Some Context for this Election (Cornerstone 11/06/2016)

Some Context For This Election

Thomas Keese

It may be true of every election, but it seems the case in this election it is unlike any other in our nation’s past. I know I am not alone in feeling gravely concerned for our nation’s future. There are so many things at stake as we approach November 8. No matter who is elected, we as Christians will continue to be confronted with major issues. 1st of all there is rampant immorality, fornication, adultery, lasciviousness and lovers of themselves, lovers of money, abortion, homosexuality, etc.… Which I doubt either candidate will deal with. This societies downward spiral started years ago and will likely continue for years to come. If God wanted to judge this nation based on its current moral state how can anyone argue it would not be deserved? No matter who is elected for most of us life will continue to go on without drastic changes. My goal for this article is to provide words of comfort and some context for this election cycle. Continue reading “Some Context for this Election (Cornerstone 11/06/2016)”

The Trial Of Jesus

by Roy Cogdill

There has been more recorded in the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John concerning the trial of Christ than has been recorded of any other event even including his cruicifixion. Two full chapters in each book are given to this story. It had been predicted by the prophets, and foretold by the Lord himself that he should be tried and rejected of men. The predictions and the prophecies concerning his trial and rejection by the rulers of the Jews became reality. The gospel records preserve for us the inspired account of that event.

From a legal point of view this trial represented the greatest miscarriage of justice and the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetrated against any person in all history. It was fraudulent from start to finish, illegal at almost every point and on every possible count. It was anything but a trial in which justice was in view in the desire of those conducting it. Jesus had incurred the enmity of the Jews for many different reasons. He had openly and positively condemned their sins. They did not like that any more than people like it today. They wanted to get him out of the way because of his exposure of their hypocrisy and ungodliness. He refused to adapt himself to their social conventions and religious traditions. Rather than recognize the class system of narrow bigotry which had been erected by the Jews, Jesus came into the world to seek and save the sinner; he associated freely with sinful people while here. He antagonized the Jews not only by refusing to yield to their social standards, but by violating their traditional religious prejudices as well. He based every stand that he took and every lesson that he taught on the will of God — not on the authority of men. God’s will was his governor and his guide in all things. We hear him say, “For I am come down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.” (John 6:38.) This the Jews could not stand. They hated and despised him because he steadfastly refused to yield himself to their political plans, establishing an earthly kingdom and throwing off the yoke of Rome.

They were perfectly willing to make him king if only he would liberate them from the hated Romans. But instead of submitting to their plans, adapting himself to their program of political endeavor, he steadfastly adhered to the plan God had made — that he might come into the world and die for the redemption of humanity, that he might make possible the salvation of the souls of men and women.

This was why they crucified him. It had become fully obvious to them that he was adamant in his refusal to become their political leader. When he refused the crown (John 6:15). they were filled with rage. From that time forward they tried repeatedly to destroy him. They tried once to take him out and cast him off the cliff that he might fall to the rocks below and be killed. But Jesus had delivered himself from them. On various other occasions they had sought him for the purpose of doing him harm or injury, or disposing of him completely. But Jesus’ time had not yet come; and he patiently continued his ministry until the hour was fulfilled. When finally the hour came, he meekly submitted himself to their arrest in the Garden of Gethsemane, commanding Peter to put up his sword. He knew the hour was near in which he should die for the redemption of the race, according to the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God.

After submitting to the motley throng of palace guards and fanatical Jews who had sought him out, he marched with the howling mob to the judgment hall of the High Priest and the Sanhedrin Council, the supreme court of the Jews. There he was tried in every way that a man should not be tried, in utter violation and disregard of their law, condemned to death illegally, and finally executed. It is of some of the particular illegalities of that trial that we want to study, and then will see what spiritual application such things ought to have to the life and heart of every man.

Jewish Government

No one can understand what took place during Jesus’ trial without some knowledge of the background of Jewish law and government against which the trial occurred. In Palestine at that time a two-fold government was in operation — a Jewish government and a Roman government. They had a vestige of the old Jewish theocracy still in existence. Most of its power, however, had been stripped from it by the conquering Romans. The conquerors had set up the land of Judaea as a protectorate, or as a Roman province. Pilate, the Roman governor, had received his office from Tiberius Caesar, and was the chief authority in the land. Certain rights and privileges the Jews were allowed to retain. They could go through the form of a trial on a capital offense, for example, but having found the prisoner guilty, could not execute him without first going to the Roman governor and obtaining his authority and permission. The Jewish courts could try a man and impose sentence, but were powerless to execute the sentence assessed.

