Jump to content
Online Baptist Community
  • Newest Sermon Entry

    • By Jim_Alaska in Jim_Alaska's Sermons & Devotionals
         14
      Closed Communion
      James Foley
       
      I Corinthians 11:17-34: "Now in this that I declare unto you I praise you not, that ye come together not for the better, but for the worse. For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and another is drunken. 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. 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: 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. 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. For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death till he come. 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. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord, that we should not be condemned with the world. Wherefore, my brethren, when ye come together to eat, tarry one for another. And if any man hunger, let him eat at home; that ye come not together unto condemnation. And the rest will I set in order when I come."

      INTRODUCTION

      Historic Baptists, true Baptists, have believed in and still believe in closed communion. Baptists impose upon themselves the same restrictions that they impose on others concerning the Lord’s Supper. Baptists have always insisted that it is the Lord’s Table, not theirs; and He alone has the right to say who shall sit at His table. No amount of so called brotherly love, or ecumenical spirit, should cause us to invite to His table those who have not complied with the requirements laid down plainly in His inspired Word. With respect to Bible doctrines we must always use the scripture as our guide and practice. For Baptists, two of the most important doctrines are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper. These are the only two doctrines we recognize as Church Ordinances. The Bible is very clear in teaching how these doctrines are to be practiced and by whom.

      We only have two ordinances that we must never compromise or we risk our very existence, they are Baptism and The Lord’s Supper.

      The moment we deviate from the precise method God has prescribed we have started down the slippery slope of error. True Baptists have held fast to the original doctrine of The Lord’s Supper from the time of Christ and the Apostles.

      Unfortunately, in this day of what the Bible describes as the age of luke warmness, Baptists are becoming careless in regard to strictly following the pattern laid out for us in Scripture. Many of our Bible colleges are graduating otherwise sincere, Godly and dedicated pastors and teachers who have not been taught the very strict, biblical requirements that surround the Lord’s Supper. Any Bible college that neglects to teach its students the differences surrounding Closed Communion, Close Communion and Open Communion is not simply short changing its students; it is also not equipping their students to carry on sound Bible traditions. The result is men of God and churches that fall into error. And as we will see, this is serious error.

      Should we as Baptists ignore the restrictions made by our Lord and Master? NO! When we hold to the restrictions placed upon the Lord’s Supper by our Master, we are defending the "faith which was once delivered to the saints" Jude 3.

      The Lord’s Supper is rigidly restricted and I will show this in the following facts:

      IT IS RESTRICTED AS TO PLACE

      A. I Corinthians 11:18 says, "When ye come together in the church." This does not mean the church building; they had none. In other words, when the church assembles. The supper is to be observed by the church, in church capacity. Again this does not mean the church house. Ekklesia, the Greek word for church, means assembly. "When ye come together in the church," is when the church assembles.

      B. When we say church we mean an assembly of properly baptized believers. Acts 2:41-42: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."

      The church is made up of saved people who are baptized by immersion. In the Bible, belief precedes baptism. That’s the Bible way.

      Acts 8:12-13, "But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women. Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done."

      When we say properly baptized, we mean immersed. No unbeliever should take the Lord’s supper, and no non-immersed believer should take the supper. Those who are sprinkled are not baptized and cannot receive the supper. The Greek word for baptize is baptizo, and it always means to immerse.

      "In every case where communion is referred to, or where it may possibly have been administered, the believers had been baptized Acts 2:42; 8:12; 8:38; 10:47; 6:14-15; 18:8; 20:7. Baptism comes before communion, just as repentance and faith precede baptism".

      C. The Lord’s Supper is for baptized believers in church capacity: "When ye come together in the church," again not a building, but the assembly of the properly baptized believers.

      D. The fact that the Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, to be observed in church capacity, is pointed out by the fact that it is for those who have been immersed and added to the fellowship of the church.

      E. The Lord’s Supper is never spoken of in connection with individuals. When it is referred to, it is only referred to in reference to baptized believers in local church capacity I Cor. 11:20-26).

      I want to quote Dr. W.W. Hamilton,

      "The individual administration of the ordinance has no Bible warrant and is a relic of Romanism. The Lord’s Supper is a church ordinance, and anything which goes beyond or comes short of this fails for want of scriptural example or command".

