What does the Bible say about traditionalism?

We find in this chapter striking evidence of the great change which was now fast coming in through the rejection of Jesus by Israel. For, first, we have certain religious guides, "Scribes and Pharisees which were of Jerusalem," who had the best spiritual opportunities of their nation, and who came clothed with all that savoured of antiquity and outward sanctity. These men put the question to our Lord, "Why do Thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread." The Lord proceeds to deal with conscience. He does not enter into an abstract discussion about tradition; nor does He dispute with them as to the authority of the elders; but He at once lays hold of the plain fact that, in their zeal for the tradition of the elders, they were setting themselves point-blank against the clear, positive commandment of God. This I believe to be the invariable effect of tradition, no matter with whom it may be found. If we take up the history of Christendom, and consider any rule that ever was invented, it will be found to carry those who follow it in opposition to the mind of God. It may seem to be the most natural thing possible, and growing out of the new circumstances, of the Church; but we are never safe in departing from God's word for any other standard.

And they do come with authority; they say to Jesus, "Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread." (v. 2.) But Jesus at once puts both scribes and Pharisees, and their tradition, in direct contact with God. He says to them, "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?" (v. 3.) He does not go round about and battle the question of this tradition; it might be right enough in some sense; at all events it was reputable in the eyes of man, sanctioned by the learning of the scribes as well as by the religiousness of the Pharisees, and comely in Jerusalem; but He says, 'You are flying in the face of God by your tradition!' He at once closes the point, dropping elders and all besides. Man may plead tradition, the authority of antiquity and the like, but the fact is, he does so but to clothe himself with it. To the Pharisees, this tradition was the tradition of the elders; but to Christ, it was "ye" and "your tradition." He takes hold of them. They were using it to accredit themselves unto men, not to lay the conscience bare before God: Religiousness and ceremonial holiness accredit us with men; but faith lays us bare before God.

269 - 6, et seq. It is a most important principle on an anxious point, for the child of God driven, by the selfishness of an apostate system, to act on his own responsibility - for a child of God dreads selfwill above all things - and when this is pressed on him, if feeble in light and conscience hereon shrinks. Thus, therefore, the Lord puts it in all its apparently gracious force, and judges it. "Why do not thy disciples walk according to the tradition of the elders?" Then, first, they did not. Next, it was an indifferent thing washing their hands before they ate bread - a thing of excellent signification, for what more important than moral purity, or more agreed in as a representation of it? The simple answer was: it destroyed the integrity and importance of the commands of God. If I can add, and a person should do it, the completeness of God's revealed will is questioned, and mixing other things with it like obligation, nullifies the distinctive obligation on the soul of the will of God - the habit of reference, hearty single-eyed reference to the will of God, and taking that as a guide given in mercy, because we were in a labyrinth, to guide us through; add man's, and the whole recognition of the mercy of giving us a guide, because we were wandering in a wilderness where there was no way, is lost. The principle is clear, but the Lord has settled the point. The thing was a thing indifferent - of excellent signification, and commanded by the elders. His disciples did it not - and here is His judgment on those who minded these directions: "In vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." It rendered the worship of God vain, produced hypocrisy, for it exalted man in his approach to God, as if he could come with beautifully arranged things for God, instead of a convicted, humbled heart, and, where it was thus arranged, enabled the unconvinced unhumbled to come with the same appearance, expression, and worship, as he who was nullifying the distinctive power of the Spirit of God. And the worship was vain; it was man, petty man's self-exaltation, - even when it might have the form of piety, and it was vain - indeed, in this high worship, the heart was far away. The Lord had taught the neglect of it, and judged the use of it, and solemnly even in indifferent things.

