Support via Patreon | Subscribe

For most people, the question of the origins of Christmas is probably far from their minds. Some may recognise and give a cursory glance towards the Biblical narrative on the birth of Jesus as something to do with it (although a 2017 study showed that almost 1 in 20 Brits thought Easter was the birth of Jesus!);—but in some Christian circles the question (accusation?) that “Christmas is pagan” is at the forefront of their minds.

As time goes on and we move further and further into the future, away from the initial events of the first Nativity, the festival of Christmas has morphed into something altogether different than how the first Christians recognised and celebrated it (if they even did).

We know from historical records and study now that a lot of what has been incorporated into the festivities surrounding Christmas does have pagan origins, but does that make the holiday itself still pagan today? Are you inadvertently worshipping “the birthday of the Unconquered Sun” (Dies Natalis Solis Invicti) when you celebrate on the 25th of December?

Advertisement

Let’s trace a little bit of history and see how the early church viewed these festivals, as they were still happening in full force whilst the Church was still young and were a contemporary concern, and what date they pinned the birth of Christ on to.

Much of the earliest references to the Nativity occur in a passing way as a commentary on the event rather than anything celebratory about it. Justin Martyr in his First Apology (~160 AD) mentions that Jesus was born 150 years before him, in the time of Quirinius (or Cyrenius as some translations have it – cf. Luke 2:2), where his readers could “ascertain also from the registers” the accuracy of his statement. Tertullian (197 AD) also references this census as a place where “Mary is described”, in which New Testament scholar W. M. Ramsey saw as proof that Tertullian at least, had access to documents which we no longer do. Origen (~248 AD) even mentions that in his own day, “there is displayed at Bethlehem the cave where Jesus was born”, and that “this sight is greatly talked of in the surrounding places—even among the enemies of the faith” (now known as The Church of the Nativity)!

The first person we see write about a specific date of the birth is Clement of Alexandria around 195 AD in book one of The Stromata, and he speaks about others who have tried to pinpoint the exact day and month of Jesus’ birth, which brings up a variety of dates:

From the birth of Christ, therefore, to the death of Commodus [December 192 AD] are, in all, a hundred and ninety-four years, one month, thirteen days [18th November]. And there are those who have determined not only the year of our Lord's birth, but also the day; and they say that it took place in the twenty-eighth year of Augustus, and in the twenty-fifth day of Pachon [20th May]. And the followers of Basilides hold the day of his baptism as a festival, spending the night before in readings. […] Further, others say that He was born on the twenty-fourth or twenty-fifth of Pharmuthi [19/20th April]. — Clement of Alexandria, 195 AD

Advertisement

So from this quote, we have Clement calculating the birth of Christ to around the 18th of November, 2 BC by our calendar today, and others still who he mentions have worked it out to be around April or May time. He also mentions other people who placed the date of birth on January 6th in 2 or 3 BC, which for any liturgical people reading this, will recognise as another important date in the Christian calendar (we'll come back to this date later).

Keeping and celebrating birthdays was a very Roman thing to do, so it’s no surprise that earlier Christians from a more Jewish heritage didn’t see any importance on marking the exact day and month that Jesus was born, as it was his death and resurrection which held a far greater importance and cause for celebration. Easter was really the first major festival of the Church in its early years over and above anything else that came to be recognised.

The next real reference to Jesus’ birth being on the date we are more familiar with, comes from an important early theologian called Hippolytus of Rome, around the year 220 AD, in his Commentary on Daniel:

For the first advent of our Lord in the flesh, when he was born in Bethlehem, eight days before the kalends of January [December 25th], the 4th day of the week [Wednesday], while Augustus was in his forty-second year, [2 or 3 BC] but from Adam five thousand and five hundred years. He suffered in the thirty third year, 8 days before the kalends of April [March 25th], the Day of Preparation, the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar [29 or 30 AD], while Rufus and Roubellion and Gaius Caesar, for the 4th time, and Gaius Cestius Saturninus were Consuls. — Hippolytus, ~220 AD

Advertisement

The text from where this quote is found has an interesting history, as it appears to be from a later text in the tenth century which may point back to an earlier reliable witness, but this date could be an interpolation. Though how or where Hippoylytus got this date from (if he did in fact write this), I am unsure, and it’s quite telling that this is the only fragment from this period to put this date on the Nativity when contemporaries of Hippolytus (such as Tertullian et al.) are strangely quiet about it.

