Is Celebrating Easter Pagan?

[Rev. Todd Ruddell]

James,

Polls and outcomes are not in our authority to determine--the Lord does that. Ours is to be faithful in prescribed means. We don't do our theology or practice from polls or results. Our success is being faithful in means--to the Lord and His will for outcomes!

 

[NB3K]

to the pure, all things are pure...

Does that mean cheating on my wife is pure too? Is there not a line which the pure in Christ do not cross? Xmas & Easter are pagan celebrations which the pure should be pure of and hate!

 

[he beholds]

Dear James,

In my understanding, what is odd that otherwise confessional and Biblical-believing Christians would adopt extra-Biblical names and practices in worship, especially when those names are associated with the accretions of men obtruding themselves into the worship of God.

Thanks,

OK, so if that's what we're talking about, we "adopt extra-Biblical names and practices in worship," (and that looks like a good summary of the complaints against Easter to me) then I think some of us have different understandings or experiences of what Easter looks like. I don't remember Easter ever being called "Easter Sunday" or "Resurrection Sunday" on any bulletins, announcements, calendars, etc, verbalized or written. I also don't think I've been to a church that did extra-biblical practices on Easter, either. (Of course EP people would say they do, but they'd say that on all 52 Sundays.)
So, since my church does nothing Eastery at all (I don't know, maybe a different hymn, but no mention of Easter, nothing weird or foreign or extra-biblical in the service) am I still being Pagan by doing the things that are Eastery at home? Eggs, grandma's, ham, etc?

 

[Romans922]

The Lord's Word should be sufficient to answer your question Jessica,

Isa 58:13-14: "If you turn back your foot from the Sabbath, from doing your pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight and the holy day of the LORD honorable; if you honor it, not going your own ways, or seeking your own pleasure, or talking idly; then you shall take delight in the LORD, and I will make you ride on the heights of the earth; I will feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father, for the mouth of the LORD has spoken."

 

[he beholds]

The Lord's Word should be sufficient to answer your question Jessica,

Isa 58:13-14: "If you turn back your foot from the Sabbath, from doing your pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight and the holy day of the LORD honorable; if you honor it, not going your own ways, or seeking your own pleasure, or talking idly; then you shall take delight in the LORD, and I will make you ride on the heights of the earth; I will feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father, for the mouth of the LORD has spoken."

Great, thanks!

 

[py3ak]

The Lord's Word should be sufficient to answer your question Jessica,

Isa 58:13-14: "If you turn back your foot from the Sabbath, from doing your pleasure on my holy day, and call the Sabbath a delight and the holy day of the LORD honorable; if you honor it, not going your own ways, or seeking your own pleasure, or talking idly; then you shall take delight in the LORD, and I will make you ride on the heights of the earth; I will feed you with the heritage of Jacob your father, for the mouth of the LORD has spoken."

[Moderator]Rev. Barnes, as the author of this thread, if you are unwilling to engage and interact with the questions raised by the title you chose and the article you posted, the thread will be closed. A post such as this does not constitute engagement or interaction. [/Moderator]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Easter is a very different animal than most holy-days that "get argued about."

Biblically and confessionally there is no way that I see around rejecting the meaning behind the Romanist amalgamation of Druidic and Celtic ideas behind Ishtar, and Easter. It's as bad as Halloween and Samhain.

Everyone in the thread that has said something about observing the Lord's Day as the Lord's Day is right. Let's not mess with the 4th commandment.

That said, Rev. Rudell is right in saying that one "could preach" through 52 sermons on the Resurrection without any problem. Jessica is also fine if she wants to have grandma over to her house on the Lord's Day 52 times in a row and eat ham, and boiled eggs, although I think that'd get a bit monotonous for everyone.

It's the "singling out" of that particular "Easter" day to do specific things that are associated with Easter on the Lord's Day that becomes a problem. Don't change a hymn. (Sing Psalms, that'd solve the problem, but that's another thread). Don't hunt for eggs. Don't give out candy. Etc. Why?

What did the Reformers do? The Puritans? The 5th century Augustinian monks? Historical Theology is so helpful when we realize we don't have to reinvent the wheel and see what others said about Biblical Truth concerning these things.

Here are just a couple of thoughts:

The Puritans “proposed a stricter observance of Sundays, the Lord’s Day, along with banning the immoral celebration of Christmas — as well as Easter, Whitsun and saints’ days.” (see Patino, Marta, The Puritan Ban on Christmas). The reason the puritans denied the celebration of any holy days was a biblical foundation to deny the “dressing up” of any other day than what God had specifically prescribed in Lord’s Day worship.

“Holy days" have no such prescription — there is no Scriptural command, approved example, or good and necessary inference, which warrants tying specific acts of redemption to ‘holy’ days of our own choosing.” (See Chris Coldwell's nice article on, The Religious Observance of Christmas and ‘Holy Days’ in American Presbyterianism.)


