Posted on 12/17/2008 8:18:24 AM PST by DouglasKC
No because there's a specific command in scripture by Christ to use the bread and wine. I don't believe there's any example of the torah ceremony. To me it's what Christ warned against in Matthew 15:6 when he said " Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.". Another reason I wouldn't do it is that it's clearly controversial (judging by the quick study I did) and it may cause brethren to stumble.
Absolutely true--he evaluated all tradition in light of the Word. He didn't toss it all out and start from scratch, or else he would have been lying when he claimed to still be a Pharisee at his appearance before the Sanhedrin.
Looking at the context of that statement I don't think he was making the claim that he was a Pharisee and following all the Pharisetical rules. He clearly wasn't doing that or he wouldn't have believed that Jesus was the messiah. He was making the statement to gain an advantage:
Act 23:6 But when Paul perceived that one part were Sadducees and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, "Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee; concerning the hope and resurrection of the dead I am being judged!"
Act 23:7 And when he had said this, a dissension arose between the Pharisees and the Sadducees; and the assembly was divided.
Scripture also points out that he wasn't afraid to break rules like dining with gentiles. Although nobody can say for certain, overall I would say that there's very few aspects of tradition that carried over past biblical times that were used in Christian worship. Scripture is preserved because it's inspired. Tradition doesn't because it's not.
But these traditions should generally be of form rather than function. I think I agree, but please elaborate on what you mean by this. Also, if you could answer a question for me, do you keep the tradition of the Afikomen at Passover?
An example of form and function could be found in the bread and wine ceremony on Passover. We know that Christ dictated that we are to do this on Passover, but he didn't specify how big the cup was, how much bread to eat, what format to pass it out, what time of day on passover it should be done, etc. etc.
I had to look up "Afikomen" to know what it is, so no, I don't do it.
Which command are we violating, specifically? I see nothing in there against symbolically bringing the Word of God to our lips.
Looking at the context of that statement I don't think he was making the claim that he was a Pharisee and following all the Pharisetical rules.
He said, quote, "Brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee!" Note the present tense. If Paul's practice was not within the bounds of Pharisaic Judaism--which is to say, early Orthodox Judaism--then for him to claim to still be a Pharisee would be as ludicrous as it would be for me to still claim to be a Baptist!
Of course, there were areas in which he disagreed with the majority, most prominently on the treatment of Gentile God-fearers. However, there has always been room within Orthodox Judaism for rabbis to disagree with each other--that's what the Talmud is, a 600-year argument between various rabbis. And Paul was a rabbi in every sense of the word, trained at the feet of Rabban Gamaliel. He entered into the ongoing debates of his time; he didn't simply chuck everything out the window, despite what the Church at large teaches. Otherwise, he would not have completed his Nazrite vow and helped four other men to complete their vows in order to prove that he was not "teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs" (Acts 21:21).
Either Paul was still practicing the traditions of his fathers, subordinate to the Scriptures and the New Covenant understanding of them, or he was a hypocrite and must be excised from the canon. There's no middle ground on this one. Again, read the article on Acts 21, where I build this case point-by-point.
Although nobody can say for certain, overall I would say that there's very few aspects of tradition that carried over past biblical times that were used in Christian worship. Scripture is preserved because it's inspired. Tradition doesn't because it's not.
Tradition is by necessity flexible and adjusts as circumstances require, I agree. That was one reason the rabbis penned the Mishnah only because of the emergency of so many Jews being slain--they knew that once written down, tradition had a tendency to become a strait-jacket. This was also why Yeshua objected to violation of a tradition being treated as a violation of the actual Scriptures--especially when that violation was by someone of a different tradition. The Pharisees didn't have the right to judge Galileans, who had their own traditions.
But again, that doesn't mean that tradition should be simply ignored. Tradition is an important part of any community--and if one is going to call one's self a Messianic Jew and be part of the larger Jewish community, then one has to be willing to bow to the community standards to at least an extent. Just like you and I wouldn't go into a Southern Baptist church with a bottle of Manischewitz, or go into a Catholic church and pick up one of the Host, for example.
Now, if one is a Hebrew Root Christian, or simply refers to one's self as Messianic, without indicating that one is Jewish, he or she is not under the same obligation--rather, that person has an obligation to operate within the tradition of their own assembly, working to shape it in conformity with the Scriptures.
Therefore, I am not saying that all followers of Yeshua must obey the rabbis. I am saying that Messianic Jews need to be willing to make concessions in areas that don't really matter (parve, for example) to the greater Jewish community so as to have a witness to them, while standing firm on a New Covenant understanding of the Scriptures in areas where there are direct conflicts.
An example of form and function could be found in the bread and wine ceremony on Passover. We know that Christ dictated that we are to do this on Passover, but he didn't specify how big the cup was, how much bread to eat, what format to pass it out, what time of day on passover it should be done, etc. etc.
As you define it, then we pretty much agree. We are commanded to have the Word of God on our lips (function) and we are commanded to do things to remind us of God's commandments (function); therefore, my synagogue follows the tradition of touching one's tzitzit or Bible to the Torah and bringing them to our lips as a reminder to keep God's Word on our lips (form)--at no time, do we actually kiss the Torah.
