Is Celebrating Easter Pagan?

[thbslawson]

To celebrate 52 times a year that Christ is raised from the dead is commanded in Scripture. To remember and celebrate the fact that it DID actually occur on ONE day in the course of time almost 2000 years ago is not commanded, but it is a good thing if one does it as unto the Lord.

When someone tells me that they celebrate "Easter" I usually try to answer them as sanctimoniously as possible because, of course, that's the best way to show them love and the joy of the gospel in my life. =)

 

[kappazei]

We'll be celebrating. Our local conference does a combined service on Good Fridays. Good times.




Bob Yoshimaru

Calvary Baptist, Coquitlam BC, Canada

British Columbia Baptist Conference, Baptist General Conference

"The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, maintaining love to thousands and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin..."

 

[he beholds]

So I went to a Reformed college and I remember learning that things in and of themselves aren't holy or secular, but it's what people do with those things. Are not all Reformed of this opinion?
Like, music isn't saved or unsaved, so calling it "Christian" music isn't quite right, and so on.

I cannot imagine that "Easter" can actually be a Christian or Pagan day, but it's what we, as either Christians or Pagans, do on that day. I mean, can I, as a Christian, even do anything Paganly? (Genuine question. I know I can sin, but can my sin make my actions Pagan?) So if I'm a Christian and I dye Easter eggs, am I not a Christian dyeing Easter eggs? And thus is it not me doing a Pagan ritual but it is a Christian dyeing eggs?

Am I way off? I grant that may be the case. I just sort of cringed when I read, "Celebrating Easter is Pagan," because I feel that as a Christian I don't have to worry about why someone else created the act of dyeing Easter eggs and eggs, even colored ones, are a neutral thing and as such, if I were to do them I'd still be a Christian dyeing them.

 

[Scottish Lass]

So I went to a Reformed college and I remember learning that things in and of themselves aren't holy or secular, but it's what people do with those things. Are not all Reformed of this opinion?
Like, music isn't saved or unsaved, so calling it "Christian" music isn't quite right, and so on.

I cannot imagine that "Easter" can actually be a Christian or Pagan day, but it's what we, as either Christians or Pagans, do on that day. I mean, can I, as a Christian, even do anything Paganly? (Genuine question. I know I can sin, but can my sin make my actions Pagan?) So if I'm a Christian and I dye Easter eggs, am I not a Christian dyeing Easter eggs? And thus is it not me doing a Pagan ritual but it is a Christian dyeing eggs?

Am I way off? I grant that may be the case. I just sort of cringed when I read, "Celebrating Easter is Pagan," because I feel that as a Christian I don't have to worry about why someone else created the act of dyeing Easter eggs and eggs, even colored ones, are a neutral thing and as such, if I were to do them I'd still be a Christian dyeing them.

The objects are neutral, but our motivations never are. Do we not call Sunday "the Lord's Day," regardless of how others may observe it? Is it then possible that Easter can be pagan if Christians attach elements to the day that are contrary to scripture? It's one thing to mark spring's arrival with flowers, dyed eggs, etc. just as we might mark fall with hay bales and pumpkins, but if the former is attached to the work of Christ, is that not problematic?

 

[Tripel]

Would that all the zeal (only with proper form, though) that goes into the celebrations of "Christmas, Easter," etc. be channeled in to keeping the sabbath day holy; now that would be glorious. Instead, the emphasis put on those non-commanded (and thereby forbidden) days only serves to take away from the commanded sabbath day.

Josh, can you please clarify what you are saying here? It sounds like you are accusing all of those who celebrate these holidays in any form of robbing the Lord's Day. Similarly, it also sounds like you are saying that it is indeed sinful to celebrate Christmas or Easter.

 

[he beholds]

The objects are neutral, but our motivations never are. Do we not call Sunday "the Lord's Day," regardless of how others may observe it? Is it then possible that Easter can be pagan if Christians attach elements to the day that are contrary to scripture? It's one thing to mark spring's arrival with flowers, dyed eggs, etc. just as we might mark fall with hay bales and pumpkins, but if the former is attached to the work of Christ, is that not problematic?

