Old Testament Religion and Problems with Protestantism

[Matariel]

Look at Old-Testament Judaism. It is was an ancient sacramental religion which made use of incense, ritual, chanting, liturgy, etc. And then in Apocalypse, we see this is the same worship in Heaven. If this is the kind of worship that God accepted in the Old Testament and in Heaven, why would Christians not worship God in this way? Isn’t God consistent?

Old-Testament Judaism was also heirarchical and unified. Do we really believe disunity and splintering and anti-clericalism sprung from that, and that that is what God intended for the New-Testament Religion? Division is repeatedly condemned by St. Paul, and he emphasizes that there is “one body”. One body alone. Not tonnes of different rival bodies.

We see in the Old Testament, a sacramental, ritual, communal, heirarchical and unified religion, so we should expect to see Christianity as a sacramental, ritual, communal, heirarchical and unified religion-- Since God isn’t inconsistent or chaotic. Due to the Incarnation, you would actually expect the New Testament religion to further emphasize the sacramental aspect, much as the understanding of the Eucharist in Catholic understanding.

Thoughts or explanations?

 

[Matariel]

Geez. Don’t everyone speak at once…

 

[Publisher]

Judaism was/is based on ritual. Certain rituals in the Hebrew Bible coupled with sacrifice and washings cleanses from sin through the Levitical Priesthood.

Under the New Covenant, Jesus fulfilled the need to engage in rituals and is himself our High Priest, we share in his priesthood. Through his life and work we no longer are under the requirements of the Law to engage in rituals nor do we need someone else acting on our behalf, we can approach the “throne of grace” with boldness…on our own without the aid of priest or minister.

Through Christ we are now a new Nation of Priests baptized into him by his Holy Spirit and made new creations empowered to live lives holy and blameless before God through the work of the Holy Spirit as Jesus is our intercessor.

The veil of the temple was torn into by his death, thus opening the Holy of Holies for all time…no longer requiring a Levitical priest to offer sacrifice on our behalf…it has been offered before the Father by Christ himself.

The scene in the Apocylypse is reminiscent of Jewish apocyliptic literature and not intended to be seen as “lteral”, but was a vision…heavenly events in human words. I’m sure the proto-catholic/orthodox groups who embraced such a vision patterned their worship after Jewish ritual since Christianity came out of Judaism.

 

[Dauphin]

It’s true that Christ, being the law incarnate, fulfilled the old law and removed its ritual requirements, but it doesn’t follow that all ritual is then unacceptable - it simply isn’t necessary for salvation. The hallowed actions of the Mass, for instance, unite us through the centuries to all the saints, conforming us to the mind of the Church through time, and ensuring our fidelity to the deposit of faith which it communicates.

While all Catholics belong to the priesthood of all believers, it doesn’t follow that Christ intended to bring an end to ministerial priesthood. He instituted a priesthood of a higher order intended to perpetuate His sacrifice in the Mass, applying its grace through all time. It is, of course, Christ who acts in the Mass and in the other sacraments. There is no purely human intercessor.

 

[Lujack]

This is an interesting argument. I’m not sure I’ve seen one taking these lines before, and it should break open some new lines (which is nice, rather than seeing the same debates go around and around). In a lot of ways, the Catholic Mass does harken back to the old Jewish forms of worship (particularly the consuming of a sacrifice). That connection and continuity gives it a lot of strength and holiness in my opinion.

The counterarguments you’ll most likely see from Protestants are:

1. The temple veil was torn open at the Crucifixion. Some Protestants will argue this symbolizes the breaking of the hierarchy. This one isn’t particularly strong, in my opinion. Its been refuted many different times in many different contexts.
2. Other Protestants, particularly Anglicans and Lutherans, might argue that while this does indicate that our worship should take a more elaborate, Jewish form, it does not necessarily indicate that the Catholic approach is the way to do it. This is probably the strongest counterargument. I’d have to think about how to counteract it.
3. A third group of Protestants might argue that God accepts sacrifices, no matter how little or inelaborate they are. The counterargument here seems pretty simple to me: while God may accept less elaborate or formal sacrifices, that doesn’t that the formal ceremonies shouldn’t be the standard, with informal ones (like general absolutions before battle or the “tent Masses’” conducted by the Irish Brigade during the Civil War) being the exception, not the rule.

My other thought is that this seems like a more effective defensive argument, to defend the validity of Mass and religious icons against certain fundamentalist claims, than an evangelical argument to convince people to join the Catholic Church.

