Is Celebrating Easter Pagan?

[py3ak]

What about a church that fills the eggs with scripture verses for the children?

In that case, are we redeeming eggs or degrading Scripture?

I don't mean to automatically condemn the practice, but I think that's the first question to ask.

Thank you, Jack! That is a very neat way of putting a point that arises too often. Many efforts to "redeem" something wind up degrading the element injected in order to redeem. The alternative way to say it, of course, is "Can't you see that you're not making Christianity better, you're just making rock and roll worse?"

 

[jwright82]

§1. I have proved the ceremonies to be superstitious [see Part 3, chapter 1]; now I will prove them to be idolatrous. These are different arguments; for every idolatry is superstition, but every superstition is not idolatry, as is rightly by some distinguished.[1] As for the idolatry of the controverted ceremonies, I will prove that they are thrice idolatrous: I. Reductivè [By conducting], because they are monuments of by-past idolatry; II. Participativè [By imparting, see Part 3 Chapter 3], because they are badges of present idolatry; III. Formaliter [By form, see Part 3 Chapter 4], because they are idols themselves.

These ceremonies he is refering to specifically are formally religous ceremonies. I do not see how that can even be applied to the contemporary non-religous cultural practices? Unless you can prove that they are in fact religous than I just don't see it. I completly agree with him and you here but we are not talking about a religous practice.

First, then, they are idolatrous, because having been notoriously abused to idolatry heretofore, they are the detestable and accursed monuments, which give no small honor to the memory of that by-past idolatry which should lie buried in hell. Dr. Burges reckons for idolatrous all ceremonies devised and used in and to the honoring of an idol, whether properly or by interpretation such. Of which sort (he says) were all the ceremonies of the pagans, and not a few of the Papists.[3] If an opposite, writing against us, is forced to acknowledge this much, one may easily conjecture what enforcing reason we have to double out our point. The argument in hand I frame thus:

All things and rites which have been notoriously abused to idolatry, if they are not such as either God or nature has made to be of a necessary use, should be utterly abolished and purged away from divine worship, in such sort that they may not be accounted nor used by us as sacred things or rites pertaining to the same.

But the cross, surplice, kneeling in the act of receiving the communion, &c., are things and rites, &c., and are not such as either God or nature, &c.

Therefore they should be utterly abolished, &c.

"All things" refers to all things, so bondfires because they "have been so abused in the past to idolotry" should be therefore be "put away". Simply asserting that they are different seems abatrary at best. A bond fire is just as specific an act as finding easter eggs. The logic seems sound here but I could be missing something.

§2. As for the proposition I shall first explain it, and then prove it. I say, all things and rites, for they are alike forbidden, as I shall show. I say, which have been notoriously abused to idolatry, because if the abuse is not known, we are blameless for retaining the things and rites which have been abused.

Again agreed but what we call easter today is so drastically different from whatever popish or pagan religous ceremony to dinstincly different things.

because without [outside] the compass of worship they may be used to a natural or civil purpose.

That is exactly my point, it is used for civil purposes because it is nonreligous in nature.

Things abused to idolatry are only then unlawful when they are used no otherwise than religiously, and as things sacred.

No one is affirming them as sacrad or religous.

 

[N. Eshelman]

I always find it interesting when people call for "Christian liberty" in these instances. The Liberty the Christ purchased is not the liberty to sin or to compromise, but the liberty to obey and to be free from the traditions of men. I agree with Josh- if you want to run around looking for eggs and eating rabbit candy- go for it. Just leave Jesus out of it.

