Easter: Ishtar, Eostre, Astarte, Ostera, Eastre
by
Ted Slater
on Mar 25, 2008 at 11:20 AM
I confessed on this past week's podcast that I don't like the term "Easter," as it associates the day with one or more of the following fertility godesses: Ishtar, Eostre, Astarte, Ostera, Eastre.
Before I went to college, I didn't concern myself so much with words. But after History of the English Language classes, after studying etymology, after grad-level linguistics courses, after researching the non-Christian artifacts that accompany Resurrection Day (e.g., bunnies, eggs, chocolate) and other holidays ... I found myself caring about the word I used to talk about the day Jesus came back to life.
Would I, in essence, honor the fertility goddess and the ancient cultic spring festivals by calling it Easter? Or would I direct my mind back to the risen Savior by calling it Resurrection Day?
Of course I'm not calling for the calendar to change, or for schools and businesses to call this day "Resurrection Day." I'm not quarreling with anyone, arguing that they should change their vocabulary. That's not the point. It's about how my university-educated mind is influenced by the words I use, and how I prefer to influence it with Christian truth rather than Pagan tradition.
Some people say we shouldn't argue about words like this. Others point out the inconsistency with my concern over "Easter" and my lack of concern over the etymology of days of the week (e.g., Wednesday is "Woden's Day," Thursday is "Thor's Day," etc.) or Christmas (e.g., the Christ Mass). Maybe it's because I haven't spent a lot of time studying the background of the names of the days of the week, and because "Christ" is still part of "Christmas." Or maybe I see "Easter" as more blatantly trying to supplant "Resurrection Day." Not sure.
Regardless, I find it helpful, as I'm the forgetful kind, to refer to the day Jesus came back to life as "Resurrection Day." It helps me focus my attention on what we're really commemorating. Hearing "Easter" clouds my thoughts with visions of bunnies, chocolate, eggs, baskets, plastic grass, jelly beans, bonnets, sugar-plums and muskrats. And I've got enough clouds in my head.
1. Jonathan had the following to say on Mar 25 at 11:43 AM:
I agree with your post Ted. Interestingly enough, we had a conversation on this as we sat down to eat dinner on Sunday. We were celebrating together with some folks from Ukraine, Indonesia, Senegal and South Korea, and we wound up on the topic of why bunnies, eggs, etc? Being a history major I informed them that most all of it is tied in from the pagan fertility holidays which were/are around the same time. I also mentioned that in Russian it's called Pascha, taken from the Greek word for Passover. Turns out that all the Int'ls said that they have a cognate in their own language for Pascha, and that none of them had ever heard of Easter until they came to the U.S. So instead of Easter I say we go along with the rest of the world and call it Pascha, since that reflects the time when Jesus died and rose again (Passover), in order that the Passover Lamb prophecies might be fulfilled!
2. Amir Larijani had the following to say on Mar 25 at 11:46 AM:
Ted:
I am glad you are also calling it "Resurrection Day". I started calling it that years ago.
It just strikes me as a more correct term.
3. Eliza had the following to say on Mar 25 at 12:24 PM:
Wikipedia says that by the time the origin of the name "Easter" was first recorded, the historian Bede acknowledged that the pagan worship of Eostre had died out.
It also says that the name of this goddess was probably derived from the word for "east" which also was the name of the month of April and referred to Spring and dawn and beginnings. Some people question whether there ever was a goddess, since there is just one late recording of her.
Personally, I don't have a problem with the name Easter. I have a fascination with the origins of words, and their past doesn't change their present meaning for me.
4. Canon had the following to say on Mar 25 at 12:40 PM:
Is that what passover is? I thought passover was a Jewish holiday....
How does passover tie with resurrection?
5. Tami had the following to say on Mar 25 at 1:10 PM:
In Russian culture there's also a special "Pascha bread," called kulich. It has yeast in it, so that it rises. It is also traditional to bake it in coffee cans, so that it rises and "puffs over" the top, creating the form of a Russian Orthodox church's "onion dome."
On another note, I found it interesting that this year, Holy Week coincided with Purim. Interesting connections between the redemption of the Jewish people as told in the story of Esther, and the redemption of all people as told in the story of Christ!
[PS It was really hard not to write "Easter!" :)]
6. Sara had the following to say on Mar 25 at 1:18 PM:
You'll forgive the tedium, but just to act in character, I'll remind people that the Bible seems to disagree about whether Jesus was crucified before the Passover (John) or on the Passover (Mark). Some people, looking at the rest of each gospel's themes, say that this is because John's writer wanted to emphasize Jesus' being a slain Lamb (hence death at the preparation feast) whereas Mark's writer wanted to emphasize Jesus' being a Messiah or a deliverer.
Also, Ted, etymology was totally denegrated in the linguistics courses I took, in favour of acknowledging the changing meanings of words: you're not one of those people who insist that we answer "How are you?" with "I am well" instead of "Good", are you? And who won't split infinitives just because it's impossible to do in the Latin language that early writing guides were based on? But no, that's a neat post, and Resurrection Day is nice, too. And I like "Pascha". It's funny, now that you say it I swear I got a taste of sickly-sweet cheap chocolate in my mouth when I read the fifth or so mention of 'Easter' in your post.
7. Patricia had the following to say on Mar 25 at 1:20 PM:
Canon-Passover ties in with Jesus' death and resurrection in that Jesus IS the passover lamb for us. It's not an accident that Jesus died at the beginning of the Jewish passover, Jesus was intended as the ultimate sacrifice for our sins, in place of the lambs the Jewish people sacrificed so that the angel of death passed over them.
As for the term Easter, I see the point about the origins of the term Easter, but I think today the term Easter has lost the original meaning entirely. I actually like the Latin origin of the word in the romance languages-which is Pascha. Sometimes in Catholic Churches in the US you still hear Jesus referred to as the Paschal sacrifice which is a great reminder of the meaning of Holy Week.
8. Sara had the following to say on Mar 25 at 1:29 PM:
Canon, the Jewish Passover celebrates the Jews' escape from Egypt. 'Messiah' traditionally refers to an appointed deliverer--like Moses. Just like Jesus can be seen as an ultimate Lamb, better than the lambs killed for Passover, Jesus is a sort of super-Moses for Christians.
9. Rachael had the following to say on Mar 25 at 1:32 PM:
Resurrection day. Nice. Speaking of ways of referring to (holi)days...You know what caught my eye? I recently noticed that in a library brochure, in the section that listed all the holiday dates (including "Day before Christmas") on which the library is closed, when it comes to Easter, the following is noted: "Closed due to historic low usage (Easter)". "Easter" is the only day that is mentioned in parentheses.
Just found it interesting...
10. Michele Samuelson had the following to say on Mar 25 at 1:35 PM:
I really am glad you posted a blog piece about this, Ted - after I listened to your perspective in the podcast, I was very intrigued.
On Sunday I tried to greet people at church with "He is risen!" instead of "Happy Easter." It took some effort, especially with all the church visitors who aren't really used to responding to that. But your thoughts on the matter kind of kept me going; it was a completely different holiday for me than it ever has been, owing in large part to how I was thinking about the day.
I appreciate having a linguistic perspective on this issue!
11. Brent had the following to say on Mar 25 at 1:45 PM:
One thing to remember in all of this, we don't want to be iconclasts. While you may be thinking of bunnies, muskrats and plumbs. We have to remember that Christ created all those things. Thor and Woden (if they exist) are also subservient to Christ, be they fallen angels, or spiritual creatures that were mistaken for the true God. Just because something is "Pagan" doesn't make it bad. The Pagans had many truths of natural law revealed to them.
While etomologies are useful, you must not stray into an area of fallicies, the Genesis Fallicy being the one I have in mind.