I had to look up "Afikomen" to know what it is, so no, I don't do it.
Hmm . . . I think this is one "form" you might find to be edifying to practice:
1) Three pieces of matzah are tucked together in a special bag. They are hidden from sight, but you know they're there. In the same way, you know that God is there, but you can't see Him.This part of the Seder, which is found nowhere in Scripture, was either inspired in the Jewish community by the Spirit, or else was introduced in the community by early Messianics and adopted even though its meaning was lost. Either way, it's a beautiful example of a tradition that enhances the Messianic meaning of the Passover.2) The middle piece is brought out and broken. In the same way, God's Divine Presence was incarnated in the world as Yeshua so He could be seen, and then was broken for our sins.
3) One half of the middle piece is wrapped in a white cloth and hidden away. In the same way, Yeshua was wrapped in a white burial cloth, and hidden away in His tomb.
4) Towards the end of the seder, the children seek out and find the hidden piece, just as the women sought out and found Yeshua at the Resurrection. The seder cannot continue until the matzah is found, just as the history of redemption could not continue until Yeshua rose from the dead.
5) The very name "Afikomen" is interesting. In Greek, it is similar to a word that means "dessert," but in Aramaic, it may be understood as meaning, "He Came."
This being a tradition, there is no sin in not keeping it--but my Passover would feel impoverished somewhat without it, and the kids would miss it.
Shalom.
There's nothing for it either of course. :-).
If you want my personal opinion which is prone to error, then as I said previously it has the appearance of iidolatry...revering the book. Also it resembles some of the things Christ warned about in Matthew 6 about doing your alms before men. In my opinion.
He said, quote, "Brothers, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee!" Note the present tense. If Paul's practice was not within the bounds of Pharisaic Judaism--which is to say, early Orthodox Judaism--then for him to claim to still be a Pharisee would be as ludicrous as it would be for me to still claim to be a Baptist!
As I said the context and purpose of his statement wasn't to make the point that he followed all the traditions of the Pharisees. The context and purpose was to play the Pharisees against the Sadducees so he would gain an advantage.
Act 23:6 But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.
Act 23:7 And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided.
So even though he made the statement it wasn't making it for the purpose of proving that he followed all the traditions of the Pharisees.
Later in Acts Paul makes this statement to Agrippa in his defense:
Act 26:4 My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews;
Act 26:5 Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.
The context of this statement is that he lived as a Pharisee in the past. He *could* have made the defense that he was still a Pharisee and followed Pharisaical tradition, but he didn't.
He entered into the ongoing debates of his time; he didn't simply chuck everything out the window, despite what the Church at large teaches. Otherwise, he would not have completed his Nazrite vow and helped four other men to complete their vows in order to prove that he was not "teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs" (Acts 21:21).
Unlike mainstream Christians I don't think Paul chucked everything that came before the book of Matthew. But I do think he chucked most non-biblical tradition. You quoted Acts 21:21:
Act 21:21 And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, saying that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
"Customs" are not "traditions" biblically. The word translated "custom" is:
ethos
From G1486; a usage (prescribed by habit or law): - custom, manner, be wont.
This is differentiated from "tradition".
Mar 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.
"Tradition" is translated from:
paradosis
From G3860; transmission, that is, (concretely) a precept; specifically the Jewish traditionary law: - ordinance, tradition.
So when Jewish traditionary law is being referred to the paradosis is used.
Now here's where it gets interesting. Paul says a number of statements in his defense:
(Act 28:17) And it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together: and when they were come together, he said unto them, Men and brethren, though I have committed nothing against the people, or customs of our fathers, yet was I delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.
Paul's defense wasn't that he kept to the TRADITION. It was that he kept to the CUSTOMS. And even then he was careful to say "customs of our fathers". I think this makes it clear that he wasn't endorsing or advocating keeping the customs or the traditions of Jews. He was saying that he kept the customs of their fathers, which of course were in scripture.
Another thing Paul says in his defense is this:
Act 24:14 But this I confess unto thee, that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets:
Paul could have said "believing all things taught by tradition and oral law". But he was very careful to say what he believed which was "things which written IN the law and in the prophets." In other words, he believed what was written in scripture, but apparently didn't want to make such a statement about tradition or custom.
Now what about the Purification ceremony Paul went through in the temple in Acts 21? Why did he do it? Was it because he always practiced Jewish tradition or was it something else? I think Paul answers that question himself:
Act 24:16 And herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offense toward God, and toward men.
Act 24:17 Now after many years I came to bring alms to my nation, and offerings.
Paul doesn't want to offend anyone. How offensive would it have been to Jews if he went to the temple and didn't go through this ceremony? Plenty I'll bet. Paul says over and over in his letters not to give offense. He was practicing what he preached.
This part of the Seder, which is found nowhere in Scripture, was either inspired in the Jewish community by the Spirit, or else was introduced in the community by early Messianics and adopted even though its meaning was lost. Either way, it's a beautiful example of a tradition that enhances the Messianic meaning of the Passover.
I do believe there is benefit to studying the traditions of Jews. But I believe the main reason for such study is to gain a better understanding of scripture so that we're not led from the truth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.