 |
Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms |
|
|
|
Easter has been described as the most important and significant festival of the Christian Church. It is a time when Christendom remembers the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is piously observed throughout the world by Protestants, Roman Catholics and the majority of Christian sects. One would expect that such a universally accepted institution would trace its origin to the Holy Scriptures. Amazingly the observance of Easter cannot and does not trace its origin to the Hebrew Scriptures as you might expect and will quickly come to see in this article. Indeed, it would be reasonable to assume that the Church's most important festival would have been inaugurated by divine decree but again it does not. Amazingly the Bible does not even mention the word "Easter" except for one "purposefully mistranslated verse" in Acts 12 when the real word used all times previoulsy is the word for "Passover". In fact it can be shown that Gentile believers and "non-Jews" obeserved the Passover for 200 or more years following the time of Jesus in the New Testament era. We can find no reference in the New Testament where Jesus ever asked his disciples to celebrate his resurrection, and the Apostles neither kept Easter nor commanded their fellow Christians to observe Easter. That should make you wonder why we do and we will see in this article how the Passover was replaced by Easter by early Gentile Church antisemites.
Let's have a look at the history of this festival and we'll just see how far our present Easter celebration has digressed from the true celebration that that first century Jews like Jesus observed which was the Passover.
The New Testament teaches that the supposed occasion for what would later become the observance of "Easter" was what was called the "Last Supper" on the evening before Jesus' crucifixion. The disciples were gathered together to eat the Passover meal on the evening of the fourteenth day of Nisan.
The New Testament depicts that Jesus and his disciples at the Passover "early" as the lambs would not be separated out and sacrificed until the next day. So we find Jesus and the disciples eating the Passover without a lamb the night before the sacrifice of the Temple lambs. So we find Jesus and the disciples eating the Passover with unleavened bread and bitter herbs. As you most likely now the Passover as we have been taught was instituted as a perpetual memorial of the night that the Lord passed over the houses of the Children of Israel in Egypt and delivered them from slavery. But this is but one small of the story as we find that before the historical Exodus that God and His Gentile children were observing the day of what would later be called "the Passover"!
Answer for yourself: Were you aware that Abraham, a "non-Jew", kept the Passover long before Moses and Mt. Sinai? This only goes to show you that the Passover is an Astronomical event and observed by "non-Jews" long before there were "Jews".
Whatwe fail to realize is that the Passover was a special "appointed time of God with man" which was an "earthly" type or representation of man's salvation which foreshadowed the larger spiritual salvation of God which extends beyond our physical death. More on that later but let us begin with what we are familiar with; namely, the admonition to observe and keep the Passover "forever" which was given to a mixed multitude of Jews and Gentiles as found in the Hebrew Scriptures.
EXODUS 12:14 And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever.
Ample historical evidence proves that for many centuries a large number of Christian churches who followed "the Christ" kept "the Lord's Supper" on the date of Passover.
Answer for yourself: Just what was this "Lord's Supper" we read about in the history books? Was it like our Christian communion today or possibly could this be a term for "the Passover" and we not recognize it today due to our church tradition and poor teaching?
Some of those who observed the Passover in the early Christian centuries were the seven churches mentioned in the Revelation. Soon after all the twelve disciples died, some churches including the church in Rome began to keep the Sunday after passover as their day on which the Lord's Supper should be held each year. This came into being because it was the habit in those churches to fast before the Passover. It did not seem appropriate that they should end their fast on the anniversary of the eve of Christ's death as did the other churches. Some chose rather to hold the feast on Sunday which they believed to be more suited to the breaking of the fast. But Jesus did not command us to fast before the Passover. The New Testament makes it plain that Jesus commanded us to commemorate his death & not his resurrection.
Answer for yourself: What does this mean to me today? Simply therefore that the Church of Rome was in error in changing the day of observance of "the Lord's Supper" to the Sunday after the Passover instead of on the 14th of Nisan (which is the Passover).
Let us remember Saul who, rather than fully obey the Lord's command, spared the best of the Amalekite's livestock to offer as a sacrifice to the Lord. Good intentions? Maybe but it cost him his throne. God said to him, "For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. Because thou hast rejected the word of the LORD, he hath also rejected thee from being king." 1 Samuel 15:23.