I. The liberty which Christ has purchased for believers under the Gospel consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, and condemning wrath of God, the curse of the moral law;[1] and, in their being delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin;[2] from the evil of afflictions, the sting of death, the victory of the grave, and everlasting damnation;[3] as also, in their free access to God,[4] and their yielding obedience unto Him, not out of slavish fear, but a child-like love and willing mind.[5] All which were common also to believers under the law.[6] But, under the New Testament, the liberty of Christians is further enlarged, in their freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law, to which the Jewish Church was subjected;[7] and in greater boldness of access to the throne of grace,[8] and in fuller communications of the free Spirit of God, than believers under the law did ordinarily partake of.[9]

II. God alone is Lord of the conscience,[10] and has left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship.[11] So that, to believe such doctrines, or to obey such commands, out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of conscience:[12] and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience, and reason also.[13]

III. They who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, do practice any sin, or cherish any lust, do thereby destroy the end of Christian liberty, which is, that being delivered out of the hands of our enemies, we might serve the Lord without fear, in holiness and righteousness before Him, all the days of our life.[14]

IV. And because the powers which God has ordained, and the liberty which Christ has purchased are not intended by God to destroy, but mutually to uphold and preserve one another, they who, upon pretence of Christian liberty, shall oppose any lawful power, or the lawful exercise of it, whether it be civil or ecclesiastical, resist the ordinance of God.[15] And, for their publishing of such opinions, or maintaining of such practices, as are contrary to the light of nature, or to the known principles of Christianity (whether concerning faith, worship, or conversation), or to the power of godliness; or, such erroneous opinions or practices, as either in their own nature, or in the manner of publishing or maintaining them, are destructive to the external peace and order which Christ has established in the Church, they may lawfully be called to account,[16] and proceeded against, by the censures of the Church. and by the power of the civil magistrate.[17]

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I certainly may be expanding beyond Gillespie's argument, though he seems to do the same by allowing some buildings, which would otherwise fall out of his argument generally, so attached to abuses to be destroyed, though see his full argument on that. In my opinion the cultural is so attached to the other, of which the idolatry and will worship remains, I think such "harmless" practices may fall under the same consideration. Again, see the whole section which I offered in one of those threads.

No one is affirming them as sacrad or religous.

 

[jwright82]

I certainly may be expanding beyond Gillespie's argument, though he seems to do the same by allowing some buildings, which would otherwise fall out of his argument generally, so attached to abuses to be destroyed, though see his full argument on that. In my opinion the cultural is so attached to the other, of which the idolatry and will worship remains, I think such "harmless" practices may fall under the same consideration. Again, see the whole section which I offered in one of those threads.

No one is affirming them as sacrad or religous.

Will do. I don't have that book like you do so I can't say if somewhere else he deals particulerly with what I am talking. But I'll have to put that work on get someday list. Thanks.

 

[a mere housewife]

'It seems to me we can set for ourselves no more appropriate or profitable task this Easter day than at the hand of the apostle to trace the inner nexus of our Christian faith with the resurrection of Christ. If the observance by the church of special seasons associated with the great epochs in the work of redemption is to be justified at all, it can be justified on no higher ground than that such seasons as Christmas and Easter and Pentecost invite us to rise for a moment from the poor fragmentariness of our average consciousness of salvation to that clearer and more blessed vision whereby as from a mountain top we span the entire origin of our faith. Everything belongs to us of right brethren, because we are Christ's and Christ is God's; but we are consciously rich in so far only as we learn to place ourselves at least sometimes on those points of elevation from which we may survey the land of God's promises as a whole. Perhaps we do not sufficiently appreciate the extent to which the remembrance at stated seasons of these great facts of the incarnation, the atonement, the resurrection, the gift of the Spirit, has kept alive in the church the spirit of true evangelical piety . . .'

(Geerhardus Vos, A Sermon on 1 Corinthians 15:14)

(on 'Whether it belong to the faith in the New Testament that besides the Lord's day there are other festival days properly so called whose celebration is necessary per se and by reason of mystery, not by reason of order or ecclesiastical polity only. We deny the papists.')

'The question is not whether days may be selected on which either the nativity, or circumcision, or passion, or the ascension of Christ, and similar mysteries of redemption, may be commemorated, or even on which the memory of remarkable blessing may be celebrated. For this the orthodox think should be left to the liberty of the church. Hence some devote certain days to such festivity, not from necessity of faith, but from the counsel of prudence to excite more to piety and devotion. However, others, using their liberty, retain the Lord's day alone and in it, at stated times, celebrate the memory of the mysteries of Christ, with whom "the dissonance of things of this kind does not take away the harmony of faith" as Augustine formerly remarked of a fast. Rather the question is whether some days are more holy and sacred than others and a certain part of divine worship ought to be celebrated under the reason of mystery and not only as related to ecclesiastical order and polity. . . .'

