As Easter approaches, many evangelical Christians prepare to celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ, the cornerstone of our faith. Yet, in recent decades, a growing number of churches and believers have adopted practices borrowed from Jewish tradition, most notably the Passover Seder. Promoted as a way to connect with the "roots" of Christianity, Seder observance has gained traction, particularly among those influenced by premillennial dispensationalism—a theological framework that emphasizes a distinct role for Israel in God’s plan. While the intention may be to honor biblical history, this practice raises serious concerns. Talmudic Judaism, which underpins the modern Seder, is...
To view this content, you must be a member of Protestia's Patreon at $5.95 or more
13 thoughts on “Why Christians Shouldn’t Observe the Seder”
” Seder observance has gained traction, particularly among those influenced by premillennial dispensationalism”
The only people I’ve met personally who have bought into observance of it are all Catholics. Catholicism is very Jewish, and that’s not a good thing. Catholicism invented Exclusive Psalmody in the 4th century at a council that banned all the hymns Christians had written up to that point and said only the Book of Psalms may be sung. I find it ironic, and interesting, and I’m developing an argument on this, but it requires a lot of thought, and maybe historical research, is that Paul says Peter is the apostle to the Jews and he Paul to the Gentiles , in Galatians 2:6-9, where Paul says that the Pillars make a handshake agreement with him:
“6 As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised,[a] just as Peter had been to the circumcised.[b] 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephas[c] and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised.”
Now, we see in the 2nd century, Polycarp is claimed to be a “direct disciple of John” and to apparently observe the passover, whereas Anicetus is descended from a theological line from a different apostle (Paul maybe) and does not observe the passoever but rather Easter Sunday, and this causes some disagreement and confusion. This seems to only be a continuation of the mess going on in Paul’s own time, where the apostles split into two factions, one focused on the circumcision and one on the uncircumcision. And it would seem that Roman Catholicism is a continuation of the circumcision faction; they’ve dropped circumcision by now, but kept a Judaizing and legalistic disposition.
Many kelvinators are into the heresy of replacement theology. Hence the Protestia article. I guess they think eggs and bunnies are better. Eggs and bunnies, eggs and bunnies.
John MacArthur is not long for this world, so hopefully he repents of his Zionist heresy and his Calvinist heresy before his quickly approaching death, and hopefully with a public recantation.. He said himself, he’s “on his last lap.”
Eggs and bunnies seem to come from a response to the legalism of Catholicism in its Lent restrictions. In Luther’s time, the papacy had banned eating eggs or any meant for all 40 days of Lent, as well as butter. Now days, of course, due to Protestantism existing, Catholicism no longer demands abstinence from meat for all 40 days of Lent, nor is there any mention of abstinence from eggs or butter. Instead, today, they require abstinence from meat only on Fridays in Lent, and a fast on Thursday and Friday (coming up this week) where you are only allowed to eat 2 meals. But in Luther’s day, no meat was to be consumed from Ash Wednesday until Easter Lunch, nor any eggs. So what do you think people did on Easter Sunday? They celebrated the end of the fast the pope had imposed by eating meat and eggs. But what meat would be available? Bunnies. Because they could not go hunt during Holy Week, so no deer would be available, etc. But if they had caught some rabbits at the beginning of Lent, they will have multiplied during Lent, and so Easter Lunch consisted of bunny and eggs.
As to observing a passover seder; we were not brought out of Egypt, so its a lie to do. We should be observing Christ’s death and resurrection, and it makes the most sense to do it the Sunday following passover, as that’s when he rose. And I dare say, modern scholarship has shown, to the satisfaction of 99% of Jews, that the Exodus from Egypt is a fictionalized account celebrating their exodus from Babylon after the Babylonian captivity, so Jews don’t even any longer believe the Exodus took place. Therefore, they celebrate it only as an ethnic observance but not as a true religious festival, for they no longer believe God brought them out of Egypt. From my perspective as a real, non-Judaized Christian, it doesn’t matter if they’re right; if the Exodus never happened, it doesn’t matter, as what matters is Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection. Certainly we Gentiles were not brought out of Egypt with a high hand and so on, and so eating bitter herbs to remember a slavery in Egypt that we never experience is silly, but if the Jews are right on their own history in asserting that it never happened to them either, then its doubly silly to observe that. Instead we should observe what Christ did for us.
And those of us who are of European descent, and are Protestants, can also observe not only Christ’s salvation of us by his death and resurrection, but also the Reformation’s liberation of us from the Lent fasting rules of the papacy of Luther’s time, by eating bunnies and eggs, even if we now only eat them in token form as chocolate.