Answer for yourself: Did all the Gentile followers of Jesus and "the Christ" obey Rome and stopped observing the Passover and changed their worship to the Sunday after the Passover? Not on your life! Those churches who kept Passover on the 14th of Nisan (Quartodecimani as they were known) were, over time, finally forced to comply with the practice of the church of Rome by the decree of the Council of Nicea 325 and by the authority of a letter written by the Roman Emperor Constantine.
Thus what the New Testament terms "The Lord's Supper" was thus removed from it's Old Testament origins. This was the deliberate intention of the Emperor Constantine who detested every association with the Jews. In a letter to the churches Constantine wrote, "Concerning the most holy day of Passover, it was decreed by common consent to be expedient, that this festival should be celebrated on the same day by all,......... Let us then have nothing to in common with the most hostile rabble of the Jews." In the Britain during the 8th century, the name "Easter" was adopted for the paschal season and its link with Passover was further obscured. "Eostur" was the heathen festival of the goddess of spring which was traditionally celebrated at this time.
And so Easter came into being with all its pagan trappings. Eggs, Rabbits, Easter buns etc., are all derived from spring festivals and the worship of heathen deities. Refer to any good encyclopedia and study for yourself the pagan origins of Easter festivities.
Answer for yourself: Is this the way that God has commanded that we worship Him on His "appointed times" and "holy days"?
Ezek 11:12 12 And ye shall know that I am the LORD: for ye have not walked in my statutes, neither executed my judgments, but have done after the manners of the heathen that are round about you. (KJV)
Now give consideration to the view that the Passover was, in the first century and later, being observed annually on the 14th of Nisan by the majority of Gentile Christianity. That would change with Constantine at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. however. Now for a big, big question.
Answer for yourself: Is it just possible that Paul's reference to the Lord's Supper could be a veiled reference tot he Passover? Now understand the importance of such a thought if it can be proved correct. I believe it can upon close examination of what comes next.
Answer for yourself: How many times does Paul mention "the Lord's Supper" in the New Testament? He mentions it only once in I. Cor. 11:20-21:
1 Cor 11:20-21 20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. 21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. (KJV)
This does not tell us much but there is much to see when we put the puzzle all together. Let's see if the only mention of the Lord's Supper by Paul can be connected to the date of the Christian Passover, ie. the 14th Nisan.
We need to begin with Paul's letter to the Corinthian Church. In 1 Cor 16:8 we see that Paul's first letter to the Corinthians was in fact written shortly after the Passover around the time of the Feast of Unleavened Bread. (1 Cor 16:8)
1 Cor 16:8 8 But I will tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost (50 days after Passover) (KJV)
Answer for yourself: Does this timing ("tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost") have anything to do with the Passover? I believe it does and this "timing" certainly accounts for Paul's use of Passover imagery in Corinthians 5:7-8,
1 Cor 5:7-8 7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: 8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. (KJV)
Answer for yourself: Did you notice Paul's repeated reference to "leaven" and "unleavened bread" in the above verse? Do you find it rather strange that Paul would be using Jewish symbols in his writings to Gentiles in Asia, Minor, unless they also were familiar with such symbols, symbols connected to the Passover no less?
Notice also Paul's reference to the exodus from Egypt in I Cor. 10:1-10,
1 Cor 10:1-10 1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; 2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; 3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat; 4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ. 5 But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness. 6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. 7 Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. 8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand. 9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents. 10 Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer. (KJV)
Notice also that Paul makes a connection between the sacrament and the altar sacrifices in 10:16-22.
1 Cor 10:16-22 16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? 17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread. 18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar? 19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? 20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. 21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. 22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he? (KJV)
It would also account for Paul's timely concern about the flippant manner in which the Lord's Supper was being kept. (1 Cor 11:17-30) which he undoubtedly had knowledge of by recent reports (1 Cor 1:11).
1 Cor 11:17-30 17 Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. 18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. 19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. 20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's supper. 21 For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 22 What? have ye not houses to eat and to drink in? or despise ye the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? shall I praise you in this? I praise you not. 23 For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took bread: 24 And when he had given thanks, he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body, which is broken for you: this do in remembrance of me. 25 After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. 26 For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. 27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. 29 For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. 30 For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. (KJV)
Answer for yourself: Now for the big question. So it is possible that we have misunderstood what Paul meant when mentioning "the Lord's Supper"? Do the multiple veiled references Paul made to the Passover by mentioning "keeping the feast with unleavened bread of sincerity and truth, the mentioning of the night before the Passover sacrifice, the mentioning of the "bread" and the "cup" before the Passover at the dinner, the mentioning of the Exodus and the sacrifice at the altar, and the mentioning of the time period before Pentecost lead us to look and redefine what Paul called "the Lord's Supper" in this same context? Was then Paul referring to the Lords' Supper as a synonym for the Passover? Was "the Lords' Supper" possibly being a veiled reference to the Passover observance? Was Paul's rebuke of the Corinthians about being drunk made because many Gentiles were attending and observing this holy day of Passover drunk?