I guess I can't think of anything Pagan or inherently sinful that is attached to celebrating Easter. What do most people do? Wake up, hunt for an Easter basket (My kids haven't done this but that's more because they just don't know about it so we can get away with not doing it.), eat breakfast, go to church (even non-Christians!!!), come home, go to Grandma's, eat ham, and cheesy potatoes if they're lucky, eat chocolate, talk to Grandma, run around with cousins, go home, go to sleep. Some time before Easter they'll probably dye eggs and have an Easter egg hunt (ours is actually usually on the Monday after Easter because it doesn't fit into our day on Sunday). I mean, is the pretending a bunny left the basket what is sinful? I think that's make believe, and again, we haven't yet done it, but I am actually a big fan of childhood being magical.

I just don't get what can be Pagan about what I mentioned? Are some people doing human sacrifices or bowing to eggs and trees for Easter--if so, aren't they the Pagans and thus whatever they do will be unChristian? I don't think people remembering that Christ rose from the dead takes away from Christians remembering that every other Sunday--I just think non-believers especially get reminded of it. And though I do nothing special on Good Friday, I think it actually might be good to stop and remember the dying on the cross part. We definitely cannot say that that's what every Friday of the year is for. So to take [at least] one day a year to specifically focus on and remember how loving and sacrificial our Lord is is probably a good thing.

Again, I'm not big on holidays so we don't do much at all, so maybe that's why I'm not doing these Pagan things that make Easter Pagan.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Since the days of the Reformation I think the point has been made that we tend to elevate our superstitious accretions over God's prescribed worship.

You got the jist of it.

 

[a mere housewife]

Joshua kindly unlocked the thread so that I might ask for clarification on a point I forebore to ask clarification upon yesterday, as there were better things to focus on . I wondered if anyone can point me to a response made against the position Turretin outlines about festivals which view them as a circumstance, rather than an element, of worship? It is clear that Turretin (who holds to the same rule of worship, and the same high view of the Lord's Day -- this question follows on two where he deals scrupulously with the fourth commandment and with the Lord's day) did not conceive of a calendar as being an element of worship: had he accorded it any mystery, of course, it would have been, and would have required scriptural warrant. Yet he relegates it to order and polity, on the same level as deciding an order of service or a mid week meeting, etc, which falls within the liberty of the church to appoint: it seems then in his view a mere matter of circumstance, and nothing to do with the elements of our worship. I am not asking to further strife, but would sincerely like to understand a response that fully appreciates that ground of his being able to advocate such festivals, holding the same convictions as are presented here about the Lord's Day and the regulative principle of worship, but without violating his conscience.

 

[a mere housewife]

Well I would change my statement to say that Mr. Coldwell kindly unlocked it, but how could any action be kind that involved beating you?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I don't know of a direct response to Turretin, but Presbyterians have objected to the view that allowed some hold over days since the 2nd Helvetic Confession. The argument is not that the days are observed in the same manner (unless they are; but we are talking about supposed non superstitious/religious significance observance in this case), but what do we do with practices that have been seriously abused to idolatry so that they are not a means of stumbling in future. I think this is an important rule of reformation and I have harped on it on numerous occasions here, perhaps to the point of irritation. Gillespie adduces the rule in his work which I outlined yet again earlier in this thread. If you would like see his argument and defense of it as well as a preview of the forthcoming new edition of Gillespie's Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies, I can send that section to you in PDF. Same section I've offered before.

 

[John Bunyan]

If the problem is the word "Easter", you might just celebrate the Passover in a foreign language... Call it Páscoa, Pascua, Paasfees, Pashkë, Påske, pääsiäinen, Pâques, Páskar or pascha, for example.

 

[Tripel]

Since the days of the Reformation I think the point has been made that we tend to elevate our superstitious accretions over God's prescribed worship.

You got the jist of it.

