New Testament Meaning of Tradition - Sola Scriptura, Pt 11

We now step into one of the main fundamental differences between Protestants and Catholics as we attempt to define and discuss ‘tradition’. For the Catholic, “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God …” [1] It further defines ‘tradition’ as, “This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition ...” [2] According to the Catholic Church, many unwritten doctrines have been ‘revealed’ over the centuries. Doctrines such as: the veneration of Mary and the saints, praying to Mary and to the saints, the immaculate conception of Mary, the bodily assumption of Mary, transubstantiation, penance, and purgatory, to name a few. These are the ‘canon fodder’ of disagreements where far too much time is spent. It’s not that I accept any of these extra-biblical ‘beliefs’, or that Protestants should even consider to accept them (they should not), it’s that these are the peripheral issues – while the heart of the difference is in the concept of ‘tradition’. If we accept ‘tradition’ then it becomes difficult (but not impossible) to disagree with these peripheral issues. But if tradition is shown to be a fallacy, then these peripheral issues don’t even have legs to stand on, and can be completely rejected without even having to discuss them.

So, for ‘tradition’ to be accepted, there has to be something that introduces it and gives it merit to be believed. That is one of the reasons that verses like 1 Cor 11:2, 2 Th 2:15, 2 Th 3:6 and 2 Tim 2:2 are touted as ‘Scriptural proofs’ of ‘unwritten oral teachings’ that were never written down in Scripture. It is also the reason why there is so much focus on 2 Tim 3:16 to be discredited as a ‘proof text’ of Sola Scriptura. As has already been presented in God-Breathed Scriptures and Fully Equipped: Answering an Objection, half of their argument for ‘tradition’ has been significantly dismantled since Catholic apologists cannot themselves undermine 2 Tim 3:16, the God-breathed Scriptures that fully equip the believer.

So let’s see what the New Testament has to say about ‘tradition’. There are 13 verses that reference the Greek word “paradosis”, or “tradition”, which means, “a handing down; a) the teachings of the Rabbis, interpretation of the Law, and b) of apostolic teaching.” [3] Here are those 13 verses:

• “Why do Your disciples break the tradition of the elders? For they do not wash their hands when they eat bread.” (Mat 15:2)
• And He answered and said to them, “Why do you yourselves transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition? (Mat 15:3)
• he is not to honor his father or his mother.' And by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition. (Mat 15:6)
• (For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders; (Mk 7:3)
• The Pharisees and the scribes *asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?” (Mk 7:5)
• “Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.” (Mk 7:8)
• He was also saying to them, “You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition. (Mk 7:9)
• thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.” (Mk 7:13)
• Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. (1 Cor 11:2)
• and I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my countrymen, being more extremely zealous for my ancestral traditions. (Gal 1:14)
• See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. (Col 2:8)
• So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. (2 Th 2:15)
• Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us. (2 Th 3:6)

Since some of these cannot possibly be meant as examples of unwritten oral apostolic teachings, let’s whittle the list down some.

Of the 13 occurrences of the word “tradition” in the New Testament, one (Matt 15:3) is where the Pharisees ask Jesus why his disciples didn’t follow the tradition of the elders. One is a comment by Mark (Mark 7:3) of how the Pharisees washed before eating. In each of the remaining accounts in Matthew and Mark (six occurrences), Jesus responds to the Pharisees by condemning them for their traditions (Matt 15:3, 6; Mark 7:5, 8, 9, 13) and thus negating the word of God. This is hugely important because Jesus is telling us that traditions are not to contradict God’s word. [4] [emphasis added]

As we can see in six of the Scripture quotes above, Matt 15:3, 6; Mark 7:5, 8, 9, 13, Jesus had nothing good to say about ‘tradition’, repudiating the Pharisees to their faces because their ‘traditions’ were violating and invalidating the Word of God. Jesus condemned the traditions of the Pharisees and revealed their deeds to the people with some of the strongest language possible in Mat 23:

• He called them hypocrites (Mat 23:13, 14, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29)
• Shut off the kingdom of heaven from people (Mat 23:14)
• Blind guides, fools, blind men (Mat 23:16, 17)
• Whitewashed tombs full of dead men’s bones. (Mat 23:27)
• Blind guides of the blind (Mat 15:14)

And why did Jesus speak so harshly against their traditions? Because Jesus viewed Scripture as what judges tradition, both true and false. It is Scripture that is ‘God-breathed’, not tradition and it also means that tradition should be subservient to Scripture. That is abundantly clear in Matt 23.