Many scholars, as well as myself once seeing all this evidence, believe that this only reference to the Lord's Supper in the New Testament, one by Paul, refers to an event which took place on the 14th of Nisan near to or in Corinth which is the Passover Festival! If this is the case then the phrase "come together in one place" 1 Cor 11:20 would refer to the gathering together of several "house churches" of that area to one venue in order to keep the Passover feast. To argue against this and say that coming together simply meant "going to church" denies the evidence presented which casts another light upon the historical meaning of "the Lord's Supper" as used by Paul in this Passover milieu. Surely you cannot believe the coming together "drunk" referred to attending the synagogue on Shabbath mornings but rather an evening congregating for the Passover.
Answer for yourself: So what do we see here? It is evident to any "thinking believer" that Paul, when speaking of what we have traditionally thought was our "Christian Communion" where we partake of grape juice and the "wafer/cracker/host" is not what Paul was speaking about at all; but rather Paul was speaking of the Gentiles partaking of and observing the Passover with the Jews. I have shown you repeatedly on this site that the non-Jew observed the Passover with the Jews in the Old Testament as well as Abraham's example of observing the Passover long before Moses and Mt. Sinai which goes unnoticed by most. We today think the Passover, one of God's Appointed Times with mankind, began first with Moses but historically it did not. The Passover and its significance in God's Salvation plan for mankind and its true meaning has been with man since the beginning of Gods' revelation.
Gen 1:14 14 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: (KJV)
There is a very important word in Genesis 1:14 which is overlooked by almost 2.5 billion Christians today and that word is "seasons". Let us look at this word in the Hebrew:
Strong's Concordance:
4150 mowed` (mo-ade'); or moed` (mo-ade'); or (feminine) mow` adah (2 Chronicles 8:13) (mo-aw-daw'); from 3259; properly, an appointment, i.e. a fixed time or season; specifically, a festival; conventionally a year; by implication, an assembly (as convened for a definite purpose); technically the congregation; by extension, the place of meeting; also a signal (as appointed beforehand): KJV-- appointed (sign, time), (place of, solemn) assembly, congregation, (set, solemn) feast, (appointed, due) season, solemn (-ity), synagogue, (set) time (appointed).
Ok, set down and catch your breath for what you just read has the ability to change your life in less than 5 minutes when the revelation of what you just read hits you in the face. Before there were any Jews or sons of Judah, the son of Jacob from whom the Tribe of Judah and the Jews would emerge later in history, we find God setting aside "fixed times for festivals" whereby mankind (Gentiles) would respond and "congregate with God in a place of meeting for a definite purpose at these special appointed times where man could feast with God"! Now for the deep thinker these "seasons" are connected with the spring equinox, the summer solstice, the autumn equinox and the winter solstice. My studies in Egypt and Egyptian religious beliefs have proved to me beyond any doubt that the Ancient Egyptian monotheists understood God's simple salvation message as taught in these "seasons" and this explains the righteousness of the Egyptian civilization and the existence of the "negative confessions" as a form of their own "Torah". As Christians today and followers of "the Christ" we have lost so much today and miss completely the beauty of God's "appointed times" and settle for "holidays" of Rome's making while the true Biblical Feasts and Festivals which constitute God's true Salvation Message go unnoticed and unobserved by the vast majority of Christians.
But that was not always the case as I will show you now.
Around 80 A.D. a man named Polycarp became a Christian. He was a godly man who served as a bishop of Smyrna. He was well acquainted with the apostle John and with some of the other disciples.
According to Eusebius, Irenaeus (in his third book against the heresies) said of Polycarp, "And Polycarp, a man who had been instructed by the apostles, and had familiar intercourse with many that had seen Christ, and had also been appointed bishop by the apostles in Asia, in the church of Smyrna, whom we have also seen in our youth, for he lived a long time, and to a very advanced age, when, after a glorious and most distinguished martyrdom, he departed this life. He always taught what he had learned from the apostles, what the church had handed down, and what is the only true doctrine. All the churches bear witness to these things, and those that have been the successors of Polycarp, to the present time, a witness of the truth much more worthy of credit, and much more certain than either Valentine or Marcion, or the rest of those perverse teachers. The same Polycarp, coming to Rome under the episcopate of Anicetus, turned many from the aforesaid heretics to the church of God, proclaiming the one and only true faith, that he had received from the Apostles, that, viz.. which was delivered by the church."