(Turretin's Insitutes, 11.XIII.15)

I very much stand with not introducing unwarranted practices like Easter Egg hunts into worship; but I think it is right to take care to distinguish those who celebrate Easter Sunday in the church without such trappings, and in such a way as not to think the day holier in itself but simply to commemorate a great moment in our Saviour's work for us, so as not to create dissonance in the harmony of the faith within our very fine, anti-pagan and anti-papistical reformed tradition.

 

[Andres]

What about a church that fills the eggs with scripture verses for the children?

In that case, are we redeeming eggs or degrading Scripture?

I don't mean to automatically condemn the practice, but I think that's the first question to ask.

Why does the church always want to compromise with the world? Why not just stick to doing the two things that the church does that NO ONE else does - word and sacraments. Why are we constantly sending the message that word and sacrament are insufficient? God doesn't need us to add egg hunts, candy, Santa Claus, pageants, or any of this stuff. Word and sacrament are what He has prescribed!

 

[M21195]

I agree with Christian liberty regarding the holiday, but I think a reformed church gives a very poor witness by sponsoring any event that promotes pagan traditions (egg hunt) and that reinforces the Papal calendar.

I'm good with celebrating Jesus the King, but keep the eggs, and bunnies out of it...

 

[Handsomegeneralstabbyeyes]

I'm excited about the discount candy and chocolate eggs.

 

[Dearly Bought]

True story:
I was recently talking to another apartment manager about activities which we put on every month for our residents. I wondered out loud what holidays there were in April for possible themes. She paused and said something along the lines of "I don't mean to be rude, but how did you forget Easter, church boy?" I then had to briefly explain that my household doesn't celebrate the church calendar.

 

[FedByRavens]

I sometimes skip easter altogether. When I do choose to celebrate it, my hearts focus is Christ's Resurrection. If eggs are involved that's cool, if not that's cool. But regardless of what I do, it will be for the glory of God. I love the idea of putting Bible scriptures on the eggs.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

I suppose I should be used to this by now! Easter is not a pagan celebration. There is a maxim that goes, “The misuse of a thing does not invalidate its proper use.”

Andrew, I notice in the link you provided in the OP, it alleged the use of “Easter” in the NT (Acts 12:4) is a mistranslation. That’s the first thing I’d like to address. This bush has been gone around before here at PB, though perhaps it’s time to refresh people’s minds. For me it all started a few years back after hearing Dr. Matthew McMahon’s podcast, Easter: The Devil’s Holiday, with his use of Alexander Hislop’s book, The Two Babylons; Or The Papal Worship: Proved To Be The Worship Of Nimrod and His Wife (Lorizeaux Brothers, 1990), to support his thesis, and at that time I wanted to study a little and write on this. I also had avoided the whole Easter celebration mostly on this basis. I would tell people, “I don’t celebrate Ishtar.”

I note that the author of the article you linked, Andrew, also references Hislop and his work. To which I respond: First of all, Ralph Woodrow, who wrote, Babylon Mystery Religion, influenced deeply by Hislop’s book, later retracted his view (and pulled his book off the market) after realizing Hislop badly erred. He then wrote a review, “The Two Babylons: A Case Study in Poor Methodology”, in Christian Research Journal, 1999 Volume: 22 Number: 2. I have both of these works in my library, but I no longer use either due to their flaws. Anyone using them to promote arguments against Easter are automatically suspect in my view.

It should be needless to say, the pagan fertility symbols of eggs and rabbits are carry-overs from ancient fertility rites and do represent corruption in the church, if they be brought into the church. But this has nothing to do with pure Easter. I do not like ungodly accretions to the Gospel and to the biblical Faith, be they rabbinic or pagan; as a poet and word-smith I like language that is spare and potent, and keep a sharp eye on linguistic corruptions in my native tongue (English); on neither count am I offended by the word Easter.