      “The practice of taking a little communion kit to hospitals, nursing homes, etc. is unscriptural and does not follow the scriptural example.”

      IT IS RESTRICTED TO A UNITED CHURCH

      A. The Bible in I Cor. 11:18 is very strong in condemning divisions around the Lord’s table. 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.

      There were no less than four divisions in the Corinthian church.
      I Cor. 1:12: "Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."

      Because of these divisions, it was impossible for them to scripturally eat the Lord’s Supper. Division in the local church is reason to hold off observing the Lord’s Supper. But there are also other reasons to forego taking the Lord’s Supper. If there is gross sin in the membership we do not take it. Here is scriptural evidence for this: 1Co 5:7 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. 9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:
      10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. 11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

      B. At this point, I want to ask these questions: Are there not doctrinal divisions among the many denominations? Is it not our doctrinal differences that cause us to be separate religious bodies?

      IT IS RESTRICTED BY DOCTRINE

      A. Those in the early church at Jerusalem who partook "continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine" Acts 2:42. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.

      B. Those that do not hold to apostolic truth are not to partake. This means there is to be discipline in the local body. How can you discipline those who do not belong to the local body? You can’t. The clear command of scripture is to withdraw fellowship from those who are not doctrinally sound.

      II Thes 3:6: "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."
      Rom. 16:17: "Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them."
      To commune together means to have the same doctrine.
      II Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."
      II John 10-11: "If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds."

      C. Some Baptists in our day have watered down this doctrine by practicing what they call “Close Communion.” By this they mean that they believe that members of another Baptist church may take communion with us because they are of the same beliefs. Once again, this is unscriptural.

      The welcome to the Lord's Table should not be extended beyond the discipline of the local church. When we take the Lord’s Supper there is supposed to be no gross sin among us and no divisions among us. We have no idea of the spiritual condition of another church’s members. If there is sin or division in the case of this other church’s members, we have no way of knowing it. We cannot discipline them because they are not members of our church. This is why we practice “Closed” communion, meaning it is restricted solely to our church membership. 
      So then, in closing I would like to reiterate the three different ideas concerning the Lord’s Supper and who is to take it. 
      Closed Communion = Only members of a single local church. 
      Close Communion = Members of like faith and order may partake. 
      Open Communion = If you claim to be a Christian, or simply attending the service, you may partake. 
      It is no small thing to attempt to change that which was implemented by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 
      Mt. 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. 
      Many of our Baptist churches have a real need to consider the gravity of the act of observing The Lord’s Supper. It is not a light thing that is to be taken casually or without regard to the spiritual condition of ourselves or our church.
      1Co. 11:27 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.

Holy week


Recommended Posts

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Over the years, before I started posting here, there was another site(an SBC site), where I would post and find a lot of trouble, because of my views on the KJB.  Every year I would post a thread something like this and would be attacked from every corner of the site.  I am not allowed on that site any longer, so here is this years observation.
(This is an edited copy of one of my posts to that site.)
--------------------------------------------------
I have spoken up against “holy week” observances, as a purely “superstitious” practice, disguised as a religious practice in the past and have been amazed at how many of the “Christians” here, come out of the woodwork to jump down my throat for such sacrilege.

Well the “lenten season” has come around again, but this year I have a new observation to  add.  The observation is, that almost 99% of these people who will come out in favor of the unbiblical recognition of “good Friday”, are also KJB haters.

Now this has never surprised me, because of the fact that a love of the KJB is usually an indication of a love for the DETAILS of what God’s Word has to say.  And any honest detailed look at the Scriptures will point out how truly unbiblical this whole idea of holy week is.

But the new realization that I am adding this year is the fact that these same people who Hate the KJB, will be quick to point out the “so-called mistake”, 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.”
------------------------
Now for sure, the word “Easter” here, is translated from the same GK word that means “Passover” and people are quick to jump on this as a reason not to read the KJB.
While in the same breath, lifting Easter up as the star in the holy week’s crown.
(You either love Easter or you hate Easter, make up your mind.)

