The antiquity of Easter

[RamistThomist]

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.

I don't think we are saying one ought to celebrate Easter, only that it was very common, very early on. The Quartodecimanist controversy attests to that fact.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

I don't think we are saying one ought to celebrate Easter, only that it was very common, very early on. The Quartodecimanist controversy attests to that fact.

Bingo.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

If no one is saying we ought to observe Easter, this raises the question, what does observing Easter look like?
A custom or form of worship associated with that one day granted no other? For instance, every year I see ministers who say they adhere to the regulative principle enthusiastically post "He is risen" on this one particular Lord's Day each year, but on no other throughout the year. That seems like observance to me. It gives the day the honor of a saying granted no other Lord's Day. It assumes observance on the part of the poster and the reader.

 

[Phil D.]

A custom or form of worship associated with that one day granted no other? For instance, every year I see ministers who say they adhere to the regulative principle enthusiastically post "He is risen" on this one particular Lord's Day each year, but on no other throughout the year.

I know where you are coming from. But then do you think it is ever appropriate to in any way note a known historical date/time/anniversary for significant biblical events like the Resurrection?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

I know where you are coming from. But then do you think it is ever appropriate to in any way note a known historical date/time/anniversary for significant biblical events like the Resurrection?

I don't know that it is known as far as the exact date. If it was an actual noting of the historical date, the day of the week would vary like the made up December 25 observance does. Like the date of Christ's birth, as many have said in the past, this may be hidden like the body of Moses to prevent undue attention to it.

 

[Phil D.]

I don't know that it is known as far as the exact date. If it was an actual noting of the historical date, the day of the week would vary like the made up December 25 observance does. Like the date of Christ's birth, as many have said in the past, this may be hidden like the body of Moses to prevent undue attention to it.

Fair enough, although unlike Christ's birth, scripture does give us an account of the crucifixion and resurrection relative to the calendar event of Passover - albeit even that fact led to the Quartodeciman controversy...

 

[Semper Fidelis]

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

I wasn't averring that you were doing anything other than providing data. My point about early Church data, however, is that Baptists are especially wary about appeals to tradition. If they had to rely upon early Church practice for believer's only baptism then it would be difficult to maintain if that was a key foundation to their conviction.

I admit I'm "bothered" by some early Church convictions. It gives me pause enough to ask the "why" they believed or practiced certain things and I sometimes wish I had more data as to how they "got there". I don't want to simply dig my heels in and assume that their practices were not materially related to something Biblical. It's weird reading Ignatius, for instance, and a sort of eagerness for martyrdom. It's great that we have his writings but there are so many others we never hear from and one wonders if he represents what everyone thought and, if not, where his ideas are similar to the way we may recognize idiosyncracies in fellow believers.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I don't think we are saying one ought to celebrate Easter, only that it was very common, very early on. The Quartodecimanist controversy attests to that fact.

I think you pointed out in a prior response that we ought to divide between things that were believed and things that were practiced. I'm sensitive to that concern and am willing to grant that the Church may be practicing something for some time and even the convictions or deformations might arrange themselves around the common practice.

My point was a reflection on how even practice can deform for quite some time. We have repeated Biblical evidence of it.

So, I'm acknowledging the antiquity of the practice as well as the debates over the dating of the celebration that arose early on.

I'm merely offering that its early practice tells us, precisely, that it's early. For some, that means that they adjust their theology to account for the antiquity of the practice and insist that it must mean that, if the early Church did it, we ought to have a theology of worship that accounts for it. For others, it means we have to carefully account for it and make sure that we don't merely dismiss the antiquity of practice and hand-wave it off before we decide to remain settled in our Biblical conviction about the RPW.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Fair enough, although unlike Christ's birth, scripture does give us an account of the crucifixion and resurrection relative to the calendar event of Passover - albeit even that fact led to the Quartodeciman controversy...

But the date for Easter, if tied to the Passover references in Scripture, would never be the same day of the week (i.e. not always "Sunday"), let alone the same date, in the West's Gregorian-based calendar, thus requiring the convoluted formula/rules to determine the date of "Easter Sunday" every year.

 

[RamistThomist]

But the date for Easter, if tied to the Passover references in Scripture, would never be the same day of the week (i.e. not always "Sunday"), let alone the same date, in the West's Gregorian-based calendar, thus requiring the convoluted formula/rules to determine the date of "Easter Sunday" every year.

Correct, which was a point in the Quartodeciman controversy. That meant Easter Sunday would sometimes fall on a Thursday.

 

[Northern Crofter]

For some, that means that they adjust their theology to account for the antiquity of the practice and insist that it must mean that, if the early Church did it, we ought to have a theology of worship that accounts for it.

So for some, to be consistent, they should return to nude baptisms in running water? (Both practices were recorded early on accompanied by theological reasoning)

 

[Semper Fidelis]

So for some, to be consistent, they should return to nude baptisms in running water? (Both practices were recorded early on accompanied by theological reasoning)

Since I am not among those though try to do this, I don't have an answer to your question.

 

[LittleFaith]

I wasn't averring that you were doing anything other than providing data. My point about early Church data, however, is that Baptists are especially wary about appeals to tradition. If they had to rely upon early Church practice for believer's only baptism then it would be difficult to maintain if that was a key foundation to their conviction.

