it’s moral compass. His words declare that if God's people ever decided to abandon Him and His wisdom, they would find themselves actually embracing depravity as virtue. Notice Paul’s words.

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man…Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator…For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly… And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient. (Ro. 1:21-28)

Today, the United States is acting out the fulfillment of these ominous words. What was once a nation that viewed sexual depravity as morally abhorrent, now sees it as an acceptable part of our culture. Today pornography saturates the internet while promiscuity is showcased in movies, songs and television. However, nothing more graphically demonstrates society's attitude shift than our contemporary views regarding homosexuality. And believe it or not, the rise in its acceptance began with a rejection of the true God in our national conscience and knowledge.

Perhaps the greatest single decision effecting America and its culture today was rendered by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1962. In this decision, the court determined that the Union Free School District in Hyde Park, New York had violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because it facilitated the following prayer at the beginning of each school day.

"Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country." (Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421).

In a very real sense this decision reversed nearly two centuries of legislative and judicial pronouncements, not to mention several longstanding traditions that have played a significant role in American life since the founding of our nation. So appalling was the court’s ruling that Representative Frank Becker of North Carolina called it “the most tragic decision in the history of the United States.” Senator Sam Ervin likened it to the “segregation of God” from society.

Since Engle v Vitale, numerous rulings by our nation’s highest court have affirmed that any expression of faith by children attending public schools now poses a imminent threat to our liberties and as such is a violation of our most sacred legal document, the Constitution. For example, in 1963 the High Court prohibited the reciting of the “Lord’s Prayer” or the reading of Bible passages in public schools. In 1980 it banned the posting of the Ten Commandments. In 1985 it forbade "daily moments of silence" if during these moments students were invited to pray. Furthermore, in yet another attempt to protect our children from the potential dangers of faith, the High Court saw fit to outlaw prayers led by members of the clergy at public school graduation ceremonies. This particular piece of judicial wisdom was handed down in1992.
Tragically, America's war against God and the Bible is not limited to our schools. Today there is a full assault on all public expressions of faith, especially Christianity. Whether it is attempts to remove "One nation under God" in the pledge of allegiance or "In God we Trust" on our currency, this nation now expresses its contempt for the true God, with impunity. It has even criminalized the displaying of the Ten Commandments in our courts. It is now undeniable that America has declared WAR on faith and the momentum is intensifying. However, the most dramatic shift in our legal pronouncements is not only what our courts oppose, but what they now defend.

Less than a generation after Engle v Vitale our courts have become the great antagonists of Christianity and the Bible while at the same time the great advocates of a host of ills, not the least of which is sodomy. Because of a relentless and well calculated movement to blur the moral lines concerning what constitutes normal sexual behavior, homosexuality has now won the tacit acceptance of an entire civilization. Today, gay and lesbian lifestyles are viewed as just another part of man’s expression of love. Our schools now proclaim homosexuality is the moral equivalent of traditional relationships. Libraries carry books proclaiming that two mommies or two daddies are just as normal as "traditional parents." Businesses now require sensitivity training in order to maintain the self esteem of people regarded as DEVIATES just a few years ago. Even opponents of “gay rights” legislation speak with great deference when addressing those who practice this lifestyle.

Today the latest fight in this cultural "jihad" is being waged over the legalization of "same sex marriage." Sadly, without the enduring moral voice of the scriptures our nation is left to navigate its own moral path--one that Paul spoke about so very long ago.

The Bible and Homosexuality

It is easy to see why the defenders of same sex marriage would wage a relentless war on Christianity and its influence on American values. Quite frankly, the Bible speaks with great force concerning this practice, and its words are not charitable. In truth homosexuality is identified in the scriptures as an egregious act and God Himself has a profound contempt for it. Consider how God’s Great Moral Voice thunders out His indictment against this perversion. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the apostle Paul called homosexuals “lawless and disobedient” (1Tim.1:10). Additionally, Moses declared that their sacrifices were not acceptable to God (Dt.23:17-18). In the Old Testament the penalty for such behavior was death (Lev.20:13). In the New Testament the pronouncement is even worse. When writing to the church at Corinth, Paul included homosexuals among those who would not enter into God’s Kingdom (1Cor.6:9). The scriptures proclaim without apology that sodomy is an obscene act. It is a crime against both God and nature.

This is not to suggest that homosexuality is a sin that is beyond God’s power to forgive. Quite frankly He is fully capable of extending His mercy to those who genuinely repent of this and a host of other evils. But God is not mocked (Ga. 6:7). The repentance must be genuine and the change must be REAL. Regrettably, America has decided to take a different path—one that embraces moral depravity as a right that deserves to be protected while at the same time shuns real faith as the expression of fanatics. Nothing more graphically illustrates this point than how society accepts and even embraces those who threaten the most sacred institution in history


An Assault on Marriage

The movement to allow same-sex marriage achieved its first, albeit temporary success in 1993. At that time the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that the restriction of marriage to opposite-sex couples was unconstitutional. In response to this decision the state constitution was amended to allow the legislature to preserve the restriction. However, this case opened the door for others and the battle lines were drawn.

In an attempt to preserve the traditional definition of marriage, Alaska amended its constitution in 1998, defining marriage as between one man and one woman. In another reaction to the Hawaii case, the federal Defense of Marriage Act (1996) provided that no state can be compelled to recognize a same-sex marriage from another state. It also defined marriage for federal-law purposes as opposite-sex. The majority of the states also passed their own "marriage protection acts." In November 2004, eleven more U.S. states amended their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriage.