In Gal 1:14, Paul references the Jewish traditions he had learned and how zealously he kept to them. And Col 2:8, is again a negative reference to the traditions created by men which would have opposed the Gospel of Christ.

That leaves 3 verses: 1 Cor 11:2, 2 Th 2:15 and 2 Th 3:6. Now, the way you confirm or refute the improper interpretations of Scripture is to do so directly and that is what I'm going to do here. And please remember, as I’ve pointed out in a previous blog, the Roman Catholic Church has never identified a single orally preserved unwritten apostolic teaching or tradition. If the Catholic Church has preserved them as they say, then they would be able to produce one, but they refuse to do so. They cite these verses as their “proof” that the ‘traditions’ they profess exist, but the Roman Catholic Church cannot state what tradition was preserved for any of these verses. Regardless of their inabilities, let’s examine each verse.

1 Corinthians 11:2

Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you. (1 Cor 11:2)

The very first question we need to ask when examining any verse is, “what is the context of this verse?” The first part of verse 3 starts with, “But I want you to understand that …” which clearly is pointing back to verse 2. And if we read verses 2 through 15 we see that Paul is providing instruction on the tradition that he had already given the Corinthians previously. You could also look back to chapter 10 as that could easily be the context for verse 2. Paul was either (or both) warning the Corinthians about the idolatry of the Jews in chapter 10, or instructing them about proper roles of men and women in worship (verses 3-16). As a matter of fact, you could extend Paul’s instructions to the Corinthians about his ‘traditions’ for the Lord’s supper in 11:23-34, the use of spiritual gifts in chapter 12, and love in chapter 13. Which would then mean, these oral teachings were now written, not unwritten, and are now passed down to us via Scripture, and are now considered “inscripturated”. Which means, this verse cannot be used to apply to some unwritten tradition passed down from the Apostles.

2 Thessalonians 2:15

So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us. (2 Th 2:15)

As I presented in Tradition: Oral and Written, 2 Th 2:15 (if you have not read this blog post, I would encourage you to do so), the context of verse 15 is the first 14 verses. Verses 1 through 12 are clearly about the 2nd coming of Christ, so the oral teachings Paul was referring to were the basic Gospel teachings he had previously given them. And since the two letters to the Thessalonians were some of the first writings of the New Testament, ‘inscripturation’ of the Gospel message had only just begun. What we see here from Paul is that he had orally taught the Thessalonians in person, and was now following up in two letters with the same doctrines he had already taught them, now in written form.

The unwarranted assumption is that Paul presented some supplemental apostolic teaching which the Catholic Church has since preserved it in an unwritten form for the last 2000 yrs. The Church at Thessalonica never left any indication of an unwritten apostolic teaching nor passed down any unwritten apostolic traditions, and the Roman apologists who promote this verse as proof of ‘tradition’ have never alleged or produced any specific instances of an unwritten ‘tradition’ from this or any other church.

The problem we have here is that Paul does not give even the slightest hint that these unwritten oral teachings (traditions) differed in any way with his writings to the church. And if we want to assume that the oral teachings referenced were about the Gospel (i.e., salvation), there is no indication that Paul’s message was any different from what we find in Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Romans, Hebrews, or any of the other epistles in the New Testament. The Gospel message was and always has been the same for everyone, it isn’t different for different people.

In 2 Th 2:15 Paul’s instructions are to “stand firm” in the faith and against those that would seek to mislead them. And to “hold fast to the traditions they were taught.” And what traditions, what teachings would give them the power to withstand the world, the flesh and the devil? It wasn’t some mysterious teaching passed down over the last 2000 years that the Catholic Church has thus so far refused to divulge. It was and still is the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the very Gospel we see in Scripture. Besides, what would be the purpose of hiding a teaching if it somehow completes the Gospel message and makes it stronger? Do indulgences make the Gospel message stronger? How about the bodily assumption of Mary? How about purgatory? The answer to that question is quite simple, there is no purpose served in hiding any teaching that Jesus and the Apostles wanted the people of God - you and me - to know. but then, you cannot share what you do not have. There are no secret orally transmitted teachings if the Catholic Church cannot produce them. And once again we are left with another verse that cannot be used to support an unwritten apostolic ‘tradition.’

