Tradition

[adamhovey1988]

You know tradition isn’t a bad word there are in fact some pointless traditions, and like if you enjoy sports that’s not necessarily a bad tradition or an empty tradition but it is a man-made tradition is there anything wrong with liking soccer Baseball American football basketball et cetera? No of course not. You know Jesus celebrated Jewish holidays which would not be found in the Canon of the Protestant Old Testament so did he have a problem with tradition? It doesn’t seem to me he did it seems to me he had a problem with Traditions that as I recall made void the word of God. The Bible itself is a tradition it had to start orally did it not? By the way to the OP I will tell you that the title of this post reminds me of Fiddler on the Roof

 

[benhur]

St. Paul in 2 Thess 2:15 tells us to " hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us ( Apostles ), either by word of mouth or letter".

It seems tradition is part of the Christian life not to be taken lightly or just picked through

Hi M,

Some translations have “commandments” or "doctrine’ instead of “traditions”. We also know that the gospel itself was itself at first “oral” and that in itself was the "tradition’’.

I like Henry’s commentary:

We have no certain proof of any thing having been delivered by the apostles, more than what we find contained in the Holy Scriptures. Let us then stand fast in the doctrines taught by the apostles, and reject all additions, and vain traditions."

Blessings

 

[CeelosDeznos]

Can you refer us to a few of those examples. The traditions you are referring to are prophecies written in scripture.

Every time Jesus speaks about tradition, He strangely refutes it by quoting scripture.

Certainly.

First, this is not a Scripture text that Jesus is speaking about. He is speaking about a Jewish tradition.

True, the tradition is based upon Malachi chapter 3, but it is an interpretation that is not mentioned at all in the text. Note:

Remember the law of Moses my servant,
whom I charged at Horeb
With statutes and ordinances
for all Israel.
Now I am sending to you
Elijah the prophet,
Before the day of the Lord comes,
the great and terrible day;
He will turn the heart of fathers to their sons,
and the heart of sons to their fathers,
Lest I come and strike
the land with utter destruction.–Malachi 3:22-24.

Note that the text says nothing about the Messiah. The Hebrew word meshiach doesn’t even appear. The scripture only says that before God comes to destroy the wicked, Elijah will come. Nothing in Malachi says that Elijah “comes first” before the Messiah as mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 17.

Where does this tradition actually come from? Rabbinic tradition of the day. It eventually became part of the written Oral Tradition of Judaism and as such appears in the Talmud at Tractate Sanhedrin 98a.

Look closely at the text of Matthew 17;10-11 again. The disciples asks Jesus not about the text in Malachi, but of the Jewish scribes. "Why do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?”

Note that Malachi does not say that “Elijah must come first” before the Messiah does. It is the scribes that do.

Who were the “scribes”? They were not merely copyists of the Scriptures. They were the exegetes, the interpreters of Scripture in Judah. In fact they specialized in being interpreters of the Torah.

Jesus does not counter the interpretation of the scribes. In fact he says their expectation is correct:

“Elijah will indeed come and restore all things; but I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him but did to him whatever they pleased. So also will the Son of Man suffer at their hands.” Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist.–Matthew 17:11-13.

So even though Malachi does not say that Elijah will come before the Messiah, and even though this is merely Oral Tradition, Jesus not only says the tradition is true, he claims it was even fulfilled.

Here is one example where Jesus relies on Jewish Oral Tradition to highlight himself as the Messiah. I will return shortly with other examples.

 

[benhur]

You know tradition isn’t a bad word there are in fact some pointless traditions, and like if you enjoy sports that’s not necessarily a bad tradition or an empty tradition but it is a man-made tradition is there anything wrong with liking soccer Baseball American football basketball et cetera? No of course not. You know Jesus celebrated Jewish holidays which would not be found in the Canon of the Protestant Old Testament so did he have a problem with tradition? It doesn’t seem to me he did it seems to me he had a problem with Traditions that as I recall made void the word of God. The Bible itself is a tradition it had to start orally did it not? By the way to the OP I will tell you that the title of this post reminds me of Fiddler on the Roof

Hi a,

Ahh, you brought it up that Jesus celebrated a “festival” because He was at the temple during one. Many use this to suggest He held on to that specific festival that is extra biblical. Yet there is not evidence He did such a thing. it is conjecture. Jesus went to the temple often to preach. he often went to where people were at. I can be at a Mardi Gras ministering to people, without having to believe in it’s spiritual significances/origins .