Up until this point in history, if we accept Hippolytus’ excerpt as genuine, there has been no mention of Jesus’ birth on December 25th specifically except for that one time. And even then, the quotes from Early Fathers so far have merely been speculation about the time and date for information’s sake really, with no mention of it being a celebrated event.

When was December 25th celebrated?

December was already a period of festivities in the Roman Empire for a variety of reasons, one such event being Saturnalia. This was a festival in honour of the god Saturn and was held on December 17th originally, but later extended to the 23rd. It involved gift giving and feasting, so you can see where some of those influences still appear today!

Early Christians spoke against the pagan festivals of the day, and usually just lumped them all together in their criticisms, as the end of the year/beginning of the next had a few different events going on, similar in some ways to our own day. Tertullian was most vocal about it all, and had some harsh words for those Christians who did get caught up in all of the parties going on around them! Have a look at the quote below and see what practices sound familiar even now in 2019:

On your day of gladness, we [Christians] neither cover our doorposts with wreaths, nor intrude upon the day with lamps. At the call of public festivity, you consider it a proper thing to decorate your house like some new brothel …. [The Romans] clad their doorposts with green and branching laurels. They smoked up their porches with lofty and brilliant lamps. —Tertullian, ~197 AD

Any of that seem familiar: wreaths, decorations, greenery, lights, feasting and gifts? It would appear our modern Christmas celebrations owe much to second century Roman festivals — with one key difference: we aren’t celebrating these things today as a sacrifice or in honour of Caesar or one of the Roman gods. This is why such festivals (and those who frequented them—Christians included) were spoken against so much by early Christian leaders, as their intent was a completely different focus.

What less of a defamation does he incur on that ground than does a business … that is publicly consecrated to an idol? The Minervalia are as much Minerva’s as the Saturnalia is Saturn’s … likewise, New Year’s gifts must be caught at. The Septimontium must be kept. And all the presents of Midwinter and the Feast of Dear Kinsmanship must be exacted … The same thing takes place on an idol’s birthday. Every ceremony of the devil is frequented. Who will think that these things are befitting to a Christian teacher? —Tertullian, ~200 AD

As you can see from the various festivals listed (which happened throughout the year), all were considered as pagan worship and giving honour to idols and the devil. Tertullian, again, had even stronger words for those Christians who did get involved in the pagan celebrations out of a misguided attempt to avoid unbelievers blaspheming God by their inaction. Yet Tertullian goes on to make the point that Christians have their own calendar with certain days which are recognised (Pascha/Easter and Passover) and that even pagans wouldn’t keep those in case they were mistaken to be Christians too, so why would Christians follow in the pagan traditions dedicated to idols?

We may not join in their feasts, which are celebrated in honour of demons. — Apostolic Constitutions, ~390 AD

The Christian Calendar

So what was this calendar which Tertullian mentioned? Well, it was something fairly well-established before this point in time, as Christians had been celebrating Easter (or Pascha) and Pentecost pretty much since the birth of the Church.

If the apostle has erased all devotion absolutely of “seasons, days, months and years”, why do we celebrate Easter by an annual rotation in the first month? Why in the fifty ensuing days do we spend our time in all exultation? Why do we … [fast on] the Preparation Day [i.e. Good Friday]? — Tertullian, 213 AD

We can see from at least the second century, Christians had fixed times of the year which were kept for certain celebrations around the resurrection, Passover and Pentecost — celebrations which were surely older than the time of Tertullian writing about them as matter-of-factly as he does.

