Quote:
Originally Posted by mfblume
Amen. That determines the narrowed down version of the varied definitions available. But definition cannot be disregarded. The story of Herod implies nothing about Easter instead of passover.
Jerusalem was under Passover Law.
Acts 12:3-4 KJV And because he saw it pleased the Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of unleavened bread.) (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.
Since unleavened bread was part of Passover, and just mentioned in verse 11 before pascha was referred to, We know that the reference to the jewish feast in verse 11 is what verse 12 referred to with PASCHA. Since they days of unleavened bread were occurring when Herod sought to take Peter, and since Unleavened bread and firstfruits were all part of the PASSOVER feast, and because civil works could not occur during passover by HEBREW LAW, then Herod had to wait til after PASSOVER to deal with Peter.
Verse 11'as use of unleavened bread prove that pascha is passover.
|
Mike,
Leveticus 23:5-6
In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the Lord's passover. 6And on
the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the Lord: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread.
Unless I am reading this wrong the Lord's passover happens before the feast of unleavened bread. (In other words passover is not the same thing as the feast of unleavened bread)
The context in Acts where pascha is translated as easter is a context where passover already happened and they were on into the days of unleavened bread which levitcus seems to show is after passover.
Since peter was going to be held till a certain pascha which was after the days of unleavened bread I think the translators must of reasoned that context showed that pascha could not have meant passover here since passover would have already occured before the days of unleavened bread.