The antiquity of Easter

[Sam Jer]

Since we are on the subject of holidays and church history:
How do those who oppose all holidays explain the antiquity of Easter and the passionate debates on the date?
Are there any examples of opposition to the practice in the early church?

 

[TylerRay]

Since we are on the subject of holidays and church history:
How do those who oppose all holidays explain the antiquity of Easter and the passionate debates on the date?
Are there any examples of opposition to the practice in the early church?

Remember that Easter is actually Pascha, or Passover. In the NT times the Judaizers were insisting that Christians ought to observe the ceremonial law, which would have included Pascha. Given the Biblical data, it's not surprising to find that some of these corruptions continued from the first century onward. They seem to have been observing it in Galatia.

“But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.” (Gal 4:9-11 KJV)

 

[Sam Jer]

Remember that Easter is actually Pascha, or Passover. In the NT times the Judaizers were insisting that Christians ought to observe the ceremonial law, which would have included Pascha. Given the Biblical data, it's not surprising to find that some of these corruptions continued from the first century onward. They seem to have been observing it in Galatia.

“But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.” (Gal 4:9-11 KJV)

So are you saying the Judaizers "won" on this one point?
That raises the question of whether we k ow of post-apostolic critics if this in the early church - and if not, why.

 

[Sam Jer]

Also, to clarify, my question is historical (or historiographical I guess). I do realize the debates on the interpetation of scripture and application of the RPW are the questions that actually determine what view is true.

 

[arapahoepark]

Based upon my recent reading of the Quatrodeciman controversy, Matthew 24: we will not know the day or the hour. Apparently, this was very significant because they believed that Jesus would return during the celebration Easter. So in essence, it is a nothing burger.

 

[TylerRay]

So are you saying the Judaizers "won" on this one point?
That raises the question of whether we k ow of post-apostolic critics if this in the early church - and if not, why.

Yes, it seems that the apostles were unable to stamp out all the influence of the Judaizers, and that the following generation(s) capitulated. What other explanation could there be for the early Christians keeping an Old Testament ceremonial feast day?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

George Gillespie summarizes the practice of the early church in his answer to the objection from said practice as a defense of the pretended holy days imposed upon the Scottish church by the assembly at Perth in 1618 (which was not a free general assembly but imposed the will of the king). Links go to the footnotes at the old text at naphtali.com. A superior text with full bibliographical footnotes appear in the 2013 Naphtali Press edition (now out of print; if you see a copy on the used market, get it). Attached.
Sect. 2

The Act of Perth Assembly alleges the practice of the ancient church for warrant of holidays, and Tilen alleges the judgment of antiquity to the same purpose. 39

ANSWER. The festivities of the ancient church cannot warrant ours. For 1. In the purest times of the church there was no law to tie men to the observation of holidays. It must be observed, say the divines of Magdeburg, that the apostles and the apostolic men, did not set up any law about Easter, nor about any other festivals whatsover. 40 Socrates reports, that men did celebrate the feast of Easter, and other festival days, sicuti voluerunt, ex consuetudine quadam [just as they wished, according to whatever custom]. 41 Nicephorus says, that men did celebrate festivities, that men were left to their own judgment about the keeping of Easter. 42 [On Gal. 4] Jerome says of the feasts which the church in his time observed, that they were pro varietate reqionum diversa [different by virtue of the diversity of the regions]. The first who established a law about any festival day, 43 is thought to have been Pius I, bishop of Rome; yet it is marked that the Asiatican doctors did not care much for this constitution of Pius.

I conclude with Cartwright, 44 that those feasts of the primitive church came by custom, and not by commandment; by the free choice of men, and not by constraint. So that from these, no commendation arises to our feasts, which are not only established by laws, but also imposed with such necessity and constraint, as spoils us of our liberty.

2. The festival days observed by the ancient church were not accounted more excellent than other days; for, says Jerome, 45 not because that day on which we assemble is more distinguished. But our festival days are made aliis diebus celebriores [more distinguished than other days], yea, are taken to be holier than other days, as I will afterwards prove.

