THE references to tradition in the scriptures demand our attention. It is clear that the Lord when on earth had to encounter and to condemn the traditions held by the rulers.
That they held the traditions as binding is obvious. There "came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying, Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread." (Matt. 15:1, 2.) The question is put in precisely the same way as if the disciples had broken the law.
It is pretended that much of the tradition was received by Moses on the mount; that it was not written down, but was committed orally to Joshua; that Joshua delivered it to seventy elders, and they committed it to the great synagogue; and these handed it down to the Rabbins. It is called in scripture the tradition of the fathers as well as of the elders. (1 Pet. 1:18.)
Another part of the oral law, as it is called, are canons made by the learned heads of the Sanhedrim, explaining the law, and acting as ' fences ' to prevent the law from being broken by ignorance or cunning.
This latter division was often added to, as occasion required. It was also often modified, when circumstances seemed to make its strictness impracticable.
Thus the oral law was not all equally binding, though it is often spoken of as if it were. That held to be handed down from Moses was called the Halacha, or " rule, " and must be obeyed. The other part was called Hagada, or " what is said; " and, though to be received with the greatest respect, it often contains the judgments of learned Rabbins, differing widely one from another.
It is certain that this latter division has been largely added to since the time of the Lord on earth: how much of it then existed is not known.
Nor do we know what changes have taken place in the whole of this oral law since that date. For centuries it was not allowed to be written: it must be handed down by the memories of the learned. It is believed to have been first committed to writing in the last half of the fourth century. The first printed edition of the Babylonian Talmud in 1520-23, filled 12 vols. folio.
On looking at the oral law as contained in the Talmud or Mishna, one cannot but be struck with its minute detail and frivolous trifling; precisely as our Lord said to the scribes and Pharisees, " Ye blind guides, which strain at [or, out] a gnat, and swallow a camel." (Matt. 23:24.)
Nor was their tradition simply minute detail, much of it also was folly, as the Lord explains respecting their traditions as to oaths. (Matt. 23:16-22.)
And some of it actually violated the law, as the Lord skews by their tradition as to the relation of children to parents. The law said, " Honor thy father and mother," but they had a tradition that a son might say, " It is Con ban," respecting whatsoever his parents might be profited by him; and he would not be suffered to do anything more for father or mother. Thus they made the commandment of God of no effect by their tradition. (Matt. 15:3-6; Mark 7:11.)
Surely the bringing in of tradition was a cunning work of Satan. It would have shocked the sensibilities of many a Jew to call in question any part of the law as given by Moses; and yet they were led to acknowledge that there was another law equally binding on them, which, in many ways, diverted their attention from the true law, occupied them with trivial details (as the washing before eating), corrupted their judgment, and in some things led them to break the law, which they were zealously professing to keep all the while.
Our Lord could not let such a state of things exist around Him without thoroughly exposing its folly and evil, and this He did with the most withering rebuke.
Paul has not hesitated to tell us that, when he was persecuting and wasting the church of God, he was more exceedingly zealous than others of the traditions of his fathers. (Gal. 1:14.)
Peter also, in writing to believing Jews scattered abroad, reminds them that they had been redeemed from their " vain conversation " (or manner of life) received by tradition from their fathers. (1 Peter 1:18)
It may interest the reader to know that the devout Jews of the present day still hold the oral law to be binding upon them. In 1845, because some of their brethren began to doubt of " the divinity of the oral law," which apparently they had never seen, " Eighteen Treatises from the Mishna "were translated into English. " There can be no doubt," say the translators, " that the Israelite, who believes in the divinity of an oral law-who thinks the salvation of his soul depends on such belief-but to whom the Mishna in the Hebrew is a sealed book-there can be no doubt that to such a man, if he be rational as well as pious, the present translation must be highly acceptable, as mere belief in the contents of a book not understood can confer no claim to heavenly reward..... We find the holy pages of the Pentateuch, the Prophets, and the Hagiography [sacred writings] open for his instruction, comfort, and consolation; and the same free access should be given to pages containing so large a portion of the oral law, which also claims a divine origin."
But a Jew would perhaps retort that tradition' is also held among Christians, and is indeed enforced in the New Testament.
We do read that the apostle Paul, writing to the Thessalonians, said, " Brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." And they were to withdraw from every brother that walked disorderly and not after The tradition which had been received from them." (2 Thess. 2:15;3. 6.)
Paul also instructed Timothy: "The things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also." (2 Tim. 2:2.)
When these things were written, the word of God was not completed; and the epistles that had been written were in manuscript, and perhaps not more than one copy of each existed at any of the assemblies, so that the saints were taught the scriptures by hearing them read, and not by reading them. Paul, in more than one place, enjoins that the epistles should be read to the assemblies (Col. 4:16; Thess. 5:27), and Timothy is exhorted to "give attendance to reading," which, being placed with exhortation and doctrine (or teaching) seems to imply public reading.
When the word of God was complete there was no further need of any tradition. It declares itself to be " profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Tim. 3:16, 17.) There is no room for any tradition: all that is needed is to he found in what is written-written by inspiration of God. A solemn warning is given against adding to or taking from " the words of the book of this prophecy " (Rev. 22:18,19), as there was also a warning against adding to or taking from the law. (Deut. 4:2: cf. also Prov. 30:5,6.) The Jews did this, and are still doing it to their own condemnation.
A corrupt church, alas! is also doing it to its own destruction. *(*The second Nicene Council (A.D. 787) pronounced its anathema on any who should dare to reject the tradition of the church, be it oral or written. The Council of Trent also, in A.D. 1549, declared that the interpretation of scripture had to be regulated by tradition.)
May God enable us to cling tenaciously to the Bible-all the Bible-the Bible only.