ChristiansUnite Forums

"Easter, Should It Be In Your Bible?"

By Pastor Joel Finck


"Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also (Then were the days of unleavened bread). And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people" (Acts 12:1-4).

Here in Acts 12:4 the term "Easter" is the translation of the Greek word, pascha. In all of its 28 other occurrences in the New Testament it is rendered "passover." Acts 12:4 is the lone exception.

The careful student of Scripture will immediately ask, "Why should a word which is so consistently translated one way, be translated another way here?" We believe that when all things are carefully considered, from the Word of God, we will reach the conclusion that pascha should be rendered "passover" in this text, just as it is in the other 28 places.

TWO FEASTS, ONE OBSERVANCE
While it is true that the feasts of passover and unleavened bread are two distinct entities, God's prescribed method of observing them led to them being considered one and the same. This is because they were observed together as one festival during the first of three yearly convocations in Israel. "Three times thou shall keep A FEAST unto me in the year" (Exod. 23:14). Notice that it does not say "thou shall keep some feasts" but "A FEAST," even though two feasts were held at this time. Deuteronomy 16:16 further explains, "Three times in a year shall all thy males appear before the LORD thy God in the place which he shall choose; in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles...."

That these two feasts were observed as one is confirmed in Ezekiel's prophecy concerning their future observance in the kingdom: "In the first month, in the fourteenth day of the month, ye shall have the passover, A FEAST OF SEVEN DAYS; unleavened bread shall be eaten" (Ezek. 45:21). It's obvious from this text that the entire week was considered the "passover" even though the seven days of unleavened bread are also mentioned. This is why Luke 22:1 says "the feast of unleavened bread...is called the passover." Luke 22:7 goes on to say, "Then came the day of unleavened bread, when the passover must be killed." To say that "where both the terms passover and `days (or day) of unleavened bread' are found in the same passage refer to the two as distinct entities" is forced at best; untrue at worst.

WHY DID HEROD WAIT?
Was Herod waiting for a Jewish or a pagan festival to end before bringing Peter forth to the people (Acts 12:4)? Scriptural evidence points to the Jewish passover, not the pagan "Easter."

As has already been pointed out, the word translated "Easter" here is consistently rendered "passover" in all other places. But what about the argument that the passover itself was already finished, since Peter was arrested during "the days of unleavened bread?" There are two distinctly Scriptural possibilities which adequately answer this without interjecting a pagan holiday into the text. The first is the fact, already mentioned, that the passover is already identified in Scripture as "a feast of seven days" (Ezek. 45:21). The second is, to borrow an expression from the world of sports, "it's not over 'til it's over." According to Numbers 9:9-12, a SECOND passover was scheduled for those who may have become ceremonially defiled and therefore unable to participate in the first. "...If any man of you or of your posterity shall be unclean by reason of a dead body, or be in a journey afar off, yet he shall keep the passover unto the Lord. The fourteenth day of the SECOND month at even they shall keep it..." (Num. 9:10,11). The normal passover, of course, was held the fourteenth day of the FIRST month.

The best explanation for Herod's delay in bringing Peter out to the people, then, is that he was simply waiting for the first passover festival (including the days of unleavened bread) to run its course. But for those who would press the issue with technicalities over terminology, Acts 12:4 could be referring to the second passover which was only a few weeks away.

HEROD: PAGAN, PIOUS, OR PRAGMATIC
We would in no way wish to suggest that this Herod (known in history as Agrippa I) was a true believer, even under the Jewish program. But we do beg to differ with the view that he was strictly a pagan Roman with no reason to reverence the Jewish passover. While it is true that Agrippa I was educated in Rome, his ancestry can be traced to the Idumeans (or Edomites, descendants of Esau). His grandfather, Herod the Great, had constructed the temple in Jerusalem which stood at the time of Christ. This was not done out of his love for God, but for pragmatic reasons: to gain favor with the Jews. Agrippa's uncle, Herod Antipas initially held off the execution of John the Baptist because "he feared the multitude, because they counted him a prophet" (Matt. 14:5). Other Roman-appointed leaders in Israel showed deference to the Jews (for example, Festus in Acts 25:9), so why shouldn't Herod Agrippa I do the same?