Yes , Fiddler and the song “Tradition” quite imprinted in my mind.

bing.com/videos/search?q=fiddler+on+the+roof+and+tradiotns&&view=detail&mid=E0327D03DCA80DA51F25E0327D03DCA80DA51F25&rvsmid=E0327D03DCA80DA51F25E0327D03DCA80DA51F25&fsscr=0&FORM=VDFSRV

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Certainly.

First, this is not a Scripture text that Jesus is speaking about. He is speaking about a Jewish tradition.

True, the tradition is based upon Malachi chapter 3, but it is an interpretation that is not mentioned at all in the text. Note:

Remember the law of Moses my servant,
whom I charged at Horeb
With statutes and ordinances
for all Israel.
Now I am sending to you
Elijah the prophet,
Before the day of the Lord comes,
the great and terrible day;
He will turn the heart of fathers to their sons,
and the heart of sons to their fathers,
Lest I come and strike
the land with utter destruction.–Malachi 3:22-24.

Note that the text says nothing about the Messiah. The Hebrew word meshiach doesn’t even appear. The scripture only says that before God comes to destroy the wicked, Elijah will come. Nothing in Malachi says that Elijah “comes first” before the Messiah as mentioned by Jesus in Matthew 17.

Where does this tradition actually come from? Rabbinic tradition of the day. It eventually became part of the written Oral Tradition of Judaism and as such appears in the Talmud at Tractate Sanhedrin 98a.

Look closely at the text of Matthew 17;10-11 again. The disciples asks Jesus not about the text in Malachi, but of the Jewish scribes. "Why do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?”

Note that Malachi does not say that “Elijah must come first” before the Messiah does. It is the scribes that do.

Who were the “scribes”? They were not merely copyists of the Scriptures. They were the exegetes, the interpreters of Scripture in Judah. In fact they specialized in being interpreters of the Torah.

Jesus does not counter the interpretation of the scribes. In fact he says their expectation is correct:

“Elijah will indeed come and restore all things; but I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him but did to him whatever they pleased. So also will the Son of Man suffer at their hands.” Then the disciples understood that he was speaking to them of John the Baptist.–Matthew 17:11-13.

So even though Malachi does not say that Elijah will come before the Messiah, and even though this is merely Oral Tradition, Jesus not only says the tradition is true, he claims it was even fulfilled.

Here is one example where Jesus relies on Jewish Oral Tradition to highlight himself as the Messiah. I will return shortly with other examples.

Hi CD,

Very good, but remember the day of the Lord was also not known to all to be more than one "coming’, so seems to me like Malachi indeed has "Elijah’ ’ comes before that “day”/Mesiah. Not sure how you can say “the day of the Lord” was not the Messiah’s coming, whether once or twice, as known to Malachi readers…

Again, I understand Jesus using the common understanding of Writ (tradition) to His advantage and glory, as He also used the common understanding of all things, such as nature itself , in the traditional teachings of the day.

Blessings

 

[CeelosDeznos]

Jesus also uses a Jewish tradition to prove that he is the Prophet spoken of by Moses, saying:

“I must continue on my way today, tomorrow, and the following day, for it is impossible that a prophet should die outside of Jerusalem.”–Luke 13:33.

This is part of a strong reply Jesus sends back to Herod, explaining why he refuses to turn back from journeying to Jerusalem.

But there is no Scripture that says: “It is impossible that a prophet should die outside of Jerusalem.” How can it be “impossible” if this isn’t something stated by Mosaic Law or elsewhere in Scripture?

Jewish tradition held that the real Prophets preached only in Jerusalem. In fact, the reason why Daniel is not considered one of the Jewish Prophets and that the Book of Daniel appears in the “Writings” section of the Hebrew canon instead of among the “Prophets” section, is that Jewish tradition dictates that the measure of a prophet sent to the children of Israel was whether he literally prophesied in Israel, most notably in Jerusalem.

Daniel is not among the list of Jewish Prophets because he was sent by God to the Gentiles, most notably their kings and rulers. His oracles were not directly meant for the children of Israel nor were they uttered upon the soil of the Promised Land. As such, though Daniel was a prophet inspired of God, he isn’t of the “class” of Prophets sent to nation of Israel. Moses promised that the Prophet like him would be such a prophet.