Will Kinney has written an article, “Is the word ‘Easter’ an error in the King James Bible?”, which I think speaks well into the issue of the textual choice of the translators in Acts 12:4. I won’t post the article here for the sake of space, but it is most germane to the defense of the translation of the Greek pascha as Easter. Those who want to be “up to speed” in this discussion should read it.

The King James is accurate as it uses the word “Passover” before the death and resurrection of Christ and then “Easter” the only time the word occurs in the book of Acts after His resurrection.

There is an English / Anglo-Saxon usage of the word “Easter” pre-dating the King James (and Tyndale), and an etymological derivation from the German “Oster”. Until Tyndale, though, the English held in common with the European tongues (excepting German) the use of the transliterated pascha for both the Jewish Passover and the post-resurrection celebration and its transformed Passover meal / Lord’s Supper. Tyndale differentiated between the two with linguistic brilliance, which was followed by the King James Bible.

For an enjoyable tour of the original usage of this word – and the coining by Tyndale of the word “Passover” as well – see Nick Sayers’ article, Why we should not Passover Easter. Sayers explains why it is theologically and Scripturally correct to differentiate between Passover and Easter.

I will add some more from collected info on this matter for those who like to delve deeply into semantic matters:

The Indo-European roots of our languages have the prefix aus-, which means to shine, important derivatives of which are the words east, Easter, aurora. It has the idea, “the direction of the sunrise.” The Old High German ostan – east – derives from this root. That the dawn-goddess Eastre or Oestar derives from the same root does not mean they are the same word with the same meaning. The Indo-European ausos- refers to the dawn, and also to the Indo-European goddess of the dawn. [Taken from The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] Ed, the section, “Indo-European Roots”, p. 2095.]

Greek philosophers gave the word logos certain meanings, while the apostle John imbued it with an entirely different (though related) significance. Because Easter has etymological roots in common with a dawn goddess, does not negate its own peculiar etymology and associations, among which are east, shining, rising, resurrection, as noted below.

The English word Easter is of German/Saxon origin and not Babylonian as Alexander Hislop falsely claimed. The German equivalent is Oster. Oster (Ostern being the modern day equivalent) is related to Ost which means the rising of the sun, or simply in English, east. Oster comes from the old Teutonic form of auferstehen / auferstehung, which means resurrection, which in the older Teutonic form comes from two words, Ester meaning first, and stehen meaning to stand. These two words combine to form erstehen which is an old German form of auferstehen, the modern day German word for resurrection.

In English etymology the word Ester coming from the German Oster, morphed into the modern day term Easter. Similarily in German the word Oster in Luther’s Day has now become Ostern, which are the same words but with different spelling. Tyndale with his expertise in the German language knew of the Ester - Oster association. Luther obviously considered Oster as both a synonym for the Jewish Passover and a phrase used for the resurrection of Christ. In Luther’s German New Testament we find Ostern, Osterlamm, Osterfest, Fest, and only once das Passa (Heb. 11.28). In His Old Testament he used the German word Passaopffer, Osterfest, Ostern, and Osterlamm once each.

In Exodus 12.11 Luther rendered Passah with a marginal note referring to the 'Osterlamm'. Even in contemporary German the phrase "das jüdische Osterfest" (the Jewish Passover) demonstrates that the German Oster can mean both the Jewish and Christian festivals. In fact the meaning of the German word Ostern is today just as the English word Easter was until the KJV translators skillfully put it in it’s correct semantic range, thus separating forever the Old Easter and the New Easter. After 1611 the Old Testament Easter became Passover, a trend Tyndale had begun to accomplish. –excerpted from Nick Sayers article linked to above​

C. F. Cruse remarked, "Our word EASTER is of Saxon origin and of precisely the same import with its German cognate OSTERN. The latter is derived from the old Teutonic form of auferstehen / auferstehung, that is - RESURRECTION." (Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, Translated by C. F. Cruse, Hendrickson Publishers, p 437)

Most likely I won’t convince those whose see an Ishtar / Oestar goddess connection with the word Easter (and there is an etymologic but not a meaning-equivalent connection with the Germanic Oestar) – I am in great measure posting this for the sake of those who hold to the King James Bible, to confirm them in the warranted confidence they hold in that holy Book. For – ultimately – I think the Easter question does hinge on its valid Biblical use, and I have labored here to show that its use in Acts 12:4 is indeed valid.

