Passover vs. WMSCOG Part 2
- Adam Stillman
- May 12
- 34 min read
Updated: Jun 9
If you prefer to watch the 3 part video explanation please click here. If you prefer the short form (8 min) click here.
This is part 2 of this blog. Please see part one if you haven't yet by clicking here.
Now what is interesting is that there is no proof from Polycarp himself that he was John’s disciple. It is not until you read the ancient writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian that they say Polycarp was a disciple of John. In the writings of Jerome he says that John ordained Polycarp as the bishop of Smyrna.
To break this down further, evidence shows that Tertullian, Eusebius and Jerome most likely got their information based on the testimony of Irenaeus and were never told directly this information.
To muddy the water even more. There was more than one high ranking John at that time. There is also “John the Elder” who is mentioned by Papias in the book Ecclesiastical History written by Eusebius.
If we consider the only surviving letter Polycarp ever wrote himself called “the epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians” the only person mentioned by name in it is actually Apostle Paul. However Polycarp does quote John, Peter and Paul's words in that epistle.
Now does that mean Polycarp spoke directly to the apostles, or read their writings or was told by someone else? No one really knows actually. Link will be in the description for Polycarp's only surviving letter if interested.
So just keep that in mind as we look into different Pre-Nicene Authors. This is going to be a lot of reading so be prepared. We are going to look at Ecclesiastical History, Apostolic Traditions and the Didache. It is important to note that some of the early church saints' ancient writings contain passages or quotes from apocryphal books as well as scriptural.
Now WMSCOG loves to quote Ecclesiastical History written by Eusebius. Then what is Ecclesiastical History and who is Eusebius?
Eusebius of Caesarea wrote Ecclesiastical History between 312 and 324 CE
When he began: Eusebius began writing Ecclesiastical History during the Roman persecutions.
When he finished: Eusebius completed the final edition of Ecclesiastical History between 325 and 326 CE.
Ecclesiastical History is a chronological account of the development of Christianity from the 1st to 4th century. It was the first major work of Christian history since the Acts of the Apostles.
Eusebius is considered the "Father of Church History" and his work is said to be the starting point for all other church historians. Eusebius was a Christian polemicist, historian, apologist, theologian, and orator.
He was also a key player during a significant turning point for the church, which included the Great Persecution, the conversion of Emperor Constantine, and the council of Nicea. I would highly recommend reading the whole book, link will be in the description.
Let's take a look at Chapter 23 first
CHAPTER XXIII.
“The question then agitated respecting the passover.”
The question then agitated respecting the passover. *THERE was a considerable discussion raised about this time, in consequence of a difference of opinion respecting the observance of the paschal season. The churches of all Asia, guided by a remoter tradition, supposed that they ought to keep the fourteenth day of the moon for the festival of the Saviour's passover, in which day the Jews were commanded to kill the paschal lamb ; and it was incumbent on them, at all times, to make an end of the fast on this day, on whatever day of the week it should happen to fall. But as it was not the custom to celebrate it in this manner in the churches throughout the rest of the world, who observe the practice that has prevailed from apostolic tradition until the present time, so that it would not be proper to terminate our fast on any other but the day of the resurrection of our Saviour. Hence there were synods and convocations of the bishops on this question ; and all unanimously drew up an ecclesiastical decree, which they communicated to all the churches in all places, that the mystery of our Lord's resurrection should be celebrated on no other day than the Lord's- day ; and that on this day alone we should observe the close of the paschal fasts. There is an epistle extant even now, of those who were assembled at the time ; among whom presided Theophilus, bishop of the church in Cesarea, and Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem. There is also another epistle extant on the same question, bearing the name of Victor. An epistle, also, of the bishops in Pontus, among whom Palmas, as the most ancient, presided ; also, of the churches of Gaul, over whom Irenæus presided. Moreover, one from those in Osrhoene, and the cities there. And a particular epistle from Bacchyllus, bishop of the Corinthians ; and epistles of many others, who, advancing one and the same doctrine, also passed the same vote. And this, their unanimous determination, was the one already mentioned.
Now if I could put this passage in simple terms, basically what is happening is that the churches in Asia were keeping the Eucharist at the same time as the Jews kept their Passover, they were considered a small group.
The churches in the rest of the world celebrated Eucharist on Sunday in accordance with the resurrection of Christ in accordance with Apostolic tradition. The church leaders all over the world came together and voted, the majority casted votes for the Sunday observance. But let's keep reading.
CHAPTER XXIV.
The dissension of the churches in Asia.