Each aspect of creation reflects an aspect of the Godhead, to the best of it's ability. Each aspect of creation is/was/has been renewed because of the 8th day. Once we understand that, it is no suprise that Chesterton once commented that the last thing the Pagan did was become baptized.
The Pagan saw something that had a deeper meaning in the egg. But with out revelation much of that meaning was hidden to his mind. He knew something was there and explored it the best he could. We have revelation so we better understand the mystery of the egg. No point in destorying all the old symbols. As a Christian we must accept that we did not create those symbols, but they they are making us, they were laid down by God in the Begining. As St. Augustine said, if we find men with the truth, we know it is ours, as all truth comes from God, so feel no shame in plundering what was not rightfully theirs.
While it is good and right to focus on Christ, some of us have to narrow of a vision of Christ and His creation.
12. Amir Larijani had the following to say on Mar 25 at 1:50 PM:
Passover was the act through which God liberated the Israelites from slavery to Egypt.
The Israelites had been in a quagmire that was of their own doing (originally selling Joseph into slavery), found themselves enslaved to the same people, even their prosperity could not gain them freedom, and their best efforts got them no closer to freedom.
God delivered the Israelites in His power.
Passover was/is Independence Day.
Fast forward to Jesus' death and resurrection.
We were enslaved to sin, and are responsible for that predicament.
On the other hand, no matter how hard we try--even in prosperity we cannot manufacture righteousness, or redeem ourselves, or make ourselves worthy of God.
God--through Jesus--delivered that in His power.
It was Independence Day in Exodus. It was Independence Day in the Gospel accounts.
Passover = Independence Day
13. Jessica C. had the following to say on Mar 25 at 2:09 PM:
Hi Ted
I agree with you on what you wrote about Easter. The word "Easter" didn't bother me when I was a child, but that was when I was young, and still loved all the bunnies, chocolate, decorating easter eggs, and getting goodies, via easter baskets. Now that I'm older and have become more familiar with the actual historical origins of easter, it bothers me. What do you think about easter egg hunts? Do you think they are harmless if they're just for little, little ones, and CHURCHES are not the ones who put them on? I think maybe THAT would be okay, however, if you're older, and you've been told about the real history behind easter, it SHOULD bother you. People think that easter is just a harmless "children's" holiday, however, people are unknowingly performing paganistic rituals in honor of a pagan goddess. Instead of mindlessly celebrating a holiday, if you question something, why not find out what the history is behind it? I'm a person who loves to do research.
We don't have to be like everyone else and celebrate a holiday,simply because "everyone else is doing it." If you seriously question something, then it's up to you to find out WHY you question it. If something is doubtful, don't do it. It's interesting to read the blogs on boundless. I'm glad that there are other people out there who are not afraid to state what they believe and why they believe it. We should be thankful that God allowed us to HAVE this freedom in the first place. =)
14. Christina (in green) had the following to say on Mar 25 at 2:25 PM:
Canon,
The Resurrection is the ultimate fulfilling of the Passover.
Back to Moses and Egypt, the passover was when God killed all the first born sons all over egypt except for the ones that were in homes covered in the blood of lambs.
They were told to ALWAYS remember and to practice the tradition (sacrificing a young lamb, spreading his blood on the door posts with palm branches, eating of the lamb and unleavened bread).
When Jesus came into Jerusalem at the beginning of passover week, they waved palm branches that they had freshly cut for the passover celebration. When Jesus died, he sacrificed himself with his blood to cover us so that death would pass us over. Not for one night only, but for the rest of eternity.
Passover and Resurrection Day are very closely and tightly connected. Passover is probably the most literal prophecy/foretelling of Christ's death.
15. Joe had the following to say on Mar 25 at 3:19 PM:
I have no problem with the term Easter, nor with Halloween, nor with any other pagan terms which have ceased to maintain their pagan significance -- indeed I think this is a good thing!
Christianity has what I would consider a proud tradition of annexing secular or pagan traditions for holy purposes, dating back all the way to God's sanctification of the secular practices of circumcision, sacrifice, and so forth. I think the continuing Christian celebration of Easter and the continuing use of that word further robs it of any negative power it might have had.
16. Carrie Lea had the following to say on Mar 25 at 3:25 PM:
Ted Slater,
I second what Jonathan has to say, and I go a step further by celebrating His resurrection during the regular Jewish Passover week (Feast of Unleavened Bread). No doubt, God partly intended the biblical (Jewish) festivals as a foreshadowing of major events related to the Messiah (including His death, resurrection, second coming, establishment of His kingdom, the pouring out of the Holy Spirit, and probably His birth as well). Why in the world don't more Christians celebrate them?! Makes a lot more sense to me than celebrating Christmas, which has dubious origins (and certainly can't compare to a holy day established by God Himself).
Canon,
The Jewish holidays have everything to do with Jesus, as I mentioned above; it's just that most Christians don't realize the connection. For various reasons including some anti-Semitism, Christians in the first few centuries A.D. divorced themselves from the Jewish synagogue and from what they perceived as Jewish traditions (which are often biblical, God-given commands). (Ever wonder why the Sabbath is the seventh day of the week, but most Christians celebrate it on the first?)
The Passover Lamb was originally slaughtered and its blood spread over the Israelites' doorposts in Egypt as a sign so that the angel of death would pass over them (and spare them from death). Similarly, the blood of Jesus, the Lamb of God, "covers" Christians and allows us to be spared from spiritual death on Judgment Day. The Feast of Unleavened Bread (the week following Passover) represents the removal of leaven (sin) from our lives, accomplished at the cross. Another Jewish feast, the Firstfruits of Barley, falls shortly after Passover and represents Jesus's resurrection (firstfruits of the dead).
I don't mean to ramble, but I've studied the Feasts a good deal and get excited at their incredible prophetic content. :)
17. CNaphan had the following to say on Mar 25 at 3:35 PM:
The word "Easter" is a quirk of the English language, as almost all other languages reference the Passover as the name for Easter. I've heard people refer to Easter as "the Pasch" or "the Paschal feast" and this seems to be a good alternative to the word Easter.
"Resurrection Day" is not a very good replacement for Easter because Easter is not just the feast of the Resurrection. It is a multi-day holiday comprising the Passion, the time Christ lay in the tomb, and the Resurrection.
Canon, the word Passover in English usually refers to the Jewish holiday, but Christians celebrate Passover no less than the Jews. In most languages, the name for these holidays is the same. In the Jewish Passover, Jews remember their salvation in Egypt, which involved being saved by the blood of a lamb. Christians, obviously, celebrate the same thing but the lamb for us is fulfilled in Jesus, and we're not saved just from slavery but from death itself. Remember that the Last Supper was a ritual Passover meal according to the Jewish traditions.
18. Sara had the following to say on Mar 25 at 3:56 PM:
Brent, I love the spirit of your post! We need more redemption instead of condemnation, and there's no reason that can't include Easter symbols! I like the suggestion to think more about what eggs can represent. Instead of just being put off by those chintzy Paas dye kits, let's think of creation and regeneration, and the wonder that something could be so fragile and yet so powerful and self-contained at the same time... So many other things could use the 'redemption treatment'.
19. Steph had the following to say on Mar 25 at 4:37 PM:
Sarah (Comment #6), can you clarify this comment:
"just to act in character, I'll remind people that the Bible seems to disagree about whether Jesus was crucified before the Passover (John) or on the Passover (Mark)."
I'm curious about this, so verse reference etc. would be helpful.
20. BDB had the following to say on Mar 25 at 4:47 PM:
If you wait to buy the candy at 50% off, are you still a pagan?