A thought: were Luther, with his thorough knowledge of German, and Tyndale with not only his knowledge of German and genius for English, but highly accomplished in many languages, ignorant in that they would either not know of or purposely insert / accept a pagan goddess festival as a word for the resurrection of our Lord?

In sum: I hope this is sufficient to show that the appearance of the word Easter in our Bible, and its proper use in referring to the resurrection of our Lord, has adequate warrant.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Lest any be confused, Owen at the ellipse in that quote, calls the observance of Easter a presumption; noting the differences of observance, writing:

...their practice; only there was a difference about the precise time or day which they were to solemnize as the head and rule of their festival, as every undue presumption hath one lameness or other accompanying it,--it is truth alone which is square and steady.
​

The works of John Owen - John Owen, William H. Goold - Google Books
A Discourse Concerning Liturgies and their Imposition, Works, XV, p. 152.

 

[Romans922]

Steve,

The link I posted like I said did not portray what I would have written myself. I don't actually think it was that great of an article. It addressed all the wrong things (secondary issues) instead of the main things (primary issues). I only posted it to get the grand annual discussion started.

 

[timmopussycat]

Yes, it is almost that time again, to celebrate the Lord's Day.

Easter & Christ Resurrection

Any scholar of Church history could point out that easter goes much further back in Church history than the anglo-saxons. Further, if it's an anglo-saxon feast, why do the Eastern Churches (all branches, including Copts and Syro-Malabar) celebrate it?

Easter is, in fact, the oldest of Christian feast days but it is only called "Easter" in English.

What is the feast day called in the Eastern Church? And where can details on their celebration of the day be found?

 

[Philip]

What is the feast day called in the Eastern Church? And where can details on their celebration of the day be found?

Πάσχα, or Paskha. Basically, it's the Greek for "passover," as it's found in the NT. The Eastern Churches still use the Julian (not Gregorian) Calendar and thus their Easter celebrations usually fall on a different day than those of the west.

I can't think what the best resource for Eastern Orthodox traditions might be---most of my knowledge here is secondhand from friends who have attended EO Churches. I remember reading a brief description of the Syriac Easter traditions in The Church of the East (Stewart and Holzmann) a while back, but those are unique to Syriac Orthodoxy and the so-called "Nestorian" traditions.

 

[Mushroom]

Time to dig out the old bunny suit....

 

[Unoriginalname]

What is the feast day called in the Eastern Church? And where can details on their celebration of the day be found?

This is just second hand but one of my good friends grew up Ukrainian Orthodox and he stated that one of the traditional elements of their Easter service is crawling on your knees to kiss an icon of the risen Lord.

 

[jwright82]

Time to dig out the old bunny suit....

Oh you have to post pictures of that in the family photo section.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Thanks Chris, for pointing out the inappropriateness of that Owen quote I posited; it was careless of me not to thoroughly vet the context. I have removed it, as it merely shows the differences (as you said) of early presumptions re Easter celebration, not showing any clear warrant for celebrating Easter at all.

I will let it rest that the word Easter in Acts 12:4 (AV) is sufficient to remove any charge of paganism with respect to it. For me it is but another way to say Resurrection Sunday.

 

[Pilgrim Standard]

The Eastern Churches still use the Julian (not Gregorian) Calendar and thus their Easter celebrations usually fall on a different day than those of the west.