THE bishops, however, of Asia, persevering in observing the custom handed down to them from their fathers, were headed by Polycrates. He, indeed, had also set forth the tradition handed down to them, in a letter which he addressed to Victor and the church of Rome. " We, " said he, " therefore, observe the genuine day ; neither adding thereto nor taking therefrom. For in Asia great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again in the day of the Lord's appearing, in which he will come with glory from heaven, and will raise up all the saints ; Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who sleeps in Hierapolis, and his two aged virgin daughters. His other daughter, also, who having lived under the influence of the Holy Ghost, now likewise rests in Ephesus. Moreover, John, who rested upon the bosom of our Lord ; who also was a priest, and bore the, sacerdotal plate (лɛта20v) , both a martyr and teacher. He is buried in Ephesus ; also Polycarp of Smyrna, both bishop and martyr. Thraseas, also, bishop and martyr of Eumenia, who is buried at Smyrna. Why should I mention Sagaris, bishop and martyr, who rests at Laodicea. Moreover, the blessed Papirius ; and Melito, the eunuch, whose walk and conversation was altogether under the influence of the Holy Spirit, who now rests at Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead. All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. Moreover, I, Polycrates, who am the least of all of you, according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have followed. For there were seven, my relatives bishops, and I am the eighth; and my relatives always observed the day when the people (i. e. the Jews) 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 with which I am threatened, to intimidate me. For they who are greater than I, have said, ' we ought to obey God rather than men.' " After this, he also proceeds to write concerning all the bishops that were present, and thought the same with himself: " I could also mention," says he, " the bishops that were present, whom you requested to be summoned by me, and whom I did call. Whose names, did I write them, would present a great number. Who, however, seeing my slender body, consented to the epistle, well knowing that I did not bear my gray: hairs for nought, but that I did at all times regulate my life in the Lord Jesus." Upon this, Victor, the bishop of the church of Rome, forthwith endeavoured to cut off the churches of all Asia, together with the neighbouring churches, as heterodox, from the common unity. And he publishes abroad by letters, and proclaims, that all the brethren there are wholly excommunicated. But this was not the opinion of all the bishops. They immediately exhorted him, on the contrary, to contemplate that course that was calculated to promote peace, unity, and love to one another. There are also extant, the expressions they used, who pressed upon Victor with much severity. Among these also was Irenæus, who, in the name of those brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, wrote an epistle, in which he maintains the duty of celebrating the mystery of the resurrection of our Lord, only on the day of the Lord. He becomingly also admonishes Victor, not to cut off whole churches of God, who observed the tradition of an ancient custom. After many other matters urged by him, he also adds the following : " For not only is the dispute respecting the day, but also respecting the manner of fasting. For some think, that they ought to fast only one day, some two, some more days ; some compute their day as consisting of forty hours night and day ; and this diversity existing among those that observe it, is not a matter that has just sprung up in our times, but long ago among those before us, who perhaps not having ruled with sufficient strictness, established the practice that arose from their simplicity and inexperience. And yet with all, these maintained peace, and we have maintained peace with one another ; and the very difference in our fasting establishes the unanimity in our faith." To these he also adds a narrative, which I may here appropriately insert. It is as follows : " And those presbyters who governed the church before Soter, and over which you now preside, I mean Anicetus and Pius, Hyginus with Telesphorus and Xystus, neither did themselves observe, not did they permit those after them to observe it. And yet, though they themselves did not keep it, they were not the less on peace with those from churches where it was kept, whenever they came to them ; although to keep it then was so much the more in opposition to those who did not. Neither at any time did they cast off any merely for the sake of the form. But those very presbyters before thee, who did not observe it, sent the eucharist† to those of churches who did. And when the blessed Polycarp went to Rome, in the time of Anicetus, and they had a little difference among themselves likewise respecting other matters, they immediately were reconciled, not disputing much with one another on this head. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe it, because he had always observed it 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. Which things being so, they communed with each other ; and in the church, Anicetus yielded to Polycarp, out of respect no doubt, the office of consecrating, and they separated from each other in peace, all the church being at peace; both those that observed and those that did not observe, maintaining peace. And this same Irenæus, as one whose character answered well to his name, being in this way a peacemaker, exhorted and negociated such matters as these for the peace of the churches, And not only to Victor, but likewise to the most of the other rulers of the churches, he sent letters of exhortation on the agitated question.
If I was to put this passage into simple terms. You have Victor the Bishop of Rome and Polycrates of Ephesus who was the representative of the Churches in Asia both claiming Apostolic Tradition in regards to the Eucharist.
Victor overreaches in his authority to excommunicate the churches in Asia that follow this tradition. The other bishops never consented to this and sharply rebuked Victor. Polycrates pleads his case for the observance of the Eucharist on the 1st month 14th day.
He also is calling for peace as well as all the other bishops around the world are calling for peace and unity in regards to this issue. Polycrates makes the point that those who came before them who disagreed on this issue did it in a peace.
