A: Our Question and Answer section in Update #100 (July 4, 2003), explained the facts pertaining to the ancient and modern origins of Mother’s Day. We emphasized that it is a Christian’s personal decision to determine whether the evidence presented was “sufficient or not to establish a direct and immediate connection between pagan origins, Catholic Church influence, and our modern custom of celebrating Mother’s Day — especially in the United States, Canada and continental Europe.”

The same will have to be said regarding the observance of Father’s Day. One source (“About,Inc.”) describes the modern origin of Father’s Day in this way: “The modern origin of Father’s Day in the United States is not clear. Some say that it began with a church service in West Virginia in 1908. Others say the first Father’s Day ceremony was held in Vancouver, Washington. The president of the Chicago branch of the Lion’s Club, Harry Meek, is said to have celebrated the first Father’s Day with his organization in 1915; and the day that they chose was the third Sunday in June, the closest date to Meek’s own birthday! Regardless of when the first true Father’s Day occurred, the strongest promoter of the holiday was Mrs. Bruce John Dodd of Spokane, Washington. Mrs. Dodd felt that she had an outstanding father [Mr. Smart]. He was a veteran of the Civil War. His wife had died young, and he had raised six children without their mother. In 1909, Mrs. Dodd approached her own minister and others in Spokane about having a church service dedicated to fathers on June 5, her father’s birthday. That date was too soon for her minister to prepare the service, so he spoke a few weeks later on June 19th. From then on, the state of Washington celebrated the third Sunday in June as Father’s Day… States and organizations began lobbying Congress to declare an annual Father’s Day. In 1916, President Woodrow Wilson approved the idea, but it was not until 1924 when President Calvin Coolidge made it a national event…” The holiday was made official in 1972 by President Richard Nixon (see below).

The Daily Beacon, Volume 90, Number 5 (June 14, 2002), elaborated: “In 1909, as Smart [i.e., Mrs. Bruce John Dodd, daughter of Mr. Smart] was listening to a sermon celebrating Mother’s Day, she thought of her father… Smart wanted a day to honor fathers with special religious services, special meals, small gifts and flowers. After sharing her idea with local religious leaders…, a resolution was passed to observe a Father’s Day.” Biography.com concurs, “… The inspiration behind the celebration of a Father’s Day is owed at least partly to its slightly earlier counterpart, Mother’s Day.” The article also points out that Smart had the idea of setting aside a Father’s Day, when hearing a sermon on the “merits of setting aside a day to honor one’s mother.” (Compare, too, PageWise, Inc., 2002, “History of Father’s Day”).

“Hallmark Press Room” explains, under “Father’s Day 2003”: “Father’s Day is always the third Sunday in June… Father’s Day is the fourth-largest card-sending occasion with nearly 90 million Father’s Day cards expected to be given this year in the United States… Smart’s daughter [Mrs. Bruce John Dodd] got the idea for Father’s Day in 1909 while listening to a Mother’s Day sermon at church. She encouraged local churches to institute a Father’s Day observance the following year on one Sunday in June, the month of her father’s birth… The holiday was made official in 1972 when President Richard Nixon signed a presidential resolution that declared Father’s Day as the third Sunday in June.”

Apart from its obvious connection with Mother’s Day and its religious church background, is there any evidence that Father’s Day is of pagan and/or Catholic origin?

The Laboratorium writes under “Happy Father’s Day”: “Father’s Day was originally a pagan holiday, the Great Sky-Father’s Day. Part of the week of celebrations leading up to the summer solstice, the day was given over to celebrating the Sky-Father’s providing for his human children with rich gifts of sun and rain. Gifts of sacrificial goats and sheep (recognizable by the festive ribbons bound about their necks) were supplemented with prayers for his continued guidance in the human journey towards spiritual adulthood. The precise transition to the Father’s Day we know today is lost in the mists of time, but it seems that several generations of CHRISTIAN PRIESTS gradually ATTEMPTED TO NEUTRALIZE THE PAGAN RITUALS by focusing on the literal steps of the ceremonies, rather than their spiritual meanings. The passing of celebratory garlands from sons to fathers was retained, and reemphasized as the central act of the great Sky-Father’s celebration, rather than the sacrifices and prayers. As part of this reinterpretation, the practice of tying ribbons was moved from the animals to the fathers, and appears to be recognizably the origin of the custom of giving ties on Father’s Day.
(www.laboratorium.net/HappyFather’sDay.html)

