WHAT SHOULD PARENTS TEACH THEIR CHILDREN ABOUT SANTA CLAUS?

 Although Santa Claus is a mythical figure, his creation is based in part on a great Christian man named Saint Nicholas of Myra, who lived in the 4th century. Nicholas was born to Christian parents who left him an inheritance when they died, which he distributed to the poor. He became a priest at a young age and was well-known for his compassion and generosity. He had a reputation for giving gifts anonymously, and he would throw bags of money into people's homes (and sometimes down their chimneys) under the cover of night to avoid being spotted. Nicholas passed away on December 6 sometime around the 340s or 350s AD, and the day of his death became an annual feast in which children would put out food for Nicholas and straw for his donkey. It was said that the saint would come down from heaven during the night and replace the offerings with toys and treats—but only for the good boys and girls. There are many different versions of the legend of Saint Nicholas, but all are the inspiration for the jolly, red-suited gift-giver that we now know as Santa Claus.

Many Christian parents are torn as to whether or not they should play the "Santa game" with their children. On one hand, he makes Christmas fun and magical, leaving wonderful holiday memories for years to come. On the other hand, the focus of Christmas should be on Jesus Christ and how much He has already given us. So, is the story of Santa Claus an innocent addition to Christmas festivities, or is he a subject that should be avoided?

Parents need to use their own judgment in deciding whether or not to include Santa during the holidays, but here are some things to consider: Children who believe that the gifts they receive Christmas morning are from a magical man with unending resources are less likely to appreciate what they have been given, and the sacrifices their parents make in providing them. Greed and materialism can overshadow the holiday season, which is meant to be about giving, loving, and worshiping God. Children whose parents are on a tight budget may feel that they have been overlooked by Santa, or even worse, deemed one of the "bad" boys or girls.

An even more troubling aspect of telling our children that Santa comes down the chimney each year to leave their gifts is that it is, obviously, a lie. We live in a society that believes that lying for the "right" reason is acceptable. As long as it doesn't hurt anyone, it is not a problem. This is contrary to what the Bible tells us. "For the Scriptures say, 'If you want to live a happy life and good days, keep your tongue from speaking evil, and keep your lips from telling lies'" (1 Peter 3:10, NLT). Of course, telling our children that Santa is real is not a malicious deception, but it is, nevertheless, a lie.

Although it is probably not typical, some children honestly feel deceived and betrayed by their parents when they find out that Santa is not real. Children trust their parents to tell them the truth, and it is our responsibility not to break this trust. If we do, they will not believe more important things we tell them, such as the truth about Christ, whom they also cannot physically see.

This doesn’t mean we must leave Santa completely out of Christmas. Children can still play the "Santa game" even if they know it is all pretend. They can make lists, sit on his lap at the mall, and leave out cookies and milk on Christmas Eve. This will not rob them of their joy of the season, and gives parents the opportunity to tell their children about the godly qualities of the real Saint Nicholas, who dedicated his life to serving others and made himself into a living example of Jesus Christ.

What is the Egyptian book of the dead?

The Egyptian Book of the Dead carries one of the most misleading names in archaeology. Popular culture likes entertainment and oversimplification. For that reason, the Book of the Dead is usually thought of as “the ancient Egyptian Bible” or a book of sorcery or something along those lines. This title was used of a magical grimoire in The Mummy film series. It also probably inspired the Necronomicon as originally mentioned in the horror stories of H. P. Lovecraft. None of those comparisons are historically accurate.

The truth about the Egyptian Book of the Dead is less mysterious, but far more useful for understanding ancient Egyptian religious beliefs. These collected writings were intended as a guidebook for travel through the afterlife. Each “Book of the Dead” was customized for a specific person, based on his life and wealth. None of the “spells” has any meaning in the world of the living. There was no “canon” of contents, and each copy’s main purpose was to be buried with the deceased. According to Egyptian beliefs, this would allow the dead person to take the text with him into the afterlife.

It should be noted that the term Book of the Dead is an extraordinarily loose translation. The more literal title of these writings is something like “Chapters for Coming Forth by Day.” An Egyptologist used the phrase “Book of the Dead” when publishing translations in the 1840s. Those translations were based on papyrus found in Egyptian tombs, many of which included some version of those “spells.”

The “spells” in the Book of the Dead were believed to be useful only in the afterlife. The purpose of the writings was to guide the dead person to paradise. The instructions included ways to avoid certain dangers, passwords to use around certain spirits, and the correct procedures for getting past obstacles. Some of the directions are relatively mundane. Some are simple. Others were incredibly intricate and detailed. None of them were meant as magic incantations for the living to use.

The contents of the Book of the Dead varied considerably from person to person. There was no mandatory set of inclusions or anything parallel to the canon of the Bible. In fact, each Book of the Dead was custom-written for that person. Individuals with differing social position, lifestyles, and professions might have books including very different material. In some cases, professional scribes compiled Books of the Dead with blank spaces to be filled in later with the name of a customer.