21. Leah had the following to say on Mar 25 at 7:36 PM:
I don't think it matters. There are other cultures out there and we have all influenced each other. Who cares if Wednesday stems from the Nordic god Woden? Does Woden actually cross anybody's mind when we say Wednesday? Is there actually some god up there feeling honoured when we use a derivative of his name for a weekday? For that matter, is there any religion that thinks we are honouring their god in using his name? No. That religion died out hundreds of years ago. The same goes for Easter. Does Ishtar or Eostre actually cross anyone's mind when they refer to Easter? Is there actually some fertility goddess up there feeling honoured when we use her name for a celebration? Is there any religion that thinks we are honouring their goddess in using her name? Again, no. You can only honour somebody if you know about them and are intentional in your words and actions. Words change their meanings over time. Just because "Easter" once referred to a cultic goddess doesn't mean it does anymore.
It's like the word "terrific". Terrific actually originally meant something along the lines of "horrific"- an act of terrorism would be called terrific. (Think horrible- horror- horrific/ terrible- terror- terrific) But you'd get your head bitten off now if you were to say "September 11 was terrific". Because it's changed its meaning.
Sure, if someone doesn't want to use the word Easter, I'm not going to bash them for doing so. But I think it's pretty pointless and pedantic.
22. Leah had the following to say on Mar 25 at 7:44 PM:
"People think that easter is just a harmless "children's" holiday, however, people are unknowingly performing paganistic rituals in honor of a pagan goddess."
Oh, give me a break. Next you'll be saying going swimming is unknowingly baptising yourself.
(Hint: It's all about the intent. You can't unknowingly baptise yourself because it's the intent behind it which makes it baptism. Same goes for "paganistic rituals".)
23. Michelle had the following to say on Mar 25 at 10:10 PM:
"Or maybe I see "Easter" as more blatantly trying to supplant "Resurrection Day.""
Kind of silly. If it is trying to supplant it, it did it a long time ago. It's not like calling Christmas x-mas or something; it's been called easter for... how long? Also, having also studied linguistics, I know words and languages change (that's why you can trace human migration by looking at it, you know that I'd think)... so while I disagree that there should be no prescription of language (after all, too many meanings for one word will leave you with no real meaning)... I don't think anything is being supplanted. Easter now, in our English, means the day and holiday of when Jesus rose from the dead. Dictionary.com; 1. an annual Christian festival in commemoration of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, observed on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the vernal equinox, as calculated according to tables based in Western churches on the Gregorian calendar and in Orthodox churches on the Julian calendar.
That's just what it means. Where is comes from is different.... and I think it is beautiful to see how pagan cultures and customs have been redeemed by the cross, and you can still see the origins (and therefore the story... a continuation of the resurrection/redemption story) in the word.
C.S. Lewis and Tolkien had an idea that Christianity is a fairytale or mythology. And all mythologies and fairy stories contain Truth. Deep truth. Christianity is even cooler though because not only does it speak to our deepest desires as myths and fairystories do... but it is TRUE. A True Myth. That is beautiful to me.
I think I'll keep calling it Easter. Because I don't know the story of how a pagan idea what redeemed by Christ... but I see a bit of it in the name... and I want to remember that.
24. Suzanne had the following to say on Mar 25 at 11:32 PM:
Interesting discusssion. I was thinking about the use of "Easter" as I drove to church on Sunday, and thought it was actually quite appropriate in English, at least. The East is where the sun rises, and the word Easter always makes me think rising with the dawn to praise, and of the return of the Lord, and of peace.
So it has nothing to do with the actual etymology of the word, but I do like the incidental meaning too.
But if I were to choose a new word, I'd go with Pascha too. I know Resurrection Day makes it clear in English, but doesn't the word "pascha" sound so much prettier!
:)
25. Amelia had the following to say on Mar 25 at 11:55 PM:
Jessica C.,
Although 'Easter' may have initially been a pagan holiday, does that necessarily mean that it is one now? What's wrong with taking the celebration and, instead of having it be a celebration of fertility gods or whatever, have it be a celebration of the death and resurrection of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ through whom we have new life and the hope of eternity with him? Isn't that exactly what's happened?
I can see nothing in the current Christian celebration of Easter that could be considered a ritual in honour of a pagan goddess. I'm no expert on the original idea behind the easter egg, but I've always been told it has to do with new life (same with the whole equinox thing, though that hardly applies to people living in the southern hemisphere). This may be a Christianisation of an originally pagan icon, I don't know (I could easily find out - I might just look it up when I finish typing this). If it is, what's wrong with that?
I don't think that knowing the 'real history behind Easter' is cause for us to do away with easter eggs, just as not knowing the history does not mean that we are mindlessly celebrating a pagan holiday. Rather, we are celebrating the holiday as it is now.
I definitely agree with you that we shouldn't do something if it is we have doubts about what it represents. But if the current representation is different to what it was originally... well... I think I've made my point.
26. Nate had the following to say on Mar 26 at 4:46 AM:
Ted,
Thanks for the post. My Old Testament prof told us that Esther was named after the pagan goddess Ishtar. He also pointed out the connection to Easter. After I found that out I have made I conscious effort to use Resurrection Day or Holy Week. I like how it brings my mind back to Christ and the weight of His sacrifice.
27. kaj had the following to say on Mar 26 at 5:52 AM:
Passover this year isn't until April.
The current tradition is to observer "Easter" on or after the first full moon after the first day of Spring. This is based on tradition and not on Scripture (read the Wikipedia article for more information).
So many celebrated the resurrection of Christ a whole month early (which some of my Messianic Jewish friends pointed out during their Purim festivities)!
I agree with the idea of observing a Resurrection Day (if you want to call it that) either on, or a few days close to, the Passover because Jesus was crucified in the Passover season and He was the fulfillment of what the Passover service pointed to.
28. BB had the following to say on Mar 26 at 7:25 AM:
Wasn't Christmas also a pagan holiday aka the celebration of lights but Christians used it to celebrate the light of the world?
29. Mandi had the following to say on Mar 26 at 7:58 AM:
I'd just like to point out that Russians aren't the only ones who refer to this feast as Pascha.
I confess I don't know why this name seems to have been dropped in the West in favor of "Easter".
What I do know is that the calculation for the timing of Eid El-Qiyamma, or the Feast of the Resurrection as we call it in Arabic, has changed in the West. In the East/Orient, this feast is still calculated according to when Jewish Passover is in order to come to ours, because Christ is our Passover as Christians, as many people already pointed out....
...so I believe it goes something like this: you take the closest Friday after Jewish Passover and make that Good Friday, and then the Feast of the Resurrection comes two days after that.
So some Boundless readers may not have celebrated yet. :)
30. Rachael had the following to say on Mar 26 at 9:23 AM:
Amelia (25) wrote: "I definitely agree with you that we shouldn't do something if it is we have doubts about what it represents."
--> Interesting. Perhaps it is often the intent/conscience that matters.
I think about Christians who have to think about what (not) to compromise on when immersed in cultures with customs that clearly run contrary to Scripture, which for some Christians must be a very difficult thing, especially if their families and friends all want them to take part in something they don't want to do.
There can be grey areas. One time when I was in Japan I was invited to spend the New Year's holidays with a friend's grandparents. When I was invited, I was presented with the option of making a Shinto New Year's decoration, along with my friend's comment that she would understand if I felt weird about doing it because of my beliefs. If she had not written that, it's very well likely that I would have just made the wreath without thinking much about it. However, her sensitivity caused me to pause, and I ended up being advised (by a Japanese pastor, I think) that it may be better for me not to make it (perhaps he was considering my unsureness/uncomfortability in his advice). I don't think just making the wreath would necessarily have been wrong, but because I was slightly stewing over the matter, it was probably better for me not to have made it. Just one example.
It's gotta be tough for sensitive-minded Christians to live in cultures where they might choose to risk rejection at their rejection of certain cultural practices. I wonder if Romans 14 could apply in some situations...
For any such Christians who may be reading this and struggling with this, may God give you peace and wisdom with the decisions that you make...
31. Michelle had the following to say on Mar 26 at 10:43 AM:
And to add to 23.... doesn't it seem that instead of the name supplanting Christianity... history would suggest Christianity was the supplanter??