Annas was the High Priest of the Jews at the time Jesus was tried; but he had been deposed from his office for the very reason that he had tried to impose the death penalty on another occasion, and the Romans had appointed his son-in-law, Caiaphas, to be High Priest in his stead. From this incident it seems clear that the Romans had pretty well deprived the Jews of any real authority or power. They had a form of legally constituted authority, but it was a form with little power.

In the Jewish system of courts which remained, however, there were three kinds of tribunals. There was a three-judge court, which was the lowest and most elementary form of government; this corresponded roughly to our local Justice of the Peace courts, or to our municipal courts today. Next above this lowest court, there existed in many of the cities, and wherever the people desired and approved it, a Junior Sanhedrin Council which consisted of twenty-three judges. Then over and above these courts was the senior or major Sanhedrin Council, consisting of 71 judges. Qualifications for men of the senior Sanhedrin were exactly prescribed by law. Jewish law provided for these three separate kinds of courts, and they existed and commonly tried cases within their respective jurisdictions.

In any study of the trial of Jesus it must be remembered that it had two parts or two phases — a Jewish part and a Roman part. In the Jewish phase of his trial, Jesus was first arrested and taken to Annas; then he was tried before Caiaphas, and then by the Sanhedrin Council of the Jews in two sessions, a night session and a morning session. This consummated the trial of the Son of God at the hands of the Jews. Being sentenced to death, he then began the Roman phase of his trial. He was taken first to Pilate. Pilate examined him, and sent him to Herod. He was tried by Herod, and returned to Pilate. Again Pilate examined him, and then turned him over to the mob, weakly trying to exonerate himself of blame by the symbolic act of washing his hands. So, while there were two phases or parts to the trial, there were in reality six separate trials: before Annas, Caiaphas, the Sanhedrin; and before Pilate. Herod, and Pilate again.

Jewish Law

There were a number of sources from which law came then, just as a number of sources fix our law today. If one were to examine the source of law in our generation, he would find that in many states law is statutory primarily. For example, Louisiana is recognized in our nation as being the state in which we find the most complete example of statutory law. But according to the old English common law, not every statute had to be enacted by a legislative body. Much of. the body of the English law, in contrast with Roman law, was derived from the decision of the courts, rather than from legislative enactments. And when a decision of the courts had not been made to guide in the trial of a given case, then customary practice was given authority. Customary practice ran according to this rule: In the absence of a statute, and in the absence of the decision of a court, if a thing had been customarily practiced over such a long period of time that the memory of man ran not to the contrary (nobody could remember when such was not the practice), then this customary practice became the rule and the law to govern in the decision of that particular case.

The Roman practice, however, was to codify their law; and everything had to be provided for in statute. While the State of Louisiana is the principal statutory state in the nation, the State of Tennessee is recognized as the principle common law state among us. Texas is a combination of both statutory and common law.

Just as we receive our laws today from these various sources, the laws in the time of Christ, both Jewish and Roman, were likewise gathered over the centuries from various sources. Particularly was this true of Jewish law. Among the Jews, they first of all went back to the statutes that had been given in the law of Moses, and in the prophets and the Psalms. The law that had been thus delivered was recognized as the primary source of authority. But to that original and primary statutory law there had been added the traditions of the elders, and a vast bulk of oral law, delivered by word of mouth from one generation to the next. From generation to generation these traditions had been handed down, and had received such respect and honor from the Jews that many Jews thought that Moses. in addition to the written law had actually delivered by word of mouth a great body of oral law!

When, therefore, we study the trial of Jesus, we must remember that not all the “law” that was violated by his persecutors is to be found in the statutory law; much of it is in the traditions of the elders and in the common practice established by the courts. It is this great bulk of law, from all sources, that we find the Jews so ruthlessly ignoring and over-riding in their frenzied effort to destroy their prisoner. In three or four articles to follow, we want to point out some of the most obvious and glaring of these illegal procedures and actions.