He then brings up that Polycarp kept it the way John did and Anicetus kept it the way he was taught by the elders before him, neither could persuade the other. But Anicetus and Polycarp made peace with each other. Not only that but Anicetus gave Polycarp the office of consecrating.
So what is the point of this passage? To my understanding it is about maintaining peace in the church in regards to when the Eucharist is to be celebrated and exhorting Victor about his overreach of power.
Otherwise if the Passover observance itself was the sign of the true church and that if you don’t have the Passover you are a false church going to hell why would Polycarp accept the confirmation from Anicetus and be given the office of consecration by Pope Anicetus? That would be like receiving an office from the devil himself wouldn’t it? Kind of sheds a whole different light on the us versus everyone mentality that the WMSCOG instills in you.
It is extremely important to note in Polycrates' statement he mentions Irenaeus. Polycrates says that Irenaeus maintains the duty of celebrating the mystery of the resurrection of our Lord, only on the day of the Lord. Irenaeus was the disciple of Polycarp whom Polycrates also mentions in his statement which is extremely significant.
So why is Irenaeus who learned from Polycarp saying he keeps the Eucharist on Sunday? Why is Polycrates not correcting anyone on the date of when the Eucharist is to be kept? It is because Polycrates is more concerned about the disfellowship and excommunication of something so trivial, than the actual ceremony itself. But let's keep reading.
CHAPTER XXV.
All agree to one opinion respecting the passover.
THE bishops indeed of Palestine, whom we have just mentioned, Narcissus and Theophilus, and Cassius with them, the bishop of the church at Tyre, and Clarus of Ptolemais, and those that came together with them, having advanced many things respecting the tradition that had been handed down to them by succession from the apostles, regarding the passover, at the close of the epistle, use these words : " Endeavour to send copies of the epistle through all the church, that we may not give occasion to those whose minds are easily led astray. But we inform you also, that they observe the same day at Alexandria, which we also do ; for letters have been sent by us to them, and from them to us, so that we celebrate the holy season with one mind and at one time.”
To summarize this passage it is simple. Everyone is basically saying that since we are one body we should keep it together and not be divided.
CHAPTER XXII
The works of Hippolytus,
That have reached us. AT the same time, Hippolytus, who composed many other treatises, also wrote a work on the passover. In this he traces back the series of times, and presents a certain canon comprising a period of sixteen years, on the Passover, limiting his computation of the times to the first year of the emperor Alexander.
Now we are going to take a look at the works of Hippolytus and then Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons since Eusebius quoted both of them.
Who is Hippolytus? He was a Presbyter (Elder) in the church in Rome born in about 170 AD in Rome. He was considered the first Antipope because of the lax moral standards and the adoption of modolistic theology in the church. He was exiled because of this by the Roman Emperor Maximus Thorax but then later reconciled to the pope and the church shortly before his death. He died around 235 AD in Sardinia.
Now I know you are probably thinking why are we talking about this guy? Well because of his Apostolic authority. First there was John the Apostle who taught Polycarp, Polycarp taught Irenaeus and Irenaeus taught Hippolytus.
This is important because Polycrates mentions that he is the 8th generation from John. Which would make Hippolytus the 4th generation. So Hippolytus was even earlier than Polycrates and was the first Antipope.
Let's look at the book Apostolic Traditions written in about 215 ad. But first the history behind it. This book was written by Hippolytus.
Link will be in the description for the book. This is a fascinating read and I recommend reading all of it.
In it you will find prayer times, women's veil requirements, baptism followed by bread and water mixed with wine followed by drinking milk with honey followed by drinking bless water for inner baptism, how to appoint positions in the church, putting the cross on your forehead, conducting baptism on the Sabbath days, anointing baptisee with oil, about fasting and many other interesting things.
But for now we are just going to look at the regulation regarding the Lord's Supper.
I quote “On the first day of the week the bishop, if possible, shall deliver the oblation to all the people with his own hand, while the deacons break the bread. When the deacon brings it to the elder, the deacon shall present his platter, and the elder shall take it himself and distribute it to the people by his own hand. Other days they will receive the oblation according to the command of the bishop.”
It is important to note here that the oblation means the bread and wine of the Eucharist.
Let's see another writing of Hippolytus called Refutation of All Heresies (Book VIII) the Quartodecimans
I quote “And certain other (heretics), contentious by nature, (and) wholly uniformed as regards knowledge, as well as in their manner more (than usually) quarrelsome, combine (in maintaining) that Easter should be kept on the fourteenth day of the first month, according to the commandment of the law, on whatever day (of the week) it should occur. (But in this) they only regard what has been written in the law, that he will be accursed who does not so keep (the commandment) as it is enjoined. They do not, however, attend to this (fact), that the legal enactment was made for Jews, who in times to come should kill the real Passover. And this (paschal sacrifice, in its efficacy,) has spread unto the Gentiles, and is discerned by faith, and not now observed in letter (merely). They attend to this one commandment, and do not look unto what has been spoken by the apostle: For I testify to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to keep the whole law. Galatians 5:3 In other respects, however, these consent to all the traditions delivered to the Church by the Apostles.”
