Human Tradition & Divine Revelation: 4 Traditions in the NT

Table of Contents

1 Recognizing Traditions in Christianity
2 Evaluating Traditions in Christianity
3 Traditions in Judaism
4 Traditions in the NT
5 Traditions of the Early Church Fathers
6 Traditions in Romanism
7 The Papacy in Romanism
8 Mariology in Romanism
Appendix A Detailed Contents

Chapter 13.4

Tradition in the NT

The Apostles of the first century Church were not averse to the idea of traditions. Paul writes the Thessalonian church, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions [paradoseis: lit: a handing down or over, “a tradition”] which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us” (2 Thess 2:15 NASB). Likewise, in the same letter, Paul writes, “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 [paradosin] which you received from us” (3:6 NASB).

What we would suggest here is that this “tradition” was essentially synonymous with the apostolic teaching recorded in Scripture. If one will read the verses previous to Paul’s mention of “tradition” in 2 Thessalonians chapter two, it is obvious that he is referring to what he has just written concerning the substance and sequence of End Time events. While he had originally taught them these things “by word of mouth,” he now repeats them in writing. Also, these traditions evidently included what he had written in his first “letter” to them which we know as 1 Thessalonians. Accordingly, John MacArthur comments:

Certainly nothing here suggests that the tradition Paul delivered to the Thessalonians is infallibly preserved for us anywhere except in Scripture itself. In fact, the real thrust of what Paul is writing here is antithetical to the spirit of Roman Catholic tradition. Paul is not encouraging the Thessalonians to receive some tradition that had been delivered to them via second or third hand reports. On the contrary, he was ordering them to receive as infallible truth only what they had heard directly from his own lips. [1]

Likewise, John White writes:

Obviously, during the time when the New Testament was still being enscripturated through the ministry of the Apostles in the church, there is no doubt that the Word of God existed in both [oral and written] forms. That has never been the issue. The issue is, does this or any other passage lead us to believe that after the time of revelation, when the Apostles had completed their mission and the Scriptures had come into existence and been entrusted to the church through the miraculous work of the Holy Spirit, there is to remain an orally passed down, unwritten component of the divine revelation? The words of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 do not even begin to indicate such an idea. . . .

[T]he burden of proof lies squarely on the shoulders of the one who maintains that Paul communicated to the Thessalonians beliefs and doctrines nowhere found in Scripture. Do you believe Paul taught them such doctrines as papal infallibility or the immaculate conception of Mary? [2]

It seems as well that the “tradition” Paul speaks of in 2 Thessalonians 3:6 is also repeated in writing in verse 10 where he says, “For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” That was the essence of the “tradition” that he wanted them to adhere to. The apostolic “tradition” here was not some secret to be passed on orally, but rather, was recorded and preserved in writing for subsequent generations of Christians.

We see the same in Paul’s use of “tradition” in 1 Corinthians. He writes in chapter 11: “Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions [paradoseis], just as I delivered [paredōka] them to you.” (1 Cor 11:2 NASB) It is misguided presumption to claim that Paul is referring to some secret, unwritten apostolic tradition. In fact, the “tradition” as described in v. 23 is anything but secret:

For I received from the Lord [the tradition [3]] which I also delivered [paradōka] to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread;  24and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”  25In the same way He took the cup also after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.”  (1 Cor 11:23-25 NASB)

Likewise, Paul uses the idea of “tradition” in chapter 15 when he writes: [4]

For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,  4and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,  5and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.  6After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep. (1 Cor 15:3-6 NASB)

There is hardly room here to suppose that apostolic tradition for Paul merely meant some orally transmitted teaching that was nowhere recorded for other generations of Christians to read. The respected NT scholar C. K. Barrett is right to say in his commentary on 1 Corinthians, “The traditions were the central truths of the Christian faith, handed on at this stage (before the emergence of Christian literature) orally from evangelist and teacher to convert.” [5] And precisely because they were the central truths, they were recorded in Scripture, and not left to the precarious preservation of oral transmission. Of course the Apostles’ teaching was originally received and even passed on orally. But the question is did this continue, and are there truths that are binding upon modern Christians that are not in Scripture?