32. Carrie Lea had the following to say on Mar 26 at 3:58 PM:
To those who see nothing wrong with referring to Jesus's day of resurrection as "Easter" and argue that we should embrace the old pagan symbols as "sanctified":
I'm not trying to condemn you for continuing what has been an ingrained tradition in much of English-speaking Christendom, but maybe you want to consider what God has to say on the matter? He had these things to say to His people regarding speaking the names of false gods and using their symbols (emphasis mine):
"Do not invoke the names of other gods; do not let them be heard on your lips." (Exodus 23:13)
"Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and burn their Asherah poles in the fire; cut down the idols of their gods and wipe out their names from those places." (Deut. 12:3)
If you've read the Hebrew Scriptures a good bit, you've probably noticed that God doesn't leave room for "sanctifying" pagan symbols and incorporating them into worshipping Him. Yes, there is some truth to be found in pagan religions. C.S. Lewis addresses this beautifully in his book "Miracles." The problem is that using a pagan substitute for something that God has implemented is like loving the photograph of a person rather than the person himself. God never intended for us to adhere to mere copies, representations, or substitutes (see Exodus 20:4); that is called idolatry.
So again, it begs the question: Why have Christians abandoned the biblical festivals instituted by God Himself, and adhere instead to holidays like Christmas and Halloween, and false terms like "Easter"? Whether you think celebrating these things is okay or not, why are God's own festivals ignored? Do you think that He is happy about this? I really would like an answer from someone who has investigated God's feasts but still ignores them in favor of traditional holidays.
33. Patricia Hampson had the following to say on Mar 26 at 6:21 PM:
Carrie Lea-I don't think people are actually worshipping the bunny rabbits, CHristmas trees, and other "pagan" symbols. I agree that people shouldn't abandon Christian celebrations. But Easter and Christmas, I would argue, are two of the most important Christmas feats. How could we not celebrate the incarnation of God and resurrection of God? Of course, we should also remember says such as Pentecost, Good Friday, etc. Christmas and Easter, while having some "pagan" symbols incorporated, have lost the original meaning and today are celebrated as Christian holidays.
34. Leah had the following to say on Mar 26 at 7:02 PM:
Carrie Lea- you will notice you referenced only Old Testament rules, to which we are no longer bound because Jesus was the fulfilment of the Old Testament law.
35. Miriam had the following to say on Mar 27 at 8:14 AM:
Slightly off topic, but I had always thought Easter eggs were associated with the empty tomb rather than as a symbol of new life. . . ?
36. Carrie Lea had the following to say on Mar 27 at 9:31 AM:
Patricia Hampson, Leah,
Thanks for responding.
Patricia, I think you missed my point. I'm not saying that Christians are actually worshipping these symbols. I am saying that modern Christianity has replaced God's feasts with its own holidays, most of which have either pagan associations or pagan origins. Since God made holidays for us, there is no reason to risk dishonoring Him by going to a pagan substitute.
I agree wholeheartedly that we should absolutely be celebrating Christ's incarnation and resurrection. I even appreciate that with Easter, Christians have made an effort to see that it falls at the right time of year. But what's really fascinating is that God had already instituted these celebrations way back in Leviticus 23. As I stated in a post above, Passover, the Feast of Unleavened Bread, and the Firstfruits of Barley are all associated with Christ's death and resurrection. These events are the fulfillment of these feasts. In other words, God specifically designed these feasts to celebrate not only the historical redemption of Israel, but their spiritual redemption as well. (I am not advocating replacement theology here -- I consider Christians to be grafted-in members of Israel.) So, why have we given up these God-designed celebrations? Why did we feel the need to create a whole new holiday with our own timing? Why do we not simply celebrate Passover week with our Jewish brothers and sisters?
As for Christmas, most scholars believe that Jesus's birth took place in early fall. In fact, it very likely took place during one of the biblical fall festivals such as Sukkot (Feast of Tabernacles). What is so fascinating about this is that in the original Greek, John's gospel states that Jesus tabernacled among us (John 1:14). He took on a temporary shelter, a human body, to dwell among His people. (During Sukkot, temporary shelters called "sukkot" or tabernacles are set up and lived in for seven days.) Why don't Christians celebrate Jesus's birth at Sukkot? It seems a lot more appropriate than embracing what used to be a pagan holiday and artificially naming the pagan holiday Christ-Mass.
There are similar stories for the other biblical festivals. The biblical feast of Shavuot is known to Christians as Pentecost -- the day the Holy Spirit was poured out on Christians. The fall festivals are widely considered to be foreshadowing events surrounding Christ's second coming.
So my question still stands: Why have Christians given up God's holy days for mere substitutes?
Leah,
I disagree with the idea that OT rules are irrelevant to us now. Certainly Jesus, Paul, and Peter seemed to have no problem with using the Hebrew scriptures to support their points. But to satisfy your concern:
"What fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? ... 'Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing, and I will receive you.'" (2 Cor. 6:14-17)
When Christianity embraced pagan holidays and pagan associations, and today continues celebrating them along with unbelievers, how was she being separate? I have to agree with Paul:
"Let us purify ourselves from everything that contaminates body and spirit, perfecting holiness out of reverence for God." (2 Cor. 7:1)
37. Patricia had the following to say on Mar 27 at 10:58 AM:
Carrie Lea,
I don't think we should celebrate Passover with the Jewish people because the Jewish people reject Jesus as the messiah. While we share some parts of scripture, how can we celebrate the sacrifice of Christ when they are celebrating the deliverance of the Jewish people from Egypt? These are fundamentally different events. I think that as Christians we should be knowledgeable about these events but because we aren't Jewish we should celebrate the ultimate fulfillment of the law through Christ. Also, as for the timing of Christians, when the Church set the feast day for Christmas, they probably didn't know when Christ was born. The timing of Jesus' birth is symbolic, which is why around winter solstice was chosen. Christ is the light who came into a dark world. After Christ's birth, the days of the year get longer. So, while Christ wasn't actually born, the time of year has symbolic importance.
Also, it's important to remember that the Roman Catholic Church instituted the feast days. The name Easter, for example, comes from the Northwest European pagan religion but the Catholic Church set its feast day. So it's not really so much a story of incorporating pagan religions as it is when people converted to Christianity, for better or worse they often brought old traditions with them. That may not be ideal, but I don't think the Roman Church "capitulated" to Northern Europeans when setting dates for Christmas and Europe.
38. Carrie Lea had the following to say on Mar 27 at 12:36 PM:
Patricia,
You said, "I don't think we should celebrate Passover with the Jewish people because the Jewish people reject Jesus as the messiah."
In reply, I could point out the obvious: The first Christians and Jesus Himself were Jewish people. You're also ignoring all the Messianic Jews in the world, as well as the Jews who have sacrificed their standing in their own families and communities by identifying with a Christian church.
Or, I could repeat Paul's warning to the Gentiles:
"I ask then: Did God reject his people? By no means! ... So too, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace. ...
"Did they stumble so as to fall beyond recovery? Not at all! Rather, because of their transgression, salvation has come to the Gentiles to make Israel envious. But if their transgression means riches for the world, and their loss means riches for the Gentiles, how much greater riches will their fullness bring! ...
"If some of the branches have been broken off, and you, though a wild olive shoot, have been grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing sap from the olive root, do not boast over those branches. If you do, consider this: You do not support the root, but the root supports you. You will say then, 'Branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in. Granted. But they were broken off because of unbelief, and you stand by faith. Do not be arrogant, but be afraid. For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either.
"Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off. And if they do not persist in unbelief, they will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again. After all, if you were cut out of an olive tree that is wild by nature, and contrary to nature were grafted into a cultivated olive tree, how much more readily will these, the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree!