Now we have to pay close attention to what is said next. The following passage from Eusebius refers to a discussion that took place between Anicetus the Bishop of Rome and Polycarp on the observance of the Passover during Polycarp's visit to Rome sometime around 160 A.D.
"For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe it, because he had always observed it (Passover) with John the disciple of our Lord, and the rest of the apostles, with whom he associated; and neither did Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe, who said that he was bound to maintain the practice of the presbyters before him."
Sixtus, the sixth bishop of Rome is cited by Eusebius ("Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History" Chapter 24) as being the earliest of the bishops of Rome who did not keep Passover in its Christian context. The bishops of Rome were however, at peace with those in Rome and nearby who did, and maintained the practice of sending out portions of bread to be used in the Lord's Supper by those who kept Passover at this time.
The adoption of the celebration of "Easter Sunday," as we now know it, was the source of considerable contention when it was implemented in the second century AD. Advocating the celebration of the Sunday following the Passover (Easter) were Bishops Anticetus (ca. AD 154) and Victor (AD 189-199) of Rome. Trying to preserve the traditional Passover date of Nisan 14 (called the "Quartodeciman Passover") were Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus and representative of the Asian churches, and Polycarp, close friend of the Apostle John before his death.
The motivation for changing the day of celebration was a strong anti-Jewish sentiment brewing in the Roman Empire, especially in Rome itself. This powerful animosity toward anything Jewish strongly moved Christians to sever their ties with traditional Jewish customs in order to demonstrate to the Roman Empire their detachment from their Jewish roots. Something as simple as changing a day of celebration would have a profound impact of proving the division of the two sects.
According to Eusebius, Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon (from ca. A.D. 176), acted as mediator in the conflict between Victor and Polycrates. We find the probable time for the origin of Easter celebrations in a letter from Irenaeus to Victor. In this letter Irenaeus suggests that Bishop Sixtus (ca. AD 116-126) was the first Easter celebrant in Rome at about the time A.D. 116. This is not the only evidence to suggest this time frame as the probable start of Roman Easter celebrations. Bishop Sixtus was Bishop in Rome during the time of Emperor Hadrian (AD 117-138) who adopted a policy of radical anti-Jewish measures. Jewish rites and customs were banned throughout the Empire, which was strong encouragement for Christians to select alternate rites and customs of their own, which would parallel but not duplicate the Jewish originals. Also, it was exactly in this time frame when the Judeo-Christian leadership, with many of the members, were expelled from Jerusalem and replaced with a Gentile clique. This becomes significant in light of Epiphanius' statement that it was then that the Easter controversy arose: "the controversy arose after the time of the exodus (ca. AD 135) of the bishops of the circumcision and it has continued until our time." Epiphanius, Adversus Haereses 70,9 PG 42, 355-356.
If, as Epiphanius implies, the controversy was provoked by the iintroduction after AD 135 of the new Easter Sunday celebration, which a significant number of Passover-keeping Christians rejected, then Sixtus could well have been the main initiator of the new custom, since he was Bishop of Rome. Irenaeus suggests that Easter originated in Rome under Bishop Sixtus, while Epiphanius implies that Easter originated in Jerusalem under the replacement Greek cadre. Both compliment each other and occur at approximately the same time. It seems hard to believe that a replacement band of Gentiles, positioned in Jerusalem due to repressive measures taken by a Gentile emperor, could have had the effect of changing the custom of primarily Jewish Christians. However, if that were coupled--at the same time--with a Christian bishop in the most influential diocese, suggesting this measure to avoid "Judaizing," the effect could be penetrating.
Since it is impossible to determine exactly when the custom of Easter celebrations gained a solid foothold in Christianity, for the purposes of this website we will accept the date of about AD 135 as the introduction of the Easter celebration into Christianity. This is significant only because the changing of a custom takes time, and until a large number of Christians were keeping Easter instead of Passover there would have been no cause for controversy. We do know that by AD 189, however, open altercation was apparent in the Christian world. The dispute between those wishing to maintain the Quartodeciman Passover and those hoping to propel the Church toward Easter instead was centered in Rome.