 

[Sam Jer]

George Gillespie summarizes the practice of the early church in his answer to the objection from said practice as a defense of the pretended holy days imposed upon the Scottish church by the assembly at Perth in 1618 (which was not a free general assembly but imposed the will of the king). Links go to the footnotes at the old text at naphtali.com. A superior text with full bibliographical footnotes appear in the 2013 Naphtali Press edition (now out of print; if you see a copy on the used market, get it). Attached.
Sect. 2

The Act of Perth Assembly alleges the practice of the ancient church for warrant of holidays, and Tilen alleges the judgment of antiquity to the same purpose. 39

ANSWER. The festivities of the ancient church cannot warrant ours. For 1. In the purest times of the church there was no law to tie men to the observation of holidays. It must be observed, say the divines of Magdeburg, that the apostles and the apostolic men, did not set up any law about Easter, nor about any other festivals whatsover. 40 Socrates reports, that men did celebrate the feast of Easter, and other festival days, sicuti voluerunt, ex consuetudine quadam [just as they wished, according to whatever custom]. 41 Nicephorus says, that men did celebrate festivities, that men were left to their own judgment about the keeping of Easter. 42 [On Gal. 4] Jerome says of the feasts which the church in his time observed, that they were pro varietate reqionum diversa [different by virtue of the diversity of the regions]. The first who established a law about any festival day, 43 is thought to have been Pius I, bishop of Rome; yet it is marked that the Asiatican doctors did not care much for this constitution of Pius.

I conclude with Cartwright, 44 that those feasts of the primitive church came by custom, and not by commandment; by the free choice of men, and not by constraint. So that from these, no commendation arises to our feasts, which are not only established by laws, but also imposed with such necessity and constraint, as spoils us of our liberty.

2. The festival days observed by the ancient church were not accounted more excellent than other days; for, says Jerome, 45 not because that day on which we assemble is more distinguished. But our festival days are made aliis diebus celebriores [more distinguished than other days], yea, are taken to be holier than other days, as I will afterwards prove.View attachment 10650

does this mean that in Gillepsie's view, early post-apostolic Easter was actually okay, due to it's nature as voluntary, not consecrating the day, and the later abuses not being introduced?

 

[Phil D.]

As to the historical question, from what I've been able to gather, there are no preserved instances where an objection was raised in the early post-apostolic church with respect to an annual observance of Pascha/Easter. As was already noted, there was intense disputation concerning the specific date on which it should be observed. According to Eusebius, early appeals were made to supposed apostolic practice (e.g. Polycrates claimed so with Philip and John). The issue was apparently addressed at Nicea in a letter by the bishops to the church in Alexandria (second to last paragraph), and one by Constantine to everyone else. Still, the controversy persisted. As always in such matters, caveat lector...

Matthew 24: we will not know the day or the hour. Apparently, this was very significant because they believed that Jesus would return during the celebration Easter.

I've not encountered this in early church writings, can you provide a reference?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

does this mean that in Gillepsie's view, early post-apostolic Easter was actually okay, due to it's nature as voluntary, not consecrating the day, and the later abuses not being introduced?

Apparently, if held to as at the beginning; but of course it quickly devolved. Gillespie goes on to argue at length that now the old days are no longer indifferent for a voluntary use because the pretended holy days are become monuments of idolatry, and on the principle of the destruction of the bronze serpent, they must be put away rather than think such can be reformed. For that he deals specifically with how the days were imposed and observed in his time. His reasoning might also apply to after the early church practice quickly devolved; when the church was embroiled for two centuries over what day is Easter, it says clearly that a voluntary innocent observance had long gone.

 

[RamistThomist]

One of the earliest controversies was the Quartodecian issue. Do we celebrate Easter on the 14th of Nisan or on the Sunday after Easter? It was a problem because 14 Nisan might be a Tuesday, whereas Easter was generally understood to be on a Sunday. Big issue in the early church.

 

[arapahoepark]

As to the historical question, from what I've been able to gather, there are no preserved instances where an objection was raised in the early post-apostolic church with respect to an annual observance of Pascha/Easter. As was already noted, there was intense disputation concerning the specific date on which it should be observed. According to Eusebius, early appeals were made to supposed apostolic practice (e.g. Polycrates claimed so with Philip and John). The issue was apparently addressed at Nicea in a letter by the bishops to the church in Alexandria (second to last paragraph), and one by Constantine to everyone else. Still, the controversy persisted. As always in such matters, caveat lector...



I've not encountered this in early church writings, can you provide a reference?