Two things. The Passover is a clear picture of Christ. The last supper was a Passover meal. Romans 11:1 is very clear about future Israel as well as Zechariah 8:23. This is what happens when every scripture is filtered through the heresy of Calvinism.
Replacement theology predates Calvinism by 2000 years, and was held by everyone until Joseph Smith invented Christian Zionism in (I think its 2nd Nephi, or maybe 3rd Nephi) in the Book of Mormon. Its literally not until the 1800s that Christian Zionism spreads, and it spreads first among Mormon, via the Book of Mormon that first helped spread it, and then later non-Mormon picked it up from the Mormons and spread it, namely Scofield and Darby, and others. And yet, even so, until youtube came to exist in around 2004, the majority position of all Christian churches was still Replacement Theology, even as having a hymnal and either piano or organ was still the norm. Then an Internet meme was invented in 2004 and pushed by women on youtube, that “Replacement Theology is heresy,” and around the same time was brought in the rock concert “worship.” But keep teaching Mormonism if you want. Specifically, Joseph Smith taught in the Book of Mormon, that the Gentiles are tasked by God with gathering together all the Jews and restoring them to the land of Israel, and this is what all the dispies basically now believe, that God has tasked us with restoring the Jews to Israel and that once we do then Jesus will return.
And when I say “Replacement theology predates Calvinism by 2000 years” I didn’t make a mistake, because you will say that Calvinism dates from 1500, so from 30 AD to 1500 AD is not 2000 years. I’m counting from Isaiah and Hosea, who taught that the Gentiles will replace the Jews, as Paul quotes in Romans 9:25-32
“25 As he says in Hosea:
“I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;
and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”[a]
26 and,
“In the very place where it was said to them,
‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘children of the living God.’”[b]
27 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel:
“Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea,
only the remnant will be saved.
28 For the Lord will carry out
his sentence on earth with speed and finality.”[c]
29 It is just as Isaiah said previously:
“Unless the Lord Almighty
had left us descendants,
we would have become like Sodom,
we would have been like Gomorrah.”[d]”
Paul understands Hosea’s prophecy, not as about the lost 10 tribes as Judaizers do, but as about the Gentiles.
Also, Paul is clear that although all Gentiles potentially can be saved, only a fraction of the Jews can be, for even if Israel numbers like the sand of the sea, only a small remnant can be saved from Israel. But of the Gentiles, there is no limit.
And of this subject about only a small remnant of Israel being able to be saved, Paul speaks of the Lord “cutting the work short quickly”, or “quickly executing the decree” (however you think it should be translated), meaning, he will save the remnant quickly (i.e. in the first century) and then cut Israel off. This happened in 70 AD.
I forgot to include the text of 30-32 which clarifies Paul’s interpretation of these passages from Hosea and Isaiah, where he explains their meaning:
“30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.”
So Hosea’s speech about calling her beloved who was not loved and calling them my people who were not my people is about the Gentiles. And that only a small remnant of Israel can be saved is absolutely true because the rest will stumble over the stumbling stone.
I quoted the NIV because you seem too illiterate to understand the KJV. If you really are a KJVO, you should then understand that Daniel 9 is not about the anti-Christ but about Christ, because it does not speak of a 7 year peace treaty of the anti-Christ but says that the Messiah (Christ) will be cut off in the midst of the week in which he confirms a covenant with many. This is the 3.5 years of his ministry, and he is cut off, killed, on the cross, and then the 3.5 first years of the church. This is him confirming a covenant (the New Covenant) with many. Your dispie interpretation requires modern translations that bias the text by changing the Hebrew word “moschiach” to “anti-christ” but moschiach means Messiah which is Christ, not anti-Christ. Also it requires changing covenant to peace treaty, and other silly animal tricks.
Funny thing is, per the Talmudic rules, Jews have to use a shankbone of a lamb, a bare bone, and cannot eat lamb at the Seder. But those dispies and papists that will observe the passover will eat lamb. This is because Jews understand the lamb of the passover must be sacrificed in the temple to be eaten on passover, so cannot eat lamb on passover, but the lamb is substituted in two ways: they eat chicken or something else and only have a lamb shankbone on the table to symbolize the lamb. Its always the case that when Jew Larpers try to observe Jewish rituals, they don’t understand how to properly do it. Literally the passover cannot be properly observed anymore because of God destroying the temple in 70 AD, and that was part of the point.
