What is apostolic tradition?

As to "tradition," no one who has read the Greek Testament can a moment doubt that the word in the N. T. means a doctrine delivered, not handed down; though this might sometimes be the character of what was delivered. "Form of teaching into which ye were instructed, lit. delivered" (ἐ. ὂ. ν. π. τ. δ. of Rom. 6:17) makes this plain. So tradition in the popular sense is in contrast with scripture; but in the passage you refer to (2 Thess. 2:15) it is either the direct word of prophecy in the church there, or the apostle's epistle. No thing handed down in the church is secured by subsequent authority. The saints were to keep the doctrine they had been taught - the body of saints. Suppose I were to write to the body of saints in - to hold fast what they had been taught, whether viva voce, or what I had written to them by letter, what would this have to say to the authority of the church or tradition of a subsequent era? Yet this is exactly the case, save that that teaching was divine and inspired, and therefore the exhortation had its peculiar place and weight: "the instructions [traditions] which ye were taught, whether by word or by epistle of ours." It clearly shows tradition just to be a doctrine delivered.

Nor do I see what the communication of what he had learned to faithful men (2 Tim. 2:2), so as to form teachers, has to do with tradition. Nobody, unless they deny ministry, could gainsay this; and as far as a man could be trusted as receiving it from St. Paul, it would of course have weight; but that is just the question. It was not authority, but a means of communicating truth. The confounding these two things is generally the unperceived sophism of Milner's End of Controversy: "A rule of faith, he says, or means of communicating Christ's religion. It must be plain, etc." But these things are not the same. A mother does it to her babe, but she is not a rule of faith; she does it perhaps perfectly well, but this alters nothing. Now here the apostle is directing the means of communicating. truth to others (of course as surely as he can), but not setting up either authority or a rule of faith. When I had a dozen young men reading with me at Lausanne, I was doing this according to my ability. Was I dreaming of setting up authority or a rule of faith in them? Certainly not. The written word is clearly such the moment we own it inspired.

"Now I praise you that in all things ye remember me, and hold fast the traditions according as I delivered [them] to you." (Ver. 2.) Tradition in scripture is used, not only for the added maxims of men, as in Matthew 15, but for what the apostles enjoined on the saints, first orally, then in inspired writings, as also in both ways, while the canon was in course and not yet complete. Compare also Romans 6:17; 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

Before the canon of holy Scripture was completed and became accessible in a written form, much of the apostolic teaching was circulated in the early church in the form of tradition either by word or letter. Hence we read of Paul exhorting the Thessalonian saints to "hold the traditions wherein ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle" (2 Thess. 2:15) similarly also in 2 Thess. 3:6. Again, the same apostle, writing to the Corinthians, praises them that "ye remember me in all things, and hold fast the traditions as I delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2). Whatever truth was delivered to the saints through the medium of the apostles was necessarily a tradition, whether written or oral, and being inspired, had a paramount claim over them (1 Cor. 11:23; 2 Peter 2:21; Jude 3).

58 But I must return a moment to a remark I made to you. The word "tradition" is shamefully abused. No one doubts that the disciples ought to receive whatever the apostles taught by word of mouth. The question is whether we can have it now handed down unwritten outside scripture. Now the scripture and the earliest writers used the word simply in the sense of teaching; as in the passage quoted by Dr. Milner, "the tradition which ye have received by word or our epistle." That had not been handed down. Paul had taught them by word of mouth; he had taught them by letter: they were to receive both. Of course they were; but they had received both directly from the apostle; there was no handing down. It means his teaching, and he uses it so elsewhere. Now it is dishonest trifling to use this to prove what is alleged when the word is used in another sense. Tradition means now what is handed down unwritten from one to another, the unwritten word as distinguished from scripture. Paul says, tradition by letter or words. It is not the same thing he speaks of. The duty of receiving what Paul taught by word of mouth has nothing to do with proving that handing down by words of mouth means our having what was not written by them. Ignatius, as quoted by Eusebius, uses tradition as Paul does — that is, as apostolic teaching.

ταράδοσις. This may be described as that which is handed down as oral teaching. It may be from God, as in 2 Thess. 2:15; 2 Thess. 3:6; and 1 Cor. 11:2 (where it is translated 'ordinance'), instruction handed down before the word of God was complete. Or it may be from man, as was the tradition of the elders of Israel, which was strongly denounced by the Lord, and declared to be a subverting of the commandments of God. Matt. 15:2-6; Mark 7:3-13; Gal. 1:14. In Col. 2:8 it is the mere teaching of the moralists, of which much has survived to the present day. What man institutes, man holds to most tenaciously.