Here Hippolytus calls those who want to observe the 1st month 14th day heretical. He explains that the legal enactment was for the Jews not gentiles. Gentiles have faith instead of the letter merely. He also makes the case by quoting Paul's letter to the Galatians that if you want to have the law you must keep the whole law.
Now if you want to read about the Easter Controversy. Link will be in the description.
Now let me ask you a question. Whether you are a WMSCOG leader or member. Have you ever read for yourself what actually happened in the council of Nicea in 325 AD? Why was the council called? Well if you read the Ecclesiastical History written by Eusebius you will know exactly what the council was called for.
To put it simply the main reason for the council was to combat the heresy known as Arianism that started in the Eastern Churches leading to the eventual excommunication of Arius. Now it is true that the Council of Nicea set the date for Easter to be celebrated on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the ventral equinox. Yes that is true. But do you know why?
Because the Jewish calendar is extremely complicated and it has even been changed over time. It was changed by the Sanhedrin at the time of the Second Temple. Then the calendar rules changed again after the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.
Also every few years an extra month was added, which acted basically as a buffer month. There is Adar I and Adar II depending on if it is the Jewish leap year. The reason for this buffer month is to prevent the Passover from coming too early before the lambs were ready.
If you don’t believe me there will be a like in the description. Not only that but there is the Julian calendar as well. Let me know in the comments if you would like to see how crazy the Jewish calendar is.
So because the Jewish calendar was changed multiple times already and is super confusing the Christian churches decided on a simple calculation of Easter or the Eucharist as the first Sunday after the vernal equinox. Their thought process was if we are no longer under the Jewish law why all the hassle and infighting?
Let’s just do it all together, everyone casted their vote, democracy ruled in favor of the first Sunday after the vernal equinox. But guess what, even after 325 AD there were still controversies arising out regarding the day to keep the Eucharist, in fact even to this day the Eastern Orthodox Church that split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054 AD celebrates Easter differently that the Roman Catholic Church.
So in a way, the set date of when to keep the bread and wine amongst churches that consider themselves Orthodox is still a controversy and creates descension.
On top of all that you remember Constantine I’m sure. The WMSCOG loves to paint him as the anti-Christ and a horrible person, an abomination. However, did you know that it was because of him that the Christians stopped being persecuted?
Not only that but did you know that he was not responsible for the alleged “abolishment of the Passover” he simply oversaw the Council of Nicea but actually didn’t do anything else, since he was recently converted to Christianity he left it up to the churches to decide on the issues, not him.
The whole “Constantine Abolished Passover” narrative is not historically accurate. In fact the reason Constantine called the council in the first place was to stop the infighting and strife within the Church of God. But Constantine did agree with the church's rulings on the matter regarding the date for Easter.
I am going to quote from a letter Constantine sent after the council decided on Easter. Constantine says “... 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."
Now I am not condoning racism towards Jews or anything like that. But I agree with Constantine's thoughts here in a way. He is basically saying why are we letting our celebration of the holy feast of Jesus be based on the practice of those who took the lead in killing our savior.
To be honest that makes so much sense. But you don’t have to agree with me, look into it yourself. Link will be in the description. I know you are probably thinking of the Seven Churches prophecy right now about how when the Church stopped being persecuted and was elevated by Constantine they started stumbling and giving into paganism etc. We can talk about it later in another article.
One topic at a time, please I beg of you.
Now let’s look at what Irenaeus said in regards to the Eucharist. But first, who is Irenaeus exactly? Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons was born about 125 - 131 AD in the maritime provinces of Asia Minor and then died as a martyr but the date of death is not known but is believed to be around 202 AD.
Irenaeus was instrumental in the early church for exposing and refuting the errors of the Gnostics, you can see his writings in Against Heresies written about 180 AD. According to Irenaeus, he was taught directly by Polycarp who was taught by the Apostles themselves.
Not only that but Polycrates mention Irenaeus in his writings. Why? Well Irenaeus went to Rome in 177 to mediate a resolution to the controversy. He was not on board with Victor’s overreach in the excommunication and sided with Polycrates. Later Irenaeus actually was the one that convinced Pope Victor to lift the excommunication of the Quartodecimans to advert a schism in the church.
Let’s see what he said about the Eucharist.
This is from Fragments of Irenaeus.