"I do not want you to be ignorant of this mystery, brothers, so that you may not be conceited: Israel has experienced a hardening in part until the full number of the Gentiles has come in. And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written ..."
(from Romans 11)
You also said, "While we share some parts of scripture, how can we celebrate the sacrifice of Christ when they are celebrating the deliverance of the Jewish people from Egypt? These are fundamentally different events."
You mean, how can God's people celebrate their deliverance from slavery to sin while they celebrate their deliverance from slavery in Egypt? Come on, you know these two events are fundamentally related; just read all the replies to Canon above! I think our God is a lot deeper than you're giving Him credit for.
I still haven't seen a satisfactory answer to the question: Why do modern Christians ignore God's own holy days in favor of substitutes?
39. IMO had the following to say on Mar 27 at 2:31 PM:
Carrie Lea,
As a Messianic Jew, I guess I can try and answer your question.
First I am aware of "God's own holy days" ...maybe modern Christians don't know in-depth what they are and how they are significant. Maybe they don't see value in them. Maybe they are either naive, ignorant, indifferent, or just not willing... or they may just disagree and feel strongly against celebrating "God's own holy days." Did I cover everybody? :P
But there truly is such richness in understanding these holidays and your faith can deepen...it is so amazing how things are so interwined...only God could have orchestrated this.
There are books out there that explain how a Christian can celebrate Passover and the other Jewish holidays (with Christ in mind). So if anybody is interested, the info's out there.
Now as for me, I only celebrate the Jewish holidays when my Jewish family does. So I am guilty! Guilty of being lazy and not willing to make effort!
40. Patricia had the following to say on Mar 27 at 4:55 PM:
Carrie Lea,
I know the events are related. But the non believing Jews (and yes I am aware of Messianic Jews) do not. So I don't see myself as celebrating passover but celebrating Holy Thursday-the night Jesus instituted the Eucharist and gave himself up for our sins. During the celebration of Holy Thursday, I also am reminded that God delivered the Jews from the Egyptians as a sign of Jesus' later sacrifice and a light for the world to see. I don't see how celebrating Holy Thursday overlooks the redemption of the Jews...I think it acknowledges that but looks to Jesus as the ultimate fulfillment of the passover. I just d on't see how it overlooks passover. Maybe it's different at my church as I believe many Protestant churches fail to engage with the old testament.
41. Eliana had the following to say on Mar 27 at 7:38 PM:
The connection between Passover and Jesus suffering and Resurrection is also found in the Holy Thursday services, where we Catholics remember how Jesus instituted the Eucharist, the giving of His Body and Blood, during the blessing of matzohs and wine at the Last Supper, which was a Passover Seder. Other readers mentioned other connections to Passover, and one which I love is that God speaks of saving the Jews during the Exodus with an outstretched arm, just as when he saved us with outstretched arms on the cross. For a Christian Seder, which mentions even more connections, between Passover and Jesus see this site .
42. Leah had the following to say on Mar 28 at 8:21 AM:
Carrie Lea, I never said OT rules are IRRELEVANT to us, like you claimed. I said we are not BOUND to them. Something can be RELEVANT without being BINDING. Of course the rules are relevant to us- they still caution us on our interactions with other religions and false gods- but they are not word-for-word binding. That is legalism. ESPECIALLY seeing as Jesus freed us from bondage to those laws when he died as the ultimate sacrifice.
So certainly, those rules are still relevant. But we are not bound to them.
Besides, you can't seriously think we are not even allowed to speak the name of false gods... or else you could never witness to a buddhist and mention "Buddha", or witness to a Muslim and mention "Allah". I mean, really. Saying "Allah" is "worse" than saying "Easter". At least when we say "Allah" we are actually talking about a supposed "god". Nobody, these days, is talking about a supposed "god" when saying "Easter".
(And it's because of that, that I don't even think calling Easter "Easter" has any real relevance to Ishtar etc these days, so the OT rules, I believe, are virtually irrelevant to this particular issue.)
43. John had the following to say on Mar 28 at 9:10 AM:
I found all the comments very interesting and useful. I am in the middle of responding to the Focus on the Family ministry. I had suggested to them that it would be a good idea to start guiding this generation of children into using the term Resurrection Sunday now that so many of us are becoming aware of the origin of the name Easter. I was surprised that the woman who responded didn't really see the problem Personally I believe that most if not all of the symbols taken from nature belonged to God first, and the pagans used them. I think it's appropriate to "take back" the symbols of God's creation to glorify him and not some pagan God. The name however is different. Once we are no longer ignorant of whose name we are using, we need to get rid of it. Using the name Eastre once we know who she was and what she stood for, does not honor our risen Lord.
44. Carrie Lea had the following to say on Mar 28 at 12:51 PM:
IMO,
A Messianic Jew reading Boundless? Cool. :)
I think you've hit the nail on the head. Before being introduced to a Messianic group, I was barely even aware that the festivals existed. I probably thought they were just historic celebrations instituted by the Jewish people. To realize that they were instituted by God, and that they each have real prophetic significance not just for Jews, but for all believers in Jesus -- it really is stunning. How is it that such jewels are overlooked every day by Christian leaders who have learned about these holy days?
I know that my attempts to extricate myself from the traditional Christian celebrations in order to observe the biblical feasts have met with resistance in my own Christian family. I've even been told that I am "wrong" for not celebrating Christmas, even after making it clear that I do celebrate Christ's birth at what I believe to be the appropriate time. Meanwhile, I've never told my family that I think they're "wrong." It's frustrating, especially in light of how much the festivals have enriched my faith. I'm concerned that certain family members are acting more out of a love of tradition than a love of God. :/
Patricia,
You are right that Jesus's sacrifice is the ultimate fulfillment of the Passover, which is exactly why Christians should be celebrating Passover. During the Last Supper, Jesus was not instituting a new tradition called the Eucharist; He was simply partaking in a Passover seder with His apostles and linking its symbolism to His own sacrifice. I can appreciate that "Easter" is known as "Pasch," a word stemming from the Hebrew "Pesach" for Passover, in many languages. Why then do many Christians time this celebration differently than the Jews, to whom God entrusted the festival?
From what I've learned, the answer has to do with anti-Semitism in the early church. Some Christian leaders did this intentionally to separate Christianity from its parent faith, Judaism. They did something similar with the Sabbath when they "moved" it to Sunday. When will modern Christians stand up and say that it was wrong to reject Jesus's own people in this manner? It is true that as a whole, the Jewish people have rejected Jesus. Nevertheless, they are the ones who were "entrusted with the very words of God" (Romans 3:2), and they deserve our respect as such. After all, they have been worshipping God a lot longer than we have.
If the non-believing but still devout Jews widely recognized the connection between Passover and Jesus's sacrifice, don't you think more of them would begin to recognize Jesus as the Messiah? I say we should celebrate Passover with its full meaning, "make Israel envious" (Romans 11:11), and await the "life from the dead" (Romans 11:15) that results!
45. Carrie Lea had the following to say on Mar 29 at 10:05 AM:
Leah,
Are you saying that you are no longer bound to such laws as "Do not murder," "Do not steal," "Do not commit adultery?" What about "Observe the Sabbath and keep it holy?" Where do you draw the line? And what exactly do you mean by "bound?" Do you mean that we should no longer try to follow God's law, or that our failure to follow it no longer has to result in our spiritual death?
Also, which "law" did Jesus free us from? Was is the Law of God, or the law of sin and death? If we were "freed" from God's own law, then how do you explain Jesus's clear words in Matthew 5:17-19?
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:17-19)
(Just to warn you -- I reject any interpretation of this passage that equates the meaning of the word "fulfill" with the meaning of the word "abolish.")
46. Lauren T. had the following to say on Mar 29 at 3:13 PM:
Carrie Lea (#16): Now you know why I DO rest on the seventh day of the week ;)!