In about AD 154, Polycarp went to Rome trying to dissuade Anticetus from keeping the pagan, Sunday, Easter festival and persuade him to return to seventh day Sabbath keeping. However, he failed in his efforts and returned home with sad reports for the Eastern churches.
Around 180 A.D. Victor, Bishop of Rome, attempted by threats of excommunication to force the churches in Asia not to observe the passover on the 14th Nisan but to conform to the Roman practice of celebrating "passover" on the first Sunday after the true passover (we call that Easter Sunday today).
We can see the importance of the Roman Church in this matter by seeing part of a letter written in about AD 196 by Polycrates to Bishop Victor of Rome: "I could mention the bishops who are present, whom you required me to summon and I did so." (Eusebius, HE 5, 24, 8.) It is most revealing to see how Polycrates obeyed the order of Victor, despite the fact that they were in violent opposition on the very subject about which the council was required. However, ultimately, Polycrates, in company with many churches including the Eastern churches of Asia, refused to bow to the desire of Victor, preferring instead to continue the Passover celebration of the Bible.
Finally, Bishop Victor of Rome sent out letters threatening to excommunicate those churches refusing to follow his mandate, namely, to keep Easter instead of the Passover. This new tool, excommunication, had the desired effect, and many vacillating Christians began observing Easter instead of the Jewish Passover. Nevertheless, Victor finally did excommunicate the entire Asian block of churches because of their refusal to keep Easter.
In his answer to Victor after deliberation by a forum of the bishops of Asia, (these included the well known churches of the Revelation) Polycrates makes mention of the example of many of noted saints and original disciples of Christ. He is quoted as saying, "For there were seven, my relatives bishops, and I am the eighth; and my relatives always observed the day when the people threw away the leaven. I, therefore, brethren, am now sixty five years in the Lord, who having conferred with the brethren throughout the world, and having studied the whole of the sacred Scriptures, am not at all alarmed at those things which I am threatened, to intimidate me. For they who are greater than I, have said, 'we ought to obey God rather than men'". Victor then proceeded to take action against all the bishops represented by Polycrates calling them heretics and publishing letters of excommunication. However many churches were sympathetic to the Asian churches' cause and made strong protests to Victor. The conversation between Anicetus and Polycarp (mentioned above) was quoted by Irenaeus in the defence of the Asian churches led by Polycrates. Victor was powerless to enforce his excommunication order.
Understanding the origins of the annual Easter feast, we can now move on to see the connection between Easter and weekly Sunday-keeping (Easter-Sunday).
In numerous patristic testimonies the weekly Sunday and the annual Easter Sunday are treated as basically the same feast, commemorating the same event of the resurrection. Origen explicitly unites the two: "The resurrection of the Lord is celebrated not only once a year but constantly every eight days." Origen, Homilia In Isaiam 5,2, GCS 8,265,1. Eusebius similarly states: "While the Jews faithful to Moses, sacrificed the Passover lamb once a year... we men of the New Covenant celebrate every Sunday our Passover." (Eusebius, De Solemnitate Paschali 7,12, PG 24, 701A.) Pope Innocent I, in a letter to Bishop Decentius of Gubbio, confirms the unity existing between the two feasts: "We celebrate Sunday because of the venerable resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, not only at Easter but in actuality by the single weekly cycle." (Innocent I, Epistolae Paschales, PG 26, 1389.) Today, Italians still refer to Sunday as "PASQUETTA, "which means "little Easter."
Because there is such a clear connection between the pagan Easter festival and weekly Sunday-keeping, it is well to understand the driving force behind the change from Passover to Easter because there we hope to find the motivation for the change from widespread Sabbath-keeping to widespread Sunday-keeping.
Remember that the primary motivating factor in the change from the Passover to Easter was anti-Judaism. The desire to avoid "Judaizing" was intense and essentially overwhelming in the early centuries. So, we can look to this same motivation in connection with Sunday-keeping.
The controversy was still current at the time of Constantine, Emperor of Rome, in the fourth century. When Constantine called his first "World Council of Churches" in Nicea 312 A.D., the date of the passover was second place on the agenda of issues to deal with. However, discussion centered around the date of the celebration of the resurrection of Christ. The church of Rome and those under its influence celebrated the resurrection on the Sunday following Passover. The Quartodecimani, as they were called, commemorated the death of Christ on its anniversary. Constantine ruled against the observance of Passover on the 14th of Nisan, neither by consensus, nor by the power of the Holy Spirit, but because of the shame of its association with the Jews. (Read Constantine's letter to the churches. Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History)
Constantine was in error on two accounts.