Furthermore, Agrippa's daughter, Drusilla, is called a "Jewess" in Acts 24:24 and his son, Agrippa II is described by Paul as a man who "believest...the prophets" (Acts 26:27). There was obviously a strong Jewish influence on this entire family, so we should not think it strange that in the text in question (Acts 12:4) Herod is thinking of the Jewish passover, not some pagan festival.

Now concerning the question, "What reason is there to believe the Jews would have been upset by Peter being killed at their passover?" There's plenty of reason to think this, most importantly, the Scriptures: Mark 14:1,2 says, "After two days was the feast of the passover, and of unleavened bread: and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft, and put him to death. But they said, not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar of the people." If the very chief priests expected an uproar over an execution during a holy festival, why should it seem strange that the king would also recognize this sentiment in the people over which he ruled?

The fact that Christ was actually killed during this time simply illustrates the significance of His death. Christ was killed in accordance with the fulfillment of Old Testament types and pictures. God arranged for His death during the passover festival to show that the fulfillment of the types took place right on schedule. God simply overruled the sentiment that the chief priests had anticipated in order to carry out His divine plan. But in the case of Peter, there was no divine time schedule to meet, therefore we find the delay of Herod's actions in respect of the wishes of the people.

The Scriptural evidence is clear, the pascha refers to the Jewish passover, not a pagan holyday. If there were no need by some to defend a particular translation of a particular word, no one would have ever imagined that the Holy Spirit meant "Easter" when He said pascha.


<:)))><

"Easter, Should It Be In Your Bible?"

YES!!!!

Interesting argument against the Authorised Version.  ;D

My NJB has passover there anyway.

Origins of the Word Easter
Easter is from Old Eng. Eastre, name of a spring goddess.  The Columbia Encyclopedia

The term Easter, commemorating the Resurrection of Christ,  comes from the Old English easter or eastre, a festival of
spring.  2000 Encyclopædia Britannica
 
 

Good, Thanks

Crusader,

Thank you for bringing this topic up to the readers.

No, "Easter" the goddess, should not be mentioned in the Bible.

Christ our passover lamb will not share his glory with a goddess.

Psalm 119

Nice to see the die hard A.V. fanatics admit that it's not a perfect translation after all.

Ebia,

It is the King James 1611 that has the word "Easter" in it. That's one of the reasons I use a New King James that uses the word "passover".

I wouldn't even consider using a NASAB, NIV, or some of the more "modern" watered down translations.

Psalm 119

(not posted as an argument to anyone just information)


Act 12:4  And when he had caught him, he put him in prison, and deliuered him to foure quaternions of souldiers to be kept, intending after the Passeouer to bring him foorth to the people. GB

Reba,

It took me a second and then I realized that "GB" was the Geneva Bible. The spelling is a little archaic, but the translation is accurate.

I know the Reformers used the Geneva Bible and were very anti-Catholic. Many mentioned the Pope as the anti-Christ

Interesting?

Psalm 119

I am wondering the same thing. What am i teaching my daughter? Will celebrating pagan rituals along with the Passover affect my salvation? Christmas too?  :(

Here are some links i found with historical information about the induction of pagan rituals into the church, such as : easter eggs, easter bunnies, sunrise services, Lent... as with our discussion in December about Christmas, should we celebrate or not, i feel a really strong conviction about all this easter related mumbo jumbo. I don't want anything to cause the Lord to spit me out, or say He doesnt know me because i kept rituals. what do you guys think?

Revelation 3:16
So, because you are lukewarm–neither hot nor cold–I am about to spit you out of my mouth.


http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~rbutterw/essays/Easter.html

http://www.biblestudy.org/basicart/easthist.html

http://www.keithhunt.com/Easter.html

http://www.fcgcchurch.com/ReasonsWhyChristiansShouldNotUsetheTermEaster.html

Hopeand Faith,

I sense you have a strong desire to please the Lord Jesus in all you say and do. You are a strong seeker of truth and purity.