Carrie Lea (#32): Hey, you're saying all the stuff I was going to go write!
To me, our "proud Christian tradition" off annexing pagan worship elements is about as far from proud as I can think of. God strictly warned his people not to EVER worship him the way the surrounding peoples worshiped him and I can't imagine we're pleasing him by doing the exact same thing now!
By the way, I don't celebrate Halloween, don't do Christmas trees, and would really like to begin celebrating the Resurrection at the proper time - Passover - instead of some other time tied to pagan spring festivals!
Leah: (#21) Yes, actually, every time I have to use the word "Easter" to refer to the holiday so other people know what I'm talking about, I think about the goddess in the Bible the people were constantly condemned for putting shrines on the hills to. Not exactly the same goddess, but similar.
47. Rose had the following to say on Mar 29 at 6:19 PM:
Re: comments 1 and 43, Interestingly although Indonesian Christians use Paskah (Pascha) for Easter, they also use Allah for Father God. However some choose not to use it for the same reasons some of you use not to use Easter...especially as the Islamic Allah is not a long dead fertility goddess, but actually the god of the majority religion in Indonesia. English is not the only language which borrows from other religions to describe the truths of Christianity.
From what I've heard, this is quite a common dilemma for Bible translators when translating the bible into a new language...do they use a word for God (and other Christian festivals etc.) that the people already understand and relate to? Or do they choose a name that is foreign to the people to emphasise that the Christian God is different? But then they might be unconsciously painting Him as a foreigner's God...rather than as a "God with us" even already part of their culture and language, although they didn't recognise him.(you can see how the argument would go round in circles) Perhaps the early church in Europe was faced with a similar problem.
48. Gina had the following to say on Mar 30 at 5:19 PM:
John, I don't understand the part of your comment about how "now that so many of us are becoming aware of the origin of the name Easter." The Christian church has been aware of the origin of the name ever since the holiday was instituted.
49. Gina had the following to say on Mar 30 at 5:20 PM:
Sorry for the bad grammar up there. :-) Long day.
50. Leah had the following to say on Mar 30 at 8:03 PM:
Carrie Lea, I would never take "fulfill" to mean "abolish", because Jesus was quite clear when he said that he didn't come to abolish the law, but he DID come to fulfill it (therefore "abolish" and "fulfill" cannot be the same thing).
And technically, no, we are not bound to the 10 commandments like you ask in your first paragraph. However, you are quite right in your implication that we should still observe them.
Jesus said that the new commandment, the new law, was to love one another. (John 13, John 15). Things like "do not murder", "do not lie", "do not commit adultery", "have no other gods before me" (all of the 10 commandments), all involve loving others, whether it be other people or God. If we love God, we should not have any other gods before him. If we love our parents, we should honour and obey them. If we love other people, we should not lie, steal, or covet.
We adhere to these rules not because they were given as the law in the Old Testament, but because those actions are required of us to honour Jesus' most important commandment: to love one another. If we were adhering to them simply because they were Old Testament law, then we would have to adhere to every other law of the old testament- putting railings on our roofs, destroying any part of the house affected by mildew, etc etc. But we know we are not bound to the Old Testament law anymore because Jesus has fulfilled it. However, certain parts of that law are still relevant because they are associated with the law to love one another. (Like I explained with the 10 commandments).
However, the law to not let the name of a foreign god pass your lips has nothing to do with love- saying "Allah" or "Ishtar" does not demonstrate a lack of love for God or for my fellow humans. However, murdering, lying, coveting, adultery, or having any other gods does.
51. Carrie Lea had the following to say on Mar 31 at 9:27 AM:
Lauren T.,
Amen, sister! Just out of curiosity, were you raised with this viewpoint on God's appointed times, or is it something you've discovered later? It takes a lot of stubbornness and patience to hold these views when family disagrees, and even when most Christians disagree. I think it's worth it!
Leah,
You say you agree that "fulfill" does not mean "abolish," but you speak as if they have a similar meaning. An online dictionary gives the meaning of abolish as "to end the observance or effect of." If Jesus did not come to abolish the Law (Torah), then He did not come to end its observance or effect. Here's an interesting thought: If the Law is no longer in effect, then it cannot be broken, and sin cannot be counted against us. Why, then, was Jesus sacrificed for us?
On the other hand, I have seen the meaning of the Greek word translated as "to fulfill" expanded as "to fill full with its complete meaning." This fits perfectly with celebrating God's feasts -- Jesus filled Passover with its complete meaning by becoming our Passover Lamb, the Lamb of God, slain to cover us and protect us from death.
You still haven't specified what you mean by "bound." If you mean that Jesus has made the way for us to be forgiven for our trespasses of His Law, then I agree wholeheartedly. If you mean that we should disregard His Law, then I disagree vehemently and find no scriptural backing for this position. What does it really mean for the Law to be "relevant" but not "binding?" Does that mean it's okay to murder someone as long as we love them in our heart? Is it okay to commit adultery as long as we're fantasizing about our spouse the whole time? When Jesus preached His Sermon on the Mount, He only strengthened the commandments He spoke of, never weakened them. It's either relevant and binding, or it's irrelevant and non-binding. The middle ground you're trying to take is an illusion.
You note the greatest commandments, loving God and loving our neighbor. Interestingly, these are not new commandments. Did you know that they were instituted in the Torah?
"Love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength." (Deut. 6:5)
"Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself." (Lev. 19:18)
The Torah even tells us to love our enemies: "If you come across your enemy's ox or donkey wandering off, be sure to take it back to him. If you see the donkey of someone who hates you fallen down under its load, do not leave it there; be sure you help him with it." (Ex. 23:4-5)
You point out that the commandments are specific ways to love God or love our neighbor. I agree. Have you considered that commands like resting on the Sabbath, abstaining from unclean meats, and observing God's festivals are specific ways of showing love for God? I would say that putting a protective railing around your roof balcony is loving to your neighbor, and spurning the names of other gods is loving to God.
You say, "the law to not let the name of a foreign god pass your lips has nothing to do with love- saying 'Allah' or 'Ishtar' does not demonstrate a lack of love for God or for my fellow humans." You'll have to argue that one with God; He said it, not me.
52. Leah had the following to say on Mar 31 at 8:02 PM:
Carrie Lea,
You say that abolish means "to end the observance or effect of." I do not believe that Jesus came to end the effect of the Torah. It is still relevant and still affects us- but we are not bound to it. We no longer live under the law. (Romans 6:14-15: "For sin shall not be your master, because you are not under law, but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means!") Why do you still think that I think "we should disregard His Law"?? I've said over and over that I believe it is still relevant to us.
You say that "If the Law is no longer in effect, then it cannot be broken, and sin cannot be counted against us." Sin is not the breaking of the law. That's legalism. Sin is rejection of God. You can do that very easily, either by breaking or even not by breaking the law. Again, look back to the Romans verses (which recognise the ability to sin when we are not under the law)- we are no longer under the law, but this doesn't mean we can go around sinning just because we are now under grace. My point is that the law not to utter the name of another god- along with a host of other Torah laws- are no longer binding to us. The only law that IS binding to us is to love one another as Jesus loved us. (I talk more about that further down). It's just that this law happens to envelope the ten commandments and a few other Torah laws (though certainly nowhere near all of them).
And by "bound"/"binding" I mean (look it up in a dictionary) "to place under obligation or compulsion"; "to unite by any legal or moral tie".
You also say You say, "the law to not let the name of a foreign god pass your lips has nothing to do with love- saying 'Allah' or 'Ishtar' does not demonstrate a lack of love for God or for my fellow humans." You'll have to argue that one with God; He said it, not me.