Gospel Guardian Vol X:10 Jan. 1958

Churches—God-Centered or Man-Centered?

by Sewell Hall

Religion by its very definition would seem to involve God. The word godly means Godcentered. However, there are those who practice a religion that is all about man rather than God. To say that such religion is godly is not to say that it is wicked, but simply that it is not centered in God. Jesus described such people in his day in the words of Isaiah: “These people draw near to me with their mouth, and honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. And in vain they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Matthew 15:8-9). Paul writes of those who are “lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God” while at the same time “holding a form of godliness” (2 Timothy 3:4-5). Jude describes some who are in the church, but are “ungodly men, who turn the grace of God into licentiousness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ” (Jude 4). Why would ungodly individuals continue to profess religion? Some do so, “supposing that godliness is a way of gain” (1 Timothy 6:5). Others, like Diotrophes (3 John 9), love the preeminence that they have attained in the church. Or, like the rulers of (John 12:43), they may love “the praise of men more than the praise of God.”

Contrasting Churches

Local churches may be led either by godly or by ungodly men — that is, by men who are most concerned for God and things of the Spirit or by men whose concerns are primarily human and temporal. Such churches can be distinguished by the following:

Goals: Godly leaders have as their goal “the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ; that we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness of deceitful plotting, but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things unto Him who is the head — Christ” (Ephesians 4:12-15). Men whose thinking is not dominated by God have as their primary goal increasing numbers — a big church. They consider numerical growth proof of God’s approval.

Doctrine: Godly leaders are determined to abide in the doctrine of Christ and not to go beyond it (2 John 9). Not godly men, knowing that most of the public “will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables” (2 Timothy 4:3-4), provide the teachers that will tickle their ears.

Discipline: Godly leaders will insist that, in harmony with God’s instructions, the church “withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly” (2 Thessalonians 3:6). Ungodly leaders advertise: “Come as you are” and boast that they are not judgmental, receiving everyone regardless of lifestyle.

Worship: Godly leaders insist that God be worshipped “acceptable with reverence and godly fear” (Hebrews 12:28) while ungodly men place great emphasis on “worship” that pleases the public and they seem concerned only that everyone leave “feeling good about themselves” and eager to return. Preachers: Godly leaders are not nearly as concerned with excellence of speech or of wisdom as that preachers be “determined not to know anything…save Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:1-2). Ungodly leaders insist that preachers be entertaining and personally popular, even with the world.

Activities: Godly leaders test every proposed action by all the scriptures, determined to “do all in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Colossians 3:17), while ungodly leaders offer whatever people want — sports, entertainment, education, feasts, travel – with little apparent concern for what God wants.

Testing Ourselves

The Bible blesses those who “hunger and thirst after righteousness” (Matthew 5:6). By contrast it condemns those who have “pleasure in unrighteousness” (2 Thessalonians 2:12). Our taste in churches will help us determine which we are. How will a person who has “pleasure in unrighteousness” feel about a church whose goal above all other things is to remake him into the image of Christ, whose doctrine is “the apostles’ teaching,” a church where he is put on notice that he must live a godly life or be disfellowshipped, where worship is designed exclusively to please God, where preachers preach only the word of God — reproving, rebuking and exhorting — where activities are altogether spiritual? On the other hand, how will one who is hungry and thirsty for righteousness feel about a church he visits where he receives nothing but entertainment, where the “sermons” are little more than jokes and pop psychology, where sin is never rebuked, sinners never convicted or exhorted, and where activities are the same as those offered at a public school, theater or country club. What kind of church are you seeking — the church of your choice or the church of God’s choice? A godly church or an ungodly church?

Sitting Under an Oak

Joe R. Price

Anyone who has worked on a hot summer’s day knows the value of an oak tree. The refreshment of its cool, shady respite invites all who have labored in the heat of the day. An escape from smothering heat, its towering branches provide calm relief from the sun’s intensity. Slumber comes easily under the oak tree.

