Is Santa Satan? A Christian Response
Every December, Christians encounter bold claims about Christmas traditions. One of the most shocking comes from Hebrew Roots teachers: the idea that Santa is actually Satan in disguise. The argument sounds spiritual at first—but when we test it against Scripture and history, a very different picture emerges.
How to Read This Page
This article is written for different kinds of readers. You don’t have to read every section—just choose the depth that helps you most.
-
A Quick Answer
A one-paragraph summary for when you want the bottom-line truth fast. -
A Simple Explanation
A clear, beginner-friendly overview of the topic in everyday language. -
A Deeper Look
A full, evidence-based walk-through with history, sources, and biblical reflection.
Start wherever you like. Each level stands alone, but together they give a complete picture.
In This Article
Is Santa Actually Satan?
The short version—here’s the bottom line without all the details.
No—Santa is not Satan. The claim that “Santa = Satan” comes mainly from Jim Staley’s Truth or Tradition? teaching, which ties Santa to the devil using letter games (“Santa” / “Satan”), medieval theater, Odin myths, and an English nickname (“Old Nick”). But when we test these ideas against history, linguistics, and basic logic, they collapse. The real Santa story traces back to St. Nicholas, a 4th-century Christian bishop known for his generosity, and then through Dutch Christian folklore (Sinterklaas) into the modern Santa Claus figure. For Christians, the real issue is not a secret satanic plot but whether we keep Christ at the center of our celebrations. You can honor Jesus with or without Santa—but you don’t need to fear that Santa is the devil in disguise.
Why Some Christians Say “Santa = Satan” (and Why It Doesn’t Hold Up)
A clear overview for everyday readers who want the basic facts without digging into academic sources.
Every Christmas, especially in Hebrew Roots and Torah-observant circles, a bold claim makes the rounds: “Santa isn’t just a fun distraction; he’s actually Satan.” This idea is promoted most famously by Jim Staley in his Truth or Tradition? teaching. He argues that Santa imitates God’s attributes, comes from pagan gods like Odin, uses a demonic laugh (“Ho, ho, ho”), and even shares letters with the name “Satan.” On the surface, that can sound very spiritual and discerning—especially if you’re trying to take holiness seriously.
But when we slow down and test those claims, things look very different. The fact that “Santa” can be rearranged to spell “Satan” is just an English coincidence. The Bible was not written in English, and no biblical author ever builds theology from scrambled letters. In the same way, saying Santa is omnipresent because he “visits every house in one night” confuses speed in a story with God’s true omnipresence—being present everywhere at all times.
Other pieces of the argument also fall apart. “Old Nick” did become a slang term for the devil in English, but that doesn’t turn the historical St. Nicholas into Satan. The Odin comparison comes from looking at beards, winter, and travel and then assuming a spiritual link—without historical proof. And “Ho, ho, ho” shows up in medieval plays and ordinary English speech (“Ho! Who’s there?”), not just in depictions of the devil.
When serious historians trace Santa’s story, they don’t start with demons or Norse gods. They start with Nicholas of Myra, a real Christian bishop known for generous gifts to the poor, then follow the tradition through Dutch Christians (Sinterklaas), and into American culture as Santa Claus. Our culture has certainly commercialized him, and parents should still think carefully about how they handle Santa in their homes. But the evidence simply doesn’t support the claim that Santa is secretly Satan.
Scripture warns us clearly against idolatry, occult practices, and worshiping anyone but Jesus. It does not condemn every imaginative story or fictional character. The question is not, “Is Santa literally the devil?” but, “Does my celebration of Christmas keep Christ at the center?” Christians can, in good conscience, choose to include Santa, to downplay him, or to avoid him entirely—while keeping their joy and confidence in Christ, not in fear-based theories.
A Deeper Look at Jim Staley’s “Santa = Satan” Argument
A historically grounded analysis drawn from primary sources, academic scholarship, and biblical reflection.
1. The Claim: “Santa Is Satan”
Every Christmas season, a familiar claim circulates in Hebrew Roots and Torah-observant circles—especially through Jim Staley’s well-known Truth or Tradition? teaching:
“Santa isn’t just a distraction. Santa is Satan.”
