Gooding, David: Analysing Tradition in Light of Scripture

From scriptures beginning in the gospel by Matthew and chapter fifteen. By Matthew and chapter fifteen. To Jesus from Jerusalem, Pharisees and scribes say, why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? For they wash not their hands when they eat bread. And he answered and said unto them, Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition? For God said, Honor thy father and thy mother, and he that speaketh evil of father or mother, let him die the death. But you say, whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, that wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me is given to God, he shall not honor his father. And you have made void the word of God because of your tradition. You hypocrites. Well did Isaiah prophesy of you saying, this people honoreth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men. And he called to him the multitude and said unto them, Hear and understand, not that which entereth into the mouth defileth the man, but that which proceedeth out of the mouth, this defileth the man. Then came the disciples and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this saying? But he answered and said, Every plant which my heavenly Father planted not shall be rooted up. Let them alone. They are blind guides. And if the blind guide the blind, both shall fall into a pit. And then some words, please, from the first epistle to the Corinthians, beginning in chapter eleven. Corinthians chapter eleven and verse two. Now I praise you that you remember me in all things and hold fast the traditions, even as I delivered them to you. And verse twenty three, for I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you. Chapter fifteen and verse three. I delivered unto you, first of all, that which I also received. How that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures. God give us good understanding of his holy word. I would like to think with you this afternoon on the part that tradition plays in the life of individuals and the church of God. We cannot long be converted to the Lord Jesus Christ and be joined to a Christian church, but what we shall find, we are involved in a great deal of tradition. And sooner or later, if we have active minds that wish to inquire the reason of things, we shall be asking ourselves, what attitude have we got to take to this great mass of tradition? Do we take the view that tradition is to be received because it is of long standing and unquestionably followed and obeyed? Or do we take the view that tradition is mere tradition, and by that token must be rejected and thrown away, and everything start afresh? What, in a word, are we to do with the great mass of tradition that we soon find ourselves confronted with? The answer is not quite so simple as might first appear. There are differing kinds of traditions. There is, in the first place, that tradition that is absolutely authoritative, must not be questioned, though it must be understood, must be received unswervingly and obeyed, because the tradition concerned comes from God Almighty, from our blessed Lord Jesus Christ, and from his holy apostles. There is another kind of tradition. This is a tradition that doesn't come from God, nor yet the Lord Jesus, nor yet from the holy apostles, but comes simply from men. There we shall have to pause and think very carefully. For if that tradition that comes from men goes contrary to the word of God, we have no choice but to reject it totally and forthwith. But there is a third class of tradition that does not come from God, nor yet from our Lord, nor yet from the Holy Apostles, and on the other hand, is not contrary to the word of God. That tradition we shall have to s- treat with respect and use it where it is profitable and change it where it is unprofitable. You say to me, perhaps, what do you mean by tradition? Well, the word tradition simply means a something that has been handed down from somebody to somebody else. That's all it means. But generally it acquires the associated idea that this thing that has been handed down simply by dint of being handed down over many pit times and years, has gathered to itself some kind of authority. I submit to you that the basic question that we ought then to ask about any tradition is first and foremost, where did it start? From whom has it come? Someone handed it down to somebody else, and he to a third person. Yes, but in that chain of tradition, what was the first link? Where did the thing start? You will remember that Paul himself calls Timothy's attention to this matter of the source of tradition. In his second letter to Timothy and in chapter three and verse fourteen, he says, but abide thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them. Timothy is asked to persevere in the traditions that have been taught him because he is aware of the authoritative source from which those traditions come, knowing of whom thou hast learned them. And we should always stand our sentinel, so to speak, on guard at this very point, ready to challenge every tradition at its root. Who said so? From where does the tradition come? There is then, we shall find, a tradition covering many, many things that is good, that is authoritative, that must be obeyed implicitly and never be changed, because the tradition starts with Jesus Christ, our Lord, and comes to us directly from him or through his apostles. Let us notice the passage that we were reading just now. The very gospel message that is the basis of our salvation, through who- which we are saved, that gospel message is pictured to us in Holy Scripture as a tradition. Listen again to what Paul says to us in one Corinthians fifteen. Brethren, he says, I make known unto you the gospel which I preached to you, that gospel where also, which also you