I would just like to see more clarity and specificity with accusations of sin. It's one thing to say that it's sinful to worship God with adherence to man-made holy days and superstitions. But it's totally different to make sweeping accusations that celebrations of a particular holiday are sinful or pagan. For one, you don't know how everyone celebrates those holidays. As has been said in this thread, to some Easter and Christmas are nothing more than a collection of cultural festivities. I would imagine (and hope) that nobody here believes Easter or Christmas to be an actual Holy Day that we are bound to recognize. But there are a lot of people here who engage in cultural enjoyments (such as decorating eggs or a Christmas tree) that are in no way an attempt to add to God's worship.

It's just an egg. It's just a tree. I attach no religious significance to it at all, but it IS still a celebration. Just like it's a celebration to wave a flag on the 4th of July or drink a pint of green beer on St. Patrick's Day. It's 100% cultural, and there's nothing sinful in and of itself. So I don't find it helpful to talk in generalities about how sinful or pagan it is to celebrate a particular holiday.

 

[a mere housewife]

I don't know of a direct response to Turretin, but Presbyterians have objected to the view that allowed some hold over days since the 2nd Helvetic Confession. The argument is not that the days are observed in the same manner (unless they are; but we are talking about supposed non superstitious/religious significance observance in this case), but what do we do with practices that have been seriously abused to idolatry so that they are not a means of stumbling in future. I think this is an important rule of reformation and I have harped on it on numerous occasions here, perhaps to the point of irritation. Gillespie adduces the rule in his work which I outlined yet again earlier in this thread. If you would like see his argument and defense of it as well as a preview of the forthcoming new edition of Gillespie's Dispute Against the English Popish Ceremonies, I can send that section to you in PDF. Same section I've offered before.

Thank you Mr. Coldwell. That certainly seems to me a sounder basis on which to respond against Turretin's position (and it seems also a charitable one which allows that his position does not inherently, rather by its, as I understand the argument, inextricable association with a long history of abuse, lead to idolatry). Now that you've explained about the rule as it applies, the quote you posted in earlier comes much clearer to me; and is a very helpful elucidation of the view against festivals. I'm sure you haven't in the least pushed anything to the point of irritation: I am slow of understanding, and find it difficult to sort through a lot of the different cross currents that get argued in one thread -- and so sometimes actually avoid them, is all . I'm sure Ruben and I would both enjoy that pdf; and I'm grateful to understand better.

 

[jwright82]

Since the days of the Reformation I think the point has been made that we tend to elevate our superstitious accretions over God's prescribed worship.

You got the jist of it.

I would just like to see more clarity and specificity with accusations of sin. It's one thing to say that it's sinful to worship God with adherence to man-made holy days and superstitions. But it's totally different to make sweeping accusations that celebrations of a particular holiday are sinful or pagan. For one, you don't know how everyone celebrates those holidays. As has been said in this thread, to some Easter and Christmas are nothing more than a collection of cultural festivities. I would imagine (and hope) that nobody here believes Easter or Christmas to be an actual Holy Day that we are bound to recognize. But there are a lot of people here who engage in cultural enjoyments (such as decorating eggs or a Christmas tree) that are in no way an attempt to add to God's worship.

It's just an egg. It's just a tree. I attach no religious significance to it at all, but it IS still a celebration. Just like it's a celebration to wave a flag on the 4th of July or drink a pint of green beer on St. Patrick's Day. It's 100% cultural, and there's nothing sinful in and of itself. So I don't find it helpful to talk in generalities about how sinful or pagan it is to celebrate a particular holiday.

I agree. How many people have become Roman Catholic by celebrating easter? The second you make it a formally religous requirment than you have overstepped the bounds. What is it that makes a thing necesarally "pagan"? When is something purely civil and not covered by this principle? Does the modern celebration of Easter qualify as being "pagan" or "civil"?

Better yet should we historically contextualize critiques of the celebration of Easter considering that they lived in a culture that was RC and then became Reformed? That is since at that time the celebration of Easter then was purely a religous act and therefore qualified as pagan under the principles being discussed here. But does the contemporary celebration of Easter still qualify as "pagan" in our historical setting?