“Those who have become acquainted with the secondary (i.e., under Christ) constitutions of the apostles, are aware that the Lord instituted a new oblation in the new covenant, according to [the declaration of] Malachi the prophet. For, from the rising of the sun even to the setting my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice; Malachi 1:11 as John also declares in the Apocalypse: The incense is the prayers of the saints. Then again, Paul exhorts us to present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. Romans 12:1 And again, Let us offer the sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of the lips. Hebrews 13:15 Now those oblations are not according to the law, the handwriting of which the Lord took away from the midst by cancelling it; Colossians 2:14 but they are according to the Spirit, for we must worship God in spirit and in truth. John 4:24 And therefore the oblation of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal. Those persons, then, who perform these oblations in remembrance of the Lord, do not fall in with Jewish views, but, performing the service after a spiritual manner, they shall be called sons of wisdom. The apostles ordained, that we should not judge any one in respect to meat or drink, or in regard to a feast day, or the new moons, or the sabbaths. Colossians 2:16 Whence then these contentions? Whence these schisms? We keep the feast, but in the leaven of malice and wickedness, cutting in pieces the Church of God; and we preserve what belongs to its exterior, that we may cast away these better things, faith and love. We have heard from the prophetic words that these feasts and fasts are displeasing to the Lord. Isaiah 1:14
To be clear oblation means offering, in this case the oblation is referring to the Eucharist. We can see that Irenaeus says we don't do it according to the old law because it was canceled. He also mentions that those who perform the oblation or Eucharist should be done in remembrance of the lord and not in the Jewish way.
He also quotes that we should not judge any one in respect to meat or drink, or in regard to a feast day, or the new moons, or the sabbaths. Colossians 2:16. That we should avoid contentions, schisms and to not cut the church of God into pieces. He also quotes Isaiah 1:14 saying that those Old Covenant regulations are displeasing to God. Also in Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius wrote that Irenaeus held to the observance of Eucharist being on Resurrection Day.
Now there is one more piece of history that I think will some this up nicely. It is called the Didache meaning “Teaching”, which is an anonymously written set of rules circulating the ancient early churches. It is the oldest patristic document that has been found. Scholars date the Didache as early as 70 AD just before the destruction of the temple or some estimate it to be around 150 AD.
Let’s have a look at it. We are looking at the section “Concerning the Eucharist” if you want to know how the early church functioned. This is a very good insight.
Now concerning the eucharistic thanksgiving, give thanks in this way. First, as concerning the cup: We give you thanks, our Father, for the holy vine of your son David, which you made known to us through your Son Jesus. Yours is the glory unto ages of ages. Then as regards the broken bread: We give you thanks, our Father, for the life and knowledge which you made known to us through your Son Jesus. Yours is the glory unto ages of ages. As this broken bread was scattered upon the mountains and being gathered together became one so may your Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into your kingdom. For yours is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ unto ages of ages. Do not let anyone eat or drink of this Eucharist who has not been baptized into the name of the Lord, for concerning this the Lord has said, “Do not give the holy things to the dogs.” And after you have been filled, give thanks as follows: We give you thanks, holy Father, for your holy name, which you have made to dwell in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which you have made known unto us through your Son Jesus. Yours is the glory unto ages of ages. You, Almighty Master, created all things for your name’s sake, and gave food and drink to men for their enjoyment, that they might give you thanks. And you have given us spiritual food and drink and eternal life through your Son. Most of all, we give you thanks that you are powerful. Yours is the glory unto ages of ages. Remember, Lord, your Church, and deliver it from all evil and to perfect it in Thy love. Gather it— the sanctified one—together from the four winds into your kingdom which you have prepared for it. For yours is the power and the glory unto ages of ages. May grace come and may this world pass away. Hosanna to the God of David. If any man is holy, let him come; if any man is not, let him repent. Mar‘anatha. Amen. But permit the prophets to offer thanksgiving as much as they desire.
By the way, Hebrew Mar‘anatha means: “Our Lord has come.”
Here we just read the Eucharistic prayer for the bread and wine. The prayer says to permit the prophets to offer thanksgiving as much as they desire.
So the majority of the early Church kept the Eucharist on Sunday the day of the Resurrection. We know that as a fact in history. But is keeping the Eucharist on Resurrection Sunday biblical?
Well let's see.
Acts 20:6-7
But we sailed from Philippi after the Festival of Unleavened Bread, and five days later joined the others at Troas, where we stayed seven days. On the first day of the week we came together to break bread. Paul spoke to the people and, because he intended to leave the next day, kept on talking until midnight.
Now considering what we know about the early Church history it is quite plausible that Paul is keeping the Eucharist here isn’t?
Now I know you are thinking “this is the resurrection day, not Passover.” You are absolutely right, but remember what was the tradition of the early church that we have studied? It was to celebrate the Eucharist on resurrection day. If you read the new testament Paul was not about following Jewish customs. But let's examine the resurrection day claim of the WMSCOG.