From the Path of Christianity by McGuckin...perhaps I said something too soon as I too am looking for primary sources on it.

 

[Phil D.]

From the Path of Christianity by McGuckin..

Thanks! - that is quite interesting, and the reference led to this quotation from Jerome:

But at midnight there was a cry: 'Behold, the bridegroom is coming; go out to meet him.’ [Matt. 25:6] For suddenly, as if in the dead of night and with everything secure, when slumber is deepest, the coming of Christ will resound with the shout of angels and the trumpets of the powers that will precede him. We should say something that may perhaps be useful to the reader. According to Jewish tradition, the Christ will come at midnight. This correlates with the time in Egypt when the Passover was celebrated, the destroyer came, the Lord passed over the tabernacles, and the fronts of our doorposts were consecrated with lamb's blood. I think this is also why the apostolic tradition continued that on the day of the Passover vigil it is not permitted to dismiss the people before midnight, as they await the coming of Christ. Once that time has passed, the safety of all who celebrate the feast day is assured. This is also why the Psalmist said: I rose at midnight to give praise to you for the judgments of your justice. (Commentary on Matthew, 4.25.6)​

​

It does seem McGuckin may have an exaggerated idea as to how prominent and important this idea was among the patristics, as Clemens Leonhard writes:

​

Two proof-texts for the alleged eschatological interpretation of the early Christian celebration of the Pascha have to be referred to here; a passage in Jerome's commentary on Matthew and a remark in Lactantius' Divinae Institutiones. Neither of them supports what is claimed to be their message. …[re. Jerome] The personal pronoun our façades makes the quotation a direct speech of the 'Jews'. As venit is apparently read as a past tense, the allegedly Jewish tradition states that the Messiah will come in the middle of the night, like he came at that time in Egypt. It does not say that he will come in a future night of the Pascha. Nevertheless, Jerome understood the argument as such. For him, it explains a rule pertaining to the liturgy of the Easter vigil.​

​

…Buchinger observes that Origen does not mention Christ's second coming in the context of the Pascha. For Origen, many aspects of eschatology are connected with the Pascha. Yet, it is not understood as the day of Christ's return. ...Dionysius of Alexandria likewise opposes the ending of the fast before midnight and speaks about a relaxed and joyful attitude during the celebration. Dionysius does not say anything about an eschatological expectation.​

(Clemens Leonhard, The Jewish Pesach and the Origins of the Christian Easter; Open Questions in Current Research, [Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2012], 216f.)​

 

[TylerRay]

So are you saying the Judaizers "won" on this one point?
That raises the question of whether we k ow of post-apostolic critics if this in the early church - and if not, why.

If you want to know what the spiritual and doctrinal state of the church was at the end of the apostolic age, just read Revelation 2 and 3. Antiquity does not equal purity, and neither does universal acceptance.

Even if every witness from the year 100 was pro-Pascha, it wouldn't change my opposition to it. "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil."

 

[Eyedoc84]

George Gillespie summarizes the practice of the early church in his answer to the objection from said practice as a defense of the pretended holy days imposed upon the Scottish church by the assembly at Perth in 1618 (which was not a free general assembly but imposed the will of the king). Links go to the footnotes at the old text at naphtali.com. A superior text with full bibliographical footnotes appear in the 2013 Naphtali Press edition (now out of print; if you see a copy on the used market, get it). Attached.
Sect. 2

The Act of Perth Assembly alleges the practice of the ancient church for warrant of holidays, and Tilen alleges the judgment of antiquity to the same purpose. 39

ANSWER. The festivities of the ancient church cannot warrant ours. For 1. In the purest times of the church there was no law to tie men to the observation of holidays. It must be observed, say the divines of Magdeburg, that the apostles and the apostolic men, did not set up any law about Easter, nor about any other festivals whatsover. 40 Socrates reports, that men did celebrate the feast of Easter, and other festival days, sicuti voluerunt, ex consuetudine quadam [just as they wished, according to whatever custom]. 41 Nicephorus says, that men did celebrate festivities, that men were left to their own judgment about the keeping of Easter. 42 [On Gal. 4] Jerome says of the feasts which the church in his time observed, that they were pro varietate reqionum diversa [different by virtue of the diversity of the regions]. The first who established a law about any festival day, 43 is thought to have been Pius I, bishop of Rome; yet it is marked that the Asiatican doctors did not care much for this constitution of Pius.