Now as I have said before; Although I do recognize Easter as a special day, I also celebrate easter every Lord’s day.  And also I don’t see this translation in Acts 12:4, as the big mistake that others do, for 2 reasons.

➀ First, we aren’t Jews; We are Christians.  And the man that had been put into prison in Acts 12, was a Christian who was being persecuted for his faith.  Also the vast majority of those who will be reading the English Bible, will be Gentiles,  Therefore it seems perfectly natural to set the precedent here, in that regard.

➁ Also, almost 100 years before the KJB used the word Easter in this verse, it had been used in Tyndale’s Bible.  And a little over 200 years before the KJB, the Wycliffe Bible(the first English Bible), also used this word in Acts 12.
------------------------
I remember someone from that other site, telling me in years past that.... “Any Church that didn’t celebrate good Friday, needed to repent”.

And as usual I am saying, that “Any Church that celebrates good Friday or any of those other Catholic holy week observances, needs a new pastor”.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

 

Are you aware of the historical evidence from the 1600's that indicates that the majority of the KJV translators may not have been responsible for the rendering “Easter” at Acts 12:4?   Instead the KJV translators likely supported the Geneva Bible’s rendering “Passover.”  Just as the KJV translators changed the Bishops’ Bible’s two other uses of “Easter” at John 11:55 to “Passover,” they may have also changed this third use at Acts 12:4. 

 

In his 1600's book about a Baptist pastor, Edward Whiston indicated that a great prelate, the chief supervisor of the KJV, inserted “Easter” back into the text of the KJV at this verse as one of the 14 changes he was said to have made (Life and Death of Henry Jessey, p. 49).  In his 1648 sermon entitled “Truth and Love,“ Thomas Hill also noted that Acts 12:4 “was another place that was altered (as you have heard) to keep up that holy time of Easter, as they would think it” (Six Sermons, p. 25). 

 

In his 1727 book, John Currie maintained that at “Acts 12:4 in which place we have Easter, whereas it is the Passover according to the Original, this might be to favor their holy time of Easter, or an Easter communion” (Jus Populi Divinum, p. 38).  

 

Does this historical evidence from the 1600's possibly suggest that this rendering at Acts 12:4 was inserted by a prelate or prelates for the purpose of keeping up the Church of England’s celebration of the holy time of Easter?

 

     At Acts 12:4, an edition of the KJV printed at London in 1660 has this marginal note:  “Gr. The Passover.“  Later, the 1853 American Bible Society’s edition of the KJV has a similar note:  “Greek the Passover.”  Peter Ruckman claimed that the KJV translators themselves “put the accepted meaning [Passover] in the margin,” but this marginal note is not found in the 1611 edition (Differences in KJV Editions, p. 18).  

     In their 1818 Oxford edition of the KJV, George D’Oyly and Richard Mant have this note for “Easter” at Acts 12:4:  “’After the passover,‘ that is, after the days of unleavened bread, mentioned at verse 3” (Vol. 3).

    There is clear historical evidence that the makers of the KJV were willing to use the term Easter to refer to the Jewish Passover.  In a sermon preached on Easter in 1608, KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes stated:  “Origen in his seventh upon Exodus, he saith, our Easter-day far passeth the Jewish Easter” (Chapman, Before the King’s, p. 40).  In this sermon, Andrewes clearly used the term Easter for the Passover.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Does not common sense tell us that all of men's historical records are uninspired, flawed and are written in the light of their own personal agendas. Religious history worst of all. If not bad enough and as cultural norms change, the revisionists come along and change that "clear" historical evidence even more to aid their most recent agendas. In these last days, they don't even wait, they present fake news the day of as authoritative. Put no stock in it apart from anecdotal or trivial information even then swallowed with a grain of salt.

Easter is the word God wanted and that is the only reason it appears.

The KJB is pure. Men's writing about it or about the translators of it will never be pure and at best agenda-driven speculation.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
7 hours ago, Tyndale said:

 

Are you aware of the historical evidence from the 1600's that indicates that the majority of the KJV translators may not have been responsible for the rendering “Easter” at Acts 12:4 Instead the KJV translators likely supported the Geneva Bible’s rendering “Passover.”  Just as the KJV translators changed the Bishops’ Bible’s two other uses of “Easter” at John 11:55 to “Passover,” they may have also changed this third use at Acts 12:4. 