That being the case the last nails in the coffin that buried the Gentiles observing the Passover as well as the Sabbath were driven into the casket by Constantine's antisemitism. The anti-Judaic motivation for the repudiation of the Jewish Passover could not be more strongly expressed that in the Nicene conciliar letter of Constantine:
"It appeared an unworthy thing that in the celebration of this most holy feast we should follow the practice of the Jews, who have impiously defiled their hands with enormous sin, and are, therefore, deservedly afflicted with blindness of soul. Let us then have nothing in common with the detestable Jewish crowd: for we have received from our Saviour a different way. . . Strive and pray continually that the purity of your souls may not seem in anything to be sullied by fellowship with the customs of these most wicked men (the Jews). . . All should unite in desiring that which sound reason appears to demand, and in avoiding all participation in the perjured conduct of the Jews." (Eusebius, LIFE OF CONSTANTINE 3,18-19, NPNF 2nd, I, pp. 524-525.)
The adoption of the celebration of "Easter Sunday," as we now know it, was the source of considerable contention when it was implemented in the second century AD. Advocating the celebration of the Sunday following the Passover (Easter) were Bishops Anticetus (ca. AD 154) and Victor (AD 189-199) of Rome. As we saw above trying to preserve the traditional Passover date of Nisan 14 (called the "Quartodeciman Passover") were Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus and representative of the Asian churches, and Polycarp, close friend of the Apostle John before his death. The motivation for changing the day of celebration was a strong anti-Jewish sentiment brewing in the Roman Empire, especially in Rome itself. This powerful animosity toward anything Jewish strongly moved Christians to sever their ties with traditional Jewish customs in order to demonstrate to the Roman Empire their detachment from their Jewish roots. Something as simple as changing a day of celebration would have a profound impact of proving the division of the two sects. According to Eusebius, Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon (from ca. A.D. 176), acted as mediator in the conflict between Victor and Polycrates. We find the probable time for the origin of Easter celebrations in a letter from Irenaeus to Victor. In this letter Irenaeus suggests that Bishop Sixtus (ca. AD 116-126) was the first Easter celebrant in Rome at about the time A.D. 116. This is not the only evidence to suggest this time frame as the probable start of Roman Easter celebrations. Bishop Sixtus was Bishop in Rome during the time of Emperor Hadrian (AD 117-138) who adopted a policy of radical anti-Jewish measures. Jewish rites and customs were banned throughout the Empire, which was strong encouragement for Christians to select alternate rites and customs of their own, which would parallel but not duplicate the Jewish originals. Also, it was exactly in this time frame when the Judeo-Christian leadership, with many of the members, were expelled from Jerusalem and replaced with a Gentile clique. This becomes significant in light of Epiphanius' statement that it was then that the Easter controversy arose: "the controversy arose after the time of the exodus (ca. AD 135) of the bishops of the circumcision and it has continued until our time." Epiphanius, Adversus Haereses 70,9 PG 42, 355-356. If, as Epiphanius implies, the controversy was provoked by the introduction after AD 135 of the new Easter Sunday celebration, which a significant number of Passover-keeping Christians rejected, then Sixtus could well have been the main initiator of the new custom, since he was Bishop of Rome. Irenaeus suggests that Easter originated in Rome under Bishop Sixtus, while Epiphanius implies that Easter originated in Jerusalem under the replacement Greek cadre. Both compliment each other and occur at approximately the same time. It seems hard to believe that a replacement band of Gentiles, positioned in Jerusalem due to repressive measures taken by a Gentile emperor, could have had the effect of changing the custom of primarily Jewish Christians. However, if that were coupled--at the same time--with a Christian bishop in the most influential diocese, suggesting this measure to avoid "Judaizing," the effect could be penetrating. Since it is impossible to determine exactly when the custom of Easter celebrations gained a solid foothold in Christianity, for the purposes of this article we will accept the date of about AD 135 as the introduction of the Easter celebration into Christianity. This is significant only because the changing of a custom takes time, and until a large number of Christians were keeping Easter instead of Passover there would have been no cause for controversy. We do know that by AD 189, however, open altercation was apparent in the Christian world. The dispute between those wishing to maintain the Quartodeciman Passover and those hoping to propel the Church toward Easter instead was centered in Rome. In about AD 154, Polycarp went to Rome trying to dissuade Anticetus from keeping the pagan, Sunday, Easter festival and persuade him to return to seventh day Sabbath keeping. However, he failed in his efforts and returned home with sad reports for the Eastern churches.
