Blind Traditions
Life of peter • Sermon • Submitted
0 ratings
· 437 viewsNotes
Transcript
Sermon Tone Analysis
A
D
F
J
S
Emotion
A
C
T
Language
O
C
E
A
E
Social
Blind Traditions
Blind Traditions
For the next several weeks we are going to look at texts where Peter was the spokesman for the group.
Then answered Peter and said unto him, Declare unto us this parable.
Matt 15:
Illustration of the spokesman:
So many of us go on blindly accepting traditions w/o comparing them to scripture.
Not all traditions are bad:
Christmas eve
Birthdays
Special Holidays
Peter would watch Jesus confront the religious leaders from Jerusalem.
Jesus had little time for those that would pervert and add requirement to God’s Word.
Jesus would get back to the basics and the traditions of man that had crept into the religious system of the day were overshadowing the Word of God.
Peter lived as a disciple of the Lord Jesus.
For the next three years, Peter lived as a disciple of the Lord Jesus. Being a natural-born leader, Peter became the de facto spokesman for the Twelve
Being a natural-born leader, Peter became the de facto spokesman for the Twelve
he would say what others were thinking.
he would speak for the 12 “what does this mean”
Explain to us
I Quibble (15:1–6)
I Quibble (15:1–6)
I Quibble (15:1–6)
A. A Quibble (15:1–6)
Background:
The Pharisees’ Challenge to Christ Regarding Rabbinical Tradition (15:1–2)
The Pharisees’ Challenge to Christ Regarding Rabbinical Tradition (15:1–2)
The Lord, we must remember, had just fed the five thousand in the wilderness.
The Lord, we must remember, had just fed the five thousand in the wilderness. Thousands of people had eaten bread with unwashed hands, and with the Lord’s evident blessing. The small-minded Pharisees did not care about the miracle. All they cared about was that the Lord had broken one of their religious taboos. Moreover they had probably seen the disciples eating some of the leftovers without first going through the ritual ceremony of washing hands.
Thousands of people had eaten bread with unwashed hands, and with the Lord’s evident blessing. The small-minded Pharisees did not care about the miracle. All they cared about was that the Lord had broken one of their religious taboos.
Moreover they had probably seen the disciples eating some of the leftovers without first going through the ritual ceremony of washing hands.
We must also remember that these Pharisees were from Jerusalem. The authorities in the capital were already disturbed by news of Christ’s continuing activity and popularity in Galilee. Their purpose in making the journey to observe Him was to find some cause of offense in Him.
“Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?” the Pharisees quibbled, “for they wash not their hands when they eat bread” (15:2).
“Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders?” the Pharisees quibbled, “for they wash not their hands when they eat bread” (15:2).
This challenge to Christ was no small incident.
Three reasons the Jews wanted to get rid of Jesus :
1) His scorning of the Jews’ traditions was one of the major reasons for their leaders’ determination to get rid of Him.
His scorning of the Jews’ traditions was one of the major reasons for their leaders’ determination to get rid of Him.
2) A second reason was that He ignored their sabbath laws and was therefore “not of God” and consequently a deceiver and a sinner (, , ).
3) A third reason was that, according to them, He was a blasphemer in that He claimed to be God’s equal. The Pharisees had already written off His miracles as being the work of Satan.
A third reason was that, according to them, He was a blasphemer in that He claimed to be God’s equal. The Pharisees had already written off His miracles as being the work of Satan.
From the days of Ezra, the Jews had begun to amass explanations and traditions that they added to the law and regarded as more important than the law.
This so-called oral law was already voluminous; in time it would become as large as the Encyclopedia Britannica and be known as the Talmud with its Mishna (text) and Gemara (commentary). For centuries, however, the oral law was preserved solely in the remarkably capacious memories of the rabbis.[1]
The Pharisees from Jerusalem were experts in these additions to the law. They did not accuse the disciples of breaking a specific Mosaic command.
Their schools, which differed about almost everything else, agreed that water had to be poured on the hands and allowed to run down to the wrist.
This and similar rules, which were “intended to separate the Jew from all contact with Gentiles,” were “of the most violently anti-Gentile, intolerant, and exclusive character.”[2]
Their schools, which differed about almost everything else, agreed that water had to be poured on the hands and allowed to run down to the wrist. This and similar rules, which were “intended to separate the Jew from all contact with Gentiles,” were “of the most violently anti-Gentile, intolerant, and exclusive character.”[2]
Traditions become Law - service time , schedule business meetings, Lord table, teen fund raisers,
Put Bible in pew with page numbers
Be sensitive with time
understand that not everyone is going to understand position on music/dress
There could be no modification of the rule for hand washing.