In “The Quest for Purity: Dynamics of Puritan Movements” by Walter E. a Van Beek, he states, “Because Easter invariably fell on a Sunday, this was a problem for Puritan preachers who were consistent with their repudiation of of the traditional calendar. The usual solution was to preach a sermon that had no direct connection with Easter.” (Page 77.)

Even if a preacher was preaching through the resurrection, and there would be no problem preaching about the resurrection on any particular Lord' Day, Puritan preachers wouldn't reinforce the already infiltrated mind of their congregation with "Easter-related" ideas. A sermon on the resurrection, on Easter, would be the normal thought process of Roman Catholicism. Check their book of homilies. It's gonna be a resurrection sermon. To continue to dismantle "relatable ideas" to things that are already saturated in our own mind, if alive today, they would pick something else to preach on, on purpose.

Calvin, well, deleted Easter. Walsh states in his “Holy Time and Sacred Space in Puritan New England” (Walsh, American Quarterly, Vol. 32, No. 1 (Spring, 1980), pp. 79-95) “The New England [Pilgrims] like Reformed Protestants everywhere, rejected traditional Roman Catholic and Anglican beliefs and practices that organized time around consecrated churches, railed-off altars, holy shrines, miraculous wells, and that supposed the flow of time to be an irregular succession of holy days and sacred seasons. The Reformers argued, what was intended as a crutch for others had become a cast for Christians who willingly accepted the obligation of constant worship. They for whom all days are holy can have no holidays.” Read The Sermons of John Calvin Upon the Fifth Book of Moses called Deuteronomie, trans. Arthur Golding (London: H. Middleton, 1583). He deleted Easter.

Side note: Keep in mind also, that when one searches "celebrate Easter" in the search engines, this thread comes up on the first page multiple times. Be weary about the way you dialogue and talk about the Lord's Day.

 

[Romans922]

Sorry Ruben,

On the first page, I responded to some things about the opening post where I said the following:

Just to be clear, the article I posted wasn't in my opinion a great defense, but did bring to light the pagan aspects of the day just as 'chrismass' has. There are better articles out there all which Chris Coldwell could point you in the right direction.

I believe some of those aspects of the day have been clarified through James and Todd's interaction. Chris also provided better articles by Gillespie. Others gave good responses as well, that I thought showed the Biblical view. It is my view that the Westminster Standards forbid the celebration of Easter/Christmas in the worship of the Church. The Standards are the system of doctrine taught in the Scriptures. To add to what the Lord has said to do in His worship is, I believe, a pagan practice (an unholy, unrighteous practice).

I was trying to stay out of the conversation since Todd was responding much better than I had been (Todd has been stating my position). Too many people discussing on a message board can be confusing and it was getting confusing to me, so I stopped. Jessica's post seemed simple to answer, and when God's Word is clear what better answer can one give. If I were to answer Jessica further, doing things in your home outside of the Lord's Day (Is. 58 addresses on the Lord's Day) should be guided by the wisdom we find in God's Word.

 

[Philip]

Biblically and confessionally there is no way that I see around rejecting the meaning behind the Romanist amalgamation of Druidic and Celtic ideas behind Ishtar, and Easter. It's as bad as Halloween and Samhain.

Except that it originated in the Hebrew world. The timing of Pascha was originally supposed to be calculated around Passover. "Easter" is an English word for an early Christian celebration. The genetic argument here actually goes back to the OT. The bunnies and eggs do go back to paganism, but that's mainly just silliness now.

 

[jwright82]

James,

Polls and outcomes are not in our authority to determine--the Lord does that. Ours is to be faithful in prescribed means. We don't do our theology or practice from polls or results. Our success is being faithful in means--to the Lord and His will for outcomes!

Granted, my point was that if you say that to celebrate these things leads one to Rome than that is why we shouldn't celebrate it, than yes in that case looking at that evidence alone than polls would be appropriate becaue they would determine if this phantom threat was even happening.

---------- Post added at 09:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:14 PM ----------

Except that it originated in the Hebrew world. The timing of Pascha was originally supposed to be calculated around Passover. "Easter" is an English word for an early Christian celebration. The genetic argument here actually goes back to the OT. The bunnies and eggs do go back to paganism, but that's mainly just silliness now.

I agree Philip, if the argument is that we shouldn't celebrate it because it is pagan than some sort of criterion is needed to differentiate between pagan and non-pagan, lest the term become a catch all for what ever the particuler person doesn't like and you call it pagan (I have no one in view here who is guilty of this, I only mean that it is a distinct problem that could arise if you do not do the hard work of defining exactly what "pagan" is). These are logical problems.

---------- Post added at 09:43 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:22 PM ----------

What did the Reformers do? The Puritans? The 5th century Augustinian monks? Historical Theology is so helpful when we realize we don't have to reinvent the wheel and see what others said about Biblical Truth concerning these things.

Here are just a couple of thoughts:

The Puritans “proposed a stricter observance of Sundays, the Lord’s Day, along with banning the immoral celebration of Christmas — as well as Easter, Whitsun and saints’ days.” (see Patino, Marta, The Puritan Ban on Christmas). The reason the puritans denied the celebration of any holy days was a biblical foundation to deny the “dressing up” of any other day than what God had specifically prescribed in Lord’s Day worship.

