Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Remember that Easter is actually Pascha, or Passover. In the NT times the Judaizers were insisting that Christians ought to observe the ceremonial law, which would have included Pascha. Given the Biblical data, it's not surprising to find that some of these corruptions continued from the first century onward. They seem to have been observing it in Galatia.Since we are on the subject of holidays and church history:
How do those who oppose all holidays explain the antiquity of Easter and the passionate debates on the date?
Are there any examples of opposition to the practice in the early church?
So are you saying the Judaizers "won" on this one point?Remember that Easter is actually Pascha, or Passover. In the NT times the Judaizers were insisting that Christians ought to observe the ceremonial law, which would have included Pascha. Given the Biblical data, it's not surprising to find that some of these corruptions continued from the first century onward. They seem to have been observing it in Galatia.
“But now, after that ye have known God, or rather are known of God, how turn ye again to the weak and beggarly elements, whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage? Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you labour in vain.” (Gal 4:9-11 KJV)
Yes, it seems that the apostles were unable to stamp out all the influence of the Judaizers, and that the following generation(s) capitulated. What other explanation could there be for the early Christians keeping an Old Testament ceremonial feast day?So are you saying the Judaizers "won" on this one point?
That raises the question of whether we k ow of post-apostolic critics if this in the early church - and if not, why.
does this mean that in Gillepsie's view, early post-apostolic Easter was actually okay, due to it's nature as voluntary, not consecrating the day, and the later abuses not being introduced?George Gillespie summarizes the practice of the early church in his answer to the objection from said practice as a defense of the pretended holy days imposed upon the Scottish church by the assembly at Perth in 1618 (which was not a free general assembly but imposed the will of the king). Links go to the footnotes at the old text at naphtali.com. A superior text with full bibliographical footnotes appear in the 2013 Naphtali Press edition (now out of print; if you see a copy on the used market, get it). Attached.
Sect. 2
The Act of Perth Assembly alleges the practice of the ancient church for warrant of holidays, and Tilen alleges the judgment of antiquity to the same purpose. 39
ANSWER. The festivities of the ancient church cannot warrant ours. For 1. In the purest times of the church there was no law to tie men to the observation of holidays. It must be observed, say the divines of Magdeburg, that the apostles and the apostolic men, did not set up any law about Easter, nor about any other festivals whatsover. 40 Socrates reports, that men did celebrate the feast of Easter, and other festival days, sicuti voluerunt, ex consuetudine quadam [just as they wished, according to whatever custom]. 41 Nicephorus says, that men did celebrate festivities, that men were left to their own judgment about the keeping of Easter. 42 [On Gal. 4] Jerome says of the feasts which the church in his time observed, that they were pro varietate reqionum diversa [different by virtue of the diversity of the regions]. The first who established a law about any festival day, 43 is thought to have been Pius I, bishop of Rome; yet it is marked that the Asiatican doctors did not care much for this constitution of Pius.
I conclude with Cartwright, 44 that those feasts of the primitive church came by custom, and not by commandment; by the free choice of men, and not by constraint. So that from these, no commendation arises to our feasts, which are not only established by laws, but also imposed with such necessity and constraint, as spoils us of our liberty.
2. The festival days observed by the ancient church were not accounted more excellent than other days; for, says Jerome, 45 not because that day on which we assemble is more distinguished. But our festival days are made aliis diebus celebriores [more distinguished than other days], yea, are taken to be holier than other days, as I will afterwards prove.View attachment 10650
Matthew 24: we will not know the day or the hour. Apparently, this was very significant because they believed that Jesus would return during the celebration Easter.
Apparently, if held to as at the beginning; but of course it quickly devolved. Gillespie goes on to argue at length that now the old days are no longer indifferent for a voluntary use because the pretended holy days are become monuments of idolatry, and on the principle of the destruction of the bronze serpent, they must be put away rather than think such can be reformed. For that he deals specifically with how the days were imposed and observed in his time. His reasoning might also apply to after the early church practice quickly devolved; when the church was embroiled for two centuries over what day is Easter, it says clearly that a voluntary innocent observance had long gone.does this mean that in Gillepsie's view, early post-apostolic Easter was actually okay, due to it's nature as voluntary, not consecrating the day, and the later abuses not being introduced?
From the Path of Christianity by McGuckin...perhaps I said something too soon as I too am looking for primary sources on it.As to the historical question, from what I've been able to gather, there are no preserved instances where an objection was raised in the early post-apostolic church with respect to an annual observance of Pascha/Easter. As was already noted, there was intense disputation concerning the specific date on which it should be observed. According to Eusebius, early appeals were made to supposed apostolic practice (e.g. Polycrates claimed so with Philip and John). The issue was apparently addressed at Nicea in a letter by the bishops to the church in Alexandria (second to last paragraph), and one by Constantine to everyone else. Still, the controversy persisted. As always in such matters, caveat lector...
I've not encountered this in early church writings, can you provide a reference?
From the Path of Christianity by McGuckin..
