Views: 2<\/p>
[Note:\u00a0 <\/strong>This MS is available in larger font on our Longer Articles<\/strong>\u00a0 page.]<\/span><\/p>\n Introduction<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Is everything that we call \u201ctradition\u201d bad, dangerous, or even prohibited? Is there such a thing as \u201cgood\u201d or even \u201cmandatory\u201d tradition? This word occurs thirteen times in the New Testament (ASV), and we still frequently employ it in religious discussions. Since it is often misunderstood, it is worthy of our attention.<\/span><\/p>\n Tradition <\/em>translates the Greek word paradosis<\/em>, meaning \u201ca handing down or on\u201d (Vine\u2019s<\/em>). In common parlance we use the term to indicate a religious teaching or practice that has been handed down or passed on to us by others. Tradition <\/em>is an innately neutral term, not connoting on its own either right or wrong, Truth or error. It takes on a definite negative or positive character only as indicated by its context. Inspiration uses it in both negative and positive connotations:<\/span><\/p>\n Negative Traditions<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n By far the most frequent occurrence of tradition <\/em>in the New Testament refers to the uninspired teachings the Jewish elders had added to their law (9 times). The scribes and Pharisees so used the term twice (Mat. 15:2; Mark 7:5), Mark commented on these traditions once (7:3), Jesus referred to them five times (Mat. 15:3, 6; Mark 7:8\u20139, 13), and Paul mentioned them once (Gal. 1:14). Additionally, Paul wrote once of the \u201ctraditions of men\u201d in general (Col. 2:8). The foregoing are condemned and forbidden.<\/span><\/p>\n Jesus specifically rebuked the scribes and Pharisees for two of their traditions:<\/span><\/p>\n First,<\/strong> they apparently believed in washing everything\u2014hands, bodies, cups, pots, brazen vessels, and tables (KJV) (Mark 7:3\u20134). Those who neglected such washings were \u201cunclean,\u201d \u201cdefiled\u201d (Mat. 15:20). To those fanatics, outward \u201ccleanliness was not merely next <\/strong>to godliness\u201d; it practically was <\/strong>godliness.<\/span><\/p>\n The washings traditions were allowable, but Jesus condemned them because the Jewish elders bound them as law. There is no indication that Jesus rebuked the Jewish leaders for their cleanliness as such. Their washings were innocent and optional and may have even promoted hygiene. In Moses\u2019 Law, God required certain washings (e.g., Lev. 15:5\u201327; 17:15\u201316; Num.19:11\u201322; et al.), but the \u201ctraditions of the elders\u201d went far beyond these.<\/span><\/p>\n Jesus chastised them regarding their traditional washings on the following grounds:<\/span><\/p>\n In this same context, Jesus further emphasized the necessary involvement of the heart\u2014particularly the obligation to keep it pure\u2014in true religion:<\/span><\/p>\n For out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, railings: these are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not the man (Mat. 15:19\u201320).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Jesus had already, in the Sermon on the Mount, rebuked the pretended piety these traditional washings evinced. He verbally scourged those who gave alms, prayed, and fasted in public places to attract the praise of men (Mat. 6:1\u201318). Likewise, His final sermon stridently exposed the superficial elements to which they meticulously attended, while totally ignoring their own inward corruption (Mat. 23:25\u201328).<\/span><\/p>\n Second<\/strong>, they practiced a tradition called \u201cCorban\u201d (from the Heb. word qorban<\/em>, offering [Lev. 1:2\u20133, et al.]). The scribes and Pharisees allowed people to \u201cverbally dedicate\u201d money to God and thereby evade their responsibility to support their aged parents (Mat. 15:4\u20136; Mark 7:11\u201312). However, the \u201cdonors\u201d were allowed to have continued use of the \u201cvirtual donation.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n The Corban tradition was unconditionally prohibited. The Lord did not rebuke the Jewish leaders for allowing men to bring offerings to the temple. The Mosaic system obligated the Jews to make offerings of various types (viz., sin, burnt, peace, wave, and free-will) that involved their livestock, produce, and money. However, the Corban tradition was far removed from these God-ordained offerings.