Luke 24:30-32
When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. They asked each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?”
On the day of Jesus' resurrection, He appeared to two people walking on the road to Emmaus, it wasn’t until Jesus broke bread that they recognized him. I have a question, did Jesus do this to all his disciples and did he enforce it or establish it as an ordinance or was it a one time special gift for those two people?
Well the bible doesn’t say unfortunately, some may take the liberty of speaking for Jesus and enforcing it or providing their commentary. But the facts are simply: He only broke bread with two people, then they recognized him. But then he appeared to his disciples later and did nothing like that for them.
But breaking the bread did become a custom for the Apostles if you look at Acts 2:42 and Acts 20:6-7. Most Biblicists and theologians also suggest that the breaking of the bread is referring to the Eucharist, which honestly makes sense considering that it was the custom of the early church to come together on the first day of the week, on the resurrection day of Jesus to celebrate the Eucharist.
The phrase breaking bread has become synonymous with the Eucharist. Also it makes sense because the bread and wine destroy false God's and open your eyes to recognize the true God, doesn't it? Maybe that is why they did it on resurrection day? Anyways let's look at Paul's words.
1 Corinthians 10:16-17
Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.
Again the word for the cup of thanksgiving giving is Eucharist. We also see the phrase breaking bread in regards to Jesus' flesh. That is why the phrase breaking bread is considered as celebrating Eucharist.
Then if we look at Acts 20:6-7 and consider everything we know this far, it could very well be that we are seeing the early church come together on Resurrection Sunday to participate in the Eucharist.
Now I know I have probably overwhelmed you with a ton of information. If you have made this far and have been paying attention you are probably thinking “now I am just confused and don’t know what to believe” well don’t worry there is a reason why I showed you all this.
First reason I gave you all this information is that the reality of the actual Church history is a lot more complicated and messy than the WMSCOG makes it out to be. The WMSCOG acts as if the Church Jesus established was without contention in regards to traditions or teachings.
In the early stages of Christianity heresies were popping up all over the place. You had Gnosticism rising up during the time the gospel of John was written. There was Modalism pop up shortly after that.
Then you had Arianism and much much more. If you want to know about the heresies in the early church I would recommend reading Against Heresies written by Irenaeus in 180 AD who was the disciple of Polycarp.
Anyways the main point here is that the early church had disagreements on how to do things from the very beginning stages and they were really only in agreement only on key issues like salvation in Jesus and the trinity among a few others.
Another reason I showed you all these ancient pri-nicene works is that if you take the time to read what the early church taught, preached and how they worshiped you find that they are all different in some ways.
Which begs the question: how do we know who is right? If you quote only certain parts of history, sure you can prove your point, you can prove any point you want to if you do that. But is that how we should look at history? Or should we look at all the history and then make our conclusion? The WMSCOG only quotes things that seem to fit their doctrines.
But what about all the other early church writings? Are they not valid then? If so, why are they not valid? Why should we discount them? Should we discount them just because they don’t align with the WMSCOG? If you think we should discount them please provide evidence to show how Hippolytus, Iranaeus, Clement who came way before the Nicean Council, who taught that the Eucharist should be done on resurrection day, are wrong, but you are right?
The last and final reason I showed is that depending on the pri-nicene author, you can see that the early churches did the bread and wine differently from another. It is the same today too as you can see. The discrepancy is nothing new.
Then if you as a current WMSCOG member or leader are going to claim authority from early church writings, church history or tradition, what is your basis of doing so? The WMSCOG quotes “Ecclesiastical History” by Eusebius as an authority of proving their narrative, does the WMSCOG follow the theology of Eusebius then?
I doubt it because he was temporarily excommunicated from the church for being a moderate to Arianism. Eusebius was also considered kind of a hype man for Emporer Constantine. You can’t pick and choose history, you need to examine all of it, especially if you claim it is your history.
Now I know what you are thinking “well that is why we need the restoration”. We will get into that later I promise because that is a good argument for another day.
Some of you may be thinking “well when should we do the bread and wine then”? Again churches still are divided over these issues even today. But can I offer an alternative way of thinking?
Going back to John’s gospel. The WMSCOG implies that the bread and wine are essential for salvation, meaning if you don’t do the New Covenant Passover bread and wine you will go to hell. Well let's examine that.
Revelation 21:8
“But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”
Here does the bible say that those who don’t keep the WMSCOG’s version of Passover are thrown into the lake of fire? No it doesn’t.
Revelation 22:15
“Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.”
Here does it say outside are those who don’t keep the New Covenant Passover? Tell me then where does the bible say that those who don’t keep the WMSCOG Passover will not enter heaven? I know you are thinking Matthew 7:21-23, perfect let’s go there.