That's just rude, because God didn't say that. Show me the verse where he says that. He didn't say that it demonstrates a lack of love for him- he simply said not to do it. Like he said to put railings on the roofs of your houses. If you think we are still bound to the Old Testament laws, I hope to goodness that if I ever happen to meet you that you have railings on your roof, not a spot of mildew in your house, that you present any rashes or burns to the local priest, that you do not eat pork, that you circumcise your sons (if you have any), that you do not enter a church for 33 days after giving birth to a boy, or 66 after giving birth to a girl, and that you present sacrifices.
You also say You note the greatest commandments, loving God and loving our neighbor. Interestingly, these are not new commandments. Did you know that they were instituted in the Torah? Interestingly, JESUS calls it a new command. I'm not saying if it was in the OT or not, I'm just saying what Jesus calls it.(John 13:34 "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another.")
And when I say "It's just that this law happens to envelope the ten commandments and a few other Torah laws (though certainly nowhere near all of them)", if you think the law of love would also envelope not speaking the name of another god, well then that's up to you. If you feel you are not loving god by saying "Allah", that's up to you. Because I know that personally, I am not showing any iota less of love for God when I say the name "Allah", or "Ishtar", or whatever else it may be. You can't witness to people of other religions and not say the name of their god. God gave us common sense for a reason and freed us from obligation to the OT law for a reason.
You also say "Have you considered that commands like resting on the Sabbath, abstaining from unclean meats, and observing God's festivals are specific ways of showing love for God? I would say that putting a protective railing around your roof balcony is loving to your neighbor, and spurning the names of other gods is loving to God."
Well for what it's worth, I'm a complete supporter of resting on the sabbath day, so don't put words into my mouth or make assumptions about my beliefs. Secondly, no I don't believe abstaining from certain (not 'unclean') meats is really showing love for God, because he quite explicitly said in the New Testament that we can eat those foods. And sure, observing God's festivals could be a way of showing love for him, but you can't mandate it, because some people could just as easily observe those festivals out of tradition rather than love. For sure, some of those things you said are definitely ways of showing love, but we are not bound to specific ways of showing love, as long as we are not doing something which is a complete contradiction of showing love (like murdering someone or cheating on your wife or husband).
That's why legalism is such a problem. It observes laws for the law's sake, not for God's sake. That's why one person could validly observe a festival for God, and another could not (they'd be doing it for the sake of obeying the law); why one person can validly eat pork and others could not. To mandate for or against any law creates legalism (except for love of course, because it does not mandate specific acts like all the other laws do). It means there would be people doing it for the sake of sticking to the law, which is no longer necessary- in fact, it is discouraged. If someone were doing that, it would mean they were putting faith of their salvation in their acts of abiding by the law, not in Jesus' grace.
In summary: we can totally follow some of the Old Testament laws as a way of fulfilling the ONLY commandment we are now obliged to fulfill- the commandment of love. But to follow the OT laws just because they are OT laws is legalism and is not acknowledging the saving grace of Jesus.
53. Leah had the following to say on Apr 2 at 10:29 AM:
Lauren T said "God strictly warned his people not to EVER worship him the way the surrounding peoples worshiped him and I can't imagine we're pleasing him by doing the exact same thing now!"
Uh, no we're not. There is no other people group around us worshipping their God how we do at Easter. The pagan holiday associated with Easter is from a long-dead religion. Why did God forbid his people from worshipping him the same way as other people worshipped their gods? To make the Israelites separate from them. We don't have to make ourselves separate from this pagan ritual because it doesn't exist anymore. (Or at least in such minority groups that nobody is bound to confuse us).
Also, if using the word "Easter" makes you think of other goddesses, well that's your problem. I don't mean that rudely, honestly- I mean it exactly as it says- that is your problem. And so, logically, you would not use the word Easter and I don't blame you for that. What I do blame people for is forcing their problem onto other people. (Not saying you do it). But if someone thinks of Ishtar everytime they say "easter" and so don't want to use that word, they shouldn't oblige the other million people around them who have no idea about ishtar to stop using the word easter.
54. Carrie Lea had the following to say on Apr 3 at 8:57 AM:
Leah,
You seem to be misunderstanding my position. Legalism (at least, the biblical concept) is the attempt to win justification before God by following the Law, and that idea runs counter to true Christian faith. Since there is no Greek word for "legalism," it seems that when Paul uses the phrase "under Law," that is what he is referring to. I do not advocate legalism; I do advocate obedience.
You continue to try to take an illusory middle ground that the Torah is relevant but not binding. This approach seems to be equivalent to moral relativism when taken to its logical conclusion. You seem to be saying that we are justified in breaking any concrete command of God if we don't understand how that command demonstrates love for God or neighbor. The champions of a biblical worldview (for example here on Boundless) might disagree with me on which commands we are still expected to obey, but they would at least agree that we are expected to obey God's commands. In other words, morality is absolute and is defined under God's absolute standard -- not ours.
Put simply, sin is the breaking of the Law. In the NT, this is referred to as the Law of Christ or the Law of the Spirit. The Torah commands are simply the Law of Christ put into concrete terms. Human beings are experts at using our "common sense" to justify our bad behavior, so it only makes sense that God gave us concrete commands to follow. If we've reached a point of routinely breaking one of these commands, then we are sinning. Are believers instantly condemned if we screw up? Of course not -- in that sense, we aren't "bound" because we are not bound to the effect of sin, which is death. Is God displeased when we disobey Him? Of course, so in that sense we are bound to the Law, because our Master has commanded obedience. If you put yourself in a position to pick apart Torah commands and criticize them into oblivion, concluding that they are not worth following, then you have essentially picked apart and then discarded wisdom from God's own mouth.
Consider the purposes of the Law. The first purpose is to make us aware of what sin is. In other words, as I said before, sin is the breaking of the Law:
"...through the law we become conscious of sin." (Romans 3:20)
"Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. For I would not have known what coveting really was if the law had not said, 'Do not covet.'" (Romans 7:7)
(I could just as easily say, "I would not have known that eating unclean meat is sin if the law had not said, 'Do not eat unclean meat.'")
Another purpose of the Law is to have a means for God to count sin against us, as I stated in my previous post:
"...sin is not taken into account when there is no law." (Romans 5:13)
"The law was added so that the trespass might increase." (Romans 5:20)
Again and again in Romans you see the idea that while obeying the Torah will not save us, disobeying the Torah will most certainly condemn us apart from God's saving grace. We are therefore encouraged to follow the Law, not because it will bring us salvation, but because we cannot claim Jesus as our Lord while unrepentantly disobeying Him.
There is a similar idea in Jesus's Sermon on the Mount. In all of His examples, there is the idea that if you have broken the concrete command, then you have long since broken the spiritual command. That is why we can still be condemned even if we follow the concrete commands to a tee. Moreover, He points out the higher (not lower) standard of the Law of the Spirit, which perhaps can't be written down in words, but is even more "strict" than the Torah commands.
A lot of Christians seem to have the misconception that legalism is the attempt to follow God's commands in some strict or disciplined manner. As I have shown you, that is simply not the case. It all has to do with whether we are arrogantly trying to win our own salvation, or whether we are humbly trying to obey our Master.
You said, "He didn't say that it demonstrates a lack of love for him- he simply said not to do it." Exactly: He simply said not to do it. Who are we to say that we're free to disregard a command straight from the mouth of God, just because we don't find His reasoning clear? How does disregarding God's commands not show a lack of love for Him?
You said, "he quite explicitly said in the New Testament that we can eat those foods." Which "explicit" statement are you referring to? Was it the one where Jesus points out we're not required to wash our hands before eating (not an actual Torah command)? Or was it Peter's vision in Acts 10, which even Peter didn't understand until he realized it referred to Gentiles, not to unclean meat?
You said, "I hope to goodness that if I ever happen to meet you that you have railings on your roof, not a spot of mildew in your house, that you present any rashes or burns to the local priest, that you do not eat pork, that you circumcise your sons (if you have any), that you do not enter a church for 33 days after giving birth to a boy, or 66 after giving birth to a girl, and that you present sacrifices." What was that you were saying about "don't put words into my mouth or make assumptions about my beliefs"?