“Holy days" have no such prescription — there is no Scriptural command, approved example, or good and necessary inference, which warrants tying specific acts of redemption to ‘holy’ days of our own choosing.” (See Chris Coldwell's nice article on, The Religious Observance of Christmas and ‘Holy Days’ in American Presbyterianism.)


In “The Quest for Purity: Dynamics of Puritan Movements” by Walter E. a Van Beek, he states, “Because Easter invariably fell on a Sunday, this was a problem for Puritan preachers who were consistent with their repudiation of of the traditional calendar. The usual solution was to preach a sermon that had no direct connection with Easter.” (Page 77.)

Even if a preacher was preaching through the resurrection, and there would be no problem preaching about the resurrection on any particular Lord' Day, Puritan preachers wouldn't reinforce the already infiltrated mind of their congregation with "Easter-related" ideas. A sermon on the resurrection, on Easter, would be the normal thought process of Roman Catholicism. Check their book of homilies. It's gonna be a resurrection sermon. To continue to dismantle "relatable ideas" to things that are already saturated in our own mind, if alive today, they would pick something else to preach on, on purpose.

With all due respect is it possible that the religous and cultural differences were so drastic from their time to ours that the strict applicabilaty of their arguments may not be so easily transferable? What I mean is this, is what they were arguing the application of timeless biblical principles to particuler historical problems that may or may not still be the case? That seems to me at least to be a valid scholarly, although I am no scholar, question. As an example lets turn to an area that I am more familer with Van Til. He destroyed the very philosophy of Idealism by working out the timeless truths of the reformed faith towards apologetical ends. Although he applied timeless biblical truths to a particuler historical philosophy.

We can learn so much from Van Til's critique of Idealism. But you would be a fool to take those same exact arguments and apply them to analytic philosophy or any other philosophy. You can learn much from his critique but you would have to redevelop them to apply to any other philosophy. In the same vien I think that we must ask whether or not the same problem is going on here as well?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Okay; the moderators have some real problems with this thread; closing for now to afford time to pow wow on best course to take.

 

[py3ak]

Sorry Ruben,

On the first page, I responded to some things about the opening post where I said the following:

Just to be clear, the article I posted wasn't in my opinion a great defense, but did bring to light the pagan aspects of the day just as 'chrismass' has. There are better articles out there all which Chris Coldwell could point you in the right direction.

I believe some of those aspects of the day have been clarified through James and Todd's interaction. Chris also provided better articles by Gillespie. Others gave good responses as well, that I thought showed the Biblical view. It is my view that the Westminster Standards forbid the celebration of Easter/Christmas in the worship of the Church. The Standards are the system of doctrine taught in the Scriptures. To add to what the Lord has said to do in His worship is, I believe, a pagan practice (an unholy, unrighteous practice).

I was trying to stay out of the conversation since Todd was responding much better than I had been (Todd has been stating my position). Too many people discussing on a message board can be confusing and it was getting confusing to me, so I stopped. Jessica's post seemed simple to answer, and when God's Word is clear what better answer can one give. If I were to answer Jessica further, doing things in your home outside of the Lord's Day (Is. 58 addresses on the Lord's Day) should be guided by the wisdom we find in God's Word.

Sure, I understand that Andrew - but it was also apparent that many misconceptions created by the article and the title were having to be cleared up by others, who couldn't know if you supported them or not. There's been confusion over what "Easter" is, over what "celebrate" is, over what "pagan" is - and that confusion could easily make it harder for someone to accept the thoughtful arguments put forward by, e.g., Chris.

At this point it might be fair to say that one genuine point of practical difference for ministers would be whether the associations of the day call for one to take advantage of the expectations of the masses (no doubt supporting themselves on the use Christ made of the feast of the dedication and the use Paul made of Pentecost) to preach Jesus and the resurrection to unusually large numbers of visitors; or whether they call for one to preach on something else to avoid reinforcing superstitious associations; or whether they call on one to oppose openly and vocally the idolatrous ideas and habits that come to expression.
I'd imagine everyone recognizes there exists a danger of being those who with more care keep holiday the wrong than others the right way, and that no law, but merely a recommendation of prudence, could be made about the subject of a sermon, private meditation, or discussion on any Sunday without creating unnecessary scruples for the conscience.

But it should be obvious at the least that the Puritan position arose out of their high regard for God's rights with regard to his own worship, and a zeal to stay within the boundaries of the authority God had given them. For that, as well as for its depth, consistency, and careful application of the word of God to circumstance, it certainly deserves careful consideration, and it is a pity that in modern times it is largely either unknown or carelessly caricatured.

P.S. - Sorry Chris, didn't see it was closed until I hit "post".

 

[NaphtaliPress]

No problem Ruben; good place to leave this. There's always next time folks; these things being as cyclical as they are. The moderators will be a bit more engaged in future to make sure these kind of topics stay on a confessional as well as helpfully framed track.