Matthew 7:21-23
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’
So here we see that those who don’t do the will of God won’t enter heaven. I totally agree. Then what is the will of God? Show me the verse in the New Testament that says the will of God is to keep the WMSCOG version of Passover on 1st 14th day of Nisan. I'll wait. Now you might be thinking to yourself “Jesus said do this in remembrance of me”. Fair point, let's examine.
Luke 22:19-20
“And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
“In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”
Now here is the thing. My argument has never been that we shouldn't eat bread and wine. Jesus clearly says do this. Who am I to deny the words of Jesus Himself.
My argument is that the WMSCOG speaks for Jesus, saying unless you keep the New Covenant Passover that the WMSCOG keeps the way they keep it you are not going to heaven. It is baloney. Now that being said Jesus did say “do this” meaning you should keep the bread and wine.
But the argument for the WMSCOG has never been just the bread and wine has it? The argument is that unless you do the bread and wine the exact way the WMSCOG tells you too it is completely invalid and you are going to hell. Eating the bread and wine has never been lost or abolished.
I bet the WMSCOG leaders are screaming “Jesus said the cup is the New Covenant”. Technically you are right but your insistence is also wrong. Let me explain.
The bread and wine is symbolic of Jesus' flesh and blood that is 100% true. So yes that would mean the bread and wine is symbolic of the New Covenant, that is fact. But that does not mean that the bread and wine itself or by itself is the New Covenant.
Let me put it into perspective. Does the bread and wine itself forgive your sin? You would say no right? You are absolutely correct. You are also probably thinking “well Jesus had to die to put the New Covenant Passover into effect”. Ah, there it is. Even in your own logic you admit that your Passover bread and wine is meaningless unless Jesus died. So then what is the New Covenant really? It is Jesus' sacrifice on the cross.
Again what had to happen first? Jesus had to die, meaning without His death on the cross, even by the WMSCOG teaching, the bread and wine would not be in effect. Meaning the sacrifice of Christ is the New Covenant, not the bread and wine. The bread and wine is symbolic 100% but the bread and wine itself is not the New Covenant, but it is symbolic of the New Covenant.
For example, Jesus is the Lamb of God right? Does that mean Jesus is literally a four legged creature? Of course not. But the lamb was put in place as a symbol of Jesus who is the lamb of God. But would you say a lamb therefore is Jesus because God chose to use a lamb as a symbol of Christ? Of course not.
It is the same with the bread and wine. The bread and wine is a symbol of the New Covenant, not that the bread and wine itself is the new covenant, just like the lamb isn’t literally Jesus but the lamb is symbolic.
Right now you are probably thinking “well Jesus said the appointed time was near, meaning Passover.” Fair point, let's see.
Matthew 26:17-19
“On the first day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread, the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Where do you want us to make preparations for you to eat the Passover?”
He replied, “Go into the city to a certain man and tell him, ‘The Teacher says: My appointed time is near. I am going to celebrate the Passover with my disciples at your house.’” So the disciples did as Jesus had directed them and prepared the Passover.”
Did Jesus say His appointed time is near or that the WMSCOG’s version of Passover's appointed time is near? He said my appointed time is near. What does Jesus mean by His appointed time is near?
John 13:3
Jesus knew that the Father had put all things under his power, and that he had come from God and was returning to God;
This is the same night as the last supper. Jesus' appointed time is referring to when Jesus will die on the cross. Let's see another verse.
Mark 14:21
“The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him. But woe to that man who betrays the Son of Man! It would be better for him if he had not been born.”
Clearly the appointed time Jesus is referring to is what He is about to do for the world through His death. It has nothing to do with the WMSCOG’s version of Passover.
Then finally we come to the conclusion.
What is the underlying premise of the WMSCOG on this whole issue? Why are they an authority on this issue? Why should we listen to what the WMSCOG is insisting? Well lets ask a few questions to the WMSCOG then.
Is it that the bread and wine stopped being kept in history thus needing it to be restored? Well, that isn’t the case in history. The bread and wine never stopped.
Then is the date the big issue here? Well if you are going to base your calendar on the Jewish calendar just know that there have been a lot of changes to it and you will need to consider the Jewish leap years.
Also what about the Chronology of the Gospels. As we discussed it is likely that the last supper in all the gospels is actually 1st month 13th day. So there are some issues that the WMSCOG would need to clarify and iron out if they are going to insist on the date being the issue.
Is it the time of day that is the big issue meaning bread and wine should be given at night time? Well the WMSCOG uses the “twilight” in Exodus 12 and Leviticus 23 to justify why they keep their version of Passover in the evening compared to other Churches. Well again that twilight as we know means “between the evenings” or 9th hour.