Unlock with Patreon
” Seder observance has gained traction, particularly among those influenced by premillennial dispensationalism”
The only people I’ve met personally who have bought into observance of it are all Catholics. Catholicism is very Jewish, and that’s not a good thing. Catholicism invented Exclusive Psalmody in the 4th century at a council that banned all the hymns Christians had written up to that point and said only the Book of Psalms may be sung. I find it ironic, and interesting, and I’m developing an argument on this, but it requires a lot of thought, and maybe historical research, is that Paul says Peter is the apostle to the Jews and he Paul to the Gentiles , in Galatians 2:6-9, where Paul says that the Pillars make a handshake agreement with him:
“6 As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised,[a] just as Peter had been to the circumcised.[b] 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephas[c] and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised.”
Now, we see in the 2nd century, Polycarp is claimed to be a “direct disciple of John” and to apparently observe the passover, whereas Anicetus is descended from a theological line from a different apostle (Paul maybe) and does not observe the passoever but rather Easter Sunday, and this causes some disagreement and confusion. This seems to only be a continuation of the mess going on in Paul’s own time, where the apostles split into two factions, one focused on the circumcision and one on the uncircumcision. And it would seem that Roman Catholicism is a continuation of the circumcision faction; they’ve dropped circumcision by now, but kept a Judaizing and legalistic disposition.
Many kelvinators are into the heresy of replacement theology. Hence the Protestia article. I guess they think eggs and bunnies are better. Eggs and bunnies, eggs and bunnies.
Matt 21:43.
Your hero John MacArthur called replacement theology heresy on Ben Shapiros program a few years ago.
John MacArthur is not long for this world, so hopefully he repents of his Zionist heresy and his Calvinist heresy before his quickly approaching death, and hopefully with a public recantation.. He said himself, he’s “on his last lap.”
Eggs and bunnies seem to come from a response to the legalism of Catholicism in its Lent restrictions. In Luther’s time, the papacy had banned eating eggs or any meant for all 40 days of Lent, as well as butter. Now days, of course, due to Protestantism existing, Catholicism no longer demands abstinence from meat for all 40 days of Lent, nor is there any mention of abstinence from eggs or butter. Instead, today, they require abstinence from meat only on Fridays in Lent, and a fast on Thursday and Friday (coming up this week) where you are only allowed to eat 2 meals. But in Luther’s day, no meat was to be consumed from Ash Wednesday until Easter Lunch, nor any eggs. So what do you think people did on Easter Sunday? They celebrated the end of the fast the pope had imposed by eating meat and eggs. But what meat would be available? Bunnies. Because they could not go hunt during Holy Week, so no deer would be available, etc. But if they had caught some rabbits at the beginning of Lent, they will have multiplied during Lent, and so Easter Lunch consisted of bunny and eggs.
As to observing a passover seder; we were not brought out of Egypt, so its a lie to do. We should be observing Christ’s death and resurrection, and it makes the most sense to do it the Sunday following passover, as that’s when he rose. And I dare say, modern scholarship has shown, to the satisfaction of 99% of Jews, that the Exodus from Egypt is a fictionalized account celebrating their exodus from Babylon after the Babylonian captivity, so Jews don’t even any longer believe the Exodus took place. Therefore, they celebrate it only as an ethnic observance but not as a true religious festival, for they no longer believe God brought them out of Egypt. From my perspective as a real, non-Judaized Christian, it doesn’t matter if they’re right; if the Exodus never happened, it doesn’t matter, as what matters is Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection. Certainly we Gentiles were not brought out of Egypt with a high hand and so on, and so eating bitter herbs to remember a slavery in Egypt that we never experience is silly, but if the Jews are right on their own history in asserting that it never happened to them either, then its doubly silly to observe that. Instead we should observe what Christ did for us.
And those of us who are of European descent, and are Protestants, can also observe not only Christ’s salvation of us by his death and resurrection, but also the Reformation’s liberation of us from the Lent fasting rules of the papacy of Luther’s time, by eating bunnies and eggs, even if we now only eat them in token form as chocolate.
Two things. The Passover is a clear picture of Christ. The last supper was a Passover meal. Romans 11:1 is very clear about future Israel as well as Zechariah 8:23. This is what happens when every scripture is filtered through the heresy of Calvinism.