There could be no modification of the rule for hand washing.
Any rabbi who disregarded this tradition was excommunicated. The Pharisees regarded this and other ordinances of the scribes to be “more precious, and of more binding importance than those of Holy Scripture itself.”[3] The rabbis taught that tradition was weightier than the words of the Law and the Prophets.
Christ’s Challenge to the Pharisees Regarding Revealed Truth (15:3–6)
Christ’s Challenge to the Pharisees Regarding Revealed Truth (15:3–6)
2. Christ’s Challenge to the Pharisees Regarding Revealed Truth (15:3–6)
The Lord countered the accusation of the Pharisees with a challenge. They asked Him a question; He asked them a question.
“Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?” He said (15:3). Note the word “your.” The Lord was denying their claim that Jewish tradition went back to Moses when He bluntly called it their tradition.
The Lord did not deny that the disciples had transgressed the Pharisees’ tradition;
He simply swept it aside and vindicated the disciples for ignoring it. Not only was the tradition worthless; it violated the law of God.
The Lord referred the Pharisees to the fifth commandment of the Decalogue: “Honour thy father and mother” (15:4). says it is “the first commandment with promise.”
The Lord referred the Pharisees to the fifth commandment of the Decalogue: “Honour thy father and mother” (15:4). says it is “the first commandment with promise.”
The word translated “honour” includes the idea of supporting aged parents, as in . It is not enough to give verbal respect to parents. Honoring them means providing for their physical needs where necessary.
The rabbis, however, had come up with an evasion of the demands of the law ().
To get out of this obligation a Jew simply had to say the word “Corban” over all that he possessed ().
The word meant that he had dedicated his possessions to God. He could vow for instance that upon his death his savings would go to the temple. That vow absolved him from the present duty of helping his parents.
He had put his material possessions under a sacred umbrella, so to speak, and the claim of the fifth commandment was superseded by the vow.
However, he could still use his material means for his own personal enjoyment.
Thus the rabbis, in the name of the most punctilious regard for religious duty, voided God’s clear-cut law. The Lord’s thrust went home.
Thus the rabbis, in the name of the most punctilious regard for religious duty, voided God’s clear-cut law. The Lord’s thrust went home.
How do we view brethren when they change something that is merely custom? Do we criticize them? Are we ready to disfellowship them? Shall we “write them up” as liberal? This is the spirit of Pharisaism. Consider some examples.
Modern day Examples:
1) A more modern example is found in Catholicism. According to Romanism, “tradition” must assume its rightful place as a source of religious authority, along side of, and actually superior to, the Scriptures. A Catholic scholar says:
“It is an article of faith from a decree of the Vatican Council that Tradition is a source of theological teaching distinct from Scripture, and that it is infallible. It is therefore to be received with the same internal assent as Scripture, for it is the word of God” (Attwater, p. 41).
We must remind ourselves that tradition is not necessarily wrong. Traditions may be wise, expedient, accommodative, etc. The issue is — what attitude do we entertain when someone is practicing a tradition that differs from ours? How do we view brethren when they change something that is merely custom? Do we criticize them? Are we ready to disfellowship them? Shall we “write them up” as liberal? This is the spirit of Pharisaism. Consider some examples.
2)In the 1800s, many congregations administered the communion (fruit of the vine) by means of only one container.
Then, as more understanding developed about how disease is communicated, congregations began to migrate to the position that it might be more expedient to use individual containers.
Some brethren were so welded to the “one container” notion that they separated from those who opted for individual cups.
3) Sunday contributions were deposited in a box at the rear of the building. The use of collection baskets was a “liberal” trend they wanted to avoid. There was minor controversy in some places when brethren began to give their contributions by check, instead of with cash.
4) The structure of our modern worship format is significantly traditional. Should the Lord’s supper be served before the preaching service or afterward? Should we use song books, or may the lyrics and notes be projected upon a screen.
5) A preacher was criticized because, on Sunday evening, he spoke from down on the floor, instead of from the pulpit. The comment was: “He didn’t even preach!
6) Some have been charged with liberalism for not “offering the invitation” at the conclusion of every presentation. While an “invitation” may be a wonderful expedient at regular church assemblies, is it a “tradition”? Or is it biblically mandated? If the latter is the case, why is it not offered at the end of every Bible class?
Some have been charged with liberalism for not “offering the invitation” at the conclusion of every presentation. While an “invitation” may be a wonderful expedient at regular church assemblies, is it a “tradition”? Or is it biblically mandated? If the latter is the case, why is it not offered at the end of every Bible class?