 

[ralphinal]

Judaism, and Islam for that matter, are more concerned with correct acts than correct beleif. It is one reason that you can have a secular Jew: someone who denies the existance of God but still holds to the rituals of Judaism.

Christianity is about correct faith. However, if one follows the Christianity taught by Jesus, you see that Faith is 100% connected to works. John 3:36 “Whoever believes in the Son will have eternal life, whoever disobeys the Son will not have eternal life but is still under the judgement of God.” To have faith is to do that which Christ commands of us.

To that end, there is a logic in a set ritual for religion that God understood with the Jews. There is no reason to think that, as a people, we are less in need of the structure of worship or “Prescribed” acts than they were. Yes, we are not held bound by the old laws of sacrifice. That is not to mean that we do not have new ones in their place.

Why would God scrap structure for a free-for-all knowing that humans are both social creatures and creatures of habit?

 

[Matariel]

Judaism was/is based on ritual. Certain rituals in the Hebrew Bible coupled with sacrifice and washings cleanses from sin through the Levitical Priesthood.

Yeah…

Under the New Covenant, Jesus fulfilled the need to engage in rituals and is himself our High Priest, we share in his priesthood.

Precisely.

Through his life and work we no longer are under the requirements of the Law to engage in rituals nor do we need someone else acting on our behalf…

Right-- we are not under the Old Testament Law-- but we are under the Law of the Spirit. So we need not follow the Old Testament rituals. This has nothing to do with New Testament sacramentalism. And, the statement, “nor do we need someone else acting on our behalf” is only partially correct, since it confuses the ubiquity of the Presbyterium and Episcopate, who share more fully in Christ’s role as high priest of God, more so than the Universal Priesthood of believers.

Through Christ we are now a new Nation of Priests baptized into him by his Holy Spirit and made new creations empowered to live lives holy and blameless before God through the work of the Holy Spirit as Jesus is our intercessor.

True, but again this ignores the unique sacramental character of New Testament religion-- which one would expect to be even more sacramental than Old Testament religion, considering the enfleshment of God.

The veil of the temple was torn into by his death, thus opening the Holy of Holies for all time…no longer requiring a Levitical priest to offer sacrifice on our behalf…

Yes, the Levitical priesthood is done away with. But the Melchizadekian Priesthood of Christ continues with his Presbyterium and Episcopate, and even in his Universal Priesthood of all believers.

The scene in the Apocylypse is reminiscent of Jewish apocyliptic literature and not intended to be seen as “lteral”, but was a vision…heavenly events in human words.

Obviously, but this still does not answer the question. About the consistency of God, about heavenly reminiscence of the Mass (Jesus, in Apocalypse, speaks about coming to sup with him-- the same Greek word “sup” is used throughout the Bible in reference to the Last Supper) and about the continuity of God’s covenants.

I’m sure the proto-catholic/orthodox groups who embraced such a vision patterned their worship after Jewish ritual since Christianity came out of Judaism.

“Proto-Catholic/Orthodox groups”? Do you mean the early Catholic Church? The Mass was a natural outgrowth of apostolic teaching, combining the synagogue service (along with gospel readings inserted) the Temple worship, and, most importantly, the Holy Eucharist, which the early Christians believed to be the Body and Blood of Christ.

 

[Publisher]

Yeah…

Precisely.

Right-- we are not under the Old Testament Law-- but we are under the Law of the Spirit. So we need not follow the Old Testament rituals. This has nothing to do with New Testament sacramentalism. And, the statement, “nor do we need someone else acting on our behalf” is only partially correct, since it confuses the ubiquity of the Presbyterium and Episcopate, who share more fully in Christ’s role as high priest of God, more so than the Universal Priesthood of believers.

As a member of the Society of Friends, we do not accept “clerical” distinctions. We each serve in the capacity we are called…each of us is a priest and minister approaching God directly with no need of anyone else performing any ritual on our behalf to “provide grace”, God in Christ has provided sufficient grace through faith. We do have “Clerks of the Meeting” who preside over Meetings for Worship and or business…but this is administrative only…each of us may bring vocal ministry to the Meeting as the Spirit moves us to repsond to the needs of the Meeting.

True, but again this ignores the unique sacramental character of New Testament religion-- which one would expect to be even more sacramental than Old Testament religion, considering the enfleshment of God.

