What is Tradition?
If you have talked about tradition regarding church authority with mixed company you may have heard or affirmed yourself a negative reaction to the idea. Either way, something like this was almost certainly said, “Jesus condemned the traditions (παράδοσις) of men when he was talking to the Pharisees! They replaced their own traditions with the word of God! Tradition can’t be binding!”
If only it was that simple. In reality no one disagrees with the premise that Christ does deny the traditions of men in Matthew 23. Whether you’re Orthodox, Protestant, or Catholic. What is disagreed among Christian traditions is what that premise leads to in its denial. The question isn’t, “Is Christ denying the traditions of men?” Rather the question is, “Is it fair to say that Christ condemns any tradition to be binding that is not derived from the Holy scriptures, whether that be explicitly mentioned or by good and necessary consequence?”
First We Must Understand the Biblical Meaning of “Tradition”
Now before I get into the reasons why I do not affirm this latter question, it is essential to understand how the scriptures use the term ‘tradition,’ (παράδοσις). It’s important to ponder questions like, “What did the term traditions or παράδοσις actually mean to the ears of Second Temple listeners,” or “How did oral tradition function in First Temple Judaism?” and lastly, “When Jesus acknowledges that the Pharisees “sit in Moses’ seat” (Matt 23:2), what kind of authority is He recognizing?” Answering these question will illuminate the content of the “traditions” Christ is denying and affirming, and likewise what Paul is affirming when he tells the church to “Stand firm and hold to the traditions (παράδοσις) that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15.) Only then can we know what the Traditions are that are passed on. Let’s get started.
The History of Παράδοσις (i.e., Tradition)
When we think of Παράδοσις, or the “traditions” for God’s covenant people in the Old Testament, we often think of oral interpretations or additions. However, tradition in Old Testament Israel included all that was handed down. The Greek term Παράδοσις communicates that which was and continues to be handed down. This included the written text that was handed down (scripture) and the oral traditions passed down with it. Understanding tradition this way helps clarify the natural movement from oral transmission to written Scripture.
Before any of the Holy Scriptures were able to be written down there had to exist an oral form of such content. Just as, “An oral tradition preceded the editing of the gospels… a tradition had preceded and produced many of the chapters of the Old Testament.” Now once these were passed down, who had the authority to interpret and apply these traditions in the Christian faith? Historically it has always happened through the mediator(s) of God’s special revelation; namely prophets, priests, and judges. These men not only recieved God’s commands, but were given divine authority to communicate and apply these commands. As a result they bound and loosed the conscience of the people of God. Here is some scripture to support this idea.
They are given authority to teach, and therefore interpret and apply God’s law. Leviticus 10:10–11, “Teach the people of Israel all the statutes that the LORD has spoken… by Moses.,” Deuteronomy 33:10 states that the Levites, “shall teach Jacob your rules and Israel your law.” Furthermore they were given the duty of guarding the deposit of knowledge given to them, and the people were to seek instruction from them, and only them. Malachi 2:7 reads, “For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and people should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts.” Lastly, in the situation of case laws priests and judges were given binding authority to interpret, instruct, and apply the Torah for the people. Deuteronomy 17:8–12 (the priest/judge in office), “If any case arises… you shall… inquire, and they shall announce to you the decision. Then you shall do according to what they declare to you… according to the instructions that they give you… The man who acts presumptuously by not obeying the priest who stands to minister there before the LORD your God, or the judge, that man shall die.”
This point here is essential to note, because in Reformation doctrine under the concept of sola scriptura (scripture alone) the church finds its final binding interpretive authority not in the ordained like above, but in the individual conscience. Francis Turretin a 17th century Reformed Scholastic states, “Hence if they think they (layman) observe anything in them [creeds and confessions] worthy of correction, they ought to undertake nothing rashly or disorderly and unseasonably, so as to violently rend the body of their mother [the church], but to refer the difficulties they feel to their church and either to prefer her public opinion to their own private judgement or to secede from her communion, if the conscience cannot acquiesce in her judgement.”
The reformers certainly acknowledge a real authority. The Reformed confessions teach that the visible church does retain a real (ministerial) authority to teach, govern, and discipline. Yet that binding force ultimately can be usurped. The moment an individual conscience is convinced by its own reading of Scripture, he is the judge of the the Church’s ruling.