I conclude with Cartwright, 44 that those feasts of the primitive church came by custom, and not by commandment; by the free choice of men, and not by constraint. So that from these, no commendation arises to our feasts, which are not only established by laws, but also imposed with such necessity and constraint, as spoils us of our liberty.

2. The festival days observed by the ancient church were not accounted more excellent than other days; for, says Jerome, 45 not because that day on which we assemble is more distinguished. But our festival days are made aliis diebus celebriores [more distinguished than other days], yea, are taken to be holier than other days, as I will afterwards prove.View attachment 10650

I’ve had this on my wish list at RHB for a while now, not knowing it was completely out of print. Do you have any leads on obtaining one?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I’ve had this on my wish list at RHB for a while now, not knowing it was completely out of print. Do you have any leads on obtaining one?

Abebooks says James Dickson Books has a copy (they may have more than one; I already pointed someone to this listing a month ago, so it may not be current as to their inventory).

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I go back and forth as to what weight to afford something that was present in the early Church. There are some really strange ideas that develop at an early period. I think it's a good idea to read the early Church Fathers to see where they are good and where they are just way off before you appeal to the strength of a tradition. I often wonder how it is that they developed a perfectionist strain. If I wasn't firm in my convictions about the Gospel I might fear that I'm falling way short of the perfection expected of the Christian life from reading several early sources. It wouldn't surprise me that they got an annual holy day wrong and that doesn't mean I despise them for it.

 

[RamistThomist]

I think we should make a distinction between Early Church beliefs and practices. Regardless of what they believed about Jesus coming back at a certain time, Pascha itself was honored from antiquity. We know that from councils and controversies.

 

[MarrowMan]

Since we are on the subject of holidays and church history:
How do those who oppose all holidays explain the antiquity of Easter and the passionate debates on the date?
Are there any examples of opposition to the practice in the early church?

I’m hard pressed to figure out why your question matters. Do the Scriptures justify or warrant man’s determination of his own holy days? If so, where? Beyond this, of what value are they and why? Is there a promise of the Lord attached to them? Are they a means of grace? Does the Spirit of God work in and through them? If yes, where do you find justification for that position in the Scripture? If no, then of what value are they?

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Prior to the Protestant Reformation in the 16th Century, is there any evidence that anyone in Church History from the 1st Century on ever advocated for not observing Passover / Pascha at all?

 

[MarrowMan]

Prior to the Protestant Reformation in the 16th Century, is there any evidence that anyone in Church History from the 1st Century on ever advocated for not observing Passover / Pascha at all?

First century? Paul views the observance of the Jewish liturgical calendar as meaningless. Is that not enough? Again, the question I ask remains. Of what actual value does the observance of Easter/Passover hold? It was a means of grace pointing to Christ in the OT. What actual value does it hold now that Christ has come? What promise of God is appended to it? What efficacy? What value?

 

[TylerRay]

Prior to the Protestant Reformation in the 16th Century, is there any evidence that anyone in Church History from the 1st Century on ever advocated for not observing Passover / Pascha at all?

Brother, do you think that the New Testament answers the question, "How should Christians view the Old Testament feast days?"

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Brother, do you think that the New Testament answers the question, "How should Christians view the Old Testament feast days?"

I am not (currently) convinced that the Passover / Easter was in fact reckoned as an Old Testament feast day in the time period after the cross, by the human (or even divine!) authors of the New Testament.

There have been a lot of debates in Church History about some very fundamental things, but when it comes to Easter, the only controversy appears (as far as I can tell) to have been "when do we calibrate it", and not "do we celebrate it".

Is there something to that? I don't know for sure, but there sure seems to be.

 

[TylerRay]

I am not (currently) convinced that the Passover / Easter was in fact reckoned as an Old Testament feast day in the time period after the cross, by the human (or even divine!) authors of the New Testament.

There have been a lot of debates in Church History about some very fundamental things, but when it comes to Easter, the only controversy appears (as far as I can tell) to have been "when do we calibrate it", and not "do we celebrate it".

Is there something to that? I don't know for sure, but there sure seems to be.

Brother, the book of Acts and the Epistles are jammed full with the controversies over whether Christians should keep the ceremonial law. If there was one feast day that carried over--that was an exception to the rest--don't you think it would have come up? Wouldn't it make sense to think that Passover was included in the discussions of all the other ceremonial laws?