For Friends, life is sacramental…each meal is an opportunity to share love and grace with one another…God is a Present participant at every juncture of our lives. A cup of water given in His Name is a holy for Friends as the chalice is at the mass for Catholics. Every movement of our hands to offer healing and comfort is as much a Sign of our faith as when a Catholic makes the sign of the cross. We see no distinctions of “sacramental” and “non sacramental” as Christ is always present among his people…we believe in a “realized escatology”…a Living Presence in our Midst.

Yes, the Levitical priesthood is done away with. But the Melchizadekian Priesthood of Christ continues with his Presbyterium and Episcopate, and even in his Universal Priesthood of all believers.

Each of us shares in that Priesthood to approach God on our own without the aid of a “priest” or “minister” to “do something” for us…our High Priest has done it already and opened the Throne of Grace for us to approach with boldness without the need of any one acting on our behalf…we share His Priesthood.

Obviously, but this still does not answer the question. About the consistency of God, about heavenly reminiscence of the Mass (Jesus, in Apocalypse, speaks about coming to sup with him-- the same Greek word “sup” is used throughout the Bible in reference to the Last Supper) and about the continuity of God’s covenants.

God called the Jewish people into a covenant relationship with Him to bless the world. Jesus fulfilled the requirements on our behalf for any ritual to be done for us…we respond to Him in faith as we are made new creatures through the Holy Spirit’s working…we share in the Supper of the Lamb each day…we call all men to His Table to eat the Living Bread and drink the Living Water…all else is shadow…we seek to live in the Reality of His Presence.

“Proto-Catholic/Orthodox groups”? Do you mean the early Catholic Church? The Mass was a natural outgrowth of apostolic teaching, combining the synagogue service (along with gospel readings inserted) the Temple worship, and, most importantly, the Holy Eucharist, which the early Christians believed to be the Body and Blood of Christ.

I mean those followers of Jesus that began to organize around certian leaders that taught apostolic succession and an hierarchy of bishops, priests, and deacons…not all who followed Jesus of Nazareth held such beliefs…those that did not hold such beliefs were eventually labeled “heretic” by the group which eventually gained prominence and called itself “cathlolic”. Eventually this group became the largest and aligned itself with the Roman government with the “conversion” of Constantine and all other groups were suppressed…I realize this is not the history taught by the Catholic or Orthodox Church and is lableled “reconstructionist” by the “conservative/orthodox”…Friends typically have not been considered ‘conservative’…and Friends have been outside of Reformation thought as well…I am content in my faith and while we do not share the same view of history, we share faith in the Eternal One who has been revealed fully in Jesus of Nazareth, the True Light which engages every man.

 

[Matariel]

I mean those followers of Jesus that began to organize around certian leaders that taught apostolic succession and an hierarchy of bishops, priests, and deacons…not all who followed Jesus of Nazareth held such beliefs…those that did not hold such beliefs were eventually labeled “heretic” by the group which eventually gained prominence and called itself “cathlolic”. Eventually this group became the largest and aligned itself with the Roman government with the “conversion” of Constantine and all other groups were suppressed…I realize this is not the history taught by the Catholic or Orthodox Church and is lableled “reconstructionist” by the “conservative/orthodox”…Friends typically have not been considered ‘conservative’…and Friends have been outside of Reformation thought as well…I am content in my faith and while we do not share the same view of history, we share faith in the Eternal One who has been revealed fully in Jesus of Nazareth, the True Light which engages every man.

True, we should embrace our common belief in the Redeemer of mankind, the Lord Jesus Christ.

But, do you have any evidence that “not all that followed Jesus of Nazareth” held the same beliefs as the early Church (besides unorthodox groups like the Judaizers and Gnostics)?

Or that Quakerism or Quaker-like sect existed at the outset of the Christian religion?

 

[Steadfast]

1. many Protestant churches are intensely liturgical and have a very high sense of order and ceremony.
2. those that are not are likely to say that Christ abrogated the OT pattern in favor of a more “spirit-led” one.

I am not interested in defending the latter position beyond saying that an organic continuity with ritual Judaism isn’t necessarily something Christians should expect from the church.

As it is, even the forms used in those churches with high liturgies bear very little direct resemblance to the sacrificial system as it was practiced in old Judaism at it’s tabernacular height.

Indeed, a strong argument could be made that “synagogic” Judaism (which existed side by side with the temple practice), with it’s emphasis on prayer, scripture reading and exposition bears a closer organic resemblance to free church Protestantism than any of the more liturgical varieties of Christianity, Roman or otherwise.