 

In his 1600's book about a Baptist pastor, Edward Whiston indicated that a great prelate, the chief supervisor of the KJV, inserted “Easter” back into the text of the KJV at this verse as one of the 14 changes he was said to have made (Life and Death of Henry Jessey, p. 49).  In his 1648 sermon entitled “Truth and Love,“ Thomas Hill also noted that Acts 12:4 “was another place that was altered (as you have heard) to keep up that holy time of Easter, as they would think it” (Six Sermons, p. 25). 

 

In his 1727 book, John Currie maintained that at “Acts 12:4 in which place we have Easter, whereas it is the Passover according to the Original, this might be to favor their holy time of Easter, or an Easter communion” (Jus Populi Divinum, p. 38).  

 

Does this historical evidence from the 1600's possibly suggest that this rendering at Acts 12:4 was inserted by a prelate or prelates for the purpose of keeping up the Church of England’s celebration of the holy time of Easter?

 

     At Acts 12:4, an edition of the KJV printed at London in 1660 has this marginal note:  “Gr. The Passover.“  Later, the 1853 American Bible Society’s edition of the KJV has a similar note:  “Greek the Passover.”  Peter Ruckman claimed that the KJV translators themselves “put the accepted meaning [Passover] in the margin,” but this marginal note is not found in the 1611 edition (Differences in KJV Editions, p. 18).  

     In their 1818 Oxford edition of the KJV, George D’Oyly and Richard Mant have this note for “Easter” at Acts 12:4:  “’After the passover,‘ that is, after the days of unleavened bread, mentioned at verse 3” (Vol. 3).

    There is clear historical evidence that the makers of the KJV were willing to use the term Easter to refer to the Jewish Passover.  In a sermon preached on Easter in 1608, KJV translator Lancelot Andrewes stated:  “Origen in his seventh upon Exodus, he saith, our Easter-day far passeth the Jewish Easter” (Chapman, Before the King’s, p. 40).  In this sermon, Andrewes clearly used the term Easter for the Passover.

 

 

It appears here as though you are saying the KJV has an error, in that it includes the word Easter, where you think it should be Passover.

Is this what you are saying in this post?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Now about that time Herod the king stretched forth his hands to vex certain of the church. And he killed James the brother of John with the sword. And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.)

There is a lot of Bible that says unleavened bread is part of Passover should it be ignored? 

So what was the word in Greek. Pasha the only word used for Passover. Now the Catholics changed the meaning of Pasha to Easter. That happened much later in history, hundreds of years after the Apostles was dead. So its easy to understand this is Passover. Jews, Herod, unleavened bread, killing Jesus' Apostles all point to Passover. 

In the context of the verses what points to Catholics and Easter? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On ‎4‎/‎10‎/‎2017 at 8:38 PM, DaveW said:

It appears here as though you are saying the KJV has an error, in that it includes the word Easter, where you think it should be Passover.

Is this what you are saying in this post?

My post or I did not say that the KJV has an error at Acts 12:4 when it included the word Easter.  I provided some historical information that relates to this verse.  I did quote where one of the KJV translators in a sermon in 1608 [which was during the time when the KJV was being made] used the word "Easter" for the Jewish Passover or what he termed the Jewish Easter.  It is a fact that several of the pre-1611 English Bibles sometimes used the word Easter to refer to the Jewish Passover.  The 1535 Coverdale's Bible even used the word Easter in the Old Testament for the Jewish Passover.  For example, the 1535 Coverdale's Bible has Easter at Ezekiel 45:21, and it also has Easter at Luke 22:1.  At Luke 22:1, the KJV itself shows that the word Passover can be used for the feast of unleavened bread.

Luke 22:1

Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.

I have seen and read where different KJV defenders have given as many as three different, conflicting explanations for the KJV's use of "Easter" at Acts 12:4.  Some claim that the KJV's use of Easter is not wrong because the word Easter could be used to refer to the Jewish Passover in the time of the making of the KJV.   Some claim that the KJV's use of Easter is not wrong because it was used to refer to some pagan feast or festival.  Others claim that the KJV's use of Easter is not wrong because it was used to refer to the Christian Easter.