<\/span><\/p>\n Jesus did not rebuke the scribes and Pharisees for binding the Corban tradition as obligatory as with the washings; there is no indication that they did so. Also, unlike the washings, this tradition was not innocent or allowable under any circumstances. Rather, Jesus\u2019 rebuke of Corban stemmed from the following:<\/span><\/p>\n Paul issued a condemnation of \u201cthe traditions of men\u201d in general, linking them with \u201cphilosophy of vain deceit\u201d and \u201crudiments of the world\u201d (Col. 2:8). These may have involved both Jewish and incipient Gnostic influences (vv. 16\u201323). These traditions were decidedly harmful and negative. They would \u201cspoil\u201d (i.e., carry off as booty) any saint who embraced them because they were \u201cnot after [i.e., contrary to] Christ.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Modern applications<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n Like the washing traditions of the Jews\u2014harmless in themselves\u2014there are many \u201ctraditions\u201d among the Lord\u2019s people today. Most congregations have a set order of worship on the Lord\u2019s day, as determined by their bishops. This arrangement is followed in keeping with doing all things \u201cdecently and in order\u201d (1 Cor. 14:40). This practice, as long as it involves all five avenues of worship, is not only allowable, but commendable. Some congregations have followed the same order for several years, and this \u201ctradition\u201d has been handed down to succeeding generations. This tradition is not forbidden, bad, or negative. It is fully allowable, for the Lord has not bound a certain sequence of acts of worship.<\/span><\/p>\n What if the leaders of this congregation decided that its worship order is the only one that is Scriptural, binding it on other congregations and accusing them of sin if they did not follow it? This would change the issue entirely. This formerly innocent tradition would thereby become negative and harmful, akin to the washings tradition of the Jews.<\/span><\/p>\n Those familiar with church history are aware that this very thing occurred in the early twentieth century. A small segment of brethren professed seeing in Acts 2:42 an inviolable \u201cpattern\u201d for the order of worship. They insisted that the sermon must be first, the contribution second, the Lord\u2019s supper third, and prayer fourth. They sought to bind this on all of the church. Resisting brethren correctly pointed out that, since there is no singing in this passage at all and that it was a stretch to identify fellowship <\/em>with the contribution, this passage could hardly be a binding pattern. The tradition-binders were unsuccessful, as they should have been.<\/span><\/p>\n A similar phenomenon occurred several years later over the employment of full-time preachers, having Bible classes, using uninspired study guides, and employing multiple cups in the Lord\u2019s supper. None would question a congregation\u2019s right to choose not to do any of these things if it chose. However, some brethren began to bind upon every congregation their option (i.e., tradition) not to use these aids. They simply followed the sorry example of the scribes and Pharisees who bound their otherwise allowable tradition of washings.<\/span><\/p>\n An even later iteration of this behavior arose at the middle of the twentieth century. Some brethren decided not to (1) eat a meal on church-owned property, (2) care for orphan children out of the church treasury, or (3) send money to another congregation for evangelistic work. All was well until some of these brethren began trying to bind their tradition upon the whole church. Those who refused to be bound by their traditions were labeled \u201cliberals\u201d and \u201cdigressives\u201d and our practices \u201csinful.\u201d The Lord could not allow the scribes and Pharisees to bind doctrines or practices that He had not bound, and neither can His followers, even though the things being bound may be optional. No man or group of men has the right to bind human practice or doctrine (even if it is innocent or allowable) as Divine law. To do so makes it damnable.<\/span><\/p>\n The other class of negative traditions relates to things the Lord unconditionally prohibits. Such things are not allowable even if not bound<\/strong>. They become wrong twice over when they are both forbidden and bound. Such things are innately wrong because, like the Corban tradition, they involve unauthorized practices that add to, contradict, and\/or supersede the law of God. One need only glance at Roman Catholic dogma and practice to find ample manifestations. Protestant denominationalism provides a similar long list of forbidden traditions. Traditions such as these are the ones about which Paul warns (Col. 2:8).