At first glance it would appear that traditional moral values were carrying the day in this legislative war. But the battle is far from over and looks can be deceiving.

The Battle Rages On
In 1999 the Supreme Court of Vermont ruled that the state must extend to same- sex couples the same benefits that married couples receive. Then in 2000 its legislature created the status of "civil union" to fulfill the courts mandate. Connecticut adopted a similar civil union law in 2005.
Meanwhile, as America was fighting over the constitutionality of Gay marriages, Europe and other international communities were racing towards full recognition of homosexual unions. In 2001, the Netherlands became the first country to open civil marriage to same-sex couples. (Belgium became the second in 2003.) In 2002 through 2004, courts in six Canadian provinces held that the opposite-sex definition of marriage was contrary to Canada's Charter of Rights, and in 2005 federal legislation extended same-sex marriage to all of Canada. Same-sex marriage was also legalized in Spain in 2005 by statute, and in South Africa on December 1st 2005 by court decision (with effect delayed for twelve months to allow for legislative action).

Back to the USA

In November 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that excluding same-sex couples from the benefits of civil marriage violated the state constitution, and in February 2004 that court further held that a "civil union" law would not be sufficient. On May 17, 2004 Massachusetts became the first state in the United States where same-sex marriage is legal. A constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Judicial Court's decision has been given initial approval by the legislature. The soonest it could be voted on by the people is November 2006.

Although the vast majority of American’s have been numbed by the cares of life, a real disaster is brewing in numerous courts and legislative chambers across this land. The fact that this issue is even being discussed at all speaks volumes about our moral compass and what this country has lost since it declared God a threat to our freedom.

Respectfully,

Blow the Trumpet

Halloween

By
Art Braidic
and
Dennis Fischer

© 2000 Art Braidic and Dennis Fischer
All rights reserved
* * *
Every year, millions of children throughout the world celebrate the custom of Halloween. During this celebration, they dress up in costumes, parade through neighborhoods knocking on doors, and declare the words "trick or treat," expecting to receive candy or some sort of gift. But is Halloween something Christians should celebrate? Is this the kind of festival Jesus Christ would want us to observe?
First, understand that although Halloween professes to be a Christian holiday, it is anything but Christian. This custom was celebrated by the pagan world centuries before the New Testament Church was ever founded and it was not introduced into the professing Christian world until centuries after the deaths of the apostles. In fact, if you search the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, you will not find a single line advocating the observance of this holiday or anything like it. On the contrary, God condemns such practices throughout the scriptures.
A Strange Superstition
Halloween is one of the strangest holidays mankind celebrates. It is an amazing paradox, an unusual mixture of Christian terms and ancient pagan religious rites. Moreover, despite the technological and intellectual advancements our society has made, it still clings to ignorance of the past. As a result, we celebrate ancient superstitions by partaking in pagan rites, dressing up as witches, goblins, ghosts, skeletons, and demons.
What is this holiday? Where did it come from and why is it celebrated? It certainly did not come from the Bible or the early Christian Church raised up by Jesus Christ and the apostles (Mt. 16:13-17). Consider what authorities say regarding the origin and practice of Halloween.
Ralph Linton, on page four of his book, Halloween Through Twenty Centuries, explains the connection between the current practice of Halloween and a pagan rite practiced by the ancient Druids.
The American celebration rests upon Scottish and Irish folk customs which can be traced in direct line from pre-Christian times. Although Halloween has become a night of rollicking fun, superstitious spells, and eerie games that people take only half seriously, its beginnings were quite otherwise. The earliest Halloween celebrations were held by the Druids in honor of Samhain, Lord of the Dead, whose festival fell on November 1.

Furthermore, the Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th edition, Volume 12 says:
It was a Druidic belief that on the eve of this festival, Saman, lord of death, called together the wicked souls that within the past 12 months had been condemned to inhabit the bodies of animals... (pp. 847-858)

The Yearbook of English Festivals by Dorothy Gladys Spicer adds the following:
All Hallows' Eve or All Hallow E'en, with its tradition of witches, ghosts, hobgoblins and spirits, its games and incantations, still is a gay time for pranks and parties in many North country homes. Fun-loving Americans have borrowed from their British ancestors many Hallow E'en games such as apple-bobbing, nut roasting and tossing of apple parings. Transplanted to the New World soil, the old practices have become revitalized, and currently are observed with more enthusiasm than in the country of their birth.

To ancient Druids, the end of October commemorated the festival of the waning year, when the sun began his downward course and ripened grain was garnered from the fields." "Samhain, or 'Summer's End,' as this feast to the dying sun was called, was celebrated with human sacrifice, augury and prayers; for at this season spirits walked, and evil had power over souls of men.

Not until the fourth century did the pagan vigil for the god of light give way to All Hallows, the mass for Christian saints; and not until the tenth, did the Druids' death feast become All Souls' the day of prayer for souls that had entered rest. Cakes for the dead were substituted for human sacrifice, fortune-telling for heathen augury, lighted candles for the old Baal fires.

Far from being Christian, Halloween is an old pagan holiday masquerading as though it were one of the customs of the Church. Despite this, professing Christians encourage their children to get into the spirit of this pagan custom! The celebration of Halloween is clearly a relic of pagan times and superstitious tradition. Notice what the authoritative Encyclopedia Britannica says about this holiday. It long antedates Christianity. The two chief characteristics of ancient Halloween were the lighting of bonfires