They were to stand fast and hold the traditions (paradoseis) which they had been taught, whether by word or by his epistle. It was apostolic teaching, derived direct from the apostle, whether orally or in writing, which they were to hold. Men in later years have invented traditions about that which the Church held, or taught. It was not of such that Paul wrote. The traditions to which he points them are the truths, the teaching he had delivered to them. (2 Thess. 3:6.) An instance of such we have in 1 Cor. 11. He delivered (paredoka) to them that which he had received of the Lord. The institution of the supper, as there set forth, was a tradition the Corinthians received from the apostle. The injunction too that no one should give way to idleness, instead of supporting himself, was a tradition the Thessalonians had already received. Such were apostolic traditions. Such they were to keep. Besides that, he desired on their behalf an interest in himself and his work, which would be evidenced by prayer for him; and that they should be led into the love of God, so needful and helpful in times of trouble (Jude 20), and into the patience of Christ, they waiting on earth for that for which He was waiting in heaven.

And now again, in the second epistle, he says, "Accordingly then, brethren, stand firm, and hold fast the traditions which ye were taught whether by word or by letter of ours" (verse 15). Beyond a doubt the delivered instructions embrace oral and epistolary teaching, and in no way allow an indefinite sense actuating powerfully but almost insensibly a community from age to age. The traditions which the apostle urges the church to hold fast were known and possessed truth (1 Cor. 11:2), not at all scripture supplemented by a vague spiritual sense that would mould all by its intrinsic influence. The Romish idea is unknown to and excluded by scripture, which insists on the Lord originating and forming all that is His will by that word which the Spirit makes effectual in all His operations from quickening to the highest edification, and alike in worship and in service. For He is here in the individual saint, and in the assembly, to glorify Christ according to the Father's will. The theory of a dual rule of faith betrays its real character as a rival of scripture, and a rebel against God Whose glory admits of no co-ordinate authority, such as its tradition cannot but assume to be. For this supposes defect in scripture, and claims, though human, nothing less than divine honour. A tradition you have not got and do not know is not only an absurd contradiction of the only true sense of tradition in scripture, but its assertion by Romanism exposes its votaries to the purely human tradition of the elders, which the Lord denounced as commandments of men which make void the word of God. In vain do such worship God; they honour Him with their lips, but their heart is far from Him. The word of God alone has an absolute title over the heart and conscience of His people.

But the passage which Dr. Milner quotes proves that tradition is not used as he uses it. Where the word is used of written and unwritten, the written is called tradition as well as the unwritten. It means any doctrine delivered. Now if Paul delivered a doctrine to me by word of mouth, I ought of course to observe it as if it was in one of his epistles. There is no difference: only that I might forget or change it if it were not written. Here is Paul's phrase — "Stand fast, and hold the tradition ye have been taught, whether by word or our epistle." Of course, what he had taught as truth, they ought to keep. Tradition means what he had taught.

But where are the doctrines which Paul taught which are not found in scripture? They have none to produce: we shall see this just now. Dr. Milner tells us an old wife's tale about the apostles agreeing upon a short symbol, a story which everyone knows to have no foundation. The Apostles' Creed is the Roman creed, with some additions, and the creed of the church of Aquileia, in the fifth century, preserved by Ruffinus, the descent into hell being added afterwards. But, further, a very just and important remark has been made by another as to the way tradition is spoken of by the Fathers, on whom Dr. Milner chiefly rests his case. The word is not used as meaning a source of additional doctrines, an unwritten word besides the written, but as a sure proof of the true faith to be received, and way of knowing the right use of scripture. Tradition for them was a testimony to scriptural truth of a surer kind, as they alleged, not a communication of additional truths besides the scripture. They charged heretics with pretending to a tradition of this kind. They as often appeal to the scriptures against everything else as to tradition; but with them tradition is not a source of additional truths, but a surer proof, as they say, of common truths. Now, I admit freely that, supposing the apostles had not left us the scriptures, men ought to have followed tradition (that is, what the apostles taught) when they had it. The question is, first, would it have secured the preservation of the apostles' doctrine? The apostles thought not, and left us the New Testament — that is, really, the Holy Ghost did. But, secondly, now they have left us the scriptures, are we not to use them? and are we not to reject everything contrary to them, even if it pretends to be a tradition?

Tradition simply means, a thing taught or communicated; it is tradition if you and I are merely talking now, we read of the "traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." It was all tradition; and the way in which one or two scriptures are quoted on this point is only dishonest. To us the test of tradition is the written word. But tradition may be delivered from mouth to mouth, or by letter. As to mere words, 'Trinity' is a word not found in Scripture, although it is an expression of a truth found therein.

We have had already in an earlier part of the Gospel some of the things they had added to the word of God, some of the traditions of men. The apostolic "traditions" (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6) were of divine authority, and now we have them as Scripture in the written word of God.