So that is not the context. Now of course the Passover is to be eaten at night, but there is no regulation as to when at night. If you are going to insist on the old law then you need to keep the old law. Then does it mean that if you eat the last supper in the day it is not valid? Well there are a lot of churches that keep the bread and wine at night, so then they are good.
Is it a matter of restoring what Jesus literally did during last supper? If that's the case the WMSCOG should prepare the actual Passover meal, while they are eating it they should get up and wash each other's feet, after that they should offer the wine twice and then the bread. Since they don’t do that it means they actually don’t keep it the exact same way Jesus did anyway.
Is it that bread and wine itself is the New Covenant and that is the issue. Well considering bread and wine is part of the old regulation, it wouldn’t be anything new, to say nothing of a new covenant. Also the bible says the New Covenant is everlasting.
Then if the 325 AD abolishment of the New Covenant Passover is indeed accurate according to WMSCOG teaching, then the very fact that the Passover was destroyed in 325 AD proves that it is not the eternal or everlasting covenant. You cannot have something destroyed but be everlasting at the same time, it does not make sense.
The whole premise of the WMSCOG teaching about the Passover being abolished is that the bread and wine should be kept on the 1st month 14th day once a year not on every Sunday or once a year on a Sunday. So then is New Covenant the 24 hour period occurring on the 1st month 14th itself? Or is it the New Covenant the bread and wine? Because the only thing that was allegedly “abolished” was the “date” of keeping the ceremony on the 1st month 14th day.
So then is the 24 hour period of 1st month 14th day itself the new covenant? I have found no evidence of that claim. If you think the day of 1st month 14th day itself is the new covenant I would love here why in the comments. If you are thinking “no the bread and wine itself that is the new covenant” there is a problem because the bread and wine itself was never abolished, which would mean it never needed to be restored. If the date is the important part, show me where the New Covenant is related to the 24 hour time period of 1st month 14th day.
Because again the only thing that was allegedly abolished was the date and time.
Again I am not denying we should keep the bread and wine. Of course we should. I am saying that the whole foundation of the WMSCOG regarding the New Covenant Passover is not biblical or historical.
The Passover they teach in my opinion is just another manipulative and control tactic. They get you scared by showing you natural disasters and say you can only be saved if you join the WMSCOG and keep their version of Passover. Then they keep you spiritually hostage in the church telling you if you don’t keep their version of Passover and if you leave that you will die in the earthly disasters.
It is all a cruel and evil trick.
You know why I know this? There are people who have died in the WMSCOG who were active members upon their death who did keep the Passover. In fact everyone that has ever existed that has kept Passover in the Old and New testament has died, even Jesus Himself was NOT protected through the so called New Covenant Passover.
If you think I am wrong, show me one person in history that did not die after keeping Passover? That would imply they are still alive right? The apostles died in horrific ways. Did they keep the Passover? According to WMSCOG they did keep the true Passover. But they died horrifically. Did it protect Paul from getting shipwrecked, stoned or beaten?
Now I know the WMSCOG leaders might say “well it protects you from hell which is the greatest disaster of all.” So if their Passover doesn’t protect you from natural disasters, shipwrecks, car accidents or even a severe virus like the pandemic of 2020. You expect me to believe that is going to protect me on the last day from nuclear war? You expect me to believe that it saves me from hell? Where is your proof for those claims?
I don’t know about you but I am so sick of the WMSCOG moving the goalposts.
If you want to keep the WMSCOG version of Passover that's fine, knock yourselves out.
But quit calling it a restoration, it's not, quit threatening people with hell if they don’t keep it your way, because WMSCOG's version is not biblical or historical, quit saying you do it exactly like the Apostles and Jesus, you don't, quit condemning other churches for their version, WMSCOG’s version is less historical or biblical than most churches actually.
WMSCOG has no power or authority and their bark is worse than their bite on these issues.
WMSCOG has no biblical or historical evidence or apostolic authority to judge how other people do the bread and wine and you honestly have no historical or biblical evidence to justify why WMSCOG is right in the way they do the bread and wine compared to other churches.
Anyways to finish up.
You are probably asking two questions depending on where your head's at in the WMSCOG. Some are thinking “well the WMSCOG is just simply right and I am still going to follow their teachings” I would love for you to come onto my youtube channel to discuss how after all this you can still insist on the WMSCOG Passover being the way of salvation.
Majority of you I am sure are probably thinking “Fine the WMSCOG isn’t accurate, the history and the bible prove it. Then what should I do now? How am I saved?”
That is a very good question.
Join me on my next article discussing those very questions.
Please be sure to share and subscribe to the website and we will see you on the next one, God bless.
WORKS CITED
file:///C:/Users/a041286.FBDOMAIN/Downloads/29251-john-or-paul-who-was-polycarp-s-mentor.pdf
Comments