The connection with pagan and/or Catholic origins becomes even clearer, when considering modern Father’s Day celebrations and customs in certain European countries. In Palermo, Italy, Father’s Day is celebrated on March 19 in order to honor “Holy Joseph.” On that day, old furniture, tables and other items are burned. As “Bank4Fun” explains, “this custom is derived from the Worship of the Sun, which has an historical origin in Palermo.” In Austria, Father’s Day, which is celebrated in June, is a Christian CHURCH holiday. In Germany, “Father’s Day” is celebrated, since 1936, on the same day as “Ascension Day.” This CATHOLIC holiday, also known as “the Day of the Lord,” is always kept on a Thursday — 40 days or on the 5th Sunday after Easter — to celebrate Christ’s ascension. On this day, men visit restaurants, consuming a lot of alcohol, while it is unfashionable to travel with a woman on that day. “Glaube Aktuell” and Professor Gottfried Rehm, Fulda, explain that these restaurant visits, as well as Catholic processions on that day, have their origins in Germanic customs, when men drank alcohol and asked their gods to bless the harvest for the year. Others, such as Dr. theol. Manfred Becker-Huberti, point out that the Father’s Day celebrations might be derived from honoring Pope Leo III (795-816).

Studying these facts in conjunction with our article on “Mother’s Day,” we must again emphasize that it is the personal decision of each Christian whether or not to keep those days. His decision must be based on personal faith and conviction, knowing that whatever is not from faith is sin (Romans 14:23).

A: Very few educated people doubt the existence of Christ. There are more than 1,000 works of literature written very early in Church history affirming the existence of Christ. Much of it was written by pagans or Jews.

H.G. Wells wrote in “Outline of History”: “…one is obliged to say, ‘Here was a man. This part of the tale could not have been invented.'” Will Durant, professor of philosophy and a non-Christian, wrote extensively about Christ’s existence and His effect on society in “The Story of Our Civilization.” The Encyclopedia Britannica refers to Christ more than 20,000 times; more than Socrates, Aristotle, Buddha, Napoleon, Confucius, Mohammed, or Shakespeare. It says on one occasion, “These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds by the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.”

John Singleton Copley, also known as Lord Lyndhurst, one of the greatest legal minds in British history, commented once in this way on the existence of Christ, His death, and His resurrection: “I know pretty well what evidence is: and I tell you, such evidence as that for the resurrection has never broken down yet.” Also, Lord Chief Justice of England, Lord Darling, once said that “no intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring in a verdict that the resurrection story is true.”

From the many non-Biblical sources attesting to the historicity of Jesus Christ, the following is just a brief synopsis:

The Huleatt fragments were written in AD 50 and contain the quote from Matthew 26:7-15, referring to Christ’s anointment with oil. Tatian the Syrian wrote in AD 170 that “God was born in the form of a man” (Address to the Greeks 21). Melito of Sardis wrote in AD 177 about the baptism of Christ and His miracles (Fragment in Anastasius of Sinai’s The Guide 13). Thallus, a Samaritan historian, wrote in AD 52 about the darkness that occurred at the crucifixion of Christ. Mara Bar-Serapion wrote in AD 73 to his son about the death of Socrates, Pythagoras and Jesus. Cornelius Tacitus wrote in AD 112 or AD 115 in his Annal (15.14) that “Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberias.” Lucian of Samostasa (AD 115 -200) wrote about Christ as “the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world.” Phlegon wrote in his “Chronicles,” in AD 140, about the ability of Jesus to foresee future events.

In addition, Christian authors such as Clement of Rome [AD 30-101], Ignatius [martyred in AD 117], the epistle of Barnabas [written between AD 70 and 135], and Justyn Martyr [AD 100 – 165] wrote about Christ and His followers.