2 Thessalonians 3:6

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us. (2 Th 3:6)

Again we must start with the context of this verse to understand what Paul means when he uses the word, ‘tradition’ in this verse. This is a summary of 2 Th 3:1-15,

At the beginning of Chapter 3 (verses 1-2) Paul asks the Thessalonians to pray for him. In verse 3 he says that the Lord is faithful. In verse 4 he says his confidence is in the Lord. In verse 5, he offers a blessing that the Thessalonians would love God. Then in verse 6, the verse under discussion, we see a change of topic because Paul says “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep aloof from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us.” Paul then elaborates on what he meant by such tradition. He goes on to say in verse 7 that the Thessalonians should follow his example because Paul did not act in an “undisciplined manner.” In verses 8-9 he speaks about how he worked day and night so as not to be a burden on them. Then in verse 10 he writes that if someone would not work, neither should he eat. In verses 11-15, Paul admonishes the Thessalonians to work hard, not to be weary in well doing, and to avoid those who would refuse what he had written. [5] [emphasis added]

So Paul was referring to the ‘tradition’ of a proper work ethic, which we see clearly in the verses that immediately follow verse 6.

For you yourselves know how you ought to follow our example, because we did not act in an undisciplined manner among you, nor did we eat anyone’s bread without paying for it, but with labor and hardship we kept working night and day so that we would not be a burden to any of you; not because we do not have the right to this, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you, so that you would follow our example. (2 Th 3:7-9)

And this is supported historically by John Cassian (AD 360-435), who wrote about the meaning of verse 6, “And so he bids them withdraw from those who will not make time for work …” [6]

As we continue to see over and over in Scripture, context is everything, and it proves, once again, that Catholic apologists are looking for proof texts to support a concept they have already decided is ‘true’ when there is no Scriptural support for their concept of ‘tradition’.

2 Timothy 2:2

The last verse we are going to examine is 2 Tim 2:2,

The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (2 Tim 2:2)

Catholic apologists quote this verse to refer to both extra-biblical oral traditions as well as apostolic succession. Neither of these are true. This verse is about discipleship – training up new leaders to take over when you are gone, which is what Paul had done with Timothy. This was Paul’s farewell letter to Timothy because Paul knew that he was going to his death at the hands of Nero in Rome and Timothy would never see him again.

Here the apostle Paul instructs Timothy, a young pastor, to train other faithful men for the task of leadership in the church. There is no hint of apostolic succession in this verse, nor is there any suggestion that in training these men Timothy would be passing on to them an infallible tradition with authority equal to the Word of God.

On the contrary, what this verse describes is simply the process of discipleship. Far from imparting to these men some apostolic authority that would guarantee their infallibility, Timothy was to choose men who had proved themselves faithful, teach them the gospel, and equip them in the principles of church leadership he had learned from Paul. What Timothy was to entrust to them was the essential truth Paul himself had preached “in the presence of many witnesses.” [7]

And this is confirmed by Terullian (AD 155-220),

“This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy?” and also of that precept of which he says, “I charge thee in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Jesus Christ who witnessed a good confession under Pontius Pilate, that thou keep this commandment?” Now, what is (this) commandment and what is (this) charge? From the preceding and the succeeding contexts, it will be manifest that there is no mysterious hint darkly suggested in this expression about (some) far-fetched doctrine, but that a warning is rather given against receiving any other (doctrine) than that which Timothy had heard from himself, as I take it publicly: “Before many witnesses” is his phrase. Now, if they refuse to allow that the church is meant by these “many witnesses,” it matters nothing, since nothing could have been secret which was produced “before many witnesses.” Nor, again, must the circumstance of his having wished him to “commit these things to faithful men, who should be able to teach others also,” be construed into a proof of there being some occult gospel. For, when he says “these things,” he refers to the things of which he is writing at the moment. In reference, however, to occult subjects, he would have called them, as being absent, those things, not these things, to one who had a joint knowledge of them with himself. [8]

As I said in my previous blog, Timothy was pastoring the Church at Ephesus and Paul was reminding him and encouraging him to guard what had been entrusted to him (1 Tim 6:20; 2 Tim 1:14), the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which Paul had personally handed down to Timothy by way of his teachings. (2 Tim 1:13; 2 Tim 4:2) All of chapter 3 in first Timothy was about the qualifications for overseers and deacons. This verse would seem to reflect back to that entire chapter. This was not some mysterious unwritten doctrine that Paul had given to Timothy. It was simply the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and instructions on how to select competent and qualified church leaders so that the Gospel could be handed down to them. Jesus wanted the Gospel to be spread throughout the earth, the Holy Spirit was empowering that task, and Paul was making sure Timothy knew what he was supposed to do, and Scripture has forever made sure that everyone to this day knew all of this, and that it is our responsibility too. So once again, context shows us the true meaning of this verse, something that was never really hard to figure out to begin with.