<\/span><\/p>\n It is unspeakably lamentable that erring brethren have for some time been borrowing unabashedly from these forbidden \u201ctraditions of men\u201d and are fastening them upon congregations of the Lord\u2019s people as rapidly as they dare. The great irony of the behavior of these change agents is that they often excuse what they do and teach as an effort to resist <\/strong>\u201ctradition.\u201d They cry out against the allowable \u201ctwo songs, a prayer, a song, a sermon…\u201d order of worship as an unhealthy \u201ctradition,\u201d which they aim to replace with unauthorized acts\u2014new human traditions of their own making.<\/span><\/p>\n They begin by changing the order of worship every week. Then they gradually begin changing the acts. Before long, the innovations are so many and the performances so intricate as to require the hiring of a \u201cPraise Minister\u201d to choreograph and coach the theatrics of the \u201cpraise teams.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n The restriction of Scripture, not tradition, is what they cannot abide! <\/strong>Truly, they are traditionalists of the deepest dye, only they prefer the forbidden traditions of men to the traditions which the Lord either allows or mandates. There is the rub. God\u2019s faithful people must resist all such efforts to establish unauthorized and forbidden traditions with the same zeal\u2014and for the same reasons\u2014God charged Israel to resist the gods of the Canaanites.<\/span><\/p>\n Positive Traditions<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n The New Testament allows a wide variety of practices that expedite authorized and obligatory actions in the work and worship of God (note: a practice cannot be \u201cexpedient\u201d if it is not authorized). The Lord commands us to preach the Gospel to the whole creation (Mark 16:15\u201316), but He does not restrict our means of going or preaching. Thus, any means of travel and preaching that expedites this command is allowable. All of our expedient options (e.g., song books, a baptistery, a place to assemble, a public address system, times of meeting, et al.) may be rightly called \u201ctraditions,\u201d for they have been handed down to us. All such things are \u201cpositive traditions,\u201d allowable, but not obligatory.<\/span><\/p>\n The keeping of some traditions is obligatory, however. Hence Paul commanded <\/strong>the keeping of \u201ctraditions\u201d in two passages and used tradition <\/em>an additional time in a favorable way:<\/span><\/p>\n Now I praise you that ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions<\/strong>, even as I delivered them to you (1 Cor. 11:2).<\/span><\/p>\n So then, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions<\/strong> which ye were taught, whether by word, or by epistle of ours (2 The. 2:15).<\/span><\/p>\n Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition<\/strong> which they received of us (2 The. 3:6, emph. DM).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The traditions Paul enjoined were those he delivered, and they involved the things which he taught and which others received, both orally and in writing. He was obviously employing this word in these passages to refer to the inspired message he received\u2014the revelation of Truth he delivered to them. The keeping of these traditions is not optional, but obligatory, because they are the authoritative message of the inspired New Testament.<\/span><\/p>\n Conclusion<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n May we all carefully learn to recognize negative traditions\u2014forbidden, either because they are innocent practices some bind as law when God has not bound them or because they contradict and supplant God\u2019s law. May we also allow each other freedom to practice optional traditions, while being ever careful to hold to the obligatory ones of God\u2019s inspired Word.<\/span><\/p>\n Note: <\/strong>This MS was originally written for and published in THE GOSPEL JOURNAL, <\/em>April 2004<\/span><\/p>\n Attribution:<\/strong> From thescripturecache.com<\/em>; Dub McClish, owner and administrator<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Views: 2[Note:\u00a0 This MS is available in larger font on our Longer Articles\u00a0 page.] Introduction Is everything that we call \u201ctradition\u201d bad, dangerous, or even prohibited? Is there such a thing as \u201cgood\u201d or even \u201cmandatory\u201d tradition? This word occurs thirteen times in the New…<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n