The Jewish Talmud contains several references to Jesus Christ. It states on one occasion, “On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged” (The Babylonian Talmud, vol. iii, Sanhedrin 43a, p. 281). Another quote states, “Our rabbis taught: Yeshu had five disciples — Mattai [i.e. Matthew], Nakkai, Netzer, Buni and Yodah” (from Sanhedrin 43a). Other sources talk about Christians who were following Christ (compare, Aristides, Apology 16 [AD 140]; Pliny the Younger [AD 112]; and Suetonius [AD 120]).

In addition, the famous Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus, mentions Christ on at least two occasions, in addition to John the Baptist; Herod; James, the brother of Christ; and Ananias, the High Priest. An undisputed reference about “James, brother of Jesus Who was called Christ” can be found in Antiquities of the Jews, Book 20, chapter 9, paragraph 1. A rather lengthy reference to Christ, which can be found in Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, chapter 3, paragraph 3, has been disputed as not genuine by some “scholars.” This quotation reads:

“About this time appeared Jesus, a wise man (if indeed it is right to call Him man; for He was a worker of astonishing deeds, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with joy), and He drew to Himself many Jews (many also of Greeks. This was the Christ). And when Pilate, at the denunciation of those who are foremost among us, had condemned Him to the cross, those who had first loved Him did not abandon Him (for He appeared to them alive again on the third day, the holy prophets having foretold this and countless others marvel about Him.) The tribe of Christians named after Him did not cease to this day.”

Some “scholars” regard the whole passage as spurious. Others regard the passage as authentic, with some spurious additions. Then, there are scholars who regard the entire passage as completely genuine. The Catholic Encyclopedia points out:

“The main arguments for the genuineness of the Josephan passage are the following: … all codices or manuscripts of Josephus’ work contain the text in question; to maintain the spuriousness of the text, we must suppose that all the copies of Josephus were in the hands of Christians, and were changed in the same way… Eusebius…, Sozomen…, Isidore of Pelusium…, St. Jerome…, Ambrose, Cassiodorus, etc., appeal to the testimony of Josephus; there must have been no doubt as to its authenticity at the time of these illustrious writers.”

The Catholic Encyclopedia continues to state about other Jewish writers (sources omitted): “The historical character of Jesus Christ is also attested by the hostile Jewish literature of the subsequent centuries. His birth is ascribed to an illicit…, or even adulterous, union of His parents… The later Jewish writings show traces of acquaintance with the murder of the Holy Innocents…, with the flight into Egypt…, with the stay of Jesus in the Temple at the age of Twelve…, with the call of the disciples… , with His miracles…, ‘Schabbath,’… with His claim to be God…, with His betrayal by Judas and His death… Celsus… tries to throw doubt on the Resurrection, while Toldoth… repeats the Jewish fiction that the body of Jesus had been stolen from the sepulcher.”

The evidence of Jesus’ existence becomes of course indisputably compelling, when considering the Bible itself. Some scholars of the “Historical Jesus” movement hold that the Gospels were fabricated or seriously distorted as the stories of Jesus evolved into the late 1st or early 2nd century. However, this theory is not supported by the evidence. Time and again the New Testament writers claim to be eyewitnesses to the facts. As one source explains:

“For instance, we know from sources outside the Bible that the Apostle Paul died during Nero’s persecution in 64 A.D. We also know that Paul was still alive at the close of Acts, so Acts must have been written sometime before 64 A.D. Since Acts was a continuation of Luke’s Gospel, we know that Gospel must have been written even earlier still. Any scholar, including those in the ‘Historical Jesus’ movement, will tell you that the Gospel of Mark predates the Gospel of Luke. This supports the writing of Mark in the 50s A.D., only about two decades after the crucifixion of Jesus. Outside the Gospels, no legitimate scholar will dispute that Paul wrote Romans in the mid-50s. Why is this important? Because Paul declares that Jesus is the resurrected Son of God in the opening lines of that New Testament letter. Galatians is another undisputed letter of Paul written in the mid-50s. Why is this important? Because Paul discusses his interaction with Peter and James, two of Jesus’ primary disciples, at least 14 years earlier in Galatians 1:18 and 2:1. Finally, in 1 Corinthians 15:3-8, Paul proclaims the earliest record of the Christian creed, in which Jesus died for our sins, was buried, and was raised from the dead three days later. Why is this early creed so important? Because scholars, using the historical records of Paul and his early travels to Damascus and Jerusalem, place the above creed at about 35 A.D., just 3 to 5 years after the death of Jesus Christ.”