At the point the change was taking place, it is clear that an intense desire to avoid association with the hated Jews was the prime mover. The move from Passover to Easter--and from Sabbath to Sunday--was reactionary first, with the theological rationalizations following later. Although many theological arguments were presented during the change, they were constantly evolving in type and in importance. Settled and accepted theological rationalizations followed the reactionary change from Sabbath-observance to Sunday-observance. Even today, Sunday-keepers rationalize their belief in many ways. There is no single clear-cut argument that "proves" that Sunday-keeping is God's will. This theological uncertainty is a product of the centuries of evolving theological rationale for a change that was primarily reactionary in nature.
The contention that arose then was the same contention that always plagues God's people: pragmatism vs. principle. Some in the church always wish to take a reactionary course--leaving "principle" to be rationalized later. These people will always find adversaries in those who would put principle first and decide a course based upon it. So it was with the rise of Sunday-observance. Men in power, wishing to avoid conflict and persecution, chose a pagan day because it made the most pragmatic sense to them, given the sentiment of the day. Many resisted, based upon principle, the principle of God's word. Yet some were threatened into submission. It became a common practice to keep both Sabbath and Sunday in order to placate both the authorities and one's own conscience. In fact, Sozomen, a church historian of the fifth century, tells us that many "were assembling together on the Sabbath as well as on the first day of the week, which custom is never observed at Rome or at Alexandria." (Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, book 7, chapter 19, in A Library of Nicene And Post-Nicene Fathers, second series, vol. 2.)
It is very significant to realize that most Christians still kept the Sabbath even as late as the fifth century AD Socrates tells us: "Although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the Sabbath every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and at Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this." (Socrates, Ecclesiastical History, book 5, chapter 22.) It is astounding to read that, although the Christians in Alexandria and Rome had ceased Sabbath-keeping, most of the Christian community around the world was still keeping Sabbath as late as the date of this writing (about AD 439). Of course, we now know that the "ancient tradition" written about was the reactionary change (primarily in Rome) resulting from the conflicts in the second century.
The change from Sabbath to Sunday paralleled the change from Passover to Easter and seems to have happened at approximately the same time, and for the same reason. There is no doubt that the growing acceptance of Easter in place of the Passover greatly contributed to the acceptance of Sunday-observance in place of Sabbath-observance. It is clear that the motivation for both was the same and that the ultimate theological rationalization for both was the same (celebration in honor of the resurrection). It is probable that if the Passover could not have been changed to Easter, then the Sabbath could not have been changed to Sunday, as the former was certainly the easier of the two to implement. Once it was acceptable to consider detachment from Jewish rites because of severe external pressure, anything Jewish came under attack. Thus, the Sabbath fell into disrepute because of its "Jewish" origins, and Victor's new weapon, excommunication, persuaded many.
Even so, we find that the majority of Christians, those outside Rome and Alexandria, resisted these heretical and unprincipled changes. This is well summarized by Lyman Coleman, in his book, Ancient Christianity Exemplified, chapter 26, sec. 2, p. 527: "Down even to the fifth century the observance of the Jewish Sabbath was continued in the Christian church, but with a rigor and solemnity gradually diminishing until it was wholly discontinued."
The adoption of the Easter celebration paved the way for a widespread modification of Christian practices and rites. Yet these changes did not find their way throughout the Christian Church until well into the fifth century. Thus, Sunday-keepers would do well to recognize the true origins of their practice, since history clearly shows that the practice of Sunday-keeping does not originate in the Scripture, in any command of Christ, in any change initiated by any Apostle, or even in the practice of the vast majority of Christians prior to the fifth century. Instead, the practice of Christian Sunday-keeping traces its origin in the timid and compromising fear of pagan/Roman persecution found primarily in the antisemitism of the Roman church.
Answer for yourself: Well there you have the facts of history that few every find out. Now that you know will you in the Spirit of Truth re-examine why you observe Easter and Sunday when the "Pattern Of Worship" given the non-Jew before as well as after the times of Jesus included one's observence and worship of God in the Passover as well as the Sabbath?