Most  holidays that Christians celebrate have their roots in paganism and Catholicism. This information is readily available on the net to anyone who wants to know the truth. What every Christian must do is pray and seek the Lord. And to remember that Jesus will not share His glory with anyone else.

"Come out from among them and be separate says the Lord. Do not touch what is unclean, and I will receive you." 2 Cor.6:17

The sad reality is that there is still alot of Rome in the Protestant Church. We need another reformation today!

Psalm 119

My problem with it is, if that isn't what pascha means, then it shouldn't be translated that way. God's word should always be rendered as it is. Given the number of men and committees that examined every translation of the KJV, how did this slip through?

Whatever the origins of the word easter, by the time the A.V. was put together it meant (as it does now) the day Christ rose from the dead and the day we celebrate that each year.  It is, therefore, a perfectly good translation of the word pasha as used in that passage of Hebrews.

The origins of the word are completely irrelevant - do you avoid all use of the word Friday because it comes from the name of a norse godess of dubious morals?

Or avoid writing with the letter A because it comes from the Pagan Greeks? Or Speaking English because the root language comes from the Pagan Germanic tribes? Or using the sign of the fish because it comes from the Pagan Roman sign of Fertility, with the 2 halves being 2 crescent moons? Or using money because it has the Pagan all seeing eye on the back?

Let us know when the nay-sayers of Easter give all of that up, THEN we will talk. ::)

Though with some difficulty, presumably, if they have given up using the letter A and writing in English.

The letter "A", Friday, the English language, sign of fish, or money images are not mistranslations of anything. The word "easter" as used by the translators was used in place of the word for passover. It is a mistranslation.

Acts 12:4.  And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter, (passover), to bring him forth to the people.

In the context of the above verse as translated in the KJV it connotates that "easter" was something that Herod and the Jews observed. That which was observed was passover not "easter".
 The people of that time knew nothing of "easter" except maybe the pagan jist of the word. It should not be in God's word. It is a mistranslation. Why did the translators do this? Probably for some adulterated agenda of men that was known at the time of translation. Do we know? We do know it is a word that should not be in the Bible.

I was replying to Psalm 119, and the other nay-sayers who haven't posted yet. The people who attack things because it resembles paganism in some way, shape, or form.

Well, this die-hard KJV fan believes Easter should be there along with everythng else including the italicized words, puntuation marks, and chapter headings, etc.  If it is in the 1611 AV then it is 100% accurate.  I believe the AV1611 is perfect and inspired.  

But if you or others wish to use other versions I've got grace and will not accost you over that.  I once used to read a NASV after I got saved but when someone pointed out the issue I did some simple research and immediately changed and haven't budged for over 22 years.  I've heard all the arguments and read a bunch of the material and I still mainttain the AV1611 is God's inspired word.

See how simple life can be!!!!

Have a blessed day now!  ;)

How do you account for the error at Matt 6:13 where it includes the doxology at the end of the Lord's Prayer?  

This is either a mistake in the KJV or every Bible the Christian Church relied on until that time (the Greek New Testament used in the Orthodox Church, the Pesh*tta used by the Coptics and the Vulgate used in by the Roman Catholics) was in error since none of them contain this phrase.  

Most modern scholars now admit this is an error in the KJV and other Protestant Bibles that rely on the Textus Receptus

I read the KJV frequently I am comfortable with the language and use it to further reach those I do apologetics with.  It is a fine translation but it is not infallible nor is it inspired.


What is it with you and your claiming to know all the arguments to every issue?  Is it just you have made up your mind and don't want to be confused by the facts or are you just tired after 22 years of apologetics?


Yes it is simple if you stop questioning and take the attitude that you know everything.

amen brother :)

Why should Easter be in the bible? People who want to set aside a time to celebrate Christ's resurrection do because they want to rather than because they are told to do. It comes from the heart, not the "rules and regulations of men" as Christ put it. I, for one, do not think that it is necessary to have it in the bible at all.

Should it not be 24/7/365? The commemoration in the heart of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ? For Christians that is.

