Community Markers I (Tzit-Tzit)

When a community of people agrees to a common ideal of belief and/or practice, it is natural for some observances to become identity markers for the community. Community confers identity. Identity is then made concrete through mutual agreement and participation in similar beliefs and practices. This human tendency can be a strength when applied in a biblically covenantal context (e.g., with Sabbath observance or kashrut), but it also can create undue identity stress on non-essentials.

Baumgarten defines a sect as follows:
[a] voluntary association of protest, which utilizes boundary marking mechanisms—the social means of differentiation between insiders and outsiders—to distinguish between its own members and those otherwise normally regarded as belonging to the same national or religious entity (1997, p. 7).

What Baumgarten refers to here as “boundary-marking mechanisms” have also been labeled “badges of the covenant” in similar literature relative to 2nd-Temple Jewish identity. Thus far I have referred to these “boundary-marking mechanisms” or “badges of the covenant” as “identity markers.” I plan to use these terms interchangeably. Boundary-marking mechanisms often carry greater sociological import than the host group would allow. At other times the host group fans to flame their distinctives for the sake of group preservation or similar exigencies. In the context of Torah observance, boundary markers have strong potential to be the impetus of congregational split or denominationalism. Calendar observances, stringency of Shabbat observance, and congregational worship polity all hold potential for group cohesion or split—among others.

How do we determine the identity markers of any given community? One of the ways to address this question is to take on the perspective of outsiders. 2nd-Temple Jewry provides a good case study if simplified for ease of generalization. Interestingly, intra-Judaic sectarian divisions are not readily observable or recognizable to non-observant outsiders. So though we could point to several intra-Judaic sectarian identity markers (e.g., washing of hands for Pharisees or Sunday Shavuot for Sadducees), someone on the outside looking in would be less likely to notice such differences. The identity markers that the outside world used to define 2nd-Temple Jewry were Sabbath observance, circumcision, and food laws (cf. James Dunn). The outside world expected these distinctives of 2nd-Temple Jews, and these expectations made the observances all the more important. In addition to the value of outside expectation, post-Exilic or 2nd-Temple Jewry displayed an inherent concern with Sabbath observance, ritual purity (exemplified in application and over-application of purity laws related to food), and filial piety (e.g., circumcision).

As a brief though highly significant side note, these and other distcintives are often what Paul was grappling with in several contexts. Though he was not opposed to any of these practices, he opposed usage of any given commandment as a claim for initiation into kahal Yisrael or as grounds for arguing one’s pardon/salvation with God.

Another example of community identity markers can be found in Pentecostalism and the charismatic renewal movements. The Assembly of God denomination teaches that speaking in tongues is the definitive evidence of the post-regenerational baptism in the Spirit. Though the Assembly of God denomination does not make speaking in tongues a litmus test for fellowship or salvation, cross denominational fellowship often brings this Assembly of God community distinctive to the fore of conversation.

Many of my readers fall within the messianic or One-Law movement like me. I am writing with such a readership in mind. I am asking for us to be cognizant of our community identity markers. There are Scriptural identity markers that were created to be visible disincentives to ourselves and the world of our election. These observances do not make one elect, but they are identity markers of our election. I would like to identify some of the identity markers of our communities and assess them from a biblical perspective. Some of these are positive and/or affirmational while others are negative or denials (such as not observing Easter). It is my concern that balance be achieved in our identity markers and that we not overly legalize or “make Torah” practices that are artificially elevated through our unique sociological sitz im leben. The observance that is foremost on my radar as an unhealthy boundary marker is the wearing of men’s head coverings. Before I have the chance to present research on men’s head coverings, I will cover a number of other items. First I will cover tzit-tzit.

Considering the biblical legality of tzit-tzit (i.e., they are a commandment from God), it is desirable to wear them daily. However, the case for daily usage might not be as biblically founded as some might assume. Numbers 15:38 states:

דַּבֵּר אֶל-בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם, וְעָשׂוּ לָהֶם צִיצִת עַל-כַּנְפֵי בִגְדֵיהֶם, לְדֹרֹתָם; וְנָתְנוּ עַל-צִיצִת הַכָּנָף, פְּתִיל תְּכֵלֶת.

Of greatest significance is the phrase “asu loham tzit-tzit al kanfey bigdeyham” (…and they shall make to themselves tassels upon the wings of their garments…” This commandment presumes the presence of a winged garment. A winged garment has four extremities or corners. Hence, the commandment applies to an individual (male or female) who wears a four-cornered garment. Both Karaite and Rabbinic streams of Jewish though teach that tzit-tzit are only incumbent on a person wearing a winged or four-cornered garment. The rabbis teach, though, that in the fear of God a person should create the obligation through wearing an arba kanfot (tallit katan) throughout the day.

I generally wear tzit-tzit on a daily basis; though, I do not wear them all day. I wear them during prayer (generally) and typically all day on Shabbat. When I wear them during the day I often tuck them into my pockets. I like to wear a tallit katan beneath a vest or wear an untucked shirt with a tallit katan beneath it.

With some caution, it would be acceptable for tzit-tzit to become an identity marker within a community of love (expressed through tolerance). If a believer (or a community) in the fear of God feels compelled to wear them throughout the day, then let that person (community) operate in the fear of God and do so. However, we must be tolerant of others who do not accept our tzit-tzit practices. Daily wearing of tzit-tizt is not required according to the letter of the law. We must not allow the identity that tzit-tzit confer cause us to elevate our individual tzit-tzit practice as the grounds to judge another.

kol tuv,
PeterS (Tzuriel)

Albert L. Baumgarten, The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era: An Interpretation (JSJSup [earlier StPB] 55; Leiden: Brill, 1997), 5-15 (esp. 7). as cited by Roland Deines in The Pharisees Between "Judaisms" and "Common Judaism." in Justification and Variegated Nomism, 2001. Vol 1. of The Complexities of Second Temple Judaism.