 

[ralphinal]

1. many Protestant churches are intensely liturgical and have a very high sense of order and ceremony.
2. those that are not are likely to say that Christ abrogated the OT pattern in favor of a more “spirit-led” one.

I am not interested in defending the latter position beyond saying that an organic continuity with ritual Judaism isn’t necessarily something Christians should expect from the church.

As it is, even the forms used in those churches with high liturgies bear very little direct resemblance to the sacrificial system as it was practiced in old Judaism at it’s tabernacular height.

Indeed, a strong argument could be made that “synagogic” Judaism (which existed side by side with the temple practice), with it’s emphasis on prayer, scripture reading and exposition bears a closer organic resemblance to free church Protestantism than any of the more liturgical varieties of Christianity, Roman or otherwise.

Very good point. Naturally, if we want to view the system as such, it would be more “Jewish” to have both. After all, Jesus did command us to perform this sacrifice in his name. The more synagogic system would be present in Bible studies and lectures structured around the ritual system

 

[Matariel]

Very good point. Naturally, if we want to view the system as such, it would be more “Jewish” to have both. After all, Jesus did command us to perform this sacrifice in his name. The more synagogic system would be present in Bible studies and lectures structured around the ritual system

Actually, the Mass was a natural outgrowth of apostolic teaching, combining the synagogue service (along with gospel readings inserted) the Temple worship, and, most importantly, the Holy Eucharist, which the early Christians believed to be the Body and Blood of Christ.

It was a combination of three things:

**Synagogue service became Liturgy of the Word.

Temple Service became Offeratory and Thanksgiving, along with other ritualistic elements.

Passover became the Holy Eucharist, which, of course, was the summit of Christian faith.**

So it’s all three.

 

[ralphinal]

Actually, the Mass was a natural outgrowth of apostolic teaching, combining the synagogue service (along with gospel readings inserted) the Temple worship, and, most importantly, the Holy Eucharist, which the early Christians believed to be the Body and Blood of Christ.

It was a combination of three things:

**Synagogue service became Liturgy of the Word.

Temple Service became Offeratory and Thanksgiving, along with other ritualistic elements.

Passover became the Holy Eucharist, which, of course, was the summit of Christian faith.**

So it’s all three.

I may be wrong, but I thought that there were always scripture reading in the Temple service.

 

[hmgs1]

I can echo what has already been said in many respects. Mainline Protestant churches normally have at least one service per Sunday defined as traditional, eg, very liturgical and very similar to mass though with a longer sermon. Its why one Lutheran pastor refered to his church as Roman Catholic lite.

However, and despite the fact that I am sure many Catholic members will cringe, here is a consideration from the secular historical side of the house, eg, Dr Helen Bond of the Universty of Aberdeen et al. She concludes Jesus was killed by the Pharasees because he promoted a new, more intensely personal relationship with God, one that did not need a temple, its rituals or its priesthood to be productive and fruitful. To the Pharasees this meant essentially that they superfluous, out of a job and toppled from power.

Now consider that analysis in light of the Sermon on the Mount and how it was presented.

I dunno, I personally like the more liturgical style myself, but it is food for thought. Most likely God is pretty happy to just have you in the door.

 

[Matariel]

I agree. I find the liturgical worship more beautiful, sacred, and deep. Sure, God is immanent, but He is also transcendent-- a fact I think many Protestants sometimes overlook.

As a Protestant, I found that non-liturgical worship basically made it “worship at the whims of the pastor”. And also that it made people equate “music” (usually new-fangled praise-and-worship ditties) with “worship”.

To me I also see something terrible befalling the Protestant churches-- secularization of what should be sacred, and making worship services “entertaining”, which misses the entire point. I also see tonnes of commercialization and trivialization of the Christian faith, which provides fodder for anti-Christian people.

It’s sad.

 

[hmgs1]

Curious, what denomination of Protestant were/are you?

I really don’t have an issue with more informal or contemporary services, though its not my style, so long as it gets people to church and conveys the proper message. And while it concerns me to say so, if the historians are correct, Jesus was killed because he was perceived a threat to the very ritual laden services both you and I enjoy, and His Sermon on the Mount sure didn’t include a liturgy.

I got this nagging feeling I might be on the wrong side of the ledger on this one.

 

[Matariel]

Curious, what denomination of Protestant were/are you?