Sin and compromise can also come easily – and subtlety – as we (figuratively) sit under an oak. The unnamed prophet of God learned this as he sat under an oak when he was returning from a mighty confrontation with Jeroboam, king of the northern tribes of Israel (1 Kings 13:1-10, 11-24). The prophet had boldly spoken the word of the Lord and exposed the sinful, idolatrous calf-worship instituted by Jeroboam in his effort to secure his throne (1 Kings 12:25-33). The prophet announced God’s judgment against Bethel’s altar of idolatry; a child named Josiah would destroy it and those who had offered false worship upon it.

The prophet from Judah whom God sent to Bethel gave a confirming sign; the altar split apart and ashes poured out from it (1 Kings 13:3-5). Jeroboam’s hand was miraculously withered when he tried to arrest the man, and it was mercifully restored when the man entreated the Lord on his behalf (1 Kings 13:4-6).

Even in the face of God’s mercy, Jeroboam showed no signs of change. Instead, he offered the prophet refreshment and reward, which the prophet refused (1 Kings 13:7-8). His reason for refusal was clear: God had commanded him not to stay there, but to return home another way. He would not linger in Bethel and give his presence, his name and his influence to the evil purposes of that place and its king. “For so it was commanded me by the word of the Lord, saying, ‘You shall not eat bread, nor drink water, nor return by the same way you came’” (1 Kings 13:9). Having thus stated the Lord’s will, he left Bethel and began his journey back to Judah another way (1 Kings 13:10).

Now, an old prophet learned about what the prophet had done in Bethel and what he had said to king Jeroboam (1 Kings 13:11-12). This old prophet had already compromised himself with Bethel’s sin, seeing that he did not retreat to Judah when Jeroboam’s idolatry was instituted as many others did (2 Chron. 11:13-17). We are not told why this old prophet pursued the man from Judah, but from the lies he told we cannot deduce righteous motives. Now was his opportunity to destroy the influence of this prophet from Judah or at the very least, to diminish the impact of the forceful denunciation of Bethel’s sin he had spoken. And so, he pursued him and found him, “sitting under an oak” (1 Kings 13:14).

Ah, the rest the prophet from Judah must have needed! The trip had been long and the battle great, but victory had been won. But now, how comfortable was the shade of the oak and the rest its outstretched branches gave as the leaves broke the heat, offering rest following the conflict.

And who can blame him? If anyone deserved rest, he did. He had come through a great confrontation with error. He had stood alone against the sins of Bethel. By the grace of God, he had stood for truth against king Jeroboam, the very one who could have destroyed him.

And yet, it was in his time of rest that his greatest temptation of yielding to sin was to come. We must always be vigilant; our adversary is always stalking us. We must constantly resist him by remaining steadfast in the faith (1 Pet. 5:8-9).

Please consider with me that, if the unnamed prophet had continued on his journey home instead of stopping to rest along the way, the lying old prophet might never have reached him. The lie would have been left unspoken; the enticement of rest, refreshment, and fellowship with the compromiser left unheard and unanswered. But as it was, at the moment of rest after victory, the man of God believed a lie, compromised his influence, and lost his life in judgment for his sin (1 Kings 13:15-23).

Lessons from Sitting under an Oak

There are vitally important lessons to learn from this event that we must use to thoroughly examine ourselves and by doing so be careful not to sit under an oak when we should be active in the Lord’s work.

1. Every man of God will be tempted to rest when there is work to be done. Every soldier longs for the day when the war ends. Every laborer anticipates the shade of the oak to escape, if even for a few moments, from the heat of the day. But the battle between truth and error has not ended. The warfare for souls rages around us. While we rejoice in every victory the Lord gives us, we must not stop fighting! No soldier in the Lord’s army is above the temptation of being lulled into contentment or even complacency after a day of battle. Did the unnamed prophet, having once successfully resisted the temptation to stay in Bethel to be refreshed at the king’s table and rewarded from the king’s treasure, think that he would no longer be tempted? Did he think he could not to be persuaded to compromise his faith and devotion to the Lord and His truth?

If so, he made a tragic mistake. Pride goes before destruction (Prov. 16:18). When anyone who has engaged the enemies of the faith and, by God’s grace, seen truth stand victorious against error and sin thinks he is above temptation, the temptation has already begun (Luke 22:31-34).

We must remember the Lord’s exhortation to work “while it is day” (John 9:4). Even when the day is hot and the task is difficult, we must work the works of God. There will be time enough to rest from our labors beyond this life (Rev. 14:13).