received, wherein also you stand, by which also you are saved. I make known, I say, in what words I preached it unto you, if ye hold fast, except you believe in vain, for I delivered unto you, first of all, that which I also received. How that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and so forth. The gospel, I say, the basic message by which we are saved is a Christian tradition. I received it, says Paul. I sit unto you, that's what we mean by a tradition. But let's examine the matter closely. Let's put our sentinel on guard and say, come on now, Paul, tell us, but where did you get the tradition from? You say you received it. Where did you receive it from? And he answers our question in many of his letters. He tells us in Galatians, for instance, in chapter one, that he is an apostle, not from men nor through man, but he is an apostle through Jesus Christ and God the Father. He tells us again that when he first was saved, and it pleased God, who called him and separated him from his mother's womb. He says, uh, as soon as I got saved, I conferred not with flesh and blood, neither I went up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me, but I went into Arabia, and again I returned to Damascus. He tells us that when at last he went up to Jerusalem, they who were of repute imparted nothing to me. And why says he all this? Because Paul is exceedingly concerned to let us see just where he got the tradition of the gospel from. He got it direct from the risen Lord. So the chain of tradition is this, from Christ to Paul, from Paul to us, the basic tradition of the gospel. I make known to you, says Paul, the very words in which I preach it. For the gospel is not some vague message to the effect that, uh, God is love, for instance, though that is blessedly true. But the gospel is a detailed message, and I remind you, says Saint Paul, of the very words in which I preached it. For if you would be solidly in this apostolic tradition and preach the gospel, you must maintain the very detail of that gospel. It is this, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, that he was buried, that he rose again the third day, according to the scriptures. And in that brief summary, you will notice two important things. You will notice the great historic events that lie at the basis of the gospel, how that Christ died for our sins, that he was buried, that he rose again the third day. But you will notice also that Paul tells us that when Christ died for our sins, he died according to the scriptures. He is talking about the Old Testament scriptures. When he rose again the third day, he rose again according to the scriptures. He is talking about the Old Testament scriptures. In other words, the tr- Christian tradition of the gospel embraces not only the great historical facts of Christ's death, his burial, and his resurrection, it embraces that older revelation that we nowadays call the Old Testament scriptures. You cannot have one without the other, or the other without the one. If you would be true to the gospel of our blessed Lord Jesus Christ, you must be true to that older tradition, which is the Old Testament. For the gospel is this, that Christ died according to the Old Testament. He was buried, and he rose again the third day, according to that Old Testament. Here, then, is a precious tradition. We must guard it, even though, God save us from it, even though we were called upon to guard it with our very lives. But not only have we received that basic gospel from, uh, our Lord through Paul the Apostle and the other apostles, we must be wary of reinterpreting it in modern terms, which contradict what Paul himself taught us. I remember a learned teacher that I once upon a time had in my youth, and when I died, I was trying, when, sorry, when he died, I'm not dead yet, please observe that. When he died, I was trying to help his widow tidy up his estate. Said she to me, I shall never see Peter anymore. That was her husband. And I was startled because the dear man claimed to be a Christian. No, she said, I shall never see Peter anymore. I said, but my good woman, don't you believe in the resurrection? No, I don't believe in the resurrection. Nor did my husband. And my father was a bishop, and he didn't either. I said, but my dear good woman, if you don't believe in the resurrection, there is no gospel. For Paul tells us, does he not, that if Christ be not risen from the dead, you are yet in your sins. Then is our preaching and our faith vain. There's nothing in it at all. Ah, she said, no, no, you see, my husband used to tell me that if Paul were around today, he'd put it in different terms. Would he really? So if Paul were around today, he'd say the very opposite of what he used to. Ah, but Paul has anticipated the matter. And he tells us straightly in that chapter from which we have read, that if there is no resurrection, then Christ has not been raised, and if Christ has not been raised, then is our preaching vain, and your faith also is vain. And what is more, says Paul, if there is no resurrection, we are found false witnesses, which is a polite word for liars. False witnesses concerning God, because we have witnessed concerning God that he raised up Christ. And if God didn't raise up Christ, then we apostles are liars. So I remind you, says Paul to these Corinthians, of the very words I used. Don't you go changing my words. It's not just a general, vague kind of a message. If you would be true to the gospel, you must have it in the very words that Paul used. And you must not reinterpret it, interpret him so that you then make him contradict what earlier he wrote, and you turn him into a liar. Then let us notice that it is not merely the basic gospel that, uh, is described as a tradition. Other things are so described. That holy and blessed memory that we call the Lord's