Replacement theology predates Calvinism by 2000 years, and was held by everyone until Joseph Smith invented Christian Zionism in (I think its 2nd Nephi, or maybe 3rd Nephi) in the Book of Mormon. Its literally not until the 1800s that Christian Zionism spreads, and it spreads first among Mormon, via the Book of Mormon that first helped spread it, and then later non-Mormon picked it up from the Mormons and spread it, namely Scofield and Darby, and others. And yet, even so, until youtube came to exist in around 2004, the majority position of all Christian churches was still Replacement Theology, even as having a hymnal and either piano or organ was still the norm. Then an Internet meme was invented in 2004 and pushed by women on youtube, that “Replacement Theology is heresy,” and around the same time was brought in the rock concert “worship.” But keep teaching Mormonism if you want. Specifically, Joseph Smith taught in the Book of Mormon, that the Gentiles are tasked by God with gathering together all the Jews and restoring them to the land of Israel, and this is what all the dispies basically now believe, that God has tasked us with restoring the Jews to Israel and that once we do then Jesus will return.
And when I say “Replacement theology predates Calvinism by 2000 years” I didn’t make a mistake, because you will say that Calvinism dates from 1500, so from 30 AD to 1500 AD is not 2000 years. I’m counting from Isaiah and Hosea, who taught that the Gentiles will replace the Jews, as Paul quotes in Romans 9:25-32
“25 As he says in Hosea:
“I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;
and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”[a]
26 and,
“In the very place where it was said to them,
‘You are not my people,’
there they will be called ‘children of the living God.’”[b]
27 Isaiah cries out concerning Israel:
“Though the number of the Israelites be like the sand by the sea,
only the remnant will be saved.
28 For the Lord will carry out
his sentence on earth with speed and finality.”[c]
29 It is just as Isaiah said previously:
“Unless the Lord Almighty
had left us descendants,
we would have become like Sodom,
we would have been like Gomorrah.”[d]”
Paul understands Hosea’s prophecy, not as about the lost 10 tribes as Judaizers do, but as about the Gentiles.
Also, Paul is clear that although all Gentiles potentially can be saved, only a fraction of the Jews can be, for even if Israel numbers like the sand of the sea, only a small remnant can be saved from Israel. But of the Gentiles, there is no limit.
And of this subject about only a small remnant of Israel being able to be saved, Paul speaks of the Lord “cutting the work short quickly”, or “quickly executing the decree” (however you think it should be translated), meaning, he will save the remnant quickly (i.e. in the first century) and then cut Israel off. This happened in 70 AD.
I forgot to include the text of 30-32 which clarifies Paul’s interpretation of these passages from Hosea and Isaiah, where he explains their meaning:
“30 What then shall we say? That the Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, have obtained it, a righteousness that is by faith; 31 but the people of Israel, who pursued the law as the way of righteousness, have not attained their goal. 32 Why not? Because they pursued it not by faith but as if it were by works. They stumbled over the stumbling stone.”
So Hosea’s speech about calling her beloved who was not loved and calling them my people who were not my people is about the Gentiles. And that only a small remnant of Israel can be saved is absolutely true because the rest will stumble over the stumbling stone.
Joe you have way too much time on your hands. Stick with the KJV bible not your biased view of church history.
I quoted the NIV because you seem too illiterate to understand the KJV. If you really are a KJVO, you should then understand that Daniel 9 is not about the anti-Christ but about Christ, because it does not speak of a 7 year peace treaty of the anti-Christ but says that the Messiah (Christ) will be cut off in the midst of the week in which he confirms a covenant with many. This is the 3.5 years of his ministry, and he is cut off, killed, on the cross, and then the 3.5 first years of the church. This is him confirming a covenant (the New Covenant) with many. Your dispie interpretation requires modern translations that bias the text by changing the Hebrew word “moschiach” to “anti-christ” but moschiach means Messiah which is Christ, not anti-Christ. Also it requires changing covenant to peace treaty, and other silly animal tricks.
Funny thing is, per the Talmudic rules, Jews have to use a shankbone of a lamb, a bare bone, and cannot eat lamb at the Seder. But those dispies and papists that will observe the passover will eat lamb. This is because Jews understand the lamb of the passover must be sacrificed in the temple to be eaten on passover, so cannot eat lamb on passover, but the lamb is substituted in two ways: they eat chicken or something else and only have a lamb shankbone on the table to symbolize the lamb. Its always the case that when Jew Larpers try to observe Jewish rituals, they don’t understand how to properly do it. Literally the passover cannot be properly observed anymore because of God destroying the temple in 70 AD, and that was part of the point.