270 Here was the first point: "They teach commandments of men" - their worship is vain. "As it is written" judges all this, and the Lord pronounces on it. His disciples know where to turn to. The next point the Lord takes up, for "No man can serve two masters," is that these things become substitutes for the commandments of God, for the natural man can do man's commandments, but he cannot do God's, and he can acquire more credit from man by the former than the latter. Here is the charge: "Leaving the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men." And what does it come to? Washing of pots and many such things! Now the Lord goes farther, not to make remarks on what they presented, but to show the real force and extent of their ways, and where the principle went and led. "And he said to them: Full well ye reject the commandment of God." Man never learns the commandment of God, thus pretending to be righteous, but, inasmuch as the perfection of guiding truth is in God's commandments - and it must be that therefore or wrong - when man adds as he may call it, he always opposes and makes void God's commandment. It places man always instead of God, and exalts man and not God; now the will of God directs the Spirit, and humbles the flesh, exposing it. The direction of man hides and glorifies the flesh, and these commandments therefore are found to militate in principle against God and His holiness. There is another reason now emerges. This has the character of religion. Now true religion puts a man into immediate relationship with God, detecting his whole state, taking quite out and putting him into the truth before God (to which the Gospel is the answer of grace) but false cannot hear this - it has no reality of relationship with God, and therefore it constitutes an intermediate priesthood which is the consummation of what is false, when the true light has shone. Then by the authority of nearness to God thus reposed in, which, they being priests and the others not, is taken for granted and cannot be entered into, they act in the dark, indulge themselves, and crave from others, or "He that departeth from evil maketh himself a prey." If I be asked: How then do you say of the Jewish priesthood which God Himself appointed? I answer: That is exactly the point. Then God did dwell in the thick darkness, the way into the holiest was not made manifest, the veil was upon God's presence, which is now rent and done away in Christ, and therefore on Christ's death they that come to God are entirely in a new position. They must meet Him in personal responsibility, and that met by the blood of sprinkling, in the shedding of which the veil was rent; so that grace and holiness necessarily go together. The flesh used this, not even for the terror of judgment against sin, but to use God as their instrument of influence, yea, cultivated sin that they might have sin-offerings. Such is its full effect, the real character of priesthood in man's hands. But the principle of all human righteousness leads to this, for it never brings into the presence of God, and the teachers of it flatter, and minister to this, and therefore you will ever find human righteousness, human will, and priesthood go together, as divine righteousness, the divine will, and a divine priesthood in Christ, and all believers in Him, respectively, go together. But here it is rested not on the priests but on the principles and the teachers, which is important for us to see - "Ye say," but it ministered to this. The Lord for conscience seizes on the evidence, the actual evidence of the effect of these principles; but "in vain do they worship me" applies to every form of it. Indeed the Lord ever does this, waits in patience till sin is filled up to judge, and takes hold on the plain manifestation of it to convict, but we are called on, by the knowledge He affords us of the fruits in conduct, to mortify and have done with every root and branch. In convicting others, we may state the principle on the Lord's authority, as in verse 7, and convict the offenders, if we are spiritual, by the plain effects and facts, and that on their own principles and showing, which is needed to convict though not to guide us.

The scribes and Pharisees had found fault with the disciples for eating bread with unwashen hands, complaining that they did not walk according to the tradition of the elders. (vv. 2 - 5.) To this the Lord gave a threefold answer: first, He charged the Pharisees with hypocrisy, inasmuch as they were satisfied with honouring God with their lips, while their hearts were far from Him; secondly, He declared that worship which was regulated by man's commandments was vain; and thirdly, He told them that they had rejected the commandments of God in order to maintain their own tradition. As an illustration of the last point He cites a special case, and it is in connection with this that the word "Corban" occurs. First, then, the Lord adduces the law of Moses, the word of God - "Honour thy father and thy mother." This command plainly made it obligatory upon the Jews to maintain their parents, if necessary. (See Proverbs 3:9, for a similar use of the word "honour.") But they desired to escape this responsibility, and they devised a pious pretext for doing so. They taught that, if a man devoted his property to God for His service, they were released from the duty of honouring their parents; and consequently they said, "It is Corban" - that is, a gift, or a thing devoted to sacred uses - to excuse themselves from their responsibility. They thus set aside the word of God, through their own tradition, and made the word of God of no effect. Truly, in every age, it is necessary to proclaim that to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams; and that no greater dishonour can be done to God than by the substitution of man's teachings in the place of His commandments.