As with all other matters, Scripture, not tradition, must be our rule.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

The great work of our redemption is marked by the seventh day Sabbath changing to the Lord's Day. To say we need Easter is man's poor attempt to gild God's lily, saying we need one day special, when the Lord has given 52 every year, like that wasn't good enough. Two quotes that go to this:
"The celebration of set anniversary days is no necessary mean for conserving the commemoration of the benefits of redemption, because we have occasion, not only every Sabbath day, but every other day, to call to mind these benefits, either in hearing, or reading, or meditating upon God’s Word. 'I esteem and judge that the days consecrated to Christ must be lifted,' says Danæus: 'Christ is born, is circumcised, dies, rises again for us every day in the preaching of the Gospel.'" — George Gillespie.
"The observance of uncommanded holy-days is ever found to interfere with the due sanctification of the Lord's day. Adding to the appointments of God is superstition. And superstition has ever been found unfriendly to genuine obedience." -- Samuel Miller

 

[itsreed]

This has been an oddly interesting thread for me to work through. Two things, in particular, arise:

1) My fear of the opinions of men, if/when I express my “no holy days but Sundays” conviction.
2) My blessings of serving a congregation that expects every Sunday to include “celebration” of Christmas (Jesus’ incarnation) and Easter (his resurrection), as ordinary in our worship.

Finally, question for y’all: recognizing the distinction between belief and practice, is there any evidence that the earliest church’s debating over Easter’s dating (mid second century):
a) Included both ’belief’: recognition (the date), and “practice” differences in worship (from other Sundays)?
OR
b) Was merely the recognition of the date, with no particular changes in their, say, order of worship (I.e., RPW considerations)?

In all my studies, it seems that those reviewing the early church records are giving evidence for (b), and assuming that also means (a). That is, recognition necessarily means changes in practices. I recognize that there is evidence for practice changes relatively close to this (by the mid 4th C to be sure, maybe here/there earlier). But there does not seem to be evidence of widespread differences in worship practices on Easter Sunday (or even Pascha Friday services), other than recognition of the historic relevance of the date.

If so, this might help a bit. It might be biblically sound to recognize the day, without changing one’s (RPW ordered) practices. Other tradition-cultural practices (gimme some Reese’s pieces stuffed Easter eggs!), might be, under the elders’ careful vetting, relegated to fellowship activities on days other than Sunday.

 

[Phil D.]

Finally, question for y’all: recognizing the distinction between belief and practice, is there any evidence that the earliest church’s debating over Easter’s dating (mid second century):
a) Included both ’belief’: recognition (the date), and “practice” differences in worship (from other Sundays)?
OR
b) Was merely the recognition of the date, with no particular changes in their, say, order of worship (I.e., RPW considerations)?

If you follow the links in my previous post, and read both the primary sources and lengthy editorial notes, there is fairly early and widespread indication of a special service (paschal communion) and a period of fasting (itself a major part of the timing controversy) leading up to that service.

 

[Phil D.]

I should also mention that Schaff gives one of the most coherent and thus useful synopses of the Paschal Controversies.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

It just occurred to me that 2 Kings 23:22 provides a good corrective to any confidence that the universal practice of the early Church is a guarantor that Easter ought to be celebrated. This thought came to me as I was reading another article about the nature of Reformation.

If it's possible that the entire history of the Judges and Kings was marked by a failure to properly observe the Passover, it is not impossible that a practice was introduced that needed Reformation.

Can you imagine the outcry among some well-meaning religious people when the bronze serpent was destroyed as an act of Reformation?

I'm not trying to turn the entire early Church into "bad guys" but merely cautioning against universal agreement in practice as being a warrant for acceptance.

It seems to me that Baptists, especially, would have to agree with this sentiment.

 

[Phil D.]

I'm not trying to turn the entire early Church into "bad guys" but merely cautioning against universal agreement in practice as being a warrant for acceptance.

Lest my contributions to this thread perhaps be misunderstood... I am simply pointing to relevant primary sources and historical analysis that speak to various aspects of the question at hand. I am not advocating for the observance of Easter...

It seems to me that Baptists, especially, would have to agree with this sentiment.

I can't believe you actually went there...