For a prophet to be declared “true” he had to appear before the High Court of Israel, namely the Sanhedrin, to be judged as authentic. The Sanhedrin is located, where else? Jerusalem.

This Oral Tradition was later put into writing as follows:

“They do not judge, neither a tribe, nor a false prophet, nor an high priest, but by the Sanhedrin of seventy and one.” --Mishnah Sanhedrin, c. 1. sect. 5. & T. Bab. Sanhedrin, fol. 18. 2. (See also Mishnah Sanhedrin, c. 10. sect. 4.)

Here Jesus was saying he was going to face trial and even death by and before the Sanhedrin just as any true Prophet would. Here Jesus has set his mind to fulfill Oral Tradition.

 

[CeelosDeznos]

Hi CD,

Very good, but remember the day of the Lord was also not known to all to be more than one "coming’, so seems to me like Malachi indeed has "Elijah’ ’ comes before that “day”/Mesiah. Not sure how you can say “the day of the Lord” was not the Messiah’s coming, whether once or twice, as known to Malachi readers…

Again, I understand Jesus using the common understanding of Writ (tradition) to His advantage and glory, as He also used the common understanding of all things, such as nature itself , in the traditional teachings of the day.

Blessings

“The day of the Lord” in Jewish Scripture refers to the day of judgment or “end of the world.” Note here in Malachi that such a day is “terrible” and that if people don’t repent that God “would strike the land with utter destruction.”

This is not the Golden Age of the Messianic Rule here being spoken of. The Messianic Rule is the opposite, a time of peace, restoration, not something “terrible.”

There are no connections in any Old Testament writings that claim the connection you are making. In fact, with this the Catholic Church agrees, stating:

Christian faith recognises the fulfilment, in Christ, of the Scriptures and the hopes of Israel, but it does not understand this fulfilment as a literal one…Jesus is not confined to playing an already fixed role — that of Messiah — but he confers, on the notions of Messiah and salvation, a fullness which could not have been imagined in advance…It would be wrong to consider the prophecies of the Old Testament as some kind of photographic anticipations of future events. All the texts, including those which later were read as messianic prophecies, already had an immediate import and meaning for their contemporaries before attaining a fuller meaning for future hearers. The messiahship of Jesus has a meaning that is new and original.–“The Jewish People and Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible,” II.A. 5, the Pontifical Biblical Commission.

This text in Malachi is one of the texts the Pontifical Biblical Commission is referring to.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission also notes that Christ fulfills not merely Jewish Scriptural texts of the Messiah but states that Jesus fulfills “the Scriptures and the hopes of Israel,” recognizing that some of what we as Christians take for granted is not explicit in Scripture but part of Jewish tradition.

 

[CeelosDeznos]

Also Jesus submitted to the baptism of John because of Jewish tradition, something Jesus said had to be fulfilled. Note Matthew 3:13-15:

Then Jesus came from Galilee to John at the Jordan to be baptized by him. John tried to prevent him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and yet you are coming to me?” Jesus said to him in reply, “Allow it now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he allowed him.

Jewish tradition of the Second Temple era taught that the Messiah would be someone who would submit to all mitzvah or “acts of righteousness.” Some of this Oral Tradition found itself into the Testament of Judah, being the basis for much of its comments.–See specifically T. Jud. 24:1-6.

Baptism in Jewish tradition is not merely an act symbolizing repenting from sins, but as an act demonstrating holy living, often in preparation for the attainment of a closer communion with God. A well-known passage in Antiquities of the Jews (xviii. 5, § 2) actually mentions this in connection with the ministry of John the Baptist.

There is also an Oral Tradition that water baptism can draw down the Holy Spirit upon a person (Yer. Suk. v. 1, 55a of Joshua b. Levi), though it can not be fairly stated that Jesus was drawing such a direct line between his actions and this view.

Whatever the reasons, there are no specifics in Scripture that need to be fulfilled with water baptism by Jesus, and his submission to this act is a submission to a Jewish tradition, one in this case that started his ministry of preaching the Gospel.

 

[JMM1957]

Hi M,

Some translations have “commandments” or "doctrine’ instead of “traditions”. We also know that the gospel itself was itself at first “oral” and that in itself was the "tradition’’.