Supper. Listen again, what its authority is. Says Paul in one Corinthians eleven, I received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you. You notice the tradition, please. You notice the change. Paul says, I got it from Christ, so Christ gave it to me. I hand it on to you. There is the train chain of tradition. Oh yes, it's a tradition. I received it from the Lord. I pass it on to you. Therefore, that Holy Supper, the Lord's Supper, comes to us as a command. It comes to us with all the authority of Christ. He gave it to his apostles who sat round the table with him in the upper room. And now, if we comprehend here what Paul says, he gave it afresh to Paul. I received it from the Lord, he says, that which also I deliver to you. It is a holy privilege, is it not? But as Mr. Ray prayed in his prayer, we should never forget, as we meet for that holy and happy supper, that we are in the presence of the Lord, Lord and head of the church. And as he bids us take part in the celebration of his new covenant, he would have us feel the whole weight of his divine authority. A week or so ago, I had some pleasant discussion with some young Christian folks. These young Christian folks had been caught up in a kind of doctrine that, when it is taken to its extremes, tells dear Christian folks that they needn't keep the Lord's Supper. Or that such a thing as the Lord's Supper was merely for the interim period of the acts of the apostles. They have a prophetic scheme of things that would tell believers of this present day that they don't need to get baptized and they don't need to keep the Lord's Supper. In fact, if you were really intelligent, you would see that you belong to a different dispensation, and therefore it's a mark of great spirituality that you get yourself neither baptized nor keeping the Lord's Supper. We may have mercy on the young folks who are beguiled by the skillful arguments of those that propound such views. We must be utterly unmerciful on their theories. I received it, sir, from the Lord, says Paul, what I delivered to you. We must not dare break that chain of tradition. It comes from the Lord himself. And in chapter eleven and verse two, he says similarly, doesn't he? I praise you that you remember me in all things and hold fast to traditions, even as I delivered them to you. But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ. There are three sets of symbols that our Lord has given, and between them they cover the wide range of his work. There is the Lord's Supper, in which we remember and by the elements we symbolize his death upon the tree. The bread and the wine symbolizing his death for our sake. There is baptism, isn't there? Which, when you have regarded, you will perceive, speaks to us not merely of our Lord's death, but also of our Lord's resurrection and our identity with him in his burial and in his resurrection. There is another symbol, and that is that when the church meets, men folks don't veil themselves. You say, what's that a symbol of? That's a symbol of the lordship and the headship of Jesus Christ. The head of every man is Christ. Would be a sad business, wouldn't it, if Christian gentlemen took to wearing veils when they met together in the church. You say, but don't be so absurd. Oh, I'm not being absurd. Romans, Roman citizens, Roman men in the ancient world, when they prayed to God, they did veil their heads. If you went down to the Jewish synagogue in Belfast today and watched the men at prayers, you would find that they would cover their heads. You see, the Jew does not believe in the lordship of Jesus. He doesn't believe that our blessed Lord has risen and ascended to the right hand of God. He does not accept his headship. When he prays, a Jew, like a Roman, will veil his head in the presence of Almighty God. We Christian men, we do believe that Jesus is risen and ascended to God's right hand. We come to God through our Lord Jesus Christ. It is a divinely given tradition, mark the word, it is a tradition that comes from the Lord by the apostles, that Christian men shall leave their heads unveiled when publicly they come to pray. You say there's no danger of us breaking that tradition. The Lord be praised for that. But let us now go over to the other side. We have been thinking of traditions that are good, that must be accepted because they come from the Lord to us through his holy apostles. Not only accepted, but passed on. The faith that is once and for all been delivered to the saints, we are to stand fast for it. As Paul put it to Timothy, we are ourselves in our generation to commit it to faithful men, who in turn will take the chain further and be able to communicate it to others. Now let's go over to the other side, to tradition that is bad. Bad because it, in the first place, doesn't come from the Lord, and in the second place, it contradicts the word of God and runs counter to it. We read from Matthew how that our Lord, when he was here on earth, ran into a great deal of trouble from tradition. And on one particular occasion, the Pharisees got themselves sorely upset because our Lord chose to disregard completely the tradition of the elders. In Mark's account of that same incident, our Lord gives us three things about this bad tradition that explain to us why it is so bad and why it must be discarded. He says to the, uh, Jews as follows: You leave the commandment of God, and you hold fast the tradition of men. Secondly, you reject the commandment of God that you may keep your tradition. And thirdly, making void the word of God by your tradition which you have delivered, and you'll see those things get progressively worse. In the first place, they simply leave the commandment of God, leave it over here somewhere, and away they go over here to keep something that is different. Ah, but not only so. When they find that