Which of these three explanations is the actual meaning intended by the one or ones who put this word Easter in the KJV?  Can all three of these explanations be correct or would at least two of them have to be incorrect? 

An English word can be used with different meanings in different contexts.   In two different statements in different contexts, the same English word can have different meanings.

In one particular statement, an English word can only be properly used with one meaning or sense.   For example, in one use at one time in a certain statement, an English word can not be used properly to mean at the same time two conflicting or contradictory things.   Would you agree that it would be true to say that the KJV's use of "Easter" at Acts 12:4 cannot mean the Jewish Passover and not the Jewish Passover at the same time?  Would it be true to say that the KJV's use of Easter cannot mean at the same time a pagan feast and not a pagan feast?  Would it be true to say that the KJV's use of Easter cannot mean at the same time a Christian observance and not a Christian observance?   Which of the three explanations is the one that you think is correct?  Would it be possible that two of KJV defenders' own explanations for Easter at Acts 12:4 would in effect be making the KJV's use incorrect?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
2 hours ago, Tyndale said:

In one particular statement, an English word can only be properly used with one meaning or sense.

I agree with your statement, but there is room for error depending on the statement (at the time) and without context to qualify the statement...perhaps that's what you were saying? For example, without further context, observation, or situational clues...what is the speaker referring to?

I want a new deck.

(Is he referring to a deck of cards, a new deck for his boat, or a new deck for his house?)

The new store in town is giving a free lift to anyone who would like one!

(Is he referring to a free automobile ride or a free riser for people's shoes?)

I can't believe the bill I received!

(Is he referring to paper money or a note of debt?)

I want to ride a carousel!

(Is he referring to a carnival ride or the luggage handler at an airport?)

So, in the matter of the word "Easter", and in my opinion (for what it's worth) one must look at the statement itself, the context itself, and any situational clues to qualify the statement...observational clues aren't available. Either it's an error, or it's not.  Do you believe it's an error or not? If so, why? If not, why?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
6 hours ago, Tyndale said:

My post or I did not say that the KJV has an error at Acts 12:4 when it included the word Easter.  I provided some historical information that relates to this verse.  I did quote where one of the KJV translators in a sermon in 1608 [which was during the time when the KJV was being made] used the word "Easter" for the Jewish Passover or what he termed the Jewish Easter.  It is a fact that several of the pre-1611 English Bibles sometimes used the word Easter to refer to the Jewish Passover.  The 1535 Coverdale's Bible even used the word Easter in the Old Testament for the Jewish Passover.  For example, the 1535 Coverdale's Bible has Easter at Ezekiel 45:21, and it also has Easter at Luke 22:1.  At Luke 22:1, the KJV itself shows that the word Passover can be used for the feast of unleavened bread.

Luke 22:1

Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.

I have seen and read where different KJV defenders have given as many as three different, conflicting explanations for the KJV's use of "Easter" at Acts 12:4.  Some claim that the KJV's use of Easter is not wrong because the word Easter could be used to refer to the Jewish Passover in the time of the making of the KJV.   Some claim that the KJV's use of Easter is not wrong because it was used to refer to some pagan feast or festival.  Others claim that the KJV's use of Easter is not wrong because it was used to refer to the Christian Easter.

Which of these three explanations is the actual meaning intended by the one or ones who put this word Easter in the KJV?  Can all three of these explanations be correct or would at least two of them have to be incorrect? 

An English word can be used with different meanings in different contexts.   In two different statements in different contexts, the same English word can have different meanings.

In one particular statement, an English word can only be properly used with one meaning or sense.   For example, in one use at one time in a certain statement, an English word can not be used properly to mean at the same time two conflicting or contradictory things.   Would you agree that it would be true to say that the KJV's use of "Easter" at Acts 12:4 cannot mean the Jewish Passover and not the Jewish Passover at the same time?  Would it be true to say that the KJV's use of Easter cannot mean at the same time a pagan feast and not a pagan feast?  Would it be true to say that the KJV's use of Easter cannot mean at the same time a Christian observance and not a Christian observance?   Which of the three explanations is the one that you think is correct?  Would it be possible that two of KJV defenders' own explanations for Easter at Acts 12:4 would in effect be making the KJV's use incorrect?