Advertisement

Origen, writing a few decades later around 248 AD, mentions the feast days of the Church that are kept by all believers showing that these customs were fairly central to the worship of the early Christians. I know that some people say we don’t, or shouldn’t, need special days to celebrate Jesus as he is always with us by his Holy Spirit within us etc., and there is truth to that sentiment; Origen would even agree, but he also gives a reason as to why we keep fixed days for specific events:

We ourselves are accustomed to observe certain days. For example, there is the Lord’s Day, the Preparation, Easter and Pentecost … However, the majority of those who are accounted believers are not of this advanced class [i.e., those who focus on Christ every day]. Rather, they require some sensible memorials to prevent spiritual things from passing completely away from their minds. — Origen, ~248 AD

As you can see, the reason for keeping special days of celebration is in fact for the benefit of those Christians who may not focus on Christ so much all the time and need some type of regular reminders and big points in time to recenter themselves in their faith.

It’s really towards the end of the fourth century that we see a more detailed and defined Church Calendar, and one which specifically includes a Christmas date:

Brethren, observe the festival days. First of all, there is the birthday that you are to celebrate on the twenty-fifth of the ninth month [December]. After that, let the Epiphany be to you the most honoured, in which the Lord made to you a display of His own divinity. And let that feast take place on the sixth of the tenth month [January]. After that, the fast of Lent is to be observed by you as containing a memorial of our Lord’s manner of life and teaching. But let this solemnity be observed before the fast of Easter, beginning from the second day of the week and ending at the Day of the Preparation. After those solemnities, breaking your fast, begin the holy week of Easter, all of you fasting in this week with fear and trembling. — Apostolic Constitutions ~390 AD

Much of what is instructed here hasn’t changed at all since the fourth century, which is amazing in itself, I find. There were (and still are) some differences on dates between the Eastern and Western churches, as the Roman Empire obviously had a great deal of influence in the West, especially with the Romans creating the Julian calendar which affected the days and months of the years. In the East, the Church celebrated and developed the Epiphany festival on January 6th which was to commemorate the baptism and birth of Jesus together. Even now, Orthodox and Coptic Churches still follows the Julian dating system for church festivals, and so celebrate Christmas on the (Gregorian) 7th of January as this date would have been the Julian December 25th. It was only in the West where the two events were separated and that Epiphany focused on the visit of the Magi at the birth of Christ instead of his baptism.

John Chrysostom gave a sermon in Antioch on December 20th, 386 AD which gives us a nice insight into how the Christmas date and celebration began to develop more:

For from this feast [that is, the Nativity], the Theophany and the holy Pascha and the Ascension and the Pentecost take their origin and foundation, for if Christ had not been born according to the flesh, he could not have been baptised, which is the Theophany; he could not have been crucified, which is the Pascha; he could not have sent the Spirit, which is the Pentecost.

Advertisement

We see here that the reason for celebrating the Nativity flows logically out of the recognition of the other events of Jesus’ life which were remembered — but still we don’t really see why the twenty-fifth was chosen in the end. Chrysostom’s next sermon, five days later, give us another insight to how this Nativity festival began to spread.

And really, this date of Christ’s birth has been manifest and known to us less than ten years…This, which has been known from of old to the inhabitants of the West and has now been brought to us, not many years ago, is suddenly growing and bringing fruit.

From these quotes, we learn two things specifically: firstly, it appears that the celebration of Christ’s birth as a defined event only really took hold in the East before 386 AD and had only been around there for “less than ten years”. The second thing, is that Chrysostom says that this tradition of celebrating on the 25th of December was a tradition “known from of old” by the Western Church, hinting that the date was known much earlier than some of our written records may say, or that it was a contender for the assumed date when earlier Christians were trying to calculate it. One other theory for the December date is that it occurs nine months after “the Annunciation” (when Gabriel announced to Mary that she would conceive) which is celebrated on the 25th of March, and is a feast day which dates back to the fourth or fifth century too.