Conclusion

As we have seen for each of these verses, looking at its context is what has helped us understand the correct meaning of these verses, and it is not about some unwritten oral teaching handed down from the 1st century Apostles. As we have seen, every case of the usage of the word ‘tradition’ in the New Testament has a meaning that has nothing to do with a supposed unwritten oral teaching handed down by the Apostles. As a matter of fact, when it comes to the intended meaning of ‘tradition’ by the Roman Catholic Church, neither Jesus nor the Apostle Paul had anything good to say about that type of tradition.

And what we have seen for the positive usages of ‘tradition’ so far, were about the Gospel of Jesus as that tradition, the oral teachings that were then later inscripturated within the epistles where tradition is mentioned, or inscripturated by other epistles and Gospels. But in every case we know that the context of the passage explains what the referenced tradition was. It does not completely nullify the Catholic concept of tradition, but it does move us closer to that position. Paul’s Gospel presentation everywhere he traveled on his missionary journeys was an oral presentation, supported by the Old Testament Scriptures. There is no dispute there. The dispute is in some supposed oral teaching that was not inscripturated but was faithfully handed down intact for the last 2000 yrs, and has still never been written down. If that actually exists, it would be easy to produce as undeniable proof. But since the Catholic Church is unwilling or unable to produce their ‘traditions’, then it is simply an unsubstantiated statement that cannot be proved or supported in any way. Its opinion stated as fact. And that is not ‘convincing proof’ in anyone's book.

All things, therefore, that have been delivered to us by the Law, and Prophets, and Apostles, we receive, and acknowledge, and confess; and beyond these, we seek not to know anything. For it is impossible for us to say, or at all think anything concerning God, beyond what has been divinely declared by the divine oracles of the Old and New Testament.

Cyril of Alexandria (AD 412-444)

Sola Scriptura - means that the Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. Since they are ‘God-breathed’ (Mat 22:31; 2 Tim 3:16-17; 2 Pet 1:20-21), they are ultimate in authority, for there can be no higher authority than God Himself. All other rules of faith, creeds, councils, or anything else produced by the Church herself, are subject to the ultimate correction of God’s Word.

Church history has repeatedly and clearly proven one thing: once the highest view of Scripture is abandoned by any theologian, group, denomination, or church, the downhill slide in both theology and practice is inevitable.

James White

Footnotes

[1] The Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 97.
[2] The Catechism of the Catholic Church, para. 78.
[3] ‘TRADITION’ or ‘PARADOSIS’, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson), p. 1170.
[4] Matt Slick, Tradition in the New Testament and 1 Corinthians 11:2, Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, © 2010.
[5] Matt Slick, Tradition in the New Testament and 2 Thessalonians 3:6, Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, © 2010.
[6] Philip Schaaf, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series II, Vol 11, John Cassian, Institutes of the Coenobia, Book 10, Chapter 7. Christian Classics Ethereal Library, https://www.ccel.org. I only provided a short quote of this of the author’s passage, but the entire section linked provides the backdrop for his thoughts on this verse.
[7] John MacArthur, Scripture, Tradition, and Rome, Part 3, Grace to You, http://www.gty.org.
[8] Philip Schaaf, Anti-Nicene Fathers, Vol 3, Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter 25. Christian Classics Ethereal Library, https://www.ccel.org.

All Scriptures quotes are from the New American Standard Bible, 1995 Revision, unless otherwise noted. Verse links from Blue Letter Bible, https://www.blueletterbible.org/

For the best treatment of Sola Scriptura in book form, please consider investing in the 3 volume set of: David T. King, Holy Scripture, Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume 1, Volume 2, Volume 3 (Battle Creek, WA: Christian Resource, Inc, 2001). It's the guide I'm using to integrate some of my own study on this important subject. This book set is inexpensive and worth every penny.