Just asking a simple question. 

I am afraid that your answer is so complex that I cannot tell if you believe it is an error or not.

Simple question, any chance of a simple answer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

My OP was about the superstitious and extrabiblical celebrations of the so-called Holy week. But it has derailed into an argument about semantics.  This is like arguing about that holiday in July.  Some people call it “Independence day” while other people call it “the 4th of July”.   It doesn’t matter, because it’s the same day.  One is more descriptive than the other while the other one is more patriotic.  But EVERYBODY knows what you are talking about.

The Bottom line, is that THE BIBLE HAS NO MISTAKES!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
6 hours ago, John Young said:

Here is a very good article about the word Easter in Acts 12:4:

http://www.kjvtoday.com/home/easter-or-passover-in-acts-124

If the word is used by a Jew, then the word would mean Passover.  If the word is used by Herod, then the word would mean Passover or perhaps a pagan festival (although the possibility of "Πάσχα" referring to a pagan festival has no basis in history or etymology).  Contrary to what many believe, it is neither the Jews nor Herod who is using the word "Πάσχα" at Acts 12:4.  It is actually Luke, the Christian narrator of Acts, who is using the word "Πάσχα" to describe the timeline of events for his Christian readers in the latter first century, many of whom were Gentile Christians.  At the time of Luke's writing, "Πάσχα" at Acts 12:4 was no longer the Passover but Easter.  When Luke speaks in Acts 12:4 as narrator, he is using words according to the mutual Christian perspective of himself and his readers.  

Although Herod and the Jews were waiting for the Jewish Passover, Luke uses "πασχα" according to its Christian meaning of "Easter" to explain the timeline of events to his Christian readers.  That is why "πασχα" is Easter in Acts 12:4.

This article makes some very good points concerning the claim of some KJV defenders that the word Easter had to refer to some pagan festival.

The writer seems to ignore or skip over some very important aspects mentioned in the context.  In Acts 12:3, it is noted that "he [Herod] saw that it [his killing of James] pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also."  Clearly from the context, it is asserted that Herod was attempting to proceed further to take another action that pleased the Jews.  How would Herod supposedly waiting until after Easter Sunday be an action that pleased the Jews?  Herod was persecuting the church or persecuting believers so why would it be suggested by Luke to his Christian readers that Herod was supposedly doing something that would honor a Christian celebration?  That would seem to conflict with what Luke himself just had stated in the context.  Was not this term clearly used in relationship to an further action intended to please the Jews?  Was Herod only waiting for one day to pass or was he waiting for a longer period of time [the feast of unleavened bread that is called the Passover at Luke 22:1 and Ezekiel 45:21]?

Luke 22:1

Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On ‎4‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 0:08 PM, Tyndale said:

My post or I did not say that the KJV has an error at Acts 12:4 when it included the word Easter. 

I have seen and read where different KJV defenders have given as many as three different, conflicting explanations for the KJV's use of "Easter" at Acts 12:4.  Some claim that the KJV's use of Easter is not wrong because the word Easter could be used to refer to the Jewish Passover in the time of the making of the KJV.   Some claim that the KJV's use of Easter is not wrong because it was used to refer to some pagan feast or festival.  Others claim that the KJV's use of Easter is not wrong because it was used to refer to the Christian Easter.

Which of these three explanations is the actual meaning intended by the one or ones who put this word Easter in the KJV?  Can all three of these explanations be correct or would at least two of them have to be incorrect? 

 Which of the three explanations is the one that you think is correct?  Would it be possible that two of KJV defenders' own explanations for Easter at Acts 12:4 would in effect be making the KJV's use incorrect?

My answer is not complex.  It is simple.  The use of Easter at Acts 12:4 can be right according to one of the three meanings and explanations given for it, but it cannot be right according to all three of the different meanings.  It cannot mean three different meanings at the same time.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
52 minutes ago, Donald said:

The Bottom line, is that THE BIBLE HAS NO MISTAKES!