I just don't see these sorts of questions being answered. But they should be discussed and dealt with. It seems that it is assumed without reason that Easter today is automatically "pagan" or "popish". I'm not saying it isn't, I don't think so though. Nor do I wish to contradict the Reformed principles of worship and Sabbath observance. Only question whether or not the conteporary celebration of Easter violates those?

 

[Philip]

But, yes, when we assign to ourselves religious holy days and celebrations, especially when they are on the sabbath day, we are robbing from God the day He has commanded to be set aside for His service.

This is a rather odd argument applied to Easter given that I don't know of any church that neglects the ordinary observance of the Lord's Day in order to observe it (I'm not even sure what that would look like, frankly, given that Easter, at least in my upbringing, has always been associated with the ordinary worship of the Lord's Day).

Just curious: would anyone here have an objection to Trinity Sunday?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

What is Trinity Sunday and how does that differ from each and every one of the 52 other Sunday's that God has ordained?

 

[Mushroom]

Josh & Ben, you guys just don't love the bunny -

[video=youtube;IS0T57GOwPo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS0T57GOwPo[/video]

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Josh and Chris, I also really desire to understand what is being said with regard to adding anything not prescribed to our day of worship. If I were to say, "Today we commemorate the rising of our Lord from the dead" or "This day is the glorious day of Christ's resurrection" – with no mention at all of Easter – what do you think of that?

 

[Philip]

What is Trinity Sunday and how does that differ from each and every one of the 52 other Sunday's that God has ordained?

In certain bodies, Trinity Sunday (Sunday after Pentecost) would usually involve preaching on the Trinity. Also (for those who say creeds in church) the Athanasian Creed is generally used.

 

[jwright82]

I would think it's odd to say it only upon one particular sabbath day that comes around one time a year. I would question why the emphasis now, more than any other sabbath day. Nothing wrong with the words themselves, though. They're certainly true, and true of every sabbath day. As well as His incarnation, life, and death.

I definatly see your point Josh but doesn't your reply here imply that a church is free to emphasize whatever area of doctrine it wishes on any sabbath day that it wishes? Hence a church could then choose to do that not exclusivly but definatly at least on easter sunday?

 

[kappazei]

So I went to a Reformed college and I remember learning that things in and of themselves aren't holy or secular, but it's what people do with those things. Are not all Reformed of this opinion?
Like, music isn't saved or unsaved, so calling it "Christian" music isn't quite right, and so on.

I cannot imagine that "Easter" can actually be a Christian or Pagan day, but it's what we, as either Christians or Pagans, do on that day. I mean, can I, as a Christian, even do anything Paganly? (Genuine question. I know I can sin, but can my sin make my actions Pagan?) So if I'm a Christian and I dye Easter eggs, am I not a Christian dyeing Easter eggs? And thus is it not me doing a Pagan ritual but it is a Christian dyeing eggs?

Am I way off? I grant that may be the case. I just sort of cringed when I read, "Celebrating Easter is Pagan," because I feel that as a Christian I don't have to worry about why someone else created the act of dyeing Easter eggs and eggs, even colored ones, are a neutral thing and as such, if I were to do them I'd still be a Christian dyeing them.

The objects are neutral, but our motivations never are. Do we not call Sunday "the Lord's Day," regardless of how others may observe it? Is it then possible that Easter can be pagan if Christians attach elements to the day that are contrary to scripture? It's one thing to mark spring's arrival with flowers, dyed eggs, etc. just as we might mark fall with hay bales and pumpkins, but if the former is attached to the work of Christ, is that not problematic?

Realistically though, I think the pagan significance of dyed eggs and bunnies have been effectively lost anyway. I think over the years, the Church has done a good job sanitizing the practises of pagans.
I am more concerned the Church never forgets the glorious deeds of our Lord, the death, the Ressurection and ascension. As humans, we need reminders and I think setting aside an annual Day for this is a good thing, aside from the two Sacrements.

 

[Marrow Man]

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.