Concluding Thoughts

To conclude this study on Christmas, I hope that it has become clear that the timing of the Christmas celebration date is far more complex and involved than the rather simplistic view that early Christians just wanted to replace other pagan festivals, and slapped a new one on top of an older festival! 

Advertisement

The idea of even being remotely associated with these ungodly festivals was repugnant to the early church — hence Tertullian’s many strong words against those believers who were swayed by the festivities, and other later texts saying that these other festivals are all in honour of demons. No, these dates and celebrations which arose around the birth of Christ, the visit of the Magi, the Annunciation etc, all came about independently of the Roman celebrations which appear more circumstantial than anything else.

A lot of our other Christmas themes and trappings may be hangovers from a bygone Roman Empire, but the remembrance and celebrations of the incarnation within the Church body were certainly more rooted in a God-honouring and Biblically-minded fashion for worship, than anything else that is often assumed about it. 

I hope that you now, armed with this knowledge, will go forth and have a very merry Christmas.

 


Bonus Information

Advertisement

Saying “Xmas” isn't taking Christ out of Christmas; the Χ is actually the Greek letter Chi which is the first letter of “Christ” in Greek (Χριστός) and so the “Xmas” is simply an ancient shorthand word, nothing nefarious about it! See also: Who was the real Santa Claus? 

Fun fact about New Year's Day:

It didn't really exist as a thing until Julius Caesar changed the calendar to add in a new month called "January" in honour of the god JanusJanus was a god of new beginnings and such like things, with two faces looking into the past and future which is where new year resolutions are thought to come from as a way of asking the god to help or make promises to him. January 1st was the day of honour for the Janus celebration.

The Biblical new year, if you want to call it that, is around April by our modern calendar:

Exodus 12:2 (WEB)

This month (Abib/Nisan) shall be to you the beginning of months. It shall be the first month of the year to you.

 


Further Reading & Sources

Contribute on Patreon

Enjoying this? Consider contributing regular gifts for this content on Patreon.
* Patreon is a way to join your favorite creator's community and pay them for making the stuff you love. You can simply pay a few pounds per month or per post that a creator makes, and in return receive some perks!

Subscribe to Updates
Order my new book today from Amazon or fortydays.co.uk

Subscribe to:

Have something to say? Leave a comment below.

Leave a comment   Like   Back to Top   Seen 984 times   Liked 0 times

Subscribe to Updates

If you enjoyed this, why not subscribe to free email updates and join over 214 subscribers today!

Order my new book today from Amazon or fortydays.co.uk

Subscribe to Blog updates

Enter your email address to be notified of new posts:

Subscribe to:

Alternatively, you can subscribe via RSS RSS

‹ Return to Blog

All email subscriptions must be confirmed to comply with GDPR.