I never said that you don't observe the Sabbath -- only that observing the Sabbath is a way to show love for God. (Although most Christians do operate under the misconception that Jesus "moved" the Sabbath to Sunday.)
For what it's worth, I don't eat pork, I do plan to circumcise my sons if I ever have any, and you bet I will put a protective railing around my roof balcony if I ever have one. However, presenting sacrifices would be against the Law because there currently is no functioning earthly Temple or priesthood. I should also point out that the local church does not qualify as the Temple any more than local synagogues do. I never claimed my obedience was perfect, but I do try to obey what I can.
You said, "To mandate for or against any law creates legalism." I'm not mandating anything. I'm just encouraging my fellow Christians to put their money where their mouth is when they call Jesus "Lord."
55. Leah had the following to say on Apr 6 at 7:59 PM:
Carrie Lea, the first half of your last post can be summed up when you said "Again and again in Romans you see the idea that while obeying the Torah will not save us, disobeying the Torah will most certainly condemn us apart from God's saving grace.".
Actually, disobeying the Torah will NOT certainly condemn you apart from God's saving grace. (Well actually, EVERYTHING will condemn you apart from God's saving grace, but I understand what you're getting at).
I just have to point back to the whole unclean foods thing: in the Torah, that is strictly forbidden. In the New Testament, God clearly says we are now allowed to eat what was once considered "unclean". That alone illustrates that we do not *necessarily* have to obey Old Testament laws anymore.
I also wouldn't say that "legalism is the attempt to follow God's commands in some strict or disciplined manner", whatever that means. Legalism is following the law just because it's law, which strongly sounds like what you are advocating. It sounds like you're saying "it's in the Torah, therefore we must follow it" when, as I said about the pork, that is just not true.
I would completely agree that we shoudl follow God's commands. It's just that I don't believe the Torah is God's command for us. Sure that might sound heretical, but read it in light of everythign else I've said. There is still a large chunk of the Torah we are obliged to obey because obeying those particular laws illustrate our love for God and for other people. (Like not murdering, observing the sabbath, obeying our parents, not coveting, etc). But there are some of them that don't do that and so are really a matter of preference, eg. circumcision, which specific day you observe sabbath, eating/not eating pork, etc.
And I certainly wan't putting words into your mouth. I was saying what I would hope to see you doing- that has nothing to do with anything you said, so I'm not sure how that's putting words into your mouth.
And I really don't care if you want to follow all the Old testament laws. That's fine, it really is. But you can't say the rest of us have to, because it's just not true. Instead, what we MUST do is show love to everyone and to God- it's just that that usually entails adhering to the Torah.
56. Carrie Lea had the following to say on Apr 8 at 1:09 PM:
Leah,
I still think you're missing my point. It sounds like you didn't read my last post very carefully.
For instance, you say, "Legalism is following the law just because it's law." This doesn't make any sense. What do any of us hope to accomplish by following the law? Some people hope to win their salvation -- this is legalism. Others hope to please their Heavenly Master, while realizing their obedience is not perfect and could never win their salvation -- this is obedience, not legalism. I didn't say that legalism is the attempt to follow God's command in a strict manner; only that many Christians seem to have this impression, whether they are willing to express it that way or not.
You also say, "I just have to point back to the whole unclean foods thing: in the Torah, that is strictly forbidden. In the New Testament, God clearly says we are now allowed to eat what was once considered 'unclean'. That alone illustrates that we do not *necessarily* have to obey Old Testament laws anymore."
I repeat: Which "explicit" (or "clear") statement are you referring to? Was it the one where Jesus points out we're not required to wash our hands before eating (not an actual Torah command)? Or was it Peter's vision in Acts 10, which even Peter didn't understand until he realized it referred to Gentiles, not to unclean meat? If you won't point to a specific Scripture, then I can neither argue the point with you, nor take your point seriously.
I, on the other hand, have already pointed to a specific Scripture where Jesus encourages adherence to even the "least" of these commands (see Matthew 5:17-19). I can point out some more:
"If you love me, you will obey what I command. ... Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. ... He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me." (from John 14:15-24)
"This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, for everyone born of God overcomes the world." (1 John 5:3-4)
The connection between love for God and obedience to His commands shows up numerous times in the OT as well: see Deut. 11:1, Joshua 22:5, Nehemiah 1:5.
The importance of following God's commands shows up in Revelation as well:
"Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring—those who obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus." (Rev. 12:17)
"This calls for patient endurance on the part of the saints who obey God's commandments and remain faithful to Jesus." (Rev. 14:12)
What is our command? To love God. How do we love God? By obeying His commands. What are His commands? Jesus is constantly pointing back to what His Father says. While He was on earth, the only Scriptures were the Hebrew Scriptures, resting on the foundation of Torah. The clear implication is that Jesus encourages us to follow Torah commands as a show of love for God. He never contradicts His Father, and He considers the Father's commands to be His own as well. Jesus does not contradict Himself, so that fact alone should encourage us to consider other interpretations wherever it appears that Jesus is abrogating the Torah.
The approach you seem to take is, "If I can see how it shows love for God or my neighbor, then I will obey it. Otherwise, I excuse myself from it." I don't see this approach supported anywhere in the Bible. If you want to point to specific NT verses that seem to do away with specific Torah commands, then I can at least respect that position and discuss it from there. I simply can't support the pick-and-choose approach; it relies too much on human "wisdom."
57. Christina (in green) had the following to say on Apr 8 at 1:57 PM:
Carrie Lea,
I do commend your argument to Leah.
It was well done and for the most part, I do agree with you.
However, Leah's position could possibly be summed up by Romans 14. Concerning food, it would be Romand 14:14 specifically:
As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food[b] is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean.
However, you made some very good arguments and I'll probably be rethinking some of my views and how I articulate them in the near future.
58. Banner Kidd had the following to say on Apr 9 at 7:13 AM:
I've read some of these posts and they are very revealing as to where the professing church is and just how far off track those who are a part of her have gone. The Truth has not been taught in so long that it is being falsely seen as a lie!
Carrie Lea is correct in her assessment as far as I can tell.
One of the posters asked a very telling question in saying that Passover is a Jewish holiday and "How does that tie with the ressurection?" That is astounding to me! Without the atoning sacrifice there would have been no resurrection! Yeshua, according to John the Baptist, was the Lamb of Yahweh that takes away the sin of the world. Passover is a feast day, an appointment (Moedim) commanded by Yahweh because it is about HIS Messiah, Yeshua, whom we have mistakenly called Jesus for centuries! Without the Passover and the Torah that it is part of there is no basis for Yeshua or salvation or sin or grace or death and resurrection to pay the price. Your house if built on sand instead of the pure solid rock of the Word. Amazing!!!!!
59. Carrie Lea had the following to say on Apr 11 at 9:47 AM:
Christina (in green),
Thanks for the specific scripture reference. It sounds like the context of Romans 14 has something to do with meat-eaters vs. vegetarians. I think this is particularly interesting when read in light of 1 Corinthians 8, especially verse 7: "Some people are still so accustomed to idols that when they eat such food [any meat sold in market?] they think of it as having been sacrificed to an idol, and since their conscience is weak, it is defiled."
It sounds like the big issue is whether the meat being eaten is thought of as a sacrifice to an idol. Paul seems to be teaching that if we don't know that meat came from an idol sacrifice, then we have no reason for a guilty conscience. On the other hand, we shouldn't eat meat that we know is from an idol sacrifice. At that time, many people associated any meat with idol sacrifices, and so for them all meat became taboo. For the sake of these, Paul encourages believers to abstain from meat around these people so as not to cause them to stumble. While we no longer have to worry so much about our meat coming from idol sacrifices, I think this teaching