Tradition! Tradition! Tradition!
Mark 7:1-23
I can remember many years ago seeing Fiddler on the Roof. My mind has gotten a little foggy concerning the details, but I remember a hit song which came from it called “Tradition, Tradition, Tradition. I was about an orthodox Jewish community facing the social changes brought on by the modern world. One of the sources of conflict centered around the tradition that parents arranged the marriage of their children. A conflict ensued then a marriage was arranged, but the man or the woman, I can’t remember which, had another love he or she wanted to marry. The tradition of arranged marriages is anathema to those who believe that people should choose their own spouse, or none at all. To disobey an arranged marriage put the couple out of sorts with the community. So, we see that tradition is a sort of social glue that identifies a group of people. But it also excludes others from the group as well.
I am not here to make a value judgment on arranged marriages. Many arranged marriages were happy, and many marriages made by the free choice of the individuals themselves turn out miserably. What is important is to see how tradition works. Traditions can be good, bad, or mixed. In America, up until recent times, country music has enforced traditional family values. Hank Williams Sr. went rogue from these expectations with songs about honky-tonks and drinking which made him quite scandalous in his time. But his son, Hank Williams Jr turned tradition on its head with “It’s a Family Tradition.” Jr. followed in the footsteps of his father in being a rebel. When confronted with “Why do you drink; and why do you roll smoke, etc., he replied with the words: “It’s a family tradition.
Even the etymology of the word “tradition” is mixed. It derives from the Latin “traditore” from which we get the English words “trader,” “tradition.” and “traitor.” Trade is good if done fairly, tradition is mixed, and traitor is evil. In turn, these derive from the Greek verb “paradidomi” (to hand over or to hand down) and the related noun, “paradosis” which means a collection of doctrine or traditions. It is used positively by Paul in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 to refer to a collection of church teachings which the Thessalonians were to follow. However, in the text we read from Mark 7, it can have a very bad connotation.
Jesus was an iconoclast when it came to the tradition of the Pharisees. The tradition of the Pharisees was meant to separate them from the inroads of Greek Pagan culture. The very word “Pharisee” comes from a Hebrew word which means “to separate.” The idea of distancing one’s self from Greek culture would seem to be a good thing. After all, John tells us not to love the world or the things of the world. Christians are called to separate themselves from Pagan vices.
One should also note that the Pharisees held the Scripture (Old Testament) in high regard. It is the very words of God. Certainly, this is also a good thing. Christians confess this as well. Many of the traditions were created as a means of keeping the words of Scripture. They considered their teaching as a hedge around the Law. If one kept the tradition of the elders, they were keeping the Law as well. The elders were held in high regard. The Scripture affirms that we are to honor our father and our mother. Seeing that there was much to commend tradition, why did Jesus attack it so savagely?
We must remember that Jesus is God the Son. As God, he was the one who dictated the words of the Law to Moses. So at the author of Scripture, alongside the Father and the Holy Spirit, He has the sole right to determine the meaning of the text. Where there is a conflict over interpretation, we must remember that His interpretation stands. Any tradition that is otherwise based is wrong and should be attacked.
Chapter 7 begins with the Pharisees noticed some of the disciples eating without washing their hands first. Mark informs us of the scrupulous washings the Pharisees made before eating. If we look through the Law of Moses, especially the Book of Leviticus, we read of many washing rituals which were prescribed by the Law. This was the basis of the Pharisees’ teaching. In and of itself, washing one’s hands before one eats is a good thing. Is this not good hygiene? Especially during this time of “pandemic” we hear wash your hands often. This sounds like good common sense. However, one asks the question: How much is enough?” One would have to wash every time one touched something. We are already suffering from a lack of fresh water. We would empty our reservoirs if we scrupulously followed this practice. Would it have been any different in the Sinai desert? If one followed all of the regulations, one would be constantly be washing one’s clothes and be unclean to evening. It seems that Israel in the wilderness was all that scrupulous. After all, they did not even circumcise their children until they crossed over to Gilgal. The problem is that the true uncleanness is of sin, which no amount of washings and offerings can cleanse. The futility of these washings was intended to make us realize that our cleansing had to come from elsewhere.
We mentioned about the exclusionary aspect of tradition and culture. The strict adherence to washing led the Pharisees to ostracize those who did not follow their practice. The Pharisees were guilty of spiritual pride. They thought they were better than everyone else. There was a greater uncleanness within them which water could not wash. One might also add that elitists who try to force their views on others are less than scrupulous in private when they thought no one was watching. This is just as true today with the modern “Woke” Pharisee. They could not even keep their own teaching but wanted everyone else to keep it.