This sounds spiritual. It sounds bold. It sounds like discernment. But Scripture calls us not only to discernment, but to testing (1 Thessalonians 5:21). So what, exactly, are Staley’s claims—and do they hold up?
2. Staley’s Core Claims About Santa
Staley’s argument rests on several main pillars:
- Santa = Satan because the letters are similar.1
- Santa imitates God’s attributes (omniscience, omnipresence, judgment), so Santa must be a satanic counterfeit.2
- “Ho, ho, ho” was used by the devil in medieval plays, so Santa’s laugh is demonic.3
- “Old Nick” is a rustic nickname for the devil; therefore, St. Nicholas → Old Nick → Santa = Satan.4
- Santa inherits traits from Odin and pagan spirits, proving spiritual corruption.5
Let’s take these claims seriously—but then test them carefully.
3. The Santa/Satan Letter Game Is Not Theology
Yes, the letters in “Santa” can be rearranged to spell “Satan.” But:
- English did not exist when Scripture was written.
- The New Testament uses Greek names, not English anagrams.
- No biblical author builds theology from letter rearrangement.
- Many similar English coincidences exist:
- “united” / “untied”
- “earth” / “heart”
- “listen” / “silent”
Wordplay does not equal spiritual revelation. If English letter similarity were a valid way of detecting demons, half the names in your church directory would be suspect.
4. “Old Nick” ≠ St. Nicholas
Staley cites the Oxford English Dictionary to show that “Old Nick” can refer to the devil.6 That part is true.
But here is what does not follow:
- St. Nicholas is not the devil.
- “Nicholas” is not linguistically derived from “Old Nick.”
- Santa traditions do not originate with English folklore.
- The real St. Nicholas lived in the 4th century, long before “Old Nick” became a rustic English saying.
The real historical Nicholas was:
- a bishop of Myra,
- a defender of Christian orthodoxy,
- known for radical generosity,
- honored by both Eastern and Western churches.7
Associating him with the devil because of a 17th–18th century English nickname is historically backwards. That’s not scholarship. That’s guilt-by-rhyming.
5. The Odin Argument Doesn’t Hold Up Historically
Staley frequently argues that Santa is just a Christianized form of Odin.5 The problem?
They arise in completely different cultures.
- Odin → Norse myth (Scandinavia)
- St. Nicholas → Santa Claus → Mediterranean → Dutch → American
There is:
- no evidence of Christian parents replacing Odin with Nicholas,
- no medieval sermons condemning Nicholas as a Norse syncretism,
- no early Christian writers warning of Odin-Santa confusion,
- no historical documents connecting the two figures.
Similarity is not identity. If two figures both have beards and travel in winter, that doesn’t make one the spiritual descendant of the other.
6. “Ho, Ho, Ho” Is Not a Demonic Chant
Staley claims Santa’s laugh is sinister because “Ho, ho, ho” was sometimes used for the devil in medieval theater.3 Let’s grant the historical detail: yes, in a few medieval morality plays, the stage devil entered with a loud, guttural “Ho! Ho!”
But:
- It was theatre—not theology.
- “Ho!” was a standard English interjection used everywhere (see Shakespeare, Hamlet 1.1: “Ho! Who’s there?”).8
- The phrase was used by all kinds of characters, not just villains.
- Santa’s laugh appears in 19th-century literature as a sign of joviality, not occult ritual.
Santa did not inherit his laugh from the devil. He inherited it from Victorian humor.
7. Santa Is Not Omnipresent (This Is Staley’s Most Basic Logical Error)
Staley argues Santa imitates God’s omnipresence because “he visits every house in one night.”2 But this misunderstands what omnipresence is.
Omnipresence = being present everywhere at once.
Even in the most exaggerated stories, Santa is simply very fast, visiting one house after another. If Santa could visit ten billion homes at incredible speed, he would still only be at one location at each moment. That is not omnipresence; it is just speed.
To claim Santa is omnipresent is like saying:
“A delivery driver visits 120 houses in one day—therefore he is omnipresent.”