I like Henry’s commentary:

We have no certain proof of any thing having been delivered by the apostles, more than what we find contained in the Holy Scriptures. Let us then stand fast in the doctrines taught by the apostles, and reject all additions, and vain traditions."

Blessings

Do you think 2 Thess. 2:15 is referring to “traditions” or “Traditions”, or both?

Do you think the “traditions” spoken of by Paul that were by “word of mouth” became Scripture at some point, or could they possibly have existed outside of Scripture and been passed along in the “Church”?

I am sure you prefer to use Henry’s commentary, as it see’s things more through a Protestant lens.

 

[CeelosDeznos]

There are others I can go on to demonstrate, but I would need more time. As a Hebrew Catholic I have access to a lot of resources on the subject, but as you can imagine it will take some time to do the research in order to provide sufficient bibliography in support.

These just happen to be the ones I remember from the top of my head, but I still had to double back and make sure I had the correct references to offer. I am also not sure if all these are easily accessible and some of these volumes may not be immediately available online.

It is a common mistake made by many confusing the “traditions of men” condemned by Jesus with the “tradition” passed down from the Patriarchs and the Apostles that make up the deposits of faith of both Judaism and Catholicism. New Testament Scripture testifies that there are “traditions” that are definitely not condemned, in fact that Christians are obliged to follow.–2 Thessalonians 2:15.

The concept of “Messiah” among the Jews is not limited to Hebrew Scripture. It is part of the culture of my people as well, a culture which consists of far more than inspired writings. The Messianic concept is part of our history as well, not merely what you can find in the Tanakh.

While those who object to all forms of tradition will never be satisfied with any material I can produce, I can only say as a Jewish Christian that I cannot deny the history of my own people which I know very well. It is not true that the Messianic concept is one that consists only of Scriptural texts. I would be lying to you if I attested to that as both a Christian and a son of Abraham.

 

[Wannano]

There are others I can go on to demonstrate, but I would need more time. As a Hebrew Catholic I have access to a lot of resources on the subject, but as you can imagine it will take some time to do the research in order to provide sufficient bibliography in support.

These just happen to be the ones I remember from the top of my head, but I still had to double back and make sure I had the correct references to offer. I am also not sure if all these are easily accessible and some of these volumes may not be immediately available online.

It is a common mistake made by many confusing the “traditions of men” condemned by Jesus with the “tradition” passed down from the Patriarchs and the Apostles that make up the deposits of faith of both Judaism and Catholicism. New Testament Scripture testifies that there are “traditions” that are definitely not condemned, in fact that Christians are obliged to follow.–2 Thessalonians 2:15.

The concept of “Messiah” among the Jews is not limited to Hebrew Scripture. It is part of the culture of my people as well, a culture which consists of far more than inspired writings. The Messianic concept is part of our history as well, not merely what you can find in the Tanakh.

While those who object to all forms of tradition will never be satisfied with any material I can produce, I can only say as a Jewish Christian that I cannot deny the history of my own people which I know very well. It is not true that the Messianic concept is one that consists only of Scriptural texts. I would be lying to you if I attested to that as both a Christian and a son of Abraham.

You have given intelligent and interesting responses. Thank you.

 

[Michael68]

Why are Protestants so afraid of the word “tradition”?
I love the traditions of the Church and the rich history.
The Mass is a wonderful example of these traditions

 

[LutheranScholar]

Why are Protestants so afraid of the word “tradition”?
I love the traditions of the Church and the rich history.
The Mass is a wonderful example of these traditions

I’m quite fond of tradition myself. Our Divine Service retains much that today’s contemporary Catholic might perhaps recognize. Luther wanted reformation, not reconstruction, after all. I’m sure other Lutherans and Anglicans can also testify to their fondness for tradition and point to Christian practices that their churches retained that go back to pre- 1517 days.

 

[Nita]

Matthew 23:23 * "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you tithe mint and dill and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law, justice and mercy and faith; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. *

There was no law requiring the tithing of small items like herbs; it would have been a tradition, at least of the scribes and Pharisees.
Jesus tells them they should have done both - their tradition and the law.

 

[MaryT777]

Typical Catholic argument.

Simple affirmatives or negatives. Nothing substantial added.

LOL…probably a typical CATHOLIC argument because this is Catholic answers which is a Catholic site.
Be blessed.

