Examining the Origins of the Christmas Tree

Examining the Origins of the Christmas Tree

During the final year I spent in the Restored Church of God (RCG), Media Productions produced short “doctrinal introduction videos” on various doctrinal points from the church. The last one I was involved in, sought to prove Christmas trees were pagan according to the Bible using Jeremiah 10 and other “accepted” historical sources from WCG materials. After researching both the RCG materials and examining the historical sources, I found the referenced materials actually told a very different story. 

RCG is a splinter church off the Worldwide Church of God (WCG) which was led by Herbert Armstrong. They published a tremendous amount of material accusing both Catholic and Protestant churches of being direct descendants of the ancient Babylonian religion. They claimed this was evident since these churches kept observances such as Easter and Christmas. They sought to prove that these days were originally kept by the ancient Babylonian religion which had ultimately been syncretized into modern Christianity through the Roman Emperor Constantine. The majority of their arguments rested on the work of Alexander Hislop, the author of “Two Babylons.”

Using this scholarly backing, the WCG’s premise was that these worldly churches were actually satanic counterfeits of God’s “One True Church,” of which the WCG was a modern incarnation of. So while they wrote much about individual customs, practices and symbols, it was with the backdrop of their claim to being the “One True Church” who kept God’s true form of worship.

RCG’s Teaching on Christmas Trees

The “Christmas tree” was a symbol RCG often pointed to as unique evidence that connected the modern worldly pagan Christian religion with the pagan worship of ancient Egypt, Rome and Assyria. Writers and speakers often used Jeremiah 10 as the biblical text to prove that these trees are condemned by God. Let’s examine the materials they present as “ironclad” evidence that the Christmas tree extended back to the ancient Babylonian and Egyptian religion. 

First understand that the leader of RCG, largely copied his materials verbatim from the booklet that Herbert Armstrong wrote decades earlier. He claims to know more about Christmas than any person alive. In a sermon towards the end of 2019 (only released to his membership), he made the prophetic claim that Jesus Christ would return to earth and only to his small group during the Christmas season. That obviously didn’t happen but does not diminish his bombastic claims.

Consider these quotes from Dave Pack:

“I'm not a rookie at this subject. There's some things that I don't know about. Believe me, lots of them. I wouldn't be a good piano teacher or violin for that matter. But there are some things I understand. [understanding Christmas] It's my calling and I think God prepared me to understand in a unique way. The second kingdom is born in a pre-Christmas scenario.... I had no idea God was preparing me to be able to say with such authority, I know exactly who that God is [Molech/Jesus in a Christmas Setting].”

Then a little later in the message, “So that's why I wrote this very, very detailed booklet on Christmas [copied from the WCG], more so than ever before. And some of you go back with me all the way to Worldwide and you know that I preached on the subject of Christmas. Maybe there's somebody who knows more about it [the Christmas Holiday] than I do, but I doubt it. And I understand. I can connect it to the mind to the devil and how God hates [Christian] holidays.”

Then he says, “Because I personally don't see any way God will let Israel, based on what I know, keep Christmas this year [2019, Christ was supposed to return before the start of Christmas], or Hanukkah, which is three days before. We'll come to that in a moment. Or, we're waiting a year, in which case the series is over. So, pray tell, what are we going to come up with? Another 50 sermons?” [In fact, his sermon series continued to over 50 additional messages]

(David Pack, The Greatest Untold Story, Part 220)

With that context, David Pack makes it clear, he claims to know more about Christmas than any man alive. This is despite the fact he has virtually no body of knowledge on the subject, largely copying his booklet on the subject from Herbert Armstrong and Hislop’s research from “The Two Babylons.”

RCG and WCG’s “Historic Claims”

So what historic sources does RCG use to prove the Christmas tree extends back to the Babylonian religion? If it is in fact obvious, then his sources should be easily substantiated. The booklet, “The True Origin of Christmas,” carries the following quote under the subhead “The Origin of the Christmas Tree.”  

“No booklet about Christmas is complete without some explanation of the “Christmas tree.” We have touched on it without directly focusing on it. The modern Christmas tree originated in Germany. But the Germans got it from the Romans, who got it from the Babylonians and the Egyptians.

The following demonstrates what the Babylonians believe about the origin of the Christmas tree: “An old Babylonish fable told of an evergreen tree which sprang out of a dead tree stump. The old stump symbolized the dead Nimrod, the new evergreen tree symbolized that Nimrod had come to life again in Tammuz! Among the Druids the oak was sacred, among the Egyptians it was the palm, and in Rome it was the fir, which was decorated with red berries during the Saturnalia!” (Walsh, Curiosities of Popular Customs, p. 242).”  (The True Origin of Christmas, Subhead: “The Origin of the Christmas Tree.”)

