Defending the Faith: sola Scriptura vs. Sacred Tradition - Part 2

In Part 1 of this discussion, we covered the major aspects of sola Scriptura and how it relates to the idea of a co-equal balance of relying on Scripture AND the Sacred Tradition of the Church. We're now going to discuss the tradition part of this equation.

The Evangelical Stance - Many Evangelicals who believe strictly in the "Bible alone" mentality, are quick to judge those who rely just as equally on Sacred Tradition as they do sola Scriptura. Why? Because, they contend, Jesus himself condemns religious tradition (as is found heavily in Catholicism, Episcopalianism, Lutheranism, and Methodism):

• "You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions....Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that." (Mark 7:8,13)
• " 'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.' "(Matthew 15:8-9)

The Counter Argument - So is Jesus condemning tradition as the "Bible alone" believers assert? If He is, we have a serious problem - because in doing so, Jesus would be condemning the exact tradition that He Himself is bound to. What does this mean, you ask? Jesus and His followers were devout Jews and of this, there is no question. Jesus is not condemning ALL tradition because He Himself is following binding and sacred traditions of the Jewish faith in effect during His lifetime. And, like the Torah and Septuagint, there traditions were considered authoritative. So is Jesus confused? Of course not - so there has to be an exception to this rule. What is that exception? Before we get there, we will also address the verse in Mark quoted above - and we will do it by first looking at Paul.

In 1 Corinthians 11:2 ("Now I praise you because you always remember me and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you."), Paul commends the Christian community in Corinth for adhering NOT to the scriptures but to the tradition that Paul has given to them. In 2 Thessalonians 2:15 ("Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions you were taught, either by our message or by our letter."), Paul says for the people to hold fast to both written and spoken traditions. Note that written scripture contains some but not all of the apostle's teachings. Finally, in 2 Thessalonians 3:6 ("Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to keep away from every brother who walks irresponsibly and not according to the tradition received from us.") Paul commands that all believers keep away from anyone who does not hold fast to - not the Bible alone - but to tradition in the name of Christ. And because of this command in the name of Christ, this is a set standard that believers must be bound to and abide by, regardless of what we believe or interpret.

So Mark 7 and Matthew 15 cannot be condemning tradition in an absolute sense because there is a tradition (illustrated in the three Pauline examples above) that is not only praiseworthy but sacredly binding. So what does Jesus mean in these chapters?

The Corban Tradition

 

Corban is the Greek word for "offering". This was a man-made tradition of the time before and during Jesus' life and ministry. According to Jewish law and custom, the male head of the household was, during the course of his working life, required to save up a certain amount of money based upon his income to be used in eventually taking care of his parents when they became too elderly to be self-sufficient and live by themselves. The Corban tradition stated that if a son gave up the money he had saved to be used to take care of his parents and gave it all to the Jewish temple, that son was free from adhering the Mosaic Law of being bound to financially supporting your parents. The phrase "passing the buck" comes to mind here. But this is why this loophole was bad - this option was simply not one according to God's word (the Torah and Septuagint). It was a man-made tradition instituted by greedy Pharisees that nullified not only the word of God but also flew in the face of the Mosaic Law. This is the tradition that Jesus is condemning - not the sacred tradition millions of Christians identify with today. How can we be for sure? The problem with many Evangelists is that they see one stand alone verse that they can use to support their opinion. In this case, the singular verses in Matthew and Mark. What they rarely do is pay attention to the context in which the single verse is written in. If one who believed that Jesus was speaking of all religious traditions, looked just three verses after Mark 7:8, they would find that Christ himself clarifies and makes the distinction known between sacred traditions and Corban: "But you say, ‘If a man tells his father or mother: Whatever benefit you might have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift committed to the temple), you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. You revoke God’s word by your tradition that you have handed down." (Mark 7:11) ) All you have to do is read the whole chapter in its intended context. End of story.

If one needs any more convincing, let's revisit 1 Corinthians 15:1-3 from Part 1. In it, Paul states that the gospel was RECIEVED. The word here for "received" in Greek is a technical term of oral tradition alone. This tradition was the original good news - not our codified Bible. Paul also teaches us in this chapter that we will be saved if we hold fast to, what? The sacred oral tradition - no mention is ever made of salvation coming only through sola Scriptura. Finally, in 1 Thessalonians 2:13 when Paul says, "you received the word of God", in the Greek, the "word" of God is literally translated to mean the oral tradition of God - not written words.

So where does this leave us? Obviously, or rather, hopefully, we can see the need and importance of a reliance of both the Bible and our Sacred Traditions as a Church. But there are many out there that believe they can/should be allowed to interpret scripture from the Bible the way they see fit - that the Churches interpretations of some passages to not align or parallel with their own belief structures. So the next question that must be asked is, should we look to the Church as the authoritative interpreters of Scripture and the Bible.

 

We'll answer that in Part 3!