"While the, 'living oracles' were neglected, the zeal of the clergy began to spend itself upon rites and ceremonies borrowed from the pagans. These were multiplied to such a degree, that Augustine complained that they were 'less tolerable than the yoke of the Jews under the law.' {1} At this period the Bishops of Rome wore costly attire, gave sumptuous banquets, and when they went abroad were carried in litters. {2} They now began to speak with an authoritative voice, and to demand obedience from all the Churches. Of this the dispute between the Eastern and Western Churches respecting Easter is an instance in point. The Eastern Church, following the Jews, kept the feast on the 14th day of the month Nisan {3} — the day of the Jewish Passover. The Churches of the West, and especially that of Rome, kept Easter on the Sabbath following the 14th day of Nisan. Victor, Bishop of Rome, resolved to put an end to the controversy, and accordingly, sustaining himself sole judge in this weighty point, he commanded all the Churches to observe the feast on the same day with himself. The Churches of the East, not aware that the Bishop of Rome had authority to command their obedience in this or in any other matter, kept Easter as before; and for this flagrant contempt, as Victor accounted it, of his legitimate authority, he excommunicated them. {4} They refused to obey a human ordinance, and they were shut out from the kingdom of the Gospel. This was the first peal of those thunders which were in after times to roll so often and so terribly from the Seven Hills.” - The History of Protestantism by Rev. J. A. Wylie, Vol. 1, Book 1, Pg 4, Cassell Peter & Galpin, 1878

{1}Baronius admits that many things have been laudably translated from Gentile superstition into the Christian religion (Annal., ad An. 58). And Binnius, extolling the munificence of Constantine towards the Church, speaks of his superstitionis gentiliae justa aemulatio (“just emulation of the Gentile superstition”). — Concil., tom. 7, notae in Donat. Constan.
{2}Ammian. Marcel., lib. 27, cap. 3. Mosheim, vol. 1, cent. 4, p. 95.
{3}Nisan corresponds with the latter half of our March and the first half of our April.
{4}The Council of Nicaea, A.D. 325, enacted that the 21st of March should thenceforward be accounted the vernal equinox, that the Lord’s Day following the full moon next after the 21st of March should be kept as Easter Day, but that if the full moon happened on a Sabbath, Easter Day should be the Sabbath following. This is the canon that regulates the observance of Easter in the Church of England. “Easter Day,” says the Common Prayer Book, “is always the first Sunday after the full moon which happens upon or next after the 21st day of March; and if the full moon happens upon a Sunday, Easter Day is the Sunday after.”

 

[Andres]

This is just second hand but one of my good friends grew up Ukrainian Orthodox and he stated that one of the traditional elements of their Easter service is crawling on your knees to kiss an icon of the risen Lord.

 

[gordo]

What is the feast day called in the Eastern Church? And where can details on their celebration of the day be found?

This is just second hand but one of my good friends grew up Ukrainian Orthodox and he stated that one of the traditional elements of their Easter service is crawling on your knees to kiss an icon of the risen Lord.

Orthodox venerate icons. Nothing to do specifically with Easter.

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

I'll not be doing things that can be misconstrued as idol-worshippers running to their vanities. Eggs and bunnies, as harmless as they seem the rest of the year, are not harmless at this time of year, as we are commanded to avoid the appearance of evil, as well as evil. And, as much as I love Turretin and Vos, I simply must disagree with them here--in the age of the Church's minority such things were given as helps and props to their faith, but not today. Elevating one day above another, for the sake of devotion after the fall of the Temple and the settling of the Sabbath on the first day of the week is simply not commanded by the Lord whom we serve. Worship is no for us, it is for Him.

 

[dudley]

I agree with Christian liberty regarding the holiday, but I think a reformed church gives a very poor witness by sponsoring any event that promotes pagan traditions (egg hunt) and that reinforces the Papal calendar.

Amen! SW, As Reformed Protestants, I am a Presbyterian, we should celebrate the resurrection of Christ and our promise of salvation by faith alone in Him who overcame death and leads all who have faith in Him alone to eternal salvation by His one time only sacrifice for all who are made righteous by their faith in Jesus Christ and no merit of their own. We are an Easter People in that sense . I however do not condone pagan practices or anything that that reinforces the Papal calendar or smells of popery and Roman Catholicism.:

 

[a mere housewife]

Rev. Ruddell, I thought the purpose of what Turretin was saying was that it is not to be considered an elevation of one day above another? Yet I understand there is disagreement between the Scottish and the continental reformed tradition on this, about whether one can in fact have such days as a matter of ecclesiastical order and polity without undue elevation. Whatever might be said on that score, my own contribution was simply because I think labels like pagan or popish are misapplied to the celebration of events in Christ's life that falls within the reformed tradition, considering the distinctions that were clearly and carefully made.

