The Bible is packed with amazing insights God provides generously by His grace. I was intrigued by what I read this morning concerning Herod's arrest of Peter in 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 to bring him
forth to the people." I read my devotions and study out of the King James Version because of the Strong's concordance so I can look up the original words. I have read this many times before but it struck me "Easter" was used instead of "Passover" way back by learned and pious scholars who embarked on the seven year, peer-reviewed process of fulfilling King James' commission to translate the scriptures in 1611.
I found the inclusion of "Easter" ironic and illuminating. Some of the more conservative-leaning folks in Christendom prefer to avoid the term and utilise "Resurrection Sunday" to avoid any pagan connection. There are some who prefer the King James Version of the Bible because they believe it is more true to the original languages and intent of the Author. I believe the translation of "Easter" fits well with New Testament doctrine that the Law was the shadow of what Christ is the substance (Col. 2:16-17). Devout Jews continued to observe Passover according to the Law of Moses, but things were different for all Jews and Gentiles after Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead on the first day of the week. Instead of the translators deferring to Passover this switch to Easter focuses on the blood shed on Calvary and victorious resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is good to remember God's deliverance of the Hebrews from Egypt and the Spirit of God sparing their firstborn, but to Christians Easter meant assurance of the forgiveness of sin, resurrection from the dead, and eternal life through faith in Jesus.
The KJV rendering of the passage from Acts enforces the New Testament doctrine that calling the day "Easter" or "Resurrection Sunday" is of infinitesimal consequence compared to the spiritual regeneration and transformation of sinners through the Gospel. Paul had much to say on this subject in Romans 14 and other places concerning the Christian liberty unto the LORD to eat, drink, to observe a day or not, and we can extend this doctrine to the terminology we use when referring to said day. Romans 14:5-6 says, "One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks." If Easter is an offensive term to you (which was not offensive to the KJV translators of scripture), God provides the freedom to use another. Who Jesus is and all He accomplished in His death and resurrection ought to be our focal point--not terminology.
Is terminology or words important? Of course. But fancy splitting hairs over terminology as a measure of spiritual maturity or righteousness before God when we could unite in praise and adoration of our LORD and Saviour Jesus Christ who has made us righteous by faith! Paul warned of this very thing in 1 Timothy 6:3-4: "If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness, 4 he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions..." (bold emphasis mine) In itself calling a day "Easter" is no less pleasing or offensive to God than "Sunday," a word not found in the KJV which we have unquestioned freedom to use. Call it Passover, Easter, or what you will without spiritual snobbery or worrying of offence, for God looks upon the heart. Let each be fully convinced in their own mind and give more grace. To Christians what many call Easter is at its root worship, praise, and adoration of Jesus Christ and acknowledges and celebrates the Living Hope God has provided by grace.
I found the inclusion of "Easter" ironic and illuminating. Some of the more conservative-leaning folks in Christendom prefer to avoid the term and utilise "Resurrection Sunday" to avoid any pagan connection. There are some who prefer the King James Version of the Bible because they believe it is more true to the original languages and intent of the Author. I believe the translation of "Easter" fits well with New Testament doctrine that the Law was the shadow of what Christ is the substance (Col. 2:16-17). Devout Jews continued to observe Passover according to the Law of Moses, but things were different for all Jews and Gentiles after Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead on the first day of the week. Instead of the translators deferring to Passover this switch to Easter focuses on the blood shed on Calvary and victorious resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is good to remember God's deliverance of the Hebrews from Egypt and the Spirit of God sparing their firstborn, but to Christians Easter meant assurance of the forgiveness of sin, resurrection from the dead, and eternal life through faith in Jesus.
The KJV rendering of the passage from Acts enforces the New Testament doctrine that calling the day "Easter" or "Resurrection Sunday" is of infinitesimal consequence compared to the spiritual regeneration and transformation of sinners through the Gospel. Paul had much to say on this subject in Romans 14 and other places concerning the Christian liberty unto the LORD to eat, drink, to observe a day or not, and we can extend this doctrine to the terminology we use when referring to said day. Romans 14:5-6 says, "One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks." If Easter is an offensive term to you (which was not offensive to the KJV translators of scripture), God provides the freedom to use another. Who Jesus is and all He accomplished in His death and resurrection ought to be our focal point--not terminology.
Is terminology or words important? Of course. But fancy splitting hairs over terminology as a measure of spiritual maturity or righteousness before God when we could unite in praise and adoration of our LORD and Saviour Jesus Christ who has made us righteous by faith! Paul warned of this very thing in 1 Timothy 6:3-4: "If anyone teaches otherwise and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which accords with godliness, 4 he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions..." (bold emphasis mine) In itself calling a day "Easter" is no less pleasing or offensive to God than "Sunday," a word not found in the KJV which we have unquestioned freedom to use. Call it Passover, Easter, or what you will without spiritual snobbery or worrying of offence, for God looks upon the heart. Let each be fully convinced in their own mind and give more grace. To Christians what many call Easter is at its root worship, praise, and adoration of Jesus Christ and acknowledges and celebrates the Living Hope God has provided by grace.
No comments:
Post a Comment
To uphold the integrity of this site, no comments with links for advertising will be posted. No ads here! :)