Speed is not omnipresence. Presence in multiple places throughout time is not omnipresence. Omnipresence means all places at all times. Only God possesses that.9 No Santa tradition ever assigns it to him.
8. Santa’s “Divine Attributes” Are Storytelling Exaggeration—Not Claims to Deity
Staley also argues that Santa is demonic because he is portrayed as knowing who’s “naughty or nice.”2 But fairy tales routinely exaggerate knowledge or abilities.
We do this all the time:
- Superheroes can fly, see through walls, or know things normal humans don’t.
- Parents joke, “I’ve got eyes in the back of my head.”
- Stories attribute near-magical awareness to fictional figures.
Kids do not treat Santa as a deity. No child worships Santa. No parent teaches Santa as omniscient in the divine sense. It’s folklore—not Christology.
9. The Real Historical Line: St. Nicholas → Sinterklaas → Santa Claus
Serious historians—unlike most YouTube conspiracy channels—trace Santa’s development through a clear historical line:
- Nicholas of Myra (4th-century bishop)
- Sinterklaas (Dutch Christian folk tradition)10
- Santa Claus in America (Clement C. Moore, Thomas Nast, and later cultural developments)11
There is no evidence of a hidden Odin-Santa pipeline, no medieval warnings about “Satan in a red suit,” and no early church teaching that Nicholas was a demonic figure. Santa’s historical roots are deeply Christian and then heavily folkloric and commercial—not demonic.
10. A Biblical Response: Idolatry vs. Imagination
The Bible clearly condemns:
- worshiping other gods,
- occult practices,
- sacrifices to idols.
But it does not condemn:
- fictional characters,
- children’s stories,
- holiday traditions,
- imaginative folklore.
The issue is always:
Are we worshiping it?
Are we replacing Christ?
Are we violating conscience?
If not, the practice falls under Christian liberty (Romans 14:5–6). Santa does not “take Christ’s place” unless parents put him there. Jesus is Lord at Christmas—with or without Santa.
11. So… Is Santa the Devil?
Putting it all together:
- ❌ Letter similarity is not theology.
- ❌ “Old Nick” doesn’t redefine Nicholas.
- ❌ Odin is not Santa’s ancestor.
- ❌ “Ho, ho, ho” is not a demonic ritual.
- ❌ Santa is not omnipresent.
- ❌ Santa does not imitate God in a truly divine sense.
- ❌ No early Christian source warns about “Satan in a red suit.”
- ✔ Santa’s historical root is a Christian bishop.
- ✔ Santa’s development is folkloric, not demonic.
- ✔ Santa is optional, not sinful.
- ✔ Jesus remains central regardless of Santa’s presence.
- ✔ Parents have freedom in Christ.
Staley’s conclusion (“Santa = Satan”) is not based on solid biblical exegesis or historical evidence—it is based on pattern-matching, fear-based reasoning, and speculative associations.
Christians don’t need to fear Santa. Christians need to honor Jesus.
And we can do that with or without the big guy in the red suit.
Footnotes
- Jim Staley, Truth or Tradition? Christmas teaching, section referencing “Santa / Satan” letter similarity.
- Staley, ibid., section on Santa as “counterfeit Christ” claiming omniscience and omnipresence.
- Staley, ibid., section claiming “Ho Ho Ho” was a devil’s line in medieval plays.
- Oxford English Dictionary, “Old Nick,” cited in Staley’s Christmas teaching.
- General “Santa from Odin” claim taught in Staley’s holiday series, referencing Norse mythology.
- OED, “Old Nick.”
- Adam C. English, The Saint Who Would Be Santa Claus (Baylor University Press, 2012).
- William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act 1, Scene 1: “Ho! Who’s there?”
- Psalm 139:7–10; Jeremiah 23:23–24.
- Stephen Nissenbaum, The Battle for Christmas (Vintage, 1997).
- Gerry Bowler, Santa Claus: A Biography (McClelland & Stewart, 2005).