Ollie

HopeAndFaith:

The first thing that you need to understand about your salvation is that it is A GIFT OF GOD to those who believe the Gospel (Rom. 6:23; Eph. 2:8,9).   Your obedience to Christ after your salvation will determine your fellowship with God on earth and your rewards in Heaven, but THE GIFT OF GOD IS ETERNAL LIFE, and those who are saved are IN CHRIST, and Christ is IN THEM. Therefore you are eternally secure in Christ. You are "bone of His bones, and flesh of His flesh" (Eph. 5:30-32) if you are a child of God (Jn. 1:12,13). He does not break off parts of His body and cast them into the Lake of Fire.  That is false doctrine.

The second thing to understand is that for believers who remember the death, burial and resurrection of Christ every day, and every Lord's Day at the Breaking of Bread [the Lord's Supper] these are stupendous truths. However, those who observe Easter or Christmas with a sincere heart to worship the living God are not "celebrating pagan rituals" unless they involve themselves with Easter eggs, bunnies, hotcross buns, etc. and focus on the worldly aspects of the worldly "Easter".

It is true that Easter comes from "Astarte" the pagan goddess also known by many other names. But unless one is really a pagan who actually worships Astarte [and there are many today], you may call that day "Resurrection Day" if you will, and God knows the difference. Easter Sunday can be an exceptional opportunity to preach the Gospel!


This Scripture should not be misapplied to Christians or believers who have been saved by grace and washed in the blood of the Lamb.  Notice very carefully that the Lord makes it very clear that He is addressing Laodicean "professors" and not "possessors". Notice Rev. 3:17:

"THOU ART WRETCHED" -- but Christians are "BLESSED with all spiritual blessings in Christ Jesus" (Eph. 1:3)

"THOU ART MISERABLE" -- but for Christians "truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ. And these things write we unto you that your JOY may be full" (1 Jn. 1:3,4).

"AND POOR" -- but for Christians it is "For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though He was rich, yet for your sakes He became poor, that ye through His poverty MIGHT BE RICH" (2 Cor. 8:9).

"AND BLIND" -- but for Christians "God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, HATH SHINED IN OUR HEARTS, to give the light of the knowledge of God in the face of Jesus Christ" (2 Cor. 4:6).

"AND NAKED" -- but for Christians who are "the wife of the Lamb" "to her was granted that she should be ARRAYED IN FINE LINEN, CLEAN AND WHITE: for the fine linen is the [imputed] righteousness of saints" (Rev.19:8; Rom. 3:22).

So the reader must ask himself or herself whether they are "professors" or "possessors" of eternal life. If you are a possessor, then you have everlasting life (Jn. 3:16).

Although I would not be able to agree tha the AV 1611 is "inspired" [since inspiration was reserved for prophets, apostles and evangelists], I concur with AVBUnyan's sentiment:  THERE ARE NO MISTAKES IN THE KJV.

Michael Legna calls the use of the word "Easter" in Acts 12:4 a "mistake" in the AV.  It is not a mistake but an ANACHRONISM, and there is a difference. An anachronism is "the putting of a person, thing or event in some time where it does not belong". Perhaps there was a reason.

Easter was not known to first century Christians, and as already pointed out, the Geneva Bible translated the Greek word pascha as "passover", which is also the case in Berry's Interlinear Greek-English NT.

I believe the AV translators used the word "Easter" more for the convenience of English readers than for anything else, wanting to connect the "days of unleavened bread" (12:3) with the remembrance of the resurrected Lord, whose resurrection was observed annually in the 17th century at approximately the same time as the Jewish passover.

"Easter [was] THE PRINCIPAL FESTIVAL OF THE CHURCH YEAR...  Easter is central to the whole Christian year: not only does the whole ecclesiatical calendar of movable feasts depend upon it's date, but the whole year of worship is arranged around it. IN THE LITURGICAL TEXTS THE EMPHASIS IS LAID ON IT'S BEING THE CHRISTIAN PASSOVER..." (Brittanica).

We should not forget that during the time the KJV was written, Christianity, by and large was liturgical in the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Church of England churches, and even in many Reformation churches. While evangelical Christians today do not observe ecclesiatical calendars, we can at least understand why the AV translators might have though it appropriate to call the passover "Easter". In any event, many Bibles have the word "passover" in the margin, so this is really a non-issue.