The Pastoral Epistles have also been used to support the idea of an unwritten, divinely authoritative, apostolic tradition. Robert Sungenis, a foremost proponent of such a view, claims that Paul’s instruction to authoritatively teach what he had taught them orally proves that oral apostolic instruction was just as authoritative as written instruction. [6] He then concludes:

Since Paul did command the first Christians to preserve and obey oral revelation, the Catholic Church has always taught that oral revelation serves as an additional source of revelation alongside the written word. Therefore Scripture is not our sole authority. [7]

What Mr. Sungenis would seem to be forgetting is that those who personally heard the Apostles were in a unique situation to receive their oral teaching first hand and it is rather ridiculous to assume that we, centuries later, are in the same position. Along these lines, Dr. MacArthur explains:

Now, no one-even the most impassioned champion of sola Scriptura-would deny that Paul had taught the Thessalonians many things by word of mouth. No one would deny that the teaching of an Apostle carried absolute authority. The point of debate between Catholics and Protestants is whether that teaching was infallibly preserved by word of mouth [instead of Scripture]. So the mere reference to truth received firsthand from Paul himself is, again, irrelevant as support for the Catholic position. [8]

While we would reject the idea of an authoritative set of unwritten apostolic teachings, we readily admit that there was some oral teaching of the Apostles that has been lost to us because it was not recorded. For example, Paul speaks to the Corinthians about people “being baptized for the dead” (1 Cor 15:29). Evidently, the Corinthians knew what he was talking about, but we do not. [9]

Likewise, he tells the Thessalonians: “Don’t you remember that when I was with you I used to tell you these things [about the antichrist]?  6And now you know what is holding him back, so that he may be revealed at the proper time” (2 Thess 2:5-6). Evidently, Paul had taught them what was holding back the antichrist, but it was never recorded, and therefore, there is a considerable debate as to what he was talking about. However, the admission that not everything the Apostles taught was written, is quite different from the claim, particularly by Roman Catholics, that there is a considerable number of unwritten apostolic teachings and they know what they are.

It is also possible that there were some traditions in the first century Church that were not necessarily a result of divine revelation. The practice of the local church meeting on Sundays instead of the Sabbath is an example. While we do not have explicit commands that this was a result of divine revelation from an Apostle, it became the accepted practice very early in the life of the Church (cf. Matt 28:1; John 20:19-20; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16:2). [10] It is not an unwritten or extra-biblical tradition, as there is considerable biblical support for it. Still, because there is no Scriptural command for Christians to assemble on Sunday, it is not sin to do otherwise. So even a biblical “tradition” in this sense lacks divine authority. This too is in sharp contrast to how the Roman Catholic Church views its own extra-biblical traditions, claiming serious sin on the part of those who do not follow them.

So while there was a concept of tradition in the first century Church, the Apostles, like Jesus, distinguished between human tradition and divine revelation. Accordingly, Paul wrote the Colossians: “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition [paradosis] and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.” (Col 2:8; cf. Gal 1:4). Like Christ, for Paul there was a difference between merely worldly “human tradition” and divine revelation.

Publications & Particulars

  1. John MacArthur, “The Sufficiency of the Written Word” in Sola Scriptura! The Protestant Position on the Bible (Soli Deo Gloria, 1995), 177. ↑

  2. James White, Scripture Alone: Exploring The Bible’s Accuracy, Authority, And Authenticity (Bethany House, 2004), 171, 175. ↑

  3. G. W. Knight remarks:

    The REB is entirely justified in translating v. 23a as For the tradition which I handed on to you. . . . Horsley and Schrage observe, “’Received’ and ‘handed on’ in 11:23 (cf. 15:1-3) were virtually technical terms in Jewish culture for the transmission of important traditions. Hellenistic philosophies used the same terms in transmitting their standard doctrines. (867) ↑

  4. Tradition is implied by the verbs- see vs. 1-2 as well. Knight, 1186. ↑

  5. C. K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (BNTC) (Hendrickson, 2000), 247. ↑

  6. See Keith Mathison, The Shape of Sola Scriptura (Canon Press, 2001), 181. ↑

  7. Robert Sungenis, “Does Scripture Teach Sola Scriptura?” in Not By Scripture Alone, ed. Robert Sungenis (Queenship, 1997), 126. ↑

  8. MacArthur, 177. ↑

  9. Gordon Fee writes, “at least forty different solutions have been suggested,” for the meaning of being “baptized for the dead” (1 Cor 15:29). (The First Epistle to the Corinthians, NICNT, (Eerdmans, 1987), 762. ↑

  10. We will note here the habit of liberal scholars suggesting that much of Paul’s writings are a reflection of traditional hymns and creeds practiced in the early Church (e.g. Phil 2:6-11). The unfortunate implication of the liberal stance is that these portions of Scripture are not apostolic divine revelation, but merely human tradition. However, as one looks at the passages suggested, it seems even more likely that one with the writing abilities of the Apostle Paul could just as well be their original author. ↑