I can accept the individual points that are made but everything here considers only positive and hopefully accurate informationn while failing to recognize other facts such as ‘Christmas’ being taken from an event known as ‘Christ’s Mass’ on the other side of the pond, which was imported to America following the arrival of the Puritans, who were staunchly opposed to this event full of drunken debauchery and wild sex, even permitting children to be involved in such sinful acts. The Puritans considered all who participated in such an event to be heathens and the Bible instructs us not to have anything to do with heathens. Every aspect of Christmas (as we know it) is rooted in paganism: lighting, Yule tides, gift giving, ghd Christmas tree, women standing underneath holly – it all began as Pagan rituals and once imported to America, was commercialized, made into a holiday in which the birth of Christ is celebrated. Given all of this, it isn’t hard to see how ‘Santa’ is an anagram for ‘Satan’.
What I find difficulty in reconciling with is this: I can celebrate, worship, and be in awe of Christ every single day of the year. Nothing in the Bible tells us that Jesus was born on December 25th. We have neither instruction nor commandment to celebrate the birth of Christ on December 25th. But people all across the world so. Absent Christ’s known day of birth of instruction to remember December 25th each year, my foremost concern is that the world today is following in the traditions of pagans , who in all liklihood, created ‘Christ’s Mass’ as a mockery of Jesus, and here the world carries on that same tradition, forever channeling those old pagan e n ergies. I’m clear that Christmas contains ‘Christ’, and that Christmas was taken from the pagan ‘Christ’s Mass’. I had a brief conversation with another who suggested that Christmas does not necessarily mean that Jesus was born on December 25th and that’s true but given ‘Christmas’ containing ‘Christ’ , the numerous nativity and manger scenes, churches proclaiming ghe birth of Christ, all the stationary that talk of ‘a Savior being born, I think it’s clear thag the vast majority celebrate Christmas Day as being the day that Christ was born. But again, we have no scripture indicating or even suggesting that Christ was born on December 25th and if Christmas is rooted in paganism, I’m concerned about a lot of different things. And with ‘Santa’ being as unique of a name as it is, and as similar to ‘Satan’ as it is, it’s very difficult to think that this is just some very random occuring coincidence – of course, that’s just how my mind operates. Anytime I hear, “no, don’t look here, look over there”, I will naturally continue looking here for obvious reasons.
I haven’t the slightest idea who this Jim Staley is but it may well turn out that he could be on to something significant. Or, maybe not. I’ll have to do some digging.
Thank you for the information.
Regards
Thank you for taking the time to read the article and for sharing your concerns so thoughtfully. I genuinely respect the care you’re trying to take in honoring Christ and avoiding anything that might detract from Him.
You’re absolutely right that Scripture does not tell us the exact date of Jesus’ birth, nor does it command Christians to observe December 25th. Because of that, I believe believers are free to approach Christmas differently according to conscience (Romans 14:5–6). Some choose not to observe it at all, and that is a decision I respect.
Where I would gently disagree is with the conclusion that Christmas — or Santa — is inherently pagan or demonic in origin. Many of the historical claims often repeated online (Christ’s Mass as a pagan mockery, every Christmas custom being rooted in pagan worship, or the idea that objects retain “pagan energy”) go far beyond what the historical or biblical evidence actually supports. Scripture consistently places the emphasis not on an object’s distant origin or name, but on present belief, intent, and worship (1 Corinthians 8:4; Colossians 2:16–17).
As for Santa being “Satan,” similarities in spelling or anagrams are not a biblical or linguistic method for determining meaning. Scripture gives us clear tests for truth and deception — doctrine, fruit, and allegiance — not wordplay (Matthew 7:15–20).
I agree wholeheartedly that Christ can and should be worshiped every day of the year. For many believers, Christmas simply serves as a focused teaching opportunity to proclaim the incarnation — the Word made flesh. For others, the wisest choice is to abstain. Scripture allows room for both without condemning either.
I appreciate your respectful engagement and your willingness to think carefully through these issues. My aim here isn’t to pressure anyone into celebrating Christmas, but to separate well-supported facts from claims that don’t hold up under careful examination. I also never want to approach anything with a “don’t look here” tone or direction. This is one reason I name Jim Staley so that people who have a desire to learn or research can look at the other side of the coin or hear it directly from the source.
Again, thank you so much for your thoughtful and respectful comment after reading.
God bless,
Thomas