The WCG booklet, “The Plain Truth About Christmas”, where much of this was copied from, uses the same story, but doesn’t give the source of reference. 

“From many ancient writings, considerable is learned of this man, who started the great organized worldly apostacy from God that has dominated this world until now. Nimrod was so evil, it is said he married his own mother, whose name was Semiramis. After Nimrod's untimely death, his so-called mother-wife, Semiramis, propagated the evil doctrine of the survival of Nimrod 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 Nimrod. On each anniversary of his birth, she claimed, Nimrod would visit the evergreen tree and leave gifts upon it. December 25th was the birthday of Nimrod. This is the real origin of the Christmas tree.” (The Plain Truth About Christmas, Herbert Armstrong, Page 11)

That said, when one looks for the source text from William Walsh, “Curiosities of Popular Customs,” the story presented in this source nowhere mentions either above quote. Babylon, Tammuz, Nimrod or Semiramis are nowhere found in the passage. Those terms actually aren’t in the book at all. This section appears to be entirely fabricated (or at least incompetently sourced). Instead, the story references St. Winfrid, an 8th century leading figure who was instrumental in converting Germanic parts of the Frankish empire. Some traditions hold the legend that he hewed down an oak tree that was being worshipped by druids, in order to halt their pagan worship of the great oaks. Then behind the felled trees, he pointed to a young fir, that was supposed to represent a new way of worship, symbolizing Christ. That legend ultimately is pointed to as where Christmas trees came from. Interestingly, if the legend of St. Winfrid is to be believed, then it proves that the Christmas tree is in fact a creation of the Christian community, as he is venerated by the Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans and Lutherans.

Debunking Other Myths

Outside of this myth however, the source chosen by both RCG and WCG is much more dubious on where the tree came from. As reading a paragraph after their referenced story gives the following explanation.

“But myths aside the history of the Christmas tree is difficult to trace. [Then, the author gives 4 explanations of where the Christmas Tree may have come from]  It may have some remote connection with the great tree Yggdrasil of Norse mythology It may be a revival of the pine trees in the Roman Saturnalia which were decorated with images of Bacchus as described by Virgil in the Georgics...Two other suggestions are offered by Sir George Birdswood in the Asiatic Quarterly Review vol i pp 19 20. It has been explained as being derived from the ancient Egyptian practice of decking houses at the time of the winter solstice with ranches of the date palm the symbol of life triumphant over death and therefore of perennial life in the renewal of each bounteous year and the supporters of these suggestions point to the fact that pyramids of green paper covered all over with wreaths and festoons of flowers and strings of sweetmeats are often substituted in Germany for the Christmas tree. (Walsh, Curiosities of Popular Customs, p. 243). 

“Therefore if a relationship exists between the Egyptian practice of decking houses at the winter solstice with branches of the date palm and the German and English custom of using gift bearing and brilliantly illuminated evergreen trees which are nearly always firs as a Christmas decoration, it is most probably due to collateral rather than to direct descent and this is indicated by the Egyptians having regarded the date palm not only as an emblem of immortality but also of the starlit firmament.” (Walsh, Curiosities of Popular Customs, p. 243). 

Reading further in the passage, the customs of several civilizations are mentioned and the author sums his research up as simply “vague traditions” and “legends”  

“These vague traditions merging together finally led to the permanent establishment of the Christmas tree. As a regular institution however it can be traced back only to the sixteenth century. During the Middle Ages, it suddenly appears in Strassburg. A valuable authentic manuscript of 1608 by a Strassburg burgher now in a private collection in Friedberg Hesse describes the tree as a feature of the Christmas season. The manuscript of a book entitled “The Milk of Catechism” by the Strassburg theologian, Dannhauer mentions the same subject in a similar way. For two hundred years the fashion maintained itself along the Rhine when suddenly at the beginning of this century it.” (Walsh, Curiosities of Popular Customs, p. 243). 

So if the myth cited in their source material is to be believed, then the Christmas tree is in fact a Christian symbol created in defiance of pagan oak tree worship. If William Walsh is to be believed, then the Christmas tree is simply a similar symbol to what ancient civilizations may have used, but can only be traced back to the sixteenth century.

Haskin’s Answers to Questions

However, RCG gives another source for their claims to its ancient roots.

“Frederick J. Haskin’s Answers to Questions states, “The Christmas tree is from Egypt, and its origin dates from a period long anterior to the Christian Era.” Did you know this—that the Christmas tree long preceded Christianity?” (The True Origin of Christmas, Subhead: “The Origin of the Christmas Tree.”)