Was Wesleyan, then Nazarene, then Independent, then (very shortly) Episcopalian, then Anglican, and now I’m going through RCIA to become Catholic.

I really don’t have an issue with more informal or contemporary services, though its not my style, so long as it gets people to church and conveys the proper message.

But that’s the problem. It, by itself, coveys the the wrong messages.

And while it concerns me to say so, if the historians are correct, Jesus was killed because he was perceived a threat to the very ritual laden services both you and I enjoy, and His Sermon on the Mount sure didn’t include a liturgy.

Actually, this is the first time I heard of “historians” saying that, and I highly doubt that that’s true. The Pharisees wanted to kill Him because He claimed Godhood. Also, if you read the Early Church Fathers, you’ll see Christian worship was clearly liturgical. For instance, Justin Martyr, the first Christian Apologist, describes in the 2nd century (100 A.D) speaks of the early Christian worship, and describes a liturgical worship with the Eucharist as the centre.

I got this nagging feeling I might be on the wrong side of the ledger on this one.

Believe me, you’re not. I’ve never heard of the historian you quoted, but most historians I’ve read highlight that early Christian worship, was in fact, liturgical. For instance, wikipedia states:

The earliest development of Christian worship is documented in the New Testament and Church Fathers including Justin Martyr, Irenaeus and Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170-c. 236), and seems to be liturgical.** The Holy Eucharist was the central act of worship in early Christianity.** The Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles present the very early Christians, then still very much a part of the Jewish scene, as frequenting both the Temple and synagogues, as well as worshipping in private homes, frequently to “break bread,” a term which connotes both the sharing of an agape meal, and** celebrating the Eucharist**. Acts 2:42 presents the very early Church of Jerusalem as “continuing in the Apostles’ teaching and fellowship, the breaking of bread, and the prayers.” Psalms and hymns based on them were a regular feature of Jewish worship in the synagogues continued into the early Catholic Church. The early Christian use of incense in worship seemed first to originate in Christian funeral rites, and later used during regular worship services.

Also check out Liturgica.com.
And read the Early Church Fathers.

 

[hmgs1]

Well perhaps, but Bond is not the only historian to note that while divinity may have been the public reason, other more practical matters were likely at the top of the list.

Go to div.ed.ac.uk/hkbond.html and you can take a look at her vitae (sorry, she is at the Divinity School of the University of Edinburgh, mea culpa). I’ve read Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation, most impressive, and am trying to find the tome on Caiaphas now.

And again, the Sermon on the Mount included no liturgy - significant?

 

[Matariel]

Well perhaps, but Bond is not the only historian to note that while divinity may have been the public reason, other more practical matters were likely at the top of the list.

Even so, Jesus did do away with the Levitical system, not liturgical worship (remember, heavenly worship is later [after the crucifixion] depicted in a liturgical fashion). This is altogether another subject from Christian approach to worship.

And again, the Sermon on the Mount included no liturgy - significant?

The Sermon on the Mount had no liturgy because it wasn’t a worship service, much like one sees Fr. John Corapi or some other priest (or minister) sees one teaching publically on teevee. It was Jesus teaching, not a worship service. As a matter of fact, we read of Christ being the lector at the Synagogue service. However,the Sermon on the Mount does include the Lord’s Prayer, which has been recited in all liturgical churches since the early Church times.

 

[Publisher]

True, we should embrace our common belief in the Redeemer of mankind, the Lord Jesus Christ.

But, do you have any evidence that “not all that followed Jesus of Nazareth” held the same beliefs as the early Church (besides unorthodox groups like the Judaizers and Gnostics)?

The Ebionites(Judaizers), Gnostics were not a homogonous whole, what usually is depicted as “gnostic” wasn’t…The book “Lost Christianities” by Bart Erhman is a good source, “The Pre-Nicene New Testament” by Robert Price is another on the “short list”.

Or that Quakerism or Quaker-like sect existed at the outset of the Christian religion?

Friends do not believe that our “practice of worship” and mode of governing our Society is carved in stone and “God-ordained” to be perpetuated through it’s ministry…All who seek to live at peace with all men through obedience to the Light Within are in harmony with Friends…whether they “name” themselves “Friends” or not. Friends never intended to be a separate “sect”…just people living in the Light…those who opposed Friends principles…“forced” our organization into a Society of believers…“they were first called Christians in Antioch” is a familiar historical tidbit…we were first called “Quakers” in England. There is only One People of God…