I admit I'm "bothered" by some early Church convictions. It gives me pause enough to ask the "why" they believed or practiced certain things and I sometimes wish I had more data as to how they "got there". I don't want to simply dig my heels in and assume that their practices were not materially related to something Biblical. It's weird reading Ignatius, for instance, and a sort of eagerness for martyrdom. It's great that we have his writings but there are so many others we never hear from and one wonders if he represents what everyone thought and, if not, where his ideas are similar to the way we may recognize idiosyncracies in fellow believers.

Maybe it's a 3rd amendment issue.

Yesterday, a friend of mine asked what I thought of the 2nd amendment. I replied that I liked it but not nearly as much as I liked the 3rd amendment, and that I would be very offended if I was planning a dinner party only to have a squadron of British soldiers show up to my house to consume the food and bum off my wi-fi.

Sometimes things are a certain way simply because of different people living in a different time. Once, the concern over being forced to billet redcoats ranked just behind freedom of speech and freedom to carry, and just ahead of freedom from unwarranted searches.

I sometimes wonder if this is why certain eras of church history feature this or that quirk. They read the Bible (or didn't!) and somehow came to a conclusion incomprehensibly off the wall to our minds just because they lived then and there, not here and now.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Not to hijack the thread but since it did come up, to ask again, if no one is saying we should observe a pretended holy day like Easter, what does it look like to do that so we can avoid observing it? I know it can be made complicated, but ignore the cultural adjuncts (bunnies and eggs, presents and parties). A company can be far from religiously affected by a holiday/holy day when they have a Christmas party at the office. What's it look like to observe these things religiously, when it informs or directs our worship, showing a regard for the day as acceptable devotion, etc.

If no one is saying we ought to observe Easter, this raises the question, what does observing Easter look like?
A custom or form of worship associated with that one day granted no other? For instance, every year I see ministers who say they adhere to the regulative principle enthusiastically post "He is risen" on this one particular Lord's Day each year, but on no other throughout the year. That seems like observance to me. It gives the day the honor of a saying granted no other Lord's Day. It assumes observance on the part of the poster and the reader.

View attachment 10657

 

[Phil D.]

Not to hijack the thread but since it did come up, to ask again, if no one is saying we should observe a pretended holy day like Easter, what does it look like to do that so we can avoid observing it? I know it can be made complicated, but ignore the cultural adjuncts (bunnies and eggs, presents and parties). A company can be far from religiously affected by a holiday/holy day when they have a Christmas party at the office. What's it look like to observe these things religiously, when it informs or directs our worship, showing a regard for the day as acceptable devotion, etc.

Some questions I've found myself pondering... Is there perhaps a meaningful and substantial difference between full-on observation/veneration/devotion and appreciatively acknowledging Easter? In other words, can a minister say something like "He is risen" and preach a sermon on the Resurrection at the time of year that the church has historically observed Easter, and not be guilty of making it into a pretended holy day? - even though it is a day that has indeed seen the widespread introduction of foreign ideas, man-made practices, and undue veneration in many churches? Can these abuses be recognized and avoided, while still giving some place to the historical practice of especially focusing on the factuality of the Resurrection around the calendal time it took place in history?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

In theory, I think a minister is free and may preach topically at these times of year as in the realm of things indifferent in theory. Durham places it in this category. The question is in execution is it indifferent and innocent? These are monuments of idolatry and to preach such sermons that do nothing to address the ongoing misuse and idolatry of these days, puts the action out of the realm of indifference because it is fostering and not correcting or guarding against or warning against this. And I honestly don't know what to say if someone says invoking the customs of observance of these days (He is risen, etc.) in general communication can escape this either. It's like a minister getting in the pulpit dressed in the pope's regalia or using the sign of the cross without a word of excuse. The forms, signs, candles, colored seasonal trappings, etc., are badges of idolatry; we should avoid them. So, yea, it needs to be in some regard an anti-holyday sermon to be indifferent in my opinion.

Some questions I've found myself pondering... Is there perhaps a meaningful and substantial difference between full-on observation/veneration/devotion and appreciatively acknowledging Easter? In other words, can a minister say something like "He is risen" and preach a sermon on the Resurrection at the time of year that the church has historically observed Easter, and not be guilty of making it into a pretended holy day? - even though it is a day that has indeed seen the widespread introduction of foreign ideas, man-made practices, and undue veneration in many churches? Can these abuses be recognized and avoided, while still giving some place to the historical practice of especially focusing on the factuality of the Resurrection around the calendal time it took place in history?

 

[MarrowMan]

Some questions I've found myself pondering... Is there perhaps a meaningful and substantial difference between full-on observation/veneration/devotion and appreciatively acknowledging Easter? In other words, can a minister say something like "He is risen" and preach a sermon on the Resurrection at the time of year that the church has historically observed Easter, and not be guilty of making it into a pretended holy day? - even though it is a day that has indeed seen the widespread introduction of foreign ideas, man-made practices, and undue veneration in many churches? Can these abuses be recognized and avoided, while still giving some place to the historical practice of especially focusing on the factuality of the Resurrection around the calendal time it took place in history?

In our culture? Probably not. The reality is that Christmas and Easter are either actual or practical high holy days from the Rome to the most IFB church you will find. Which is, in itself, evidence of the actual impact of elevating times and seasons. Inevitably they become more important, degrading orthopraxy to the point where as long as you make it to church on Christmas or Easter, you're good.