Good conclusion. Your post is a real blessing to my heart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
4 hours ago, Tyndale said:

The use of Easter at Acts 12:4 can be right

Tyndale,

With all due respect friend...and I don't mean to sound condescending or accusatory...but you still haven't given a straight answer that leaves no room for doubt. It's obvious that you're well studied, and I appreciate that. What isn't obvious is your admitted stance on the King James Version. From my point of view, in looking over your posts, coupled with the fact that it "appears" that you are purposely not giving a straight answer, you are in effect giving an answer. 

Do you believe that the King James Version is the infallible, inerrant, and preserved word of God? If not, which version is?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
17 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

Tyndale,

With all due respect friend...and I don't mean to sound condescending or accusatory...but you still haven't given a straight answer that leaves no room for doubt.

I have seen and read where different KJV defenders have given as many as three different, conflicting explanations for the KJV's use of "Easter" at Acts 12:4.  Some claim that the KJV's use of Easter is not wrong because the word Easter could be used to refer to the Jewish Passover in the time of the making of the KJV.   Some claim that the KJV's use of Easter is not wrong because it was used to refer to some pagan feast or festival.  Others claim that the KJV's use of Easter is not wrong because it was used to refer to the Christian Easter.

Which of these three explanations is the actual meaning intended by the one or ones who put this word Easter in the KJV?  Can all three of these explanations be correct or would at least two of them have to be incorrect?   Easter cannot properly be given all three different meanings at the same time for one particular use.  Do you think that permitting the possibility of three explanations [two of which could not be correct] would be giving a clear straight answer with no room for doubt?

My points taken from the KJV itself should have made it very clear (with no room for doubt) what I considered the way the term was used to be right in this context. 

In Acts 12:3, it is noted that "he [Herod] saw that it [his killing of James] pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also."  Clearly from the context, it is asserted that Herod was attempting to proceed further to take another action that pleased the Jews.  How would Herod supposedly waiting until after some pagan festival be a further action that pleased the Jews?  How would Herod supposedly waiting until after Easter Sunday be an action that pleased the Jews?  Herod was persecuting the church or persecuting believers so why would it be suggested by Luke to his Christian readers that Herod was supposedly doing something that would honor a Christian celebration?  That would seem to conflict with what Luke himself just had stated in the context.  Was not this term clearly used in relationship to an further action intended to please the Jews?  The ones in this context who were clearly observing the days of unleavened bread were the Jews, and it is known from the KJV at Luke 22:1 and Ezekiel 45:21 that the days or feast of unleavened bread can be called the Passover.  Was Herod only waiting for one day to pass or was he waiting for a longer period of time [the feast of unleavened bread that is called the Passover at Luke 22:1 and Ezekiel 45:21]?

Luke 22:1

Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.

It is also known from the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision that the term Easter was used for the Jewish Passover.  It was also pointed out how one of the KJV translators in a sermon in 1608 [during the period when the KJV was being made] used the word Easter for the Jewish Passover.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
37 minutes ago, Tyndale said:

I have seen and read where different KJV defenders have given as many as three different, conflicting explanations for the KJV's use of "Easter" at Acts 12:4.  Some claim that the KJV's use of Easter is not wrong because the word Easter could be used to refer to the Jewish Passover in the time of the making of the KJV.   Some claim that the KJV's use of Easter is not wrong because it was used to refer to some pagan feast or festival.  Others claim that the KJV's use of Easter is not wrong because it was used to refer to the Christian Easter.

Which of these three explanations is the actual meaning intended by the one or ones who put this word Easter in the KJV?  Can all three of these explanations be correct or would at least two of them have to be incorrect?   Easter cannot properly be given all three different meanings at the same time for one particular use.  Do you think that permitting the possibility of three explanations [two of which could not be correct] would be giving a clear straight answer with no room for doubt?

My points taken from the KJV itself should have made it very clear (with no room for doubt) what I considered the way the term was used to be right in this context. 