2. The victories of the past do not insure faithfulness in the present or in the future. If history teaches us anything it is that “once saved” does not mean “always saved.” Unfortunately, God’s own people can live as if we believe it is so (Gal. 5:7; Heb. 6:11-12). The word of God says, “For we have become partakers of Christ if we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to the end” (Heb. 3:14).

Some who stood against the encroachment of the missionary society would later sit under the oak and welcome the use of instrumental music into worship. Some who stood against the innovations of institutionalism would later sit under the oak and yield to the allurement of the social gospel. Others, who had fought valiantly and faithfully against institutional liberalism, would succumb to the deceptive invitation of the grace-fellowship movement, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness (Jude 3-4). Some once sound in the faith were turned; their influences for truth destroyed, and their souls lost in a deluge of compromise with denominational error.

Some who once stood solidly against the errors of liberalism, and paid a severe price for their conviction to truth would, in later years, believe the lie that we can have fellowship with brethren in spite of doctrinal disagreements. The battle over “the issues” had been fought. Now, sitting under the oak, perhaps other “issues” seemed less threatening. A new generation was coming on that had not fought those battles. Others failed to keep traveling home; they stopped under an oak. Rest from battle can be addicting; it is easier to sit under an oak than to lift the shield of faith and wield the sword of the Spirit (Eph. 6:13-17).

False teachings on marriage, divorce, and remarriage are among the errors that came to the forefront of the battle for truth and souls. The sincerity of the person and the clarity of the subject became markers used by some brethren to stake out positions of unity in doctrinal diversity. Romans 14 was offered as a reason why we should continue to use one with whom we have even doctrinal disagreement. It became noble and “positive” to continue to have fellowship with those who teach error on marriage, divorce and remarriage, while marking those who rebuked such error as “watchdogs” and “guardians of the orthodoxy.” Such appellations were and are unholy epithets, unworthy of those who believe and know the truth.

Is something similar happening now to those who have stood firmly against unity in moral and doctrinal diversity? Have we found an oak tree under which to sit? Are we tired of fighting for the truth? Are we ready for another generation to take over the battle? Are we ready to go in and eat and drink with those who have compromised the truth in spite of there being no evidence they have repented and are now standing in the truth? I pray it is not so. Yet, we must not deceive ourselves. It is possible that we have found an oak tree to sit under instead of continuing our journey home. Instead of having no fellowship with sin, but rather even reproving it, are we ready to accept the invitation to come in and rest, eat, drink, and share together with those who have already compromised themselves with error and sin (Eph. 5:11; 2 John 10-11)?

Today, churches of Christ are having preachers hold gospel meetings in spite of the error they teach on marriage, divorce, and remarriage, on unity in moral and doctrinal diversity, on the days of Genesis 1, the A.D. 70 doctrine or any number of other topics. Sitting under an oak, some have rationalized that they can have fellowship with those who do not preach the whole counsel of God. This confidence does not come from the word of the truth of the gospel, but from the wisdom and will of men (Col. 1:5-6; 2:4, 8).

3. Be sure you are believing and following God’s word instead of accepting and following the word of any man. The unnamed prophet believed a lie because he did not trust the truth that God had already commanded him. And, he did not examine the old prophet’s words to see if they were true. There was no confirming sign to validate the old prophet’s assertion that an angel had spoken to him (1 Kings 13:18). In contrast, the man of Judah was given confirming signs to demonstrate the truth he spoke against Bethel (1 Kings 13:3-5). Yet now, when he needed to test the word spoken to him, he failed to do so.

We who have once examined the Scriptures to be sure what we have been taught is from God, must continue to do so (Acts 17:11). If these is no evidence from the word of God that “these things are so” we must not rely on any man’s word that they are, lest we are deceived by believing a lie because we have not loved the truth (2 Thess. 2:10-12).

4. Do not compromise with those who compromise the word of God. It would do the prophet from Judah no good to say, “I know what the truth is” and then proceed to violate it. The fact is, he compromised the truth of God, believed a lie, and had fellowship with error. God forthrightly condemned his action: “Thus says the Lord: ‘Because you have disobeyed the word of the LORD, and have not kept the commandment which the Lord your God commanded you, but you came back, ate bread, and drank water in the place of which the LORD said to you, “Eat no bread and drink no water,” your corpse shall not come to the tomb of your fathers’” (1 Kings 13:21-22).

