The origins of Easter

The Daily Telegraph reports this, concerning a booklet on Easter produced by English Heritage:

Under the heading The Origins of Easter, it states: “Did you know Easter started as a celebration of spring? Long ago, people welcomed warmer days and new life by honouring the goddess Eostre, who gave Easter its name!”

It adds: “Fun Fact: Some traditions for Eostre included dancing around bonfires and decorating homes with flowers.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/12/english-heritage-claims-easter-isnt-originally-christian/

With C S Lewis' Professor Digby, I find myself shaking my head, and wondering what they do teach them in schools these days.

The above could go straight into a textbook of lexical fallacies, confusing completely the lexical origins of a word, and the actual referent of the word as used. i.e. it slides over between and confuses where the word came from, and what people are talking about when they deploy it.

When people say "Easter", they're almost always referring to the time of the year when Christians observe the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and that celebration itself. That's what they're talking about; thus, that's what the word means.

Along similar lines, when someone says to me "Monday", they're referring to the first day of the working week. It's generally the day on which they go back to work or school, or begin whatever their regular activities again after the weekend. They're not implicitly informing me that they worship the Moon or any other heavenly bodies. The fact that long, long ago people named these day in reference to the Moon can tell us something about those people; it doesn't tell us anything about anything that is being talked about if someone today says "I don't like Mondays!".

English Heritage, thus, have confused what "Easter" is with the possible long-distant origins of the word in the English language. In French, it is called "Pâcques", a word whose origins go back to the Hebrew Passover. Does this mean that "Easter" in England and France are fundamentally two different things? Once you cross the Channel, Easter "is" something else entirely?

So, the thing is what the word is used to refer to. Where the word came from is something else, and no doubt interesting. People all other the world re-deploy existing words, after swapping out the content. Sometimes they do this deliberately (because they want to supplant, replace and ultimately eradicate the memory of the former content; for example, the swapping-out of the meaning of words like "tolerance" and "diversity" during my life-time); sometimes it is done without any particular intent. It may be done quickly, or gradually. You could say that on our current trajectory, for a lot of people, "Easter" is "that time when the kids get a break from school because of the traditional Christian calendar, we give and eat Easter Eggs, and generally feel thankful that winter is gone and spring is here". Yes: in practice, quite not too dissimilar to what English Heritage says the festival that 8th-century Bede refers to was about ... though, it seems English Heritage there also may be projecting back their own beliefs. What Bede actually said is less secular: the Anglo-Saxon pagans of a period before his held religious feasts in the honour of the goddess Eostre. Bede is the only source we have that makes any reference to this; we do not know what sources he himself was drawing upon, and what other information there is about these feasts that would impact our understanding.

There is, of course, no real connection between pagan festivals to West Germanic gods observed by Anglo Saxons, and the festival of Easter as observed traditionally by Christians; there is no sense in which the events of an empty tomb in the near east and the preaching of a risen Messiah by disciples of Jesus in the first century and following, and the traditional beliefs about gods of parts of Western Europe, have anything to do with eachother, except in that the people of Europe in general decided to stop paying any respect to the latter, and instead give all respect to the former. i.e. The only connection is a decision to consciously carry out an entire replacement with something obviously different. So, "Easter" has no more to do with Germanic pagan gods than a Protestant family giving eachother "Christmas" presents means that they have decided that their salvation requires participation in the Catholic Mass after all.

All in all, we learn a few things about English Heritage from this, but essentially nothing about the origins of the thing that people call "Easter", as it's been present in our country's traditions and culture for the last millennium and a half or so.

Jesus, the heavenly bridegroom

It is well known to Christians that in the Scriptures, Jesus the Messiah is revealed to us as the bridegroom of his church. It is a theme well attested to in the prophets (e.g. Ezekiel 16, Isaiah 54:5, Jeremiah 2:2), Psalms (Psalm 45), gospels (Matthew 9:15, John 3:29), letters (Ephesians 5:22-33, 2 Corinthians 10:2), and Revelation (chapter 21 - and note the contrast with the great whore of chapter 18).