Old Testament binding authority did not operate this way. It was given to priests, prophets, and judges. In Reformation ideology, it's the other way around. The binding interpretive authority goes above and beyond the ordained and oddly squiggles its way back down to the laity. This was my first quarrel with the doctrine of sola scriptura, the normative hermeneutic authority simply changes entirely to how it has always functioned in redemptive history. Here’s my question to my Protestant friends, “If God changed His method of guiding His people from a living, interpretive authority to a private binding model, where is this change revealed in Scripture?
The Content of Tradition in First and Second Temple Judaism
The next point that needs established is what the content of tradition included in First and Second Temple Judaism. The Reformation doctrine of sola sciptura affirms that all that is needed and to be used for Christian faith in practice can be either found explicitly in scripture or by good and necessary consequence, “WCF 1.4 The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added.”
Coming from an Eastern Orthodox perspective, what makes this topic more interesting is that I wouldn’t deny the regulative principle. In other words I affirm that we are only to worship and approach God in the ways that he has commanded. (Leviticus 10:1–3) Nadab and Abidu were killed because of not following the ways in which God prescribed to be worshipped. The difference lies in what or rather who regulates how God is to be worshipped. Is it simply what is contained in the scriptures? Historically and biblically I don’t believe so.
This simply is not how Old Testament interpretation, application, and worship functioned. The Torah never hints at synagogue worship, the feast of dedication, liturgical practices such as daily singing, certain incense practices at the golden altar, and others practices that were observed as binding practices. Further the apostles and Christ himself obeyed these commands. They were not struck down by lightning, or consumed by fire, rather these practices were pleasing to the Lord. Here is the challenge I have for my Protestant friends and family. If we are to worship God solely based on what can be derived from the scriptures, How can God strike down Nadab and Abihu for not following his prescribed ways of worship, yet accept other supposed unprescribed ways of worship that are no where mentioned in the Old Testament?
The answer is found in affirming that the normative authority of interpreting and applying God’s law goes beyond what is expressly written down. Oral tradition alongside the written tradition… which are both included in Holy Tradition. This is what regulates the worship of God’s people. Holy Tradition is the living continuity of the apostolic deposit, the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church, and that which was handed down through letter and word of mouth. The content of this can be found through the scriptures, the interpretive authority of the church, the Creed, the Ecumenical Councils, the teaching of the Fathers, and the canons. All which direct and guard the deposit of the faith. All of this inheritance according to the Orthodox exists within Tradition. Tradition is not separate from the scriptures, and it is not the oral tradition, but is the source of both. That is why Paul says to hold fast to the traditions which are both textually and orally passed forth.
Moses’ Seat vs. Men’s Traditions: Christ’s Two Edged Sword in Matthew 23 and 15
Read the following passages carefully, and ask yourself, what is Christ affirming, what is he denying, and what is the seat of Moses?
“Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. (Matthew 23:2-3) “Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?” (Matthew 15:3)
In order to know what Christ is denying, we need to know what he is not denying, lest we throw the baby out with the bath water. Yves Congar sheds light on what it meant to sit in the seat of Moses below.
“In the two centuries before the birth of our Lord, Judaism believed that God had given Moses the answer to all problems; and it was the aim of the midrashic commentaries to work out these answers concealed in the intricacies and obscurities of the Torah. From one generation to another, disciples (talmid') established themselves as the links in a chain of transmission, when, after their studies, they became masters in their turn. In the apostolic period the college of doctors, in what was almost a rite of ordination, laid their hands on the master’s successor, as a sign of the responsibility for orthodoxy delegated to him, for the important thing was that the deposit received from the “Fathers” should be passed on, as it were, from hand to hand (quasi per mantis').”
Josephus expands this history stating, “The Pharisees handed down to the people certain regulations handed down by former generations … which are not written down in the laws of Moses.” Upon examining this early history, it is helpful to note that the seat of Moses was not something only to be taken figuratively, but in the synagogue itself there was a literal chair. This chair represented the authority to not only teach but to lead God’s people in interpretation and application of God’s law, and it represented the succession of Moses authority, and the Pharisees claimed to be these successors. Christ knowing this affirmed that they indeed sit in the authoritative, binding, interpreting seat of Moses. As a result this is what I believe Christ is affirming and denying:
Christ is not denying the authority of the Pharisees to bind the conscience of God’s people.
Christ is not saying only obey when you find chapter and verse, or limiting the Pharisees to the text. (Christ himself went to synagogue worship and Jewish festivals not mentioned in the written text.)
Christ is denying tradition that is in opposition and derived merely from human tradition that substitutes or nullifies the written commands of God.