We cannot expect God to be pleased with us if we sit under an oak and, by doing so, have fellowship with sin and error. There is no such area of fellowship defined in God’s word (2 Cor. 6:14-16; Eph. 5:11). God will not accept us agreeing to disagree over revealed truth (2 John 9-11). His command is to “come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord. Do not touch when is unclean, and I will receive you” (2 Cor. 6:17).

We must investigate a man and his teaching before inviting him to work with a congregation as the evangelist on a permanent basis. Does he preach the whole counsel of God, or is he conspicuously silent on issues where the voice of truth should be heard? He may be “great with the young people,” but is he great in the word of God (2 Tim. 4:2-5)? With whom do you wish to have fellowship–the Lord and His faithful servants, or those who appear to be with God, but whose teaching does not “hold fast the pattern of sound words” (2 Tim. 1:13)?

We must investigate a man and his teaching before inviting him to preach a gospel meeting or to speak in a lectureship. Does he preach the whole counsel of God, or is he conspicuously silent on issues where the voice of truth should be heard? He may have a wide reputation, be a great orator, and draw large crowds, but is he bringing the doctrine of Christ or destructive heresies (2 John 9-11; 2 Pet. 2:1)? With whom do you wish to have fellowship–the Lord and His faithful servants or those who appear to be with God but whose teaching does not “hold fast the pattern of sound words” (2 Tim. 1:13)?

The Lord Jesus expects us to “judge righteous judgment” and not by appearance (John 7:24). It is possible to “judge what is right” concerning the faithfulness of a man’s teachings (Luke 12:54-57). It is accomplished by using the word of God “in knowledge and all discernment” (Phil. 1:9-11).

5. Do not stop until your journey is completed. The prophet of Judah never made it home in part, because he decided to stop on the way and sit under an oak. We must not rest; the road home stretches out before us. New Jerusalem is on the horizon, but there are miles yet to travel. There will be obstacles on the road–hazards to our faith and trials to endure (Heb. 12:1). The way will be hot and tiresome, yet we travel it in diligent hope, because Christ has gone before us and shows us the way home (Heb. 12:2). “And we desire that each one of you show the same diligence to the full assurance of hope until the end, that you do not become sluggish, but imitate those who through faith and patience inherit the promises” (Heb. 6:11-12).


Brethren, do not linger; do not tarry. Do not be lulled into a false sense of security by past victories. Do not sit under an oak. Instead, each one of us must “watch, stand fast in the faith, be brave, be strong” (1 Cor. 16:13). Eternity is before us, where we may sit under the tree of life and there rest forever (Rev.  22:2). But not yet; when our journey is complete and we have overcome (Rev. 2:7; 2 Tim. 4:6-8).

Truth Magazine Vol. LIII: 10 October, 2009

Environmentally Friendly Churches?

Jesse Flowers

One of the latest society fads that is growing in both public pressure and popularity is “saving the environment.” The “global warming” message of doom and gloom has been gathering much momentum in recent months.

Hollywood has gone “green.” Washington (politicians) has gone “green.” Many companies have also gone “green.” And the very latest, churches are going “green”! That’s right. Various churches have allowed themselves to be pulled into the climate change debate.

Continue reading “Environmentally Friendly Churches?”

Should I Celebrate Christmas?

David A. Padfield

Evansville, Indiana

Christmas is just around the corner and already we can see signs telling us to "Put Christ back into Christmas." People everywhere are saying Christmas is too commercialized and that we are overlooking the real meaning of Christmas. Some preachers are asking, "What are you going to give Christ on his birthday?" Most churches are organizing Christmas plays, cantatas and programs.

Since Christmas is recognized by most people as a religious Holy Day, it would be good for us to study its meaning. Considering Christmas has the word Christ in it, it should have some connection with the Lord. If there is a connection with the Lord, we should be able to turn to the New Testament and read of this observance. However, upon a careful examination, we fail to find a single reference to this day in the word of God.

Continue reading “Should I Celebrate Christmas?”