 

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

Thank you, Heidi. I believe I understand your rationale. My own is that the origin of these accretions are from somewhere other than God's own command, and that therefore they ought to be avoided. But, as you seem to be a bright lady I'm sure you already knew that. It is difficult for me to get past the service we owe to God being ordered by Himself alone. And as I said above, as much as I read and have profited from Vos and Turretin I must say that whether the origin is pagan, popish, or pietistic it falls outside the command of God. My own view is well stated by the Larger Catechism: QA 109

...corrupting the worship of God, adding to it, or taking from it, whether invented and taken up of ourselves, or received by tradition from others, though under the title of antiquity, custom, devotion, good intent, or any other pretense whatsoever...

 

[a mere housewife]

Thank you for your kind response, Rev. Ruddell. I do very much respect the convictions on both sides of this issue. I pray you have a wonderful Lord's Day.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

I suppose here is the gist of the matter for me: if the word Easter appears in the Bible(s) of the Reformation, let it not be said it is a pagan concept. You may argue with Tyndale (and other Reformation and post-Reformation textual editors) with regard to his coinage of the words Easter and Passover – though I for one appreciate the linguistic genius of the translations – but it remains that their pedigree is as pure as any other alternatives.

Now what people, churches, and popes, may have done to these good things is another story. Perhaps it will be remembered that my first words in this discussion were, ‘There is a maxim that goes, “The misuse of a thing does not invalidate its proper use.” ’

When pastoring the church in Cyprus I made it a point that we did not celebrate Easter, Christmas, Mother’s Day, etc. But neither did I denigrate either the words or the occasions. The expository preaching through various books of Scripture were not interrupted or supplanted by these occasions. The Scripture afforded ample opportunity to expound and celebrate the birth, life, atoning death, resurrection, ascension, coronation, millennial rule, and coming again in glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. Every sermon we were reminded of His resurrection and enthronement at our Father’s right hand, as an explicit part of the service of worship was the request to bring us into His presence, and to bring His presence into our hearts.

Nonetheless, our Reformation Bible – the edition of which I use is the AV – honors the idea of Easter as the day our Lord rose from the dead on that first day of the week after His atoning death. In itself it is a good word. If one wants to rejoice in a first-day-of-the-week celebration commemorating Christ’s victorious resurrection – Easter – I for one will not denigrate a pure-hearted honoring of God’s glorious grace and might.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Steve,
Others can better speak to the translation issue. However, the rule you note needs to be qualified as I have made mention of before from Gillespie and Calvin. Below is what Gillespie answers his opponents Saravia, one of the KJV translators actually, and fellow Scot John Forbes of Course. G answers their argument that abuse does not take away the good use, that this is only true in things ordained by God. I'm not pressing the case here specifically, though I think it can be argued, only noting the qualification of the rule.

Gillespie is pursuing an argument based upon this rule:

All things and rites which have been notoriously abused to idolatry, if they are not such as either God or nature has made to be of a necessary use, should be utterly abolished and purged away from divine worship, in such sort that they may not be accounted nor used by us as sacred things or rites pertaining to the same.
But the cross, surplice, kneeling in the act of receiving the communion, &c., are things and rites, &c., and are not such as either God or nature, &c.​

§7. Thus, having both explained and confirmed the proposition of our present argument, I will make me [my] next for the confutation of the answers which our opposites devise to elude it.