I've already subscribed / don't show me this again

Recent Posts

The Relationship Between Jesus and Sophia

| 22nd July 2021 | Christology

The Relationship Between Jesus and Sophia

Now you may be wondering about the title, or thinking “who the heck is Sophia??” — well, bear with me, and all will be revealed. It’s not as sinister or weird as it may first appear. I saw a post on my Instagram feed the other day that just got me a little riled up. I’ll admit it, I can be a little short-tempered at times, especially around the subject of Jesus and seeing him/the Christian faith misrepresented to such a degree that it could mislead others down the wrong path. I don’t normally write responses to things like this, but I felt this one deserved it, mainly just to add some clarity to a somewhat confusing topic, and so there’s a place I (or you, if you fancy sharing my posts!) can point people to if this type of ideology is going to spread. Here’s the Instagram post in question, but it’s the caption below it that got to me. I’ll quote the caption below, too, in case the embedded post doesn't work (here’s a direct link too). View this post on Instagram A post shared by Adam Ericksen (@adamericksen)   Jesus had two moms.Their names areMary and Sophia.You’ve heard about Mary, but do you know about Sophia?Sophia is the Greek word for God’s Wisdom.And God’s Wisdom is a Woman. Her name is Sophia.Sophia was there at the beginning of creation. She birthed the world into existence.Deuteronomy 32 says that God gave birth to the people. That was Sophia.Christians began to associate Sophia with the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is Sophia. She is the divine feminine who is the Third Person of the Trinity.Sophia is our divine Mother.God is She who loves you.❤️❤️❤️ — via @adamericksen A lot of the comments under that post seemed to find it quite affirming in some ways, others were confused as they’d never heard this before (and rightly so) but were keen to look into it. There were also a lot of references to a single author, and book, called, She Who Is, by Elizabeth A. Johnson, where this idea seemed to have originated in some form. In fact, the majority of the comments were wanting to explore this idea in more depth. So, I think maybe there’s something to be said there for the lack of female representation in the Church if it garnered this type of response, but I also thought if people are this taken by the idea, I wanted to write something to offer some Biblical and historical views on this “Sophia”, as she isn’t a new concept at all. The caption under the Instagram post sounds nice, but it’s ever so slightly off-kilter that it misrepresents everything. Let’s look at the claims line by line: Jesus had two moms.Their names areMary and Sophia. Well, not much to say here yet, but… nope. You’ve heard about Mary, but do you know about Sophia? Well, yes, I do. Maybe you, dear reader, know as well. But I began to question whether the author of the caption did. Sophia is the Greek word for God’s Wisdom. OK, finally. Getting to some facts and less conjecture. Although I would clarify that “sophia” (σοφία) is simply the Greek word for “wisdom”, not specifically “God’s wisdom” (or a name), per se. It’s a minor point though, I’m just nit-picking now. Sophia was there at the beginning of creation. She birthed the world into existence. Right, so here’s where it gets a little “squiffy”. It’s true that Wisdom, or “Sophia”, was there at the very beginning before anything was created, and that she stood beside God during creation. We can see all of this in the book of Proverbs, and it’s all very interesting. I’m sure you’ll notice parallels with John 1. But was this Sophia a separate entity from who we normally think of as being there in the beginning? Who created everything — the Word or the Holy Spirit? Proverbs 8:22–31The Lord created me at the beginning of his work,the first of his acts of long ago.Ages ago I was set up...

An Examination of Conditional Immortality (Part Two)

| 03rd July 2021 | Hell

An Examination of Conditional Immortality (Part Two)

Welcome to Part Two of my study and examination of Conditional Immortality (aka Annihilationism). If you missed part one, you can read that one here. As with part one, this will be a long post as there is still much ground to cover before we can really grasp the bigger picture about what Scripture teaches. So with that said, I’ll pick right up where we left off. In part one, I covered a lot of New Testament texts, a few Old Testament passages, plus a look at what some of the earliest church leaders also wrote on the topic to the early church. In this one, we will be looking at a few more Old Testament examples and how they relate to the imagery used in Revelation, amongst other things. Unquenchable Fire and Undying Worms What of unquenchable fire and undying worms? Do these phrases really mean that the fuel of the fire and the worms must last forever and ever? We have a few references to shed some light on the meaning of these phrases which we can examine below: Ezekiel 20:46–48Mortal, set your face toward the south, preach against the south, and prophesy against the forest land in the Negeb; say to the forest of the Negeb, Hear the word of the Lord: Thus says the Lord God, I will kindle a fire in you, and it shall devour every green tree in you and every dry tree; the blazing flame shall not be quenched, and all faces from south to north shall be scorched by it. All flesh shall see that I the Lord have kindled it; it shall not be quenched. So, in our first example, Ezekiel was obviously not prophesying that the forests of Negeb would burn forever and never go out. Instead, fire that “shall not be quenched” is used to mean fire that cannot be interrupted or stopped in its destructive purpose. No one is able to stop a fire like this until it has run its course, or it is stopped by something greater, which is what the word “quench” actually means. It is an action performed by something external which stops the flames — what it doesn’t mean is a fire burning out naturally once it consumes its fuel. The fire will continue regardless. Jeremiah 17:27But if you do not listen to me, to keep the sabbath day holy, and to carry in no burden through the gates of Jerusalem on the sabbath day, then I will kindle a fire in its gates; it shall devour the palaces of Jerusalem and shall not be quenched. Here is another reference to an unquenchable fire consuming something and not being stopped even after the object of destruction has been “devour[ed]”. The image is one of a fire which rages on and on, even after everything in it is burnt up and destroyed. Now let’s move onto the “undying worms” and see how that phrase is used. In the New Testament we see this phrase used in Mark 9:47–48, which originally comes from Isaiah, and also a similar theme in Jeremiah. Isaiah 66:24And they shall go out and look at the dead bodies of the people who have rebelled against me; for their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh. A little earlier in Isaiah 66 (v.16) we see that God executes judgement with fire and “by his sword, on all flesh”, and that the dead will be many, ending the chapter with the verse quoted above. Jeremiah picks up on a similar theme of God’s judgement, people being killed to such an extent there won’t be room to bury them. This is also where we find a reference to Gehenna, or the valley of the son of Hinnom, as its name means (also called Topheth), in chapters 7 and 19. The concept of Gehenna as a place of punishment is then picked up by Jesus in Matthew 10:28, which he uses in a more eschatological sense. Jeremiah 7:32–33Therefore, the days are surely coming, says the Lord, when it will no more be called Topheth, or the valley of the son of Hinnom, but the valley of Slaughter: for they will bury in Topheth until there is no more room. The corpses of this people will be food for the birds of the air, and for the animals of ...