the word of God conflicts with their tradition, says our Lord, then you reject the word of God in order that you may keep your tradition. And finally, and worst of all, you make the word of God void by your tradition. You cancel it out. You make it of none effect. You contradict it. This is the most solemn thing to do, is it not? Let us take a simple and often discussed example of it to show what those steps mean. Let's take that outrageous matter, the matter of infant baptismal regeneration. I will tells us, with a tradition that comes from our Lord Jesus Christ himself, that when folks repent and trust the Savior, they are to be baptized. Our Lord thus commissioned his apostles on the mountain before he ascended, didn't he? Go into all the world, preach the gospel, baptizing them. And had Peter been the man who led you to Christ, he wouldn't have left it optional. He wouldn't have said in your ear, now old chap, you found the Savior, you might consider one of these days perhaps whether you care to be baptized. No, no, not Peter, with his long flowing beard and apostolic authority. He would have said, and now my dear chap, I command you to be baptized. Well, Peter hadn't any option in the matter. The Lord had commanded him, so as a good and true apostle, he he commanded his converts. Thus he did, for instance, to Cornelius. Commanded him to be baptized. Somewhere along the pre- succeeding centuries, people began to alter things, didn't they? They began to apply baptism to newborn infants. First thing they did was to leave the positive command of scripture to carry out this other idea. That was the first false step, wasn't it? Secondly, they then said, look, if you've, uh, been baptized an infant, you don't need to be baptized as an adult. Oh dear. So they've not only left the commandment of God, but now they are contradicting the commandment of God. And worse was to follow. Then they went further, and they made void a certain basic scripture. Our Lord Jesus has solemnly affirmed that except a man be born again, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That is solemn. That is absolutely basic. These folks not only left the commandment of God to keep their tradition, not only by their tradition contradicted our Lord's original command about baptism, but he presto and if you please, they are prepared to make void that solemn word that you must be born again. And tell folks that if they've been through some ceremony, albeit unconsciously, they have been born again, and they make void the word of God. Simple matter, you say. Why bring up that old hoary chestnut? Well, it is simple, of course. But we, well, I suppose I'm the middle-aged and all down below me who are the younger, in our day and generation must learn to be warned by these earlier faults of men who built up their own tradition, but it was a bad tradition for the reasons given of God, and we must examine all the traditions that are around us and check them in that same manner, and whatever we find to contradict God's holy word, we must reject it. But you say, ah well, again, Mr. Preacher, you're talking about things that don't really, uh, concern us this afternoon. We've always been clear on such matters. Yeah, but we shouldn't think, should we, that we ourselves necessarily are free of traditions, free of traditions that need to be adjusted. Well, perhaps you are. But I have discovered in my own life the need to examine in which I was brought up. I was brought up, for instance, and I hope you don't think I'm especially queer. I was brought up in a tradition of interpretation. That taught me that the kingdom has nothing to do with the church, and the church has got nothing to do with the kingdom. And thus I imbibed almost with my mother's milk, so that had you found me at the age of fourteen or fifteen or sixteen, I would have held it as a biblical doctrine that the kingdom has nothing to do with the church, and the church has nothing to do with the kingdom. I thought it very good to pray, come Lord Jesus. I thought it very bad to pray, thy kingdom come. In fact, in my church, where I was brought up, you'll have heard many dear brethren pray, come Lord Jesus. But if I dare to pray thy kingdom come, wow, I should have nearly been excommunicated. It was part of a tradition of prophetic interpretation that they held. I'm not going to argue the pros and cons for that this afternoon, merely to tell you what happened when I got searching scripture. I got searching my New Testament epistles in all innocence one day and came across a phrase like this: The kingdom of God is not in meat and in drink, is not meat and drink, but righteousness and joy and peace in the Holy Ghost. I said, what? What was that? The the kingdom? No, no, it can't be that. That's got nothing to do with me. That surely must be Jewish. And then I rubbed my eyes and looked again at the top of the page, and the good old authorized version said it was Romans. Well, I thought that's odd. Paul writing to, um, Romans or Gentiles and talking about the kingdom. Well, perhaps that's a, you know, a funny little thing that you can neglect. So on I went and came to one Corinthians, and in chapter one four and twenty, I heard the apostle say, the kingdom of God is in word, is not in word, but in power. And you better learn how to behave there in Corinth, because, says Paul, if I come to you and you haven't repented, I shall be obliged to come with a rod, and you'll discover to your cost that the kingdom of God is not merely in word, but in power. I said, the what of God? The kingdom of God. What? To Corinthians, who are mostly Greeks. And then I discovered, as I read on in Colossians chapter one, of God's great, marvelous grace in the gospel, translated me from the power of darkness into the kingdom of the Son of His love. I thought that was an unhappy