 

[Tarquin]

Did Jesus ever rely on Tradition rather than Scripture to establish His authority?

It seems like none of the teachings of Christ rely on OT tradition rather than on Scripture?

Obviously, Jesus used scripture and tradition. But I do not believe he actually had to or did “rely on” them in order “to establish his authority.” My reason for believing this derives from two verses.

Mark 1:22 “They were amazed at His teaching; for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.”

Matthew 7:29 "[When Jesus had finished saying these things, the crowds were amazed at His teaching,]
because He taught as one who had authority, and not as their scribes.

The scribes had to connect *their *teaching to the Scriptures and Tradition, because they had no authority in themselves. Therefore, the authority for what they were teaching depended completely on their being able to link what they were saying to that which did carry authority, namely Scripture and Tradition.

In contrast, Jesus did have authority inherently. (If I understand the Scriptures correctly.) He had authority independently of Scriptures and regardless of Tradition. (His enemies used both in their fight against him, so that we see too exclusive a reliance on Scripture and Tradition as well as misapplication of Scripture and Tradition can lead to a rejection of True Authority.) So when he taught, he sometimes taught directly from his heart. Either he chose not to link his sayings to Scripture and Tradition, or what he was teaching was *beyond *what was to be found in past Scripture and past Tradition.

 

[wmscott]

So as a convert to the beautiful Catholic faith, 33 years now, I get it that Protestants want it in writing, but Jesus sent his disciples out in to the world to “Preach” the Gospel of the Lord, not read it to the world. Mk 16:15 And he said to them, Go out all over the world and preach the gospel to the whole of creation

So becasue you need proof here you go:
1Cor 11:2 - hold fast to traditions I handed on to you
2Thess 2:15 - hold fast to traditions, whether oral or by letter
2Thess 3:6 - shun those acting not according to tradition
Jn 21:25 - not everything Jesus said recorded in Scripture
Mk 13:31 - heaven & earth shall pass away, but my word won’t
Acts 20;35 - Paul records a saying of Jesus not found in gospels
2Tim 1:13 - follow my sound words; guard the truth
2Tim2:2 - what you heard entrust to faithful men
2Pet 1:20 - no prophecy is a matter of private interpretation
2Pet 3:15-16 - Paul’s letters can be difficult to grasp & interpret
1Pet 1:25 - God’s eternal word = word preached to you
Rom 10:17 - faith come from what is heard
1Cor 15:1-2 - being saved if you hold fast to the word I preached
Mk 16:15 - go to the whole world, proclaim gospel to every creature
Mt 23:2-3 - chair of Moses; observe whatever they tell you

 

[Michael68]

If Protestants are so afraid of Tradition why do they follow them?

They have the Lord’s Supper

They sing hyms

They read from the scriptures

They Baptise

These are Traditions yet, as the OP suggests, Traditions are bad! ???

I don’t get it

 

[Wannano]

If Protestants are so afraid of Tradition why do they follow them?

They have the Lord’s Supper

They sing hyms

They read from the scriptures

They Baptise

These are Traditions yet, as the OP suggests, Traditions are bad! ???

I don’t get it

I am sorry you are having such a hard time with this. You have stated three things today th,at I don’t get…first you said my post says the OT is not scripture, don’t know where you get that , second you are stating Protestants are afraid of tradition, don’t know where you came up with that, third you say my OP suggests traditions are bad, don’t know how you come up with that either.

The basis for asking my OP was from hearing a statement that Christ always used scripture as in his words like “it is written” to establish His teaching rather than expanding on Tradition. I thought it would make an interesting post and there has been some interesting points raised. I feel badly that it is causing you so much turmoil.

 

[Michael68]

I am sorry you are having such a hard time with this. You have stated three things today th,at I don’t get…first you said my post says the OT is not scripture, don’t know where you get that , second you are stating Protestants are afraid of tradition, don’t know where you came up with that, third you say my OP suggests traditions are bad, don’t know how you come up with that either.

The basis for asking my OP was from hearing a statement that Christ always used scripture as in his words like “it is written” to establish His teaching rather than expanding on Tradition. I thought it would make an interesting post and there has been some interesting points raised. I feel badly that it is causing you so much turmoil.

I am very sorry for the misunderstanding!

I really thought you were playing “Gotcha” with the Catholics.

My apologies