I think, though, that I'd either overlooked or forgotten the presence of this theme in John chapter 2, in the account of the first miracle at the wedding at Cana. Jesus is, of course, not the literal bridegroom at his wedding; he, his disciples and his mother were invited guests. His time has not yet come (v4). When Mary urges him to do something about the lack of wine, the reader should understand that this is one of the tasks of the bridegroom. Jesus' time had not yet come to reveal himself fully; and yet, it was already time to reveal himself to his disciples, those who trusted in him. He is a partially hidden bridegroom. The Jewish era brought wine, but it had run out. It was wine in finite and static water-pots (which we may contrast with the flowing waters of the Spirit proceeding from all believers, in John chapter 7). The Old Covenant was wearing out, but its promise remained unfulfilled, leaving people spiritually thirsty. But Jesus fills the water-pots with wine - the true wine, the best wine, and they are satisfied.

The wine was taken to the master of the feast, who was astonished by it. He did not know where it had come from. This is also a repeated theme of John's gospel; people do not know where Jesus has come from, but the reader knows, because this is the very first thing that he has been told in the first verse: he is himself God, who is eternally at the Father's side, and has been made flesh. The master of the feast calls the bridegroom, because it was the bridegroom who brings in the wine. But of course, the master of the feast has identified the wrong bridegroom. The one who has actually produced this wine which was the very best, and yet brought at last, was not the man he had called; that was Jesus. Jesus is the true bridegroom. Some know his identity (the servants and disciples) but others are in his very presence and see his miracles, and yet do not know who is amongst them.

This was the beginning of signs, and Jesus manifested his glory. But he wasn't merely helping people to have a good time; he was not only declaring that the time of Old Covenant water-pots had ended; he was also revealing that he was the hidden bridegroom, ready to feast his guests. The glory revealed includes the glory of being the true bridegroom.

In the very next scene, he goes to the temple - his "Father's house" (v16). Of course he does; for as Isaac brought his long-sought-after bride into his parent's tent, so Jesus must cleanse the divine house to make it a fit place for his bride to be taken home to. The false whore of Babylon must be driven out so that the chosen bride can be brought in. The temple must be cleansed so that God's people can dwell in the very holiest place in God's presence (a theme fulfilled finally at the end of Revelation).

I'm sure there's much more to be seen; I was studying a related passage rather than this one and so that is all I currently have. I hope will be able to return to it. But I can't help noticing too (and this was prompted by hearing a sermon on the fetching of Rebekah for Isaac recently) that there are at least 4 places in Scripture where a bride is found at a well of water:

• The first is Rebekah; we see that the bride is chosen and provided in God's foreordination and sovereignty.
• Then there is Rachel; in this account, the emphasis is that the bride is the kin of Jacob; they are of like nature. The deceiver (Laban) seeks to keep Jacob from his true bride.
• Thirdly, Zipporah: Moses comes far, from a strange land, to marry her. He is an outcast and enemy of the land's evil and tyrannical ruler, but is destined to bring redemption to God's people in that land. He takes up home in a far land and there he marries his bride. (He is, however, a "husband of blood" to Zipporah; the Old Covenant ministration if experienced without faith in the Christ that it foreshadowed ultimately brings death, not life - that had to await the one to come).
• Jesus meets the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well, which is the clear fulfilment of all of the above foreshadowings. She has had several other husbands, but none of them were the true husband who has now come to find her. What is in Christ is not more static water that must be laboriously fetched, time after time, but living water, which flows joyously forever. And it is not the blood of another that has to be spilt to establish or maintain the covenant; he freely gives his own.

It seems to me, though, that in chapter 2, John has reported a further partial accomplishment of this motif. At the wedding in Cana, Jesus is again found by the wells of water, and is revealed as the bridegroom; however, he is not recognised. He reveals his glory: but the principal actors at the wedding fail to see him (though the lowly servants do). He is unrecognised at a Jewish wedding; but later, a Samaritan woman (and village) recognise him. As at the end of the book, where the net is cast out "on the other side" to bring in a great catch, so it is here, with John's revelations of the heavenly bridegroom. Those who should see don't see; to those who were far off and lowly, he is graciously revealed. Some do not know who he is and where he has come from; they can only pose astonished questions and marvel without understanding. But some, without any right to such blessings, do know; they believe, embrace him, and receive life. Their bridegroom has come and found them where they were humbly and endlessly toiling for a finite supply of water; and he gives them eternal wine.