In Acts 12:3, it is noted that "he [Herod] saw that it [his killing of James] pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also."  Clearly from the context, it is asserted that Herod was attempting to proceed further to take another action that pleased the Jews.  How would Herod supposedly waiting until after some pagan festival be a further action that pleased the Jews?  How would Herod supposedly waiting until after Easter Sunday be an action that pleased the Jews?  Herod was persecuting the church or persecuting believers so why would it be suggested by Luke to his Christian readers that Herod was supposedly doing something that would honor a Christian celebration?  That would seem to conflict with what Luke himself just had stated in the context.  Was not this term clearly used in relationship to an further action intended to please the Jews?  The ones in this context who were clearly observing the days of unleavened bread were the Jews, and it is known from the KJV at Luke 22:1 and Ezekiel 45:21 that the days or feast of unleavened bread can be called the Passover.  Was Herod only waiting for one day to pass or was he waiting for a longer period of time [the feast of unleavened bread that is called the Passover at Luke 22:1 and Ezekiel 45:21]?

Luke 22:1

Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.

It is also known from the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision that the term Easter was used for the Jewish Passover.  It was also pointed out how one of the KJV translators in a sermon in 1608 [during the period when the KJV was being made] used the word Easter for the Jewish Passover.

Okay. Thank you. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist
On 4/16/2017 at 5:38 AM, Tyndale said:

In Acts 12:3, it is noted that "he [Herod] saw that it [his killing of James] pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also."  Clearly from the context, it is asserted that Herod was attempting to proceed further to take another action that pleased the Jews.  How would Herod supposedly waiting until after some pagan festival be a further action that pleased the Jews?  How would Herod supposedly waiting until after Easter Sunday be an action that pleased the Jews?  Herod was persecuting the church or persecuting believers so why would it be suggested by Luke to his Christian readers that Herod was supposedly doing something that would honor a Christian celebration?  That would seem to conflict with what Luke himself just had stated in the context.  Was not this term clearly used in relationship to an further action intended to please the Jews?  The ones in this context who were clearly observing the days of unleavened bread were the Jews, and it is known from the KJV at Luke 22:1 and Ezekiel 45:21 that the days or feast of unleavened bread can be called the Passover.  Was Herod only waiting for one day to pass or was he waiting for a longer period of time [the feast of unleavened bread that is called the Passover at Luke 22:1 and Ezekiel 45:21]?

Luke 22:1

Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.

It is also known from the pre-1611 English Bibles of which the KJV was a revision that the term Easter was used for the Jewish Passover.  It was also pointed out how one of the KJV translators in a sermon in 1608 [during the period when the KJV was being made] used the word Easter for the Jewish Passover.

Easter is reference to the Christian aspects of the Passover week. Just as Passover is specifically one day in the "Pesach week" but can be used in reference to the whole event, so to Easter is a specific day In the "Pesach week". Passover specifically is when the Lamb is slain but Easter is specifically when Jesus Christ rose again (Easter in general meaning "Dawning"). As seen in the context, Herod was performing an anti-Resurection Easter to please the Jews. James being the first Apostle martyred on or near Passover meal, a picture of Jesus dying, and Peter was supposed to be the next martyr. Jesus being unable to be held by the grave ten years before, Herod wanted to prove that Peter could be held beyond Easter (the Christian aspects of the Passover week culminating in the Easter Resurrection of Christ). The translators use Easter instead of Passover because they wanted to emphasize the Christian aspects that Herod wanted to disprove for the Jews rather then simply in reference to the the original O.T. Passover.

(Also, While Herod was an Edomite by decent, he was a Jew by religion not Pagan. John the Baptist did not condemn him for worshiping pagan idols but rather for breaking the Law of Moses which Herod claimed to be keeping and following as the Jew's "rightful" king).

Edited by John Young
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Independent Fundamental Baptist

Was Easter a Holy Day to Herod and the Jews so they could do no work by killing Peter on a Sabbath?

Was Passover a Holy Day to Herod and the Jews so they could do no work by killing Peter on a Sabbath?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
13 hours ago, John Young said:

The translators use Easter instead of Passover because they wanted to emphasize the Christian aspects that Herod wanted to disprove for the Jews rather then simply in reference to the the original O.T. Passover.

Bro. John, where do we find justification for this assertion other than "what someone said."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 12 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...