Wrapping it Up
What first might pop into your mind is this, “What happened to this authority? Did it cease? Was it handed down?” In Second Temple Judaism, “binding and loosing” was the precise technical term for the authoritative decisions rendered by the scribes/Pharisees sitting in Moses’ seat. Tradition by this time was understood as those interpretations and applications of God’s law that guided God’s people which were through the written text but not limited by it. Secondly, Christ is not denying all traditions (παράδοσις) only those that are in opposition, substitute, or nullify the commands of God. Thirdly, Paul himself comes from the Pharasaic tradition. Yves Congar explains this well saying, “But while preserving the formal structure of the Jewish principle of tradition, he (Paul) brought new life to it by making it a vehicle of the Gospel which effects our salvation…” In other words Paul is not getting rid of the Old Testament normative authority, but transforming and bringing it into the life of the church through the guidance of the Spirit.
Christ gives that ordination that once belonged to Moses then to the Pharisees to the apostles. He continues and transforms ordination through the laying on of hands. Christ affirms and institutes this transformation, “Truly I tell you, whatever you [plural] bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 18:18) This was the God given authority given to Moses and the Pharisees, now given to the apostles. It is an authority guided by the Spirit to interpret, apply, and even institute binding practices. Christ speaking to the apostles says, ”When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you [plural] into all the truth. The apostles then pass this on to those who they ordain “Do not neglect the gift (χάρισμα) you have, which was given you by prophecy when the council of elders laid their hands on you.” (1 Tim 4:14)
In the end, this normative authority is the same reality that always existed in God’s covenant: the living, prophetic, apostolic, Spirit led voice that guides God’s people to worship Him. This is given and guarded through the Spirit by the written text, the interpretive and binding tradition given to us by word of mouth, the teachings of the Fathers and the Councils of the church. It is the voice of the same Spirit who inspired the text, and guided those in authority to interpret and guide God’s people those in the Old Testament. May all, no matter what tradition we find ourself in seek to follow this Spirit, that leads to life everlasting.
P.S. Thank you for reading, and Happy Thanksgiving!
Footnotes
Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and a Theological Essay, trans. Michael Naseby and Thomas Rainborough (London: Burns & Oates, 1966), 1–2.
Ibid., Congar, Tradition and Traditions, 1.
Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., trans. George Musgrave Giger, vol. 1 (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1992), 48–49 (Topic 2, Question 3, §7).
The Confession of Faith and Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly (1647), I.vi.
Ibid., Congar, Tradition and Traditions, 5.
Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 13.10.6 §297 (Loeb Classical Library 365; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998), 379–81.
Joachim Jeremias, Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus: An Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions during the New Testament Period (Fortress Press, 1969; original German 1923, revised 1969), pp. 235–237.
Ibid., Congar, Tradition and Traditions, 7.
Babylonian Talmud Sanhedrin 13b–14a (Vilna ed.).
Bibliography
Babylonian Talmud. Vilna ed. Reprint, Brooklyn: Mesorah Publications, 2005.
Congar, Yves. The Meaning of Tradition. Translated by A. N. Woodrow. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2004.
———. Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and a Theological Essay. Translated by Michael Naseby and Thomas Rainborough. London: Burns & Oates, 1966.
Davies, W. D., and Dale C. Allison. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to Saint Matthew. Vol. 2. International Critical Commentary. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991.
Ehrhardt, Arnold. “Jewish and Christian Ordination.” Journal of Ecclesiastical History 5 (1954): 125–38.
Ferguson, Everett. “Jewish and Christian Ordination.” Harvard Theological Review 56 (1963): 13–19.
France, R. T. The Gospel of Matthew. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.
Jeremias, Joachim. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus: An Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions during the New Testament Period. Translated by F. H. Cave and C. H. Cave. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1969.
Josephus, Flavius. Jewish Antiquities. Translated by Louis H. Feldman. Loeb Classical Library 365. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998.
Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.
Levine, Lee I. The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years. 2nd ed. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005.
Luz, Ulrich. Matthew 8–20: A Commentary. Translated by James E. Crouch. Hermeneia. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001.
McKay, Heather A. Sabbath and Synagogue: The Question of Sabbath Worship in Ancient Judaism. Religions in the Graeco-Roman World. Leiden: Brill, 1994.
The Confession of Faith and Catechisms of the Westminster Assembly with Proof Texts (1647). Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications, 1994.
Turretin, Francis. Institutes of Elenctic Theology. Edited by James T. Dennison Jr. Translated by George Musgrave Giger. 3 vols. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1992–1997.