Does Easter Have Pagan Origins?

| 22nd March 2021 | Easter

Does Easter Have Pagan Origins?

Much like any major Christian holiday, there are the usual arguments and accusations about how it’s all just pagan festivities with a “Christian mask”. Easter is no different, and usually gets hit the hardest over its so-called “pagan roots”, or in the month or so preceding it, Lent being some “invention of the Catholic Church”. Table of Contents The Lenten Fast The Easter controversy and why we celebrate it when we do Is the Name “Easter” really the Anglo-Saxon goddess Eostre? Chocolate eggs and bunnies? Concluding Thoughts Further Reading and Sources I like to try and observe Lent, as it is one of the most ancient customs in the Church, which led me to researching its origins, along with the Easter celebration, to see where they have their basis. Unsurprisingly, it turns out that much of the accusations against Easter and Lent as “pagan” are either fabricated or is just misinformation. So let’s examine the different aspects of Easter to see how we got from Passover to resurrection, to little bunnies and chocolate eggs! The Lenten Fast A forty day fast prior to Easter has been a long established practice within the Church dating back to possibly within the first century. This is well established from ancient letters we still have available, such as from Irenaeus in the second century: For some consider themselves bound to fast one day, others two days, others still more. In fact, others fast forty days … And this variety among observers [of the fasts] did not have its origin in our time, but long before in that of our predecessors.–Irenaeus (c.180) Notice here that Irenaeus mentions that this was a practice passed onto them by their “predecessors”, a term often used in conjunction with the Apostles themselves, or those who immediately came after them, putting the origins of this Lenten fast much earlier than when Irenaeus wrote in 180, and also possibly having Apostolic origin. The Easter controversy and why we celebrate it when we do Back in the days of the early church, there arose a controversy around the celebration of Easter (or “pascha” as it was known then). But no, before your imagination runs wild, it wasn’t quite as exciting as it sounds and still had nothing to do with “paganism”. The dispute was over which day to hold the festival! Yep, the controversy really is as mundane as that. In fact, it was one of the issues raised at the council of Nicea to be discussed and hopefully settled, and is officially known as the Quartodeciman (lit. Fourteenth) controversy/dispute. It’s called this due to the issue being over whether the Easter celebration should follow the Jewish pattern of Passover on the 14 Nisan or not and simply follow the days of the week (Friday and Sunday). It became a bigger issue when the not only the Jewish community of believers wanted to follow this method, but when the Gentile Asian communities also claimed that their Quartodeciman practice was of Apostolic origin! It was a disciple of John the Apostle, and bishop of Smyrna, called Polycarp (c.69–c.155) who followed this practice in one of the seven churches of Asia as well as Melito, bishop of Sardis (died c.180). Irenaeus tells us that, in his old age, Polycarp visited the bishop of Rome to discuss this matter with him as the Roman church had diverged from the Quartodeciman custom and celebrated the resurrection according to the day Jesus rose instead: Sunday (the first day of the week). We gain an important glimpse about this whole dispute from Irenaeus though, when he tells us of the meeting between Polycarp and Anicetus: Neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it, as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him. … And they parted from each...