The Lord's reply to these men emphasizes the difference between "the commandment of God," and "your tradition" (v. 3). These traditions of the elders were explanations, amplifications and inferences drawn from the law by venerated teachers of old time. They dominated the minds of the Pharisees and quite beclouded the law of God; so much so that they transgressed the law to keep their tradition. The Lord charged them with this, and gave an illustration of it as regards the fifth commandment. Their tradition as regards gifts, professedly devoted to God, completely nullified that commandment. The "pious" and "orthodox" Jew of today has his mind filled with the Talmud, which is built up from these traditions, and it is like a veil, shrouding from his mind the true word of God.

The Lord, then, confronts the Pharisees with, "God commanded, saying, honour thy father and mother; and he that curseth father or mother, let him die the death." Honour to parents was valued by God; and disrespect was deadly in His sight — "But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me, and honour not his father or his mother …" The Jews had brought in a cheat (to quiet their consciences) by which they might free themselves from the obligation to meet filial duties. They had only to pronounce the word, "It is a gift" (Corban), and a parent might be forgotten! Doubtless, it was one of their authorized traditions, and for the priest's profit, but in God's sight a direct breach of His command. "Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition." And this is what tradition usually does, whether in Romanism or elsewhere. To add to Scripture is ruinous: it does not matter by whom it may be done, or for whatever holy motives men may allege; God is jealous about it, and will not have His word enlarged or amended. Revelation is complete, and our simple business is to be obedient to the word of God.

The Pharisees in our chapter brought out this conventional washing of hands, and pressed it upon the disciples. The Spirit's comment is that "the Pharisees and all the Jews, unless they wash their hands diligently, eat not, holding the tradition of the ancients. And when they come from the market-place, unless they are washed, they do not eat. And many other things there are which they have received to hold, the washing of cups and vessels, brazen utensils, and couches." Every spiritual man must feel the quick, cutting condemnation of the whole principle, root and branch, which breathes through the language of the Spirit of God. However subdued the tone may be, the whole thing is treated as utterly weak and childish. The washing of persons is classed with the washing of cups and vessels. Many like things they do. What a religion! "Then the Pharisees and scribes ask Him, Why do Thy disciples walk not according to the tradition of the ancients, but eat the bread with defiled† hands?" It is remarkable how the Lord answers them. It is not by discussing the source of the tradition or showing its futility. He deals at once with its broad character and its moral effect on the obedience that is due to God. This is, doubtless, a most admirable pattern for every Christian man. The Lord lays bare the moral fruit of these traditions, and thus the simple escape the snare of the enemy. "He answered and said unto them, Well did Esaias prophesy concerning you, hypocrites,68 as it is written, This people honoureth Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. But in vain they do worship Me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." (Isa. 29:13) "Diligently" (or "frequently," "with vigour," or "with nicety"). The mass of authority [ABD, etc., followed by Edd.] sustains πυγμῃ (D: πυκμῃ). Lit. "with the fist," or "up to the elbow." Tischendorf adopted πυκνά from the Sinaitic copy, confirmed, perhaps, by the Latin (verse 9) and some other versions. St. Gall [as the Syrsin] has neither (B.T.). See, further, note 67. †"Defiled": so Edd., after ℵpmBD, 1, 33, Memph. Arm. "Unwashed" is found in ℵcorr AL, etc., Syr. Goth.

And this is His method of proof. He takes one of these noted traditions and shows that, plausible as it might seem, it was but the cunning slight of deceivers, led by one more cunning than themselves, and destructive of the true fear of God. It drew men into disobedience, and made excuse for sin, or, rather, denied it. Thus their zeal for tradition blinded them to what ordinary conscience must have felt, "for, leaving the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men." He does not call it a wicked tradition; it was "of men," and is not to be held. "And He said to them, Well do ye set aside the commandment of God, that ye may observe your own tradition." There is the process: give up what is of God, and then you will fall into the hands of man. There is great importance in the principle. It is not a comparison of things as to whether this is better than that. The evil is laying aside the commandment of God, and preferring man's tradition to it. The only thing that has claim upon the Christian heart is what comes from God. Whatever God wills, whatever is His revealed mind on any given subject, demands the believer's reception and obedience. "For, leaving the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of vessels and cups: and many other such like things ye do."