Who is Frederick J. Haskins? He was born in 1873 in Shelbina, Missouri and reportedly was a poor country boy, without much schooling. However, having had success in writing newspaper columns, he went on to open his own “Haskins Information Bureau” in Washington DC, near the Library of Congress. He would then solicit the public for questions and trivia and would research it in the capital’s archives, writing and publishing his answers. His staff grew and it became quite popular in the early 20th century. His answers were later codified into two books, his “Answers to Questions.”

While at the time, many found his answers reputable, he rarely provided source information, where he found his research and how he arrived at his sweeping conclusions. 

The passage RCG and WCG cites is below:

“Q. What country used Christmas Trees first? C.H. 

A. The Christmas Tree is from Egypt, and its origin dates from a period long anterior to the Christian Era. The palm tree is known to put forth a branch every month and a spray of this tree, with 12 shoots on it, was used in Egypt at the time of the winter solstice, as a symbol of the year completed.” (Fredrick J. Haskins, Answers to Questions, pp143) 

This pithy answer contradicts the earlier source which stated the ancient Egyptians used sprigs of date palms at the winter solstice. Therefore his quote is short to a fault and provides very scant information to make it’s broad conclusion. There is no source for the assertion. As per Walsh’s material, the history of the Christmas tree is hard to deduce. Therefore the information presented here is far from conclusive and can’t conclusively prove RCG’s claims. 

Biblical Reference in Jeremiah 10

Finally, both the WCG and RCG, cite Jeremiah 10:1-6 as their final say on the matter. The booklet from Restored provides the following passage and explanation to back their claim.

“Most aspects of Christmas are not referred to in the Bible. Of course, the reason is that they are not from God—they are not part of the way He wants people to worship Him. The Christmas tree, however, is directly mentioned in the Bible! Turn to Jeremiah 10:2-5, “Thus says the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen…For the CUSTOMS of the people are VAIN: for one cuts a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not. They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.”

This plain description of the modern Christmas tree is clear. God directly refers to it as “the way of the heathen.” Just as directly, He commands His people to “learn not the way of the heathen,” calling these customs “VAIN.” Verse 23 adds a remarkable and powerful statement: “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.” God must teach people how to live. Man simply cannot figure out God’s ways for himself.

There is no room in Jeremiah 10 to believe, as some have tried to suggest, that because these trees are powerless of themselves, it is not really forbidden to have a Christmas tree. God condemns the putting up of pagan (Christmas) trees with this plain Bible command!” (The True Origin of Christmas, Subhead: “The Origin of the Christmas Tree.”)

Jeremiah’s description does sound similar to the modern Christmas tree, however there are a few points to notice. If Christmas trees didn’t appear until the sixteenth century, then obviously Jeremiah would have no way to write about their use in worship. We are reading the modern description of a tree into something that was written well before anything like that existed. Some other splinter groups such as UCG, claim this is actually a prophecy of coming modern Christmas trees which would be worshipped by the “modern nations of Israel.” This was in support of the defunct British Israelism doctrine. Virtually all Bible commentaries correctly label Jeremiah 10:2-5 as the creation of an idol from a tree felled in the forest. Matthew Henry’s Commentary lists this:

“Consider what the idol is that is worshipped. It was a tree cut out of the forest originally. It was fitted up by the hands of the workman, squared, and sawed, and worked into shape; see Isa. 44:12, etc. But, after all, it was but the stock of a tree, fitter to make a gate-post of than any thing else. But, to hide the wood, they deck it with silver and gold, they gild or lacquer it, or they deck it with gold and silver lace, or cloth of tissue. They fasten it to its place, which they themselves have assigned it, with nails and hammers, that it fall not, nor be thrown down, nor stolen away, v. 4. The image is made straight enough, and it cannot be denied but that the workman did his part, for it is upright as the palm-tree (v. 5); it looks stately, and stands up as if it were going to speak to you, but it cannot speak; it is a poor dumb creature; nor can it take one step towards your relief….They are worshipped as the gods that give us breath and life and sense, whereas they are lifeless senseless things themselves, and there is no breath in them; there is no spirit in them (so the word is); they are not animated, or inhabited, as they are supposed to be, by any divine spirit or numen-divinity. They are so far from being gods that they have not so much as the spirit of a beast that goes downward. They are vanity, and the work of errors.” (Matthew Henry Commentary, Jeremiah 10)

Even though one can twist the words of the Bible to make this seem like a modern Christmas tree, the tree itself, plays no part of a symbol that is worshiped as it would need to be according to Jeremiah. Some groups claim that people keeping Christmas worship “materialism” and the tree is a symbol of this worship. However those mental gymnastics stretch the passage to be applicable to almost anything. 