Further, Paul’s testimony of Christ’s resurrection and His appearance to His disciples is important, as Paul was referring to over 500 witnesses who saw the resurrected Christ, “of whom the greater part remain to the present” (1 Corinthians 15:6). In other words, Paul was naming witnesses of the events who were still alive when he wrote the letter. Paul was describing these events and naming witnesses, so that people could check up on them. Are we to assume that all of these witnesses had collaborated to lie — including Paul, who had formerly PERSECUTED Christianity?

As the Catholic Encyclopedia states, “The four great Pauline Epistles (Romans, Galatians, and First and Second Corinthians) can hardly be overestimated by the student of Christ’s life; they have at times been called the ‘fifth gospel’; their authenticity has never been assailed by serious critics; … it is the testimony of a highly intellectual and cultured writer, who had been the greatest enemy of Jesus, who writes within twenty-five years of the events which he relates.”

In conclusion, considering the overwhelming and undisputed evidence, it is nothing less than willful and deliberate ignorance that would bring one to believe that Jesus Christ never existed.

Q: Would you please explain 1 Corinthians 9:20-21?

A: 1 Corinthians 9:20-21 is one of those Scriptures that has been used by some for the support of their false claim that Paul no longer taught obedience to God’s law. This is, however, not at all what Paul was saying here.

Let us read, in context, the entire passage of 1 Corinthians 9:19-23:

“(Verse 19) For though I am free from all men, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win the more; (verse 20) and to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the law, as under the law, that I might win those who are under the law; (verse 21) to those who are without law, as without law (not being without law toward God, but under law toward Christ), that I might win those who are without law; (verse 22) to the weak I became as weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all men, that I might by all means save some. (verse 23) Now this I do for the gospel’s sake, that I may be partaker of it with you.”

In a recent “theological” article, the following “explanation” of this passage was conveyed to the readership:

“Paul acted like something he was not. Some people might call that hypocritical or deceptive; Paul calls it part of his evangelistic strategy… For someone to act like a Gentile, they would eat foods that Jews could not, and they would not observe the Sabbath… When Paul was with Jews, he kept the old covenant food laws and weekly and annual Sabbaths. When he was with the Gentiles, he did not. He sometimes acted differently from what he believed.”

Is this “explanation” correct? Was Paul a hypocrite? Did he fail to keep the Sabbath or the Holy Days, when in the presence of Gentiles, so as not to offend them? Did he teach the Gentiles that they did not have to keep the Sabbath, the annual Holy Days, and the dietary laws?

Of course not. The idea that Paul acted as a hypocrite — that he lied and deceived — that he had double standards, and that he refused to keep God’s law and taught others they did not have to keep it, is highly offensive and unscriptural.

Paul recognized the ongoing validity of God’s Law (especially the Ten Commandments, which includes the command to keep the Sabbath holy). Our free booklet, “And Lawlessness Will Abound…”, explains in detail that the Sabbath, the Annual Holy Days, and God’s dietary laws are still binding. They are not “old covenant laws,” — in fact, to call them such reveals total ignorance as to what a covenant is. A covenant is a contract, which is based on law — it does not bring law into existence. When a covenant becomes obsolete, this does not affect the laws on which the covenant is based. To term certain laws “old covenant laws” is just an idle and futile attempt to somehow make those laws obsolete.

We should note that Paul kept the Sabbath and the Holy Days, when in the presence of Gentiles. In fact, as our booklet, “And Lawlessness Will Abound…” points out, Paul even COMMANDED the Gentiles to keep the Sabbath, the Holy Days, and the dietary laws.

What, then, did Paul mean in 1 Corinthians 9:20-21?

