Polycarp and Easter

[TryingToLearn]

So I only just recently found out about the Quartodeciman controversy. https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/eusebius_quartodeciman_controversy.htm According to Eusebius, a controversy arose early on in the church over when to celebrate Easter (which, by itself assumes holy days were being celebrated early on). Polycarp claimed that he had been following the Apostle John in celebrating it on Nisan 14. I'm wondering what to do with this information.

 

[Phil D.]

Here is a recent thread that involved discussing this.

 

[TryingToLearn]

Here is a recent thread that involved discussing this.

Thanks. Sadly, not much there is really satisfying to me. The main issue for me is that Polycarp is claiming to have received this from John and I usually trust Polycarp on other matters so it would not be consistent of me to disregard this. So the question I guess becomes, granting this, what did such an observance of Easter look like? If it was religious (and it seems it was, consisting of fasting and then feasting), then it would seem the view I have accepted from Gillespie is incorrect, or John was wrong.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

Thanks. Sadly, not much there is really satisfying to me. The main issue for me is that Polycarp is claiming to have received this from John and I usually trust Polycarp on other matters so it would not be consistent of me to disregard this. So the question I guess becomes, granting this, what did such an observance of Easter look like? If it was religious (and it seems it was, consisting of fasting and then feasting), then it would seem the view I have accepted from Gillespie is incorrect, or John was wrong.

Keep in mind that Apostles are infallible in what they state in Scripture, not every word they said throughout their entire lives. Peter wasn't infallible when he was hesitant to eat pork, or when he made concessions to the Judaizers. Paul and Barnabas weren't both right over whether Mark should come along.

So even if Polycarp really did hear from John that he preferred to remember Christ's resurrection on the 14th of Nisan, that's not a rule for the church.

 

[TryingToLearn]

Thanks. Sadly, not much there is really satisfying to me. The main issue for me is that Polycarp is claiming to have received this from John and I usually trust Polycarp on other matters so it would not be consistent of me to disregard this. So the question I guess becomes, granting this, what did such an observance of Easter look like? If it was religious (and it seems it was, consisting of fasting and then feasting), then it would seem the view I have accepted from Gillespie is incorrect, or John was wrong.

I don't know if this is special pleading or not, but is it possible to question Eusebius's source regarding Polycarp's claim? Perhaps someone had made this up in support of the Nisan 14 date and then Eusebius accepted it as fact? Would the fact that he cites Irenaeus as holding to the opposite position not lend some credence to this possibility as it seems unlikely Irenaeus would deviate from Polycarp? But even then I'm not sure that fully satisfies me as there would still have undoubtedly have been widespread observance of holy days early on. Of course, this could simply have been an early corruption.

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

Another thing to keep in mind is not every remembrance is a holy day. I.e. the church would naturally, a year after Christ resurrected, say "hey's it's been a year. That's noteworthy." But that doesn't mean that they thought that day was inherently sacred and needed special ceremonies attending to it.

 

[TryingToLearn]

Another thing to keep in mind is not every remembrance is a holy day. I.e. the church would naturally, a year after Christ resurrected, say "hey's it's been a year. That's noteworthy." But that doesn't mean that they thought that day was inherently sacred and needed special ceremonies attending to it.

Very true, although in this case it seems to be days of fasting/feasting in honor of Easter rather than the extraordinary days of fasting WCF talks about. Thus, they seem to be explicitly religious/significant days.

 

[Phil D.]

I don't know if this is special pleading or not, but is it possible to question Eusebius's source regarding Polycarp's claim? Perhaps someone had made this up in support of the Nisan 14 date and then Eusebius accepted it as fact? Would the fact that he cites Irenaeus as holding to the opposite position not lend some credence to this possibility as it seems unlikely Irenaeus would deviate from Polycarp? But even then I'm not sure that fully satisfies me as there would still have undoubtedly have been widespread observance of holy days early on. Of course, this could simply have been an early corruption.

Eusebius is deemed generally accurate and overall invaluable to early church history, although evident prejudice and dubious references have been attributed to things like his outsized fealty to Constantine. But it is unquestioned that early on there was an intense controversy over when Pascha/Easter should be observed. I linked to various primary sources that establish that in this post. Right or wrong, by all accounts there were a variety of religious customs associated with the early historical observance.

 

[Rom]

At the end of the day, here is another reminder that all things (and all men and their practices) are to be tested against the Word of God as the final rule.
To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

We know what the Word of God says about holy days, who can create a holy day, etc. As @Charles Johnson said, when the Apostle Peter erred and practiced something contrary to the Word of God, his practice does not become our rule. We also see how quickly churches founded by the Apostles themselves fell into error (and even heresy!) — see the Pauline epistles and the Seven Churches of the Revelation. Speaking of which, John also began to to worship an angel (Revelation 19:10, Revelation 22:8-9). A portion of Poole’s comments on Revelation 19:10 that are helpful:

“We have the same, chap. 22:8, 9, to let us know that even good men may twice run into the same error; and to let us know, that by the mouth of these two witnesses this truth ought to have been established, so that papists should not after this have paid any Divine adoration to angels, much less to saints; and if invocation be no Divine adoration, nothing is. This deserveth the consideration of them, who think it so easy to excuse the popish religion from idolatry.”

Surely these plentiful examples of the fallibility of good men, even apostles, should make us cautious to embrace any practice that cannot be traced to the Word of God. History can be a helpful, but not when it conflicts with the truths of Scripture. Even good men fall into error when they are not moved by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Isn't it possible that, like many early Christians who were of Israelite extraction, John marked the years by those annual feasts? The observance had no more religious significance; yet, he was Jewish. That he noted the day also might (and I suppose really does) mean a good deal less to him than the contenders of a later moment took from his words (if correctly attributed).

 

[MW]

If one was used to a yearly celebration of Passover, had observed the Lord's supper with the Lord Himself, and had witnessed the institution of the Lord's supper on the night of Passover, it makes sense that there might be a "circumstantial" observation of the Lord's supper at the time of the Passover. There was no reason to turn away from this day because of an abuse of it, as in after ages. The Acts notes that Jewish Christians maintained a close affinity with Jewish rites in Jerusalem. Paul seems to mark the time of Pentecost. This is all very natural given the upbringing of the people and the times in which they lived. To turn the "circumstantial" into something "essential" is the fault of the later church.

 

[TryingToLearn]

Regarding this comment from Gillespie on the ancient church https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A01760.0001.001/1:5.9?rgn=div2;view=fulltext he seems to excuse them by saying:

The festivall dayes observed by the Auncient Church, were not accounted more excellent then other dayes: for saith Hierome, non quod celebrior sit dies illa qua convenimus, &c. But our festivall dayes are made aliis diebus celebriores, yea are taken to be holyer then other dayes, as I will afterwards prove.

I’m trying to figure out if, even on Gillespie’s own position, something like this could be allowed, and if so, what exactly the right distinction is here that allows for this.