BOOK REVIEW: Four Views on Hell 2nd edition

| 17th March 2021 | Book Review

BOOK REVIEW: Four Views on Hell 2nd edition

This is a guest post by David Jakubovic. The views are that of the author and don't necessarily reflect the views of That Ancient Faith. A 20 year update of the 1996 book by the same name, this slim volume (211 pages) is a helpful cross-section of current evangelical thought on Final Punishment, sampling Denny Burk on Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT hereafter), John Stackhouse Jr on Conditional immortality (CI hereafter), Robin Parry on Christian Universalism (CU hereafter) and Jerry Walls on (a Protestant) Purgatory. Preston Sprinkle pens both Introduction and Conclusion, plus there are Scripture, Author and Subject indices. The Introduction sets the scene, listing the 3 historically available views along with speculation about post-mortem purgatorial sanctification, before clarifying that it is not the existence of hell that is here in doubt: “They agree that hell exists, but they differ on what this hell is like.” (11) Sprinkle lists verses used by all 4 views, then introduces the academic background of the 4 essayists. He finally issues a substantial challenge to the reader: “You, of course, will probably agree with only one of the following essays and disagree with the other three. But keep in mind: disagreement is not refutation. We must be able to refute the evidence of the views that we disagree with and then provide more compelling biblical evidence for the view that we uphold.” (15) Burk kicks off Chapter One (‘Eternal Conscious Torment’) with a startling parable. He visualizes a man torturing creatures in increasing order of complexity and dignity: first torturing a grasshopper, a frog, a bird, a puppy and finally a human baby. Burk states: “In each of the scenarios above, the ‘sin’ is the same – pulling the legs off. The only difference in each of these scenarios is the one sinned against…The seriousness of the sin is not measured merely by the sin itself (pulling off the legs) but by the value and the worth of the one being sinned against.” (19, italics his) This macabre thought-experiment is of course a gruesome version of Anselm’s ‘Status Principle’, namely that to sin against an infinitely good God merits infinite or eternal punishment. But fellow pro-ECT essayist Walls squashes this analogy: “There is profound disanalogy in the parable that undermines the central point he wants to establish. This resides in the fact that we do not have the power to do anything to God that is remotely analogous to the harm the character in the parable inflicts on helpless creatures ranging from grasshoppers to human infants. Indeed, God is so far above us in power, glory, and moral perfection that we are utterly incapable of harming him.”1 Burk even ventures that ECT “will ultimately become a source of joy and praise for the saints as they witness the infinite goodness and justice of God.” (20) Yet it is grossly incongruous to place ECT side by side with notions of ‘joy’, ‘goodness’ or ‘justice’ as these are universally understood. The very philosophical logic behind the ‘Status Principle’ is itself highly suspect, as Kronen points out when dismantling the ‘Classical Doctrine of Hell’ (CDH): “It is by no means obvious that an offense against an infinite being must be punished by the sorts of torments envisioned by CDH. One might sin more or less gravely against such a being, and in that case it does not seem that just any sin against an infinite being would merit eternal, continuous, and excruciating pain.”2 Spiegel adds that “human guilt is at most maximally great, not infinitely great”3, meaning that human guilt is still finite: “Finite guilt, however great, presumably does not warrant endless punishment in the form of ECT.” (Spiegel, op. cit. 41) He adds that, under the ‘Status Principle’, even the first sin you commit as a child is enough to incur ‘infinite guilt’, but this does not allow for the vast spectrum of p...