What is the harm of all this? It may not be wise, but is merely innocent, a person might argue. But the Lord does not judge so lightly of nullifying God's commandments by the deference that men show to the will and word of man. "For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and he who speaks ill of father or mother, let him surely die." There we have the plain revelation of God's mind. To honour parents is right and of God, to make light of them unfits man to live in God's estimate. How did tradition dissolve so plain a duty? "Ye say, If a man say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is, gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; and ye suffer him no more to do anything for his father or his mother, making void the word of God69 through your traditions which ye have delivered: and many such like things ye do." Just consider what an issue this was. A man sees his father and mother in want; he has received in earthly goods that which would relieve them, but the tradition-mongers have invented a plan to benefit religion so called at the cost of filial duty. If one said "Corban" the duty was totally changed, and that which would have been due to the parent must now be devoted to the priest. No matter what the need of father and mother, that word "Corban" estopped all action of heart or conscience. The leaders had devised the scheme to secure property for religious purposes, and to quiet persons from all trouble of conscience about the word of God.

But the Judge and Lord of all meets this at once. Who had given them authority to say, It is Corban? Where had God warranted such a practice? and who were they that dared to substitute their thoughts for the word of God? It was God who called on man to honour his parents, and who denounced all slight done to them. Yet here were men violating, under cloak of religion, both these commandments of God! This tradition of saying "Corban" the Lord treats not only as a wrong done to the parents, but as a rebellious act against the express commandment of God.

He did not take the defensive, however, but in turn challenged their hypochrisy, quoting the words of Isaiah as to their drawing near to God with their lips while their hearts were far distant from Him. This kind of worship was in vain, totally empty, their doctrines being the commandments of men, with God's rights ignored. Verse 8 shows that in insisting on their traditions they were setting aside God's commandments, and verse 9 emphasizes this as being the actual rejection of the commandment of God in order to enforce their own tradition

Then He refers to another example of this in the way in which they treated the plain commandment, "Honor thy father and thy mother." Though the law also demanded the death of one who showed contempt for his father or mother, yet the Pharisees had invented a doctrine that could get around the law of God. In the case of a man who had the means by which he might relieve the need of his parents, yet tradition allowed him to say "It is Corban," meaning that his money was a gift devoted to spiritual uses, and therefore not to be given to his parents. This was simply a matter of the tradition sanctifying the cold-hearted selfishness of the son. This kind of pretense is contemptible, of course, but Pharisees encouraged it, thereby making the Word of God of no effect. It was not merely a tradition added to the Word (which is bad enough), but a tradition opposing God's Word. The Lord adds, "and many such like things ye do." This was only one example, for when once the Word of God is despised in the smallest matter, it is not long before men's cunning deceit undermines anything and everything it pleases, not realizing the horror of this wicked contempt for God Himself.

For they transgressed the commandment of God by their tradition. He does not refer to the washing of hands, however, for this was a mere empty decree hardly worth speaking of: but He does reprove a tradition of theirs that boldly made void the commandment of God. To honor father and mother was one of the initial ten commandments. Yet the Jews had concocted a tradition that allowed a son or daughter to say that some resource he had by which he could relieve the need of his parents was "Corban," that is, a gift devoted to God, and by this subterfuge to avoid helping his parents. Eidersheim says that this was commonly done though the money was not actually given to the temple service at all, and that the Jewish elders had officials ruled that a declaration of this kind nullified one's obligation to his parents.

Thirdly, it sets aside the plain word of God in favour of the traditions of men. The Lord gives an example of this great evil. The word of God gives plain directions for the children to honour the parents; but they had a tradition by which they could profess to set aside their property for the use of God by saying "It is Corban," meaning a gift devoted to God, and therefore could not be used to help a needy parent. Thus, by their tradition, they set aside the word of God, evaded their responsibility to their needy relatives, and ministered to their own covetousness.