The New Testament makes clear that certain SACRIFICIAL laws are no longer binding today. Paul calls them “a tutor” in Galatians 3:24. This ritual law, which is referred to as a “LAW,” “was added because of transgression” (Galatians 3:19). Sin is the transgression of the Law (1 John 3:4), the Ten Commandments (James 2:8-12). We see, then, that the Ten Commandments — the “LAW” — had to be in effect BEFORE the sacrificial law system was added — as it was added BECAUSE OF transgression. The sacrificial system with its ritualistic rules is no longer necessary to be kept — at the same time, it would NOT be SINFUL to keep it, while in the presence of Jews. Therefore, when Paul was with Jews, he would not offend them by refusing to keep their customs. He would not keep those customs, of course, when he was with Gentiles, as these customs or ritualistic laws are no longer binding. Paul DID make clear, however, that he DID teach and keep the spiritual LAW of God (Romans 7:14) that IS still binding, including ALL of the Ten Commandments (Matthew 19:17-19).

Notice how the “Nelson Study Bible” explains 1 Corinthians 9:19-23:

“Paul put his ministry of the gospel above his personal desires. He was willing to conform to the customs of other people, whether Jew or Gentile, in order to bring them to Christ. For example, in order to relate to the Jews in Jerusalem he made a Nazarite vow in the temple (Acts 21:23, 24). Around those who were under the Law — the Jews — Paul obeyed the Law. Around those who were outside the Law — the Gentiles — Paul did not observe JEWISH CUSTOM. Paul clarified this, however, lest anyone misunderstand his actions. He obeyed GOD’S LAW through obedience toward Christ.”

The New Bible Commentary concurs, referring to the ritualistic sacrificial law as the “Mosaic” law:

“Paul has surrendered more than his right to personal subsistence. Though he is free from all men, i.e. in no sense bound by the standards or fashions of others, he is prepared to make himself a slave to all, and conform to their standards or fashions, providing no real principle is at stake, in order to win as many as possible… So when among Jews he acts as a Jew, conforming to their customs under the Mosaic law (Acts 16:3; 18:18; 21:26), though as a Christian he himself is no longer obliged to keep that law (cf. Gal. 2:11-21). Similarly he is ready to identify himself with those who are not bound by the Jewish law, i.e. Gentiles; though he adds an important proviso. Gentiles not only disregard the Mosaic law [our comment: that part of the law of Moses that is ritual and no longer binding], but may also refuse to recognize any divine commandments [our comment: the Ten Commandments with its statutes and judgments — including the Sabbath, the annual Holy Days, and the dietary and tithing laws].”

Paul never taught others to sin, and he was careful that he did not sin, either. He would have never disobeyed God by breaking His law, only to “win” the Gentiles. He was NOT without God’s law, although he did no longer preach as binding and mandatory physical circumcision or other sacrificial rituals, as those — temporary — laws had been abolished by God in the New Testament. At the same time, he did not offend his Jewish audience by violating their customs and traditions, as long as he could keep them without sinning against God.

Finally, although he was not “under the law,” he became as one “under the law,” so that he might win those under the law. As we explain in our booklet, “And Lawlessness Will Abound…” the term “under the law” refers to its penalty. When we sin, the penalty of sin — death — is hanging over us like the sword of Damocles. Through the sacrifice of Christ, our repentance and our belief in and acceptance of His sacrifice, we can have forgiveness of our sins, that is, we won’t have to die anymore. The death penalty is no longer hanging over our heads. In order to win those who had not yet accepted Christ’s sacrifice, Paul became as one of them. He showed them compassion and sympathy, rather than condemning and offending them. He became as one under the penalty of the law, as he understood what it was like to live in sin, being cut off and separated from God.

Paul never taught that any of God’s abiding laws could be broken. He taught, “It is the duty of the people of God to keep the Sabbath” (Hebrews 4:9; Lamsa translation). Those who want to REFUSE to keep God’s spiritual law, including the weekly and annual Sabbaths, twist certain Scriptures and invent arguments to justify their sinful conduct. They do this, however, “to their own destruction” (compare 2 Peter 3:14-16).

For more information about the ongoing duty of a true Christian to keep God’s weekly and annual Sabbaths, please read our free booklet, “God’s Commanded Holy Days.”