If you want to know what the spiritual and doctrinal state of the church was at the end of the apostolic age, just read Revelation 2 and 3. Antiquity does not equal purity, and neither does universal acceptance.So are you saying the Judaizers "won" on this one point?
That raises the question of whether we k ow of post-apostolic critics if this in the early church - and if not, why.
I’ve had this on my wish list at RHB for a while now, not knowing it was completely out of print. Do you have any leads on obtaining one?George Gillespie summarizes the practice of the early church in his answer to the objection from said practice as a defense of the pretended holy days imposed upon the Scottish church by the assembly at Perth in 1618 (which was not a free general assembly but imposed the will of the king). Links go to the footnotes at the old text at naphtali.com. A superior text with full bibliographical footnotes appear in the 2013 Naphtali Press edition (now out of print; if you see a copy on the used market, get it). Attached.
Sect. 2
The Act of Perth Assembly alleges the practice of the ancient church for warrant of holidays, and Tilen alleges the judgment of antiquity to the same purpose. 39
ANSWER. The festivities of the ancient church cannot warrant ours. For 1. In the purest times of the church there was no law to tie men to the observation of holidays. It must be observed, say the divines of Magdeburg, that the apostles and the apostolic men, did not set up any law about Easter, nor about any other festivals whatsover. 40 Socrates reports, that men did celebrate the feast of Easter, and other festival days, sicuti voluerunt, ex consuetudine quadam [just as they wished, according to whatever custom]. 41 Nicephorus says, that men did celebrate festivities, that men were left to their own judgment about the keeping of Easter. 42 [On Gal. 4] Jerome says of the feasts which the church in his time observed, that they were pro varietate reqionum diversa [different by virtue of the diversity of the regions]. The first who established a law about any festival day, 43 is thought to have been Pius I, bishop of Rome; yet it is marked that the Asiatican doctors did not care much for this constitution of Pius.
I conclude with Cartwright, 44 that those feasts of the primitive church came by custom, and not by commandment; by the free choice of men, and not by constraint. So that from these, no commendation arises to our feasts, which are not only established by laws, but also imposed with such necessity and constraint, as spoils us of our liberty.
2. The festival days observed by the ancient church were not accounted more excellent than other days; for, says Jerome, 45 not because that day on which we assemble is more distinguished. But our festival days are made aliis diebus celebriores [more distinguished than other days], yea, are taken to be holier than other days, as I will afterwards prove.View attachment 10650
Abebooks says James Dickson Books has a copy (they may have more than one; I already pointed someone to this listing a month ago, so it may not be current as to their inventory).I’ve had this on my wish list at RHB for a while now, not knowing it was completely out of print. Do you have any leads on obtaining one?
I’m hard pressed to figure out why your question matters. Do the Scriptures justify or warrant man’s determination of his own holy days? If so, where? Beyond this, of what value are they and why? Is there a promise of the Lord attached to them? Are they a means of grace? Does the Spirit of God work in and through them? If yes, where do you find justification for that position in the Scripture? If no, then of what value are they?Since we are on the subject of holidays and church history:
How do those who oppose all holidays explain the antiquity of Easter and the passionate debates on the date?
Are there any examples of opposition to the practice in the early church?
First century? Paul views the observance of the Jewish liturgical calendar as meaningless. Is that not enough? Again, the question I ask remains. Of what actual value does the observance of Easter/Passover hold? It was a means of grace pointing to Christ in the OT. What actual value does it hold now that Christ has come? What promise of God is appended to it? What efficacy? What value?Prior to the Protestant Reformation in the 16th Century, is there any evidence that anyone in Church History from the 1st Century on ever advocated for not observing Passover / Pascha at all?
Brother, do you think that the New Testament answers the question, "How should Christians view the Old Testament feast days?"Prior to the Protestant Reformation in the 16th Century, is there any evidence that anyone in Church History from the 1st Century on ever advocated for not observing Passover / Pascha at all?
Brother, do you think that the New Testament answers the question, "How should Christians view the Old Testament feast days?"
Brother, the book of Acts and the Epistles are jammed full with the controversies over whether Christians should keep the ceremonial law. If there was one feast day that carried over--that was an exception to the rest--don't you think it would have come up? Wouldn't it make sense to think that Passover was included in the discussions of all the other ceremonial laws?I am not (currently) convinced that the Passover / Easter was in fact reckoned as an Old Testament feast day in the time period after the cross, by the human (or even divine!) authors of the New Testament.
There have been a lot of debates in Church History about some very fundamental things, but when it comes to Easter, the only controversy appears (as far as I can tell) to have been "when do we calibrate it", and not "do we celebrate it".
Is there something to that? I don't know for sure, but there sure seems to be.
Finally, question for y’all: recognizing the distinction between belief and practice, is there any evidence that the earliest church’s debating over Easter’s dating (mid second century):
a) Included both ’belief’: recognition (the date), and “practice” differences in worship (from other Sundays)?
OR
b) Was merely the recognition of the date, with no particular changes in their, say, order of worship (I.e., RPW considerations)?
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.