Despite those wide variations, there was a “typical” version of the Book of the Dead used from around 1600 BC until the time of Christ. The only similarity between these writings and the Bible is that both are collections of separate texts. The Egyptian Book of the Dead was not a primary religious source or authority in Egyptian religion.

Among the more famous contents of a typical book of the dead are descriptions of how souls might hope to enter paradise. One especially famous passage, known as “Spell 125,” describes a convoluted process of answering questions, while naming and describing deities and spirits. This must be done correctly to arrive at the point where one’s heart is weighed on a balance—this determines if the deceased is worthy of paradise. This ornate ritual includes naming some 42 judges, each concerned with a unique sin or virtue.

The “real” status of the Egyptian Book of the Dead is not especially exciting. Arcane books full of magical spells make good props in action movies. Rolls of papyrus buried in tombs, intended as Google Maps for the Egyptian afterlife, are not nearly so entertaining. The truth about these writings, however, does provide insight into the religious beliefs of the Egyptian people.

WHAT IS THE HIERARCHY OF ANGELS?

 Some branches of Christian theology have proposed a 9-level hierarchy of angels as follows:

• Highest/First Order:
Seraphim
Cherubim
Thrones

• Middle/Second Order:
Dominions
Virtues
Powers

• Lowest/Third Order:
Principalities
Archangels
Angels

The difficulty is that the Bible identifies no such hierarchy of angels. In the Bible we see that there could be different kinds of angels, and, if there are different kinds, there might be some sort of hierarchy. If a hierarchy exists, the Bible does not tell us about it explicitly. If it were important for us to know about it, the Bible would have told us. The term angel simply means “messenger” and emphasizes the work that angels do.

Seraphim (singular seraph) is simply a word that means “fiery” or “bright.” Seraphim are mentioned as angelic beings only in Isaiah 6:1–4: “I saw the Lord, high and exalted, seated on a throne; and the train of his robe filled the temple. Above him were seraphim, each with six wings: With two wings they covered their faces, with two they covered their feet, and with two they were flying. And they were calling to one another: ‘Holy, holy, holy is the Lord Almighty; the whole earth is full of his glory.’ At the sound of their voices the doorposts and thresholds shook and the temple was filled with smoke.” Since the word seraphim is simply a description, it may be that the seraphim are simply “fiery beings” that may or may not be a distinct “kind” of angel.

Cherubim (singular cherub) are mentioned numerous times in Scripture. After Adam and Eve were driven out of the Garden of Eden, cherubim were placed there to guard the entrance (Genesis 3:24). The vast majority of the instances where cherubim are mentioned are in connection with the ark of the covenant, as the likeness of two cherubim adorned the cover of the ark (Exodus 25:18 –20; 37:7 –9; 1 Samuel 4:4). David sings a song of praise to God in which he says that God “mounted the cherubim and flew; he soared on the wings of the wind” (2 Samuel 22:11). When Ezekiel sees the glory of God leaving the temple, he also sees cherubim carrying the throne of God (Ezekiel 10). In verse 14, the cherubim are described as having four faces, those of a cherub, a human being, a lion, and an eagle. However, since angels are essentially spirit beings, it may be that they simply appeared to Ezekiel in this form for that particular revelatory vision.

There is only one archangel named in Scripture: Michael. He is mentioned in Jude 1:9. The voice of the archangel is heard in 1 Thessalonians 4:16, with no mention of his name. Revelation 12:7 describes war between Michael and his angels and the devil and angels. In Daniel 10:13, 21 and 12:1, Michael is described as an angelic prince. Michael’s being the leader of the angels would fit with both the title archangel and the role he plays. Archangel may be a role rather than a distinct kind of angel.

Another individual angel, Gabriel, is also named in Scripture. Gabriel delivered messages regarding the birth of John the Baptist (Luke 1:19) and Jesus (Luke 1:26). In speaking to John’s father, he describes himself as one who stands in the presence of God. There is no mention of what “kind” of angel Gabriel may be. He also delivered messages to Daniel in answer to his prayer (Daniel 8:16; 9:21). Daniel describes him as a man, which means that Gabriel appeared in human form. Again, as angels are essentially spirit beings, they do not have physical bodies, but it seems they may appear in various forms.

Michael and Gabriel are the only angels mentioned by name, but we know there are untold myriads of angels who serve God. It should be noted that, although angels have greater power and glory than human beings, it is human beings who are created in God’s image, and it is human beings, not angels, who will reign with Christ (Hebrews 2:5). It is human beings, not angels, who have been redeemed by the blood of Christ (Hebrews 2:16). Angels are servants of God who minister to believers (Hebrews 1:4). From one perspective, angels are certainly greater than people, yet, from another perspective, human beings occupy the primary place in God’s created order, and angels are to some extent excluded. They do not understand redemption in the way that God’s children understand it (1 Peter 1:2).

The term guardian angel is never mentioned in Scripture, although this concept is commonly assumed. Perhaps it is based on Matthew 18:10, “See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.”

Finally, there are fallen angels. Jude 1:6 clearly mentions them: “And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day”; as does Revelation 12:7–9: “Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.”