And 1., they tell us, that it is needless to abolish utterly things and rites which the Papists have abused to idolatry and superstition, and that it is enough to purge them from the abuse, and to restore them again to their right use. Hence Saravia will not have pium crucis usum [pius use of the cross] to be abolished cum abusu [along with the abuse], but holds it enough that the abuse and superstition be taken away.1 Dr. Forbes’ answer is, that not only things instituted by God are not to be taken away for the abuse of them, but farther, neither must indifferent matters thoughtfully introduced by men always be done away with because of ensuing abuse. The Papists have abused temples, and places of prayer, and cathedrals, and holy vessels, and bells, and the blessing of marriage; however, thoughtful reformers have not proposed that such things must be abandoned.2

Answer. (1)  Calvin,3 answering that which Cassander alleges out of an Italian writer, abusu non tolli bonum usum [abuse does not take away the good use], he admits it only to be true in things which are instituted by God himself, not so in things ordained by men, for the very use of such things or rites as have no necessary use in God’s worship, and which men have devised only at their own pleasure, is taken away by idolatrous abuse. Pars tutior [The safer part] here, is to put them wholly away, and there is, by a great deal, more danger in retaining than in removing them.

​

---

1. N. Fratri et Amico, art. 17. [“N. Fratri et Amico,” in Diversi Tractatus Theologici (1611) 16.]


2. Irenicum, lib. 1, cap. 7, 9, 6. neque res mediæ ab hominibus prudenter introductæ, propter sequentem abusum semper tollendæ sunt. Abusi sunt Papistæ templis, et oratoriis, et cathedris, et sacris vasis, et campanis, et benedictione matrimoniali; nec tamen res istas censuerunt prudentes reformatores abjiciendas [7–6, p. 43]. [The quotation comes from section 6. Section 9 reads: “IX. Atqueita iam paret justas fuisse & idoneas rationes, ex ipsarum rerum intuitu, propter quas Patres Perthenses articulos à Rege propositos, partim potuerunt, partim etiam admittere debuerunt. Nam in rebus illis quædam sunt necessariæ, omnes autem licitæ ac laudabiles: illæ sine peccato contemni non possunt; istæ licitè et laudabiliter admittuntur” (7–9, p. 45). Cf. The First Book of the Irenicum, trans. E. G. Selwyn, p. 118–119, 121–122.]


3. Responsio Ad Versipellem Quendam Mediatorem, p. 41–44. [Cf. CR 37 (CO 9), 542. Cf. [French] “Response a Un Certain Moyenneur Rusé”, Recueil des Opuscules (Geneva: Stoer, 1611) 2191–2192. Translation from the French (courtesy of Raymond V. Bottomly): “… that what is alleged of an Italian writer, that abuse does not take away the good usage, will not be true if one holds to it without exception: because it is not in the least commanded [i.e. it is commanded] to us to prudently watch that by our example we would not offend the infirm brothers, that of never undertaking that which would be illicit. For Saint Paul prohibits offending the brothers in eating of flesh which was sacrificed to idols, and speaks of one kind, he always gives as a general rule that we are to keep ourselves, from troubling the consciences of the weak by a bad or damaging example. Indeed, one would speak better and more wholesomely when one says that what God himself ordains may not be abolished for wrong use or abuse that is committed against it: but it is necessary to abstain from these things which, after they have been corrupted with error by human ordinance, if the usage of these is harmful and scandalizes the brothers. And here I marvel how this “Reformer”, finally, after granting that sometimes superstitions, ordained by public authority, have such strong popularity that it is necessary to take them away from the realm of man (like we read having been done by Hezekiah regarding the bronze serpent), yet he does not even a little consider that his shrewdness is a horror to ways of good conduct: in defending some rituals as supportable, he would oblige that all superstitions if they are weighty enough, should be considered as safe and whole. For what is there in the papacy that would not resemble a bronze serpent, if only at its beginning? Moses had it made and forged by the commandment of God: he had it kept for a sign of recognition. Among the virtues of Hezekiah that we are told is that he had it broken and reduced to ash. The superstitions for the most part, against that which true servants of God battle today, are spreading from here to who knows, as covered pits in the ground, seeing the same are filled with detestable errors, which can never be erased, unless that usage of them be taken away. Why, therefore, do we not confess simply that which is true, that this remedy is needed in order to remove the filth from the church?”]

​

From Part 3, chapter two, sections 1, and 7, George Gillespie, A Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies (revised edition, forthcoming) 149, 156-57.