Jesus calls the Pharisees out on this. He told them that it was not what went into a man which defiled him. That could be cleansed by natural processes. It is rather what comes out of a man which defiles him. The Pharisees put on a good show. They attended the “Lip Service” synagogue. Jesus quotes the prophet Isaiah and tells the Pharisees that there heart was far from God. If their hearts were right, they would have embraced Jesus. They had replaced the true teaching of Scripture with their own traditions.
Jesus gives an example of how their tradition was used to nullify the Word of God. They Pharisees used the idea of “Corban” to nullify the commandment to honor one’s mother and one’s father. They claimed that they could offer their expected labor and obedience to their parents as a gift to God and not have to care for one’s parents. What made this even more hypocritical is that what they claimed to be a gift of God, they lavished on themselves. So a tradition that attempts to set the will of God at naught or even try to include God in their crimes by saying what was meant to be to the profit of one’s parents was instead to give God a gift.
We can see then that tradition can be evil when it is used as a go-around from the teaching of Scripture. We also saw tha exclusionary aspect of tradition. So how should we look at tradition in the church? We have already mentioned that Scripture teaches us that tradition, rightly used, has its place. It must be in agreement with the teaching of God’s Word. John Wesley held to the value of tradition. It was one of the sources of information. Albert Outler later described this as being part of the “Wesleyan Quadrilateral. Tradition, along with experience, reason and Scripture form the basis of Christian knowledge. One should note that Wesley put Scripture first. He called himself “A man of One Book.” So if there was a conflict of understanding within this quadrilateral, it was the rule of Scripture which is to be followed.
The fight between Scripture and tradition has raged throughout the centuries. The Roman Catholic Church place them at par with each other. However, one might say that the Scripture is captive to the teaching Catholic doctrines as the Magisterium determined what Scripture means. Whatever the Pope says from the seat of St. Peter is to be obeyed as it is “infallible.” If Scripture disagrees with tradition, it has to be harmonized to agree with this tradition. The call of john the Baptist to repent and believe the Gospel is replaced by the command “do penance.” The dispute between the authority of Scripture versus tradition and reason became the grounds of the Protestant Reformation.
But Protestantism is fractured into many different traditions. In many of these, the particular group claims that their practice is the correct interpretation of Scripture. An example of this is the Westminster Assembly of the 1640’s. It was interesting to note that after much deliberation, they agreed on the basic doctrines of the Christian faith, which was published in the Westminster Confession of Faith plus the longer and shorter catechisms. They even agreed on a Book of Worship on how services were to be administered. But they remained bitterly divided on church government. Some said the rule of the bishop (episcopacy) was the Scriptural method. Others voted for the rule of elders (Presbytery) and others that the church was to administered at the local congregation level. Much grief resulted, and not we have so many denominations. What makes it even worse is heresies and traditions which have been added. This will lead to cohesive unity within the group but also leads to considering those outside the tradition as either being defective Christians or not Christians at all.
Some say that no tradition is to be used in the Church. If Scripture does not explicitly support a practice in the church, it is to be excluded. These churches only sing psalms or without accompaniment of musical instruments like the organ. One wonders where it says to sing using four-part harmony. There are other churches which agree that tradition can be used so long as Scripture does not forbid it. In theory, this is better. But there is always the danger of putting tradition above the Word of God.
Jesus wanted the Gentiles to be part of the Church alongside the Jews, equally. The practices of exclusion practiced by the Pharisees were a great hinderance to this inclusion. We must remember that this desire of God existed before creation itself, before there was either Jew or Gentile. Food laws by the Jews served His purpose for a season to keep the Israelites from incorporating horrible Pagan practices. But they were for a season. Jesus when He came declared all foods to be Kosher. They were not to be used to drive a wedge between Jew and Gentile. God wants a united church, united in Word and Spirit. Tradition can serve a useful purpose in setting necessary boundaries, but we must be careful that it is Scripturally based and properly interpreted. The Church is to be in the world but not of this world. But we must not let our denominational affiliations deceive us. Not everyone in “our” group is a Christian. We shall find traitors to the faith there. And there are good Christians in other denominations as well. This is not to say they are all Christians either. But who is a Christian or not a Christian is for God to judge. So let us examine the Scripture carefully and prayerfully in the fear of God and seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit. We might even find that some of our understanding and practice is imperfect.
But there is one thing that all Christians are to avoid. These are the traditions of the present evil age.