While we are on the subject of “buildings,” what if a congregation decided that it did not wish to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars in real estate? Rather, the brethren would choose to rent a facility for use on the Lord’s day. Then, at other times, they would meet in groups for Bible study and additional fellowship? Would their decision be a violation of divine law? Would they be suspected of being a “cult”?
II A Quotation (15:7–11)
II A Quotation (15:7–11)
A Denunciation (15:7–9)
A Denunciation (15:7–9)
A Plain Statement About the Pharisees’ Hypocrisy (15:7)
a. A Plain Statement About the Pharisees’ Hypocrisy (15:7)
The Lord was not through. He followed up His challenge with a quotation from .
The Lord was not through. He followed up His challenge with a quotation from . The Pharisees said that their tradition was weightier than Scripture, but the Lord authoritatively referred them to Scripture and bluntly called them hypocrites.
The Pharisees said that their tradition was weightier than Scripture, but the Lord authoritatively referred them to Scripture and bluntly called them hypocrites.
A Prophetic Statement About the Pharisees’ Hypocrisy (15:8–9)
b. A Prophetic Statement About the Pharisees’ Hypocrisy (15:8–9)
The quotation was particularly appropriate, as were all the Lord’s references to Scripture, for it ruled out tradition. Isaiah of course prophesied long before the Babylonian captivity, long before the days of Ezra and the scribes, long before the beginning of the system of traditional teaching that in the end produced the Talmud.
The quotation was particularly appropriate, as were all the Lord’s references to Scripture, for it ruled out tradition. Isaiah of course prophesied long before the Babylonian captivity, long before the days of Ezra and the scribes, long before the beginning of the system of traditional teaching that in the end produced the Talmud.
A Declaration (15:10–11)
A Declaration (15:10–11)
“Hear, and understand,” He said, “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.”
Having thrust the sword of the Scripture at the Pharisees, the Lord turned to the multitudes who were listening in astonishment to this discussion. “Hear, and understand,” He said, “Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man; but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.” In one sweeping statement He had denounced the entire structure by which the rabbinical schools, the scribes, the Pharisees, and the religious leaders secured their hold on the multitudes. He labeled their religious rules and regulations, their exegesis, and their spirit-stifling, God-dishonoring, Bible-contradicting, man-enslaving, soul-destroying, ego-building, Satan-serving traditions as worthless.
In one sweeping statement He had denounced the entire structure by which the rabbinical schools, the scribes, the Pharisees, and the religious leaders secured their hold on the multitudes.
He labeled their religious rules and regulations, their exegesis, and their spirit-stifling, God-dishonoring, Bible-contradicting, man-enslaving, soul-destroying, ego-building, Satan-serving traditions as worthless.
Based on what the disciples said next, it is doubtful that the multitudes fully understood the Lord’s remark. The Jerusalem Pharisees, however, were smart enough to know that they had been checkmated by the One whom they had come to call to account.
III A Question (15:12–20)
III A Question (15:12–20)
The Blindness of His Foes (15:12–14)
The Blindness of His Foes (15:12–14)
1. The Blindness of His Foes (15:12–14)
1. The Blindness of His Foes (15:12–14)
“Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended, after they heard this saying?” (15:12) the disciples asked.
The Lord’s reply showed how little He cared about the opinion of these false teachers. “Every plant, which my heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up,” He said (15:13).
The disciples perhaps were more than a little alarmed at the Lord’s fearless exposure of these powerful men.
These were no local rabbis who had been offended. They were a deputation from Jerusalem.
The Lord never made room for error, no matter who was teaching it.
His Father had not planted the noxious weed of traditional religion, a religion more concerned with human opinion and outward conformity than with truth and reality.
“They be blind leaders of the blind,” He said. “Let them alone” (15:14). Jesus was fully aware of their hostility, but because of the ditch into which they were leading the blind people who followed them, He spoke out against them.
The Blindness of His Friends (15:15–20)
The Blindness of His Friends (15:15–20)
2. The Blindness of His Friends (15:15–20)
The disciples did not seem to understand. They had been raised in a religion that placed emphasis on ritual cleanness.
So the Lord explained that food in itself did not defile, even if it did happen to be ceremonially unclean or even if it did happen to be eaten with unwashed hands. It was only food and could have only a physical effect.
Before long, Peter (who raised this issue) would be taught once and for all that Judaism was obsolete and its Levitical restrictions about diet were lifted ().
What Am I asking you to Know?
What religious traditions are hurting your witness?