Examining Jeremiah 10

This claim is simply not what Jeremiah was referring to when warning against crafting statutes or idols that worshippers would bow down to.

In verse 5, the idols are referenced: 

“They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do good.” (NASB, Jeremiah 10:5)

The bolded text is obviously referring to something resembling a living creature, something that could have moved or spoken. Christmas trees, in their modern and historic sense, never had those properties. Other translations make it clear that idols of false gods were being spoken of here, not Christmas trees that could walk and speak.

“Like a scarecrow in a cucumber field, their idols cannot speak; they must be carried because they cannot walk. Do not fear them; they can do no harm nor can they do any good.”

(New International Version)

“Their idols are like scarecrows in a cucumber field, and they cannot speak; they have to be carried, for they cannot walk. Be not afraid of them, for they cannot do evil, neither is it in them to do good."

(Revised Standard Version)

Their gods are like helpless scarecrows in a cucumber field! They cannot speak, and they need to be carried because they cannot walk. Do not be afraid of such gods, for they can neither harm you nor do you any good.”

(New Living Translation)

It may be helpful to realize just a few verses later, Jeremiah 10:10-11 makes it clear that the prophet is referring specifically to the idol of a false god (not a Christmas tree).

10 But the LORD is the true God; he is the living God, the eternal King. When he is angry, the earth trembles; the nations cannot endure his wrath. 11 "Tell them this: 'These gods, who did not make the heavens and the earth, will perish from the earth and from under the heavens.' " (Jeremiah 10:10-11 New International Version)

In verses 10 and 11, the God of Israel is being compared to the false gods in surrounding civilizations. These  were fashioned out of felled trees in the forest. The gods of the Egyptians, Babylonians and Assyrians were being compared to the Hebrew’s God. In this passage, there is simply no mention of anything having to do with Christmas, it’s celebration, anciently or in a modern sense. 

Even the historic sources provided in both RCG and WCG’s booklet don’t support their claims. 

Alexander Hislop and the Roman Catholic Church 

As a final note, it should be mentioned that all the Church of God groups, borrow both their eschatology and the identities they see in the Book of Revelation and Babylon from the work of Alexander Hislop. In his book, “The Two Babylons; on Papal Worship Proven to be the Worship of Nimrod and his Wife” Hislop asserts that the Roman Catholic System and its religious trappings are actually direct extensions of the worship of Nimrod (the hunter who built the Tower of Babel) and his mother/wife Semiramis. He uses a variety of historical and religious sources to attempt to prove that the modern Papacy and Catholic Church is actually the Babylonian religion. 

Despite Hislop’s claims otherwise, his theory has been debunked many times and is not recognized as a credible historical stance. There is simply no concrete evidence that the Catholic religion is a descendant of the Babylonian mystery religion. 

One good source on debunking his claims is Albert McIlhenny’s “This Is the Sun?: Zeitgeist and Religion (Volume I: Comparative Religion)” and other Orthodox Christan apologetics refute Hislop’s work. Another famous critic is Ralph Woodrow, who at first was a strong advocate of his teachings, until realizing how erroneous the research was and then became an outspoken critic. He has since published work refuting all of Hislop’s historic claims.

While there are still some Protestant denominations that assert the Catholic church is a descendant of the pagan Babylonian system, the vast majority of Christianity has rejected that notion. While they disagree with Catholic doctrine on many points, they are apt to see them as “brothers in error” and not mortal enemies.

Reading through the COG religious stance on the Roman Catholic Church, one obviously sees Hislop’s influence in their theology. Especially on their teachings surrounding Easter, Christmas and other mainstream Christian holidays. Since the COG movement sees theirs as the “Only True Church,” they can easily brand all other religions as pagan counterfeits of their movement.  

Conclusion

RCG, having copied erroneous materials taken from the Worldwide Church of God, circa the 1850’s attempt to definitively declare the Christmas tree dates back to ancient civilizations and is an extension of the Babylonian pagan religion. Examining the source materials they cite and their biblical explanation, it is clear that this is simply not true. Their historic sources tell a story that is entirely different from how they use the material. Biblically, their explanation of Jeremiah 10, seems to support the failed theory of British Israelism and contradicts Christian scholarship and several Bible commentaries. In addition, the failed notions of Alexander Hislop who attempted to connect the Catholic Church to the Babylonian Religion system also is baseless.

One can only assume that the authors in RCG and WCG were either ignorant of their own source material or deliberately ignored historical and biblical contradictions. Instead they believed and perpetuated historical lies to further their bias, rather than simply accepting the truth on the matter.