In summary, speculation abounds, but there is no elaborate hierarchy of angels revealed in Scripture. Seraphim and cherubim are mentioned in close connection with the throne and glory of God. Since seraph simply means “fiery,” it may be a description of an angel rather than a separate kind. The cherubim and seraphim are generally described as other-worldly creatures. Michael is the archangel, which would indicate that he has a distinct role, but not necessarily that he is a distinct kind of angel. Gabriel is an important messenger for God. When Gabriel appears, he is normally identified as being a “man,” as are other angels when they appear to humans. Angels do an important work, but we are never encouraged to fixate on them, and, of course, we are forbidden from worshiping them (Colossians 2:18). Overcome by the glory of his visions, John records, “At this I fell at [the angel’s] feet to worship him. But he said to me, ‘Don’t do that! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers and sisters who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God!’” (Revelation 19:10). Angels simply serve in the background and bring glory to God.

What does it mean that God sent Jesus in the “fullness of time”? Why did God send Jesus when He did? Why not earlier? Why not later?

 “But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law” (Galatians 4:4). This verse declares that God the Father sent His Son when “the time had fully come.” There were many things occurring at the time of the first century that, at least by human reasoning, seem to make it ideal for Christ to come then.

1) There was a great anticipation among the Jews of that time that the Messiah would come. The Roman rule over Israel made the Jews hungry for the Messiah’s coming.

2) Rome had unified much of the world under its government, giving a sense of unity to the various lands. Also, because the empire was relatively peaceful, travel was possible, allowing the early Christians to spread the gospel. Such freedom to travel would have been impossible in other eras.

3) While Rome had conquered militarily, Greece had conquered culturally. A “common” form of the Greek language (different from classical Greek) was the trade language and was spoken throughout the empire, making it possible to communicate the gospel to many different people groups through one common language.

4) The fact that the many false idols had failed to give them victory over the Roman conquerors caused many to abandon the worship of those idols. At the same time, in the more “cultured” cities, the Greek philosophy and science of the time left others spiritually empty in the same way that the atheism of communist governments leaves a spiritual void today.

5) The mystery religions of the time emphasized a savior-god and required worshipers to offer bloody sacrifices, thus making the gospel of Christ which involved one ultimate sacrifice believable to them. The Greeks also believed in the immortality of the soul (but not of the body).

6) The Roman army recruited soldiers from among the provinces, introducing these men to Roman culture and to ideas (such as the gospel) that had not reached those outlying provinces yet. The earliest introduction of the gospel to Britain was the result of the efforts of Christian soldiers stationed there.

The above statements are based on men looking at that time and speculating about why that particular point in history was a good time for Christ to come. But we understand that God’s ways are not our ways (Isaiah 55:8), and these may or may not have been some reasons for why He chose that particular time to send His Son. From the context of Galatians 3 and 4, it is evident that God sought to lay a foundation through the Jewish Law that would prepare for the coming of the Messiah. The Law was meant to help people understand the depth of their sinfulness (in that they were incapable of keeping the Law) so that they might more readily accept the cure for that sin through Jesus the Messiah (Galatians 3:22-23; Romans 3:19-20). The Law was also “put in charge” (Galatians 3:24) to lead people to Jesus as the Messiah. It did this through its many prophecies concerning the Messiah which Jesus fulfilled. Add to this the sacrificial system that pointed to the need for a sacrifice for sin as well as its own inadequacy (with each sacrifice always requiring later additional ones). Old Testament history also painted pictures of the person and work of Christ through several events and religious feasts (such as the willingness of Abraham to offer up Isaac, or the details of the Passover during the exodus from Egypt, etc.).

Finally, Christ came when He did in fulfillment of specific prophecy. Daniel 9:24-27 speaks of the “seventy weeks” or the seventy “sevens.” From the context, these “weeks” or “sevens” refer to groups of seven years, not seven days. We can examine history and line up the details of the first sixty-nine weeks (the seventieth week will take place at a future point). The countdown of the seventy weeks begins with “the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem” (verse 25). This command was given by Artaxerxes Longimanus in 445 B.C. (see Nehemiah 2:5). After seven “sevens” plus 62 “sevens,” or 69 x 7 years, the prophecy states, “the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary” and that the “end will come like a flood” (meaning major destruction) (v. 26). Here we have an unmistakable reference to the Savior’s death on the cross. A century ago in his book The Coming Prince, Sir Robert Anderson gave detailed calculations of the sixty-nine weeks, using ‘prophetic years,’ allowing for leap years, errors in the calendar, the change from B.C. to A.D., etc., and figured that the sixty-nine weeks ended on the very day of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem, five days before His death. Whether one uses this timetable or not, the point is that the timing of Christ’s incarnation ties in with this detailed prophecy recorded by Daniel over five hundred years beforehand.

The timing of Christ’s incarnation was such that the people of that time were prepared for His coming. The people of every century since then have more than sufficient evidence that Jesus was indeed the promised Messiah through His fulfillment of the Scriptures that pictured and prophesied His coming in great detail.