Besides the KJV, what translations have "Easter" instead of "Passover" in Acts 12:4? The Wycliffe and Geneva Bibles, for instance, have "Passover."

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Tim, this is from the link to Will Kinney’s defense of “Easter” in Acts 12:4 in my post 43 above:

The KJV is not alone in translating this word as Easter. The Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Cranmer's bible (The Great Bible) 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, Bishop's Bible 1568, all preceding the King James Bible, Mace's New Testament 1729, and Martin Luther also translated this word as Easter in 1545, and the German Luther version of 1912 also reads Easter (Ostern). The German word for Passover is a completely different word. The Geneva New Testament was first published in 1557 and read "Easter" in Acts 12:4 – "entending after EASTER to bringe him forth unto the people". You can see the 1557 Geneva Bible at this site here:

English Hexapla 1841. Greek New Testament according to Scholtz with 6 ancient English translations: Wiclif 1380, Tyndale 1534, Cranmer 1539, Geneva 1557, Rheims 1582, Authorised 1611

When the Geneva Old Testament was published in 1560, the New Testament was revised and at that time "Easter" was changed to "passover." Likewise the modern KJV 21st Century Version 1994 and the Third millennium Bible 1998.​

Hope this is helpful.

 

[Marrow Man]

When the Geneva Old Testament was published in 1560, the New Testament was revised and at that time "Easter" was changed to "passover."

Thanks, Steve. Do you know the reason for this change?

BTW, I found this interesting, in Calvin's comments on Acts 12:4:

Luke doth, in this place, declare by circumstances that Peter was, as it were, shut up in his grave, so that it might seem that he was quite past hope; for as they divided the day and night into four parts by three hours, so Herod divided the watches, that four soldiers might always keep watch, and that one quaternion might succeed another every third hour. He showeth the cause why he was not forthwith put to death, because it had been an heinous offense to put him to death in the Easter holidays; therefore, Herod doth not delay the time as doubtful what to do, but doth only wait for opportunity; yea, he maketh choice of a time, when as his gift may be more plausible, because there came a great multitude together from all parts unto the holy day.

 

[jwright82]

Dear James,

My reply implies, actually, explicitly states, that the purpose of the sabbath day is to commemorate the eternal nature, incarnation, birth, humiliation, life, death, resurrection, and exaltation of the Lord Jesus Christ in the administration of His ordinances as commanded and prescribed by Him, not in formulating our practices around the pretenses and conjured-up sentimental will-worship of men.

I see. But do you think that it is wrong for a particuler church to choose to emphasize the ressurection on this particuler day if they don't make it a religous requirment?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

If someone here can make a rational case how their celebration of the resurrection that happens to fall on the same date as everyone else celebrates Easter is not making it a religious requirement I'm all ears.

 

[Mushroom]

I'm all ears.

Bunny ears?

 

[jwright82]

If someone here can make a rational case how their celebration of the resurrection that happens to fall on the same date as everyone else celebrates Easter is not making it a religious requirement I'm all ears.

By simply calling it non-religously binding. You do not have to celebrate things this way but here at this church we choose to emphasize this doctrine on this date. That is as far as it goes. Look at my other post when I raised certian questions seemingly unanswered by people completly disagreeing with any celebration of any holiday.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Good luck with that. Simply telling folks who have been culturally conditioned to think Easter is a more important Lord's Day than one in July (even though there is zero Biblical warrant for it) and that you are "merely choosing to emphasize a doctrine" on that date is not plausible.

 

[jwright82]

Good luck with that. Simply telling folks who have been culturally conditioned to think Easter is a more important Lord's Day than one in July (even though there is zero Biblical warrant for it) and that you are "merely choosing to emphasize a doctrine" on that date is not plausible.

Why not? I cannot affect what people believe. Do we bind the churchs conscience that to talk about the resurection on easter is morally wrong? Or do we leave their essential freedom open to say if you choose to teach things this way than fine but we disagree over here, which is fine. Especially if they lack any religous content in the civil realm.