phrase on Paul's part, but could it be? But here it was saying I was in the kingdom of his dear son. And then I found a quite unrepentant Paul telling those same Colossians in his chapter four and verse eleven about his fellow workers unto the kingdom. So, uh, provoked by such things, I got out my concordance and began to think whatever this might mean. And I can't forget what happened when I took it to a certain senior Christian in my church and started to talk to him about the kingdom. I said, hi, look here, um, what's all this about the kingdom in the epistles? Oh, that's Jewish, he said. Well, I said, what, half a minute? Can't be really, can it? Well, I, I, I better not tell you what followed then. But I was firmly put in my place and warned that anybody who had thought about these things had generally ended up in heresy. You say, how odd. Yes, how very odd. But I think I understand how that good man felt about me. He had accepted without thinking a tradition of interpretation that said the church had got nothing to do with the kingdom, and the kingdom had got nothing to do with the church, and somehow or other these references in the epistles they had bypassed or taken no notice of, and when a little upstart like me came along and called them out, well, I was a challenge to his whole scheme of interpretation. You say, does it matter? Yes, it matters. See, I was brought up to believe that the Sermon on the Mount had nothing to do with the church whatsoever. Because it was kingdom truth. Well, if the church has got nothing to do with the kingdom, then of course the, the Sermon on the Mount has got nothing to do with the church. But if they are wrong who say the church has got nothing to do with the kingdom, you know, it would be a very serious thing, wouldn't it, to tell Christian folks that the Sermon on the Mount has got nothing to do with them. Listen to what our Lord said about it. Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I came not to destroy, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass away from the law, till all these things be accomplished. Whosoever therefore shall break one of the least of these least commandments and teach men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven. If I were to dare to tell anybody that these commandments in the so-called Sermon on the Mount don't apply to us, and therefore I needn't keep them. Then hear what our Lord says. Why, if it were only the least of those commandments, and I taught anybody that they needn't do it, then I shall be called least in the kingdom of God. So that we do need, don't we, from time to time, I quote this merely as an illustration, we do need from time to time to examine our systems of interpretation. And as a general hint and a general principle, we need to stand firm by what Holy Scripture actually and explicitly says, and, on the other hand, my interpretation, my systems of doctrine. What Scripture says is absolutely right, and I must believe it. My systems of doctrine, my systems of interpretation, well, let's hope that some of it's right. Let's hope a good deal of it's right. There's no guarantee it's all right. My systems of interpretation must continually be brought to the bar of God's holy word, and they're tested, and they're examined, and where it is proven that they do not rightly interpret God's word, then my system of interpretation must be changed. Finally, there are some traditions that don't go back to God, nor Christ, nor the apostles, but they're not necessarily bad. They're not necessarily good, but then they're not necessarily bad. Traditions then, which, if they are helpful, let us use them. If they are not helpful, let us discard them. You say, what kind of things are they? Well, in the church that I belong to now, it's a church called Apsley Street, in it, it meets in Apsley Street, down there by the gas works. Uh, if you came to us at the Lord's Supper, you would find we have a very curious tradition. Ninety nine point nine percent of us all sit in the same seat Sunday mornings. I've been sitting in the same seat, ooh, for ever since I came to Belfast. It's very odd, but we all do it. Well, there are a few brave spirits that don't, they go off somewhere else and they hop around the place. But ninety nine percent of us, we sit exactly in the same seat. We've got no scripture for it. It's in the command of the Lord, thou shalt sit upon the same seat. Nor have we got any command from the apostles. And it's an odd thing that when it comes to the gospel meetings, we sit where we will. But Sunday mornings, same seat. You say, well, that's a mere tradition. Let's scrap it. Why scrap it? Jolly convenient tradition. Imagine the whole one hundred and fifty of us coming in at five to eleven. If we had to decide afresh every Sunday where we were going to sit, that would be a bit of confusion, wouldn't it? It's a very happy tradition. Uh, we all each have his own place, and with the minimum of fuss and difficulty, we can all go and quietly sit. I don't see any reason for scrapping it. Though if you think my seat's more comfortable and you want to sit there, I shall give in to you. You say that's a piffling little thing. Oh yes, what about the Lord's Supper itself? How many verses of scripture are there that tell us exactly what we've got to do at the Lord's Supper? How much of what we do is actually explicitly told us in scripture, you shall do this? And how much of what we do is a tradition that has grown up? We are to break the... We are to drink the wine. We are to let three quarters of an hour go by before we do it. Well, there's no rule about that in scripture. That it is a worship meeting. Where does it say that in the New Testament? Oh, but you say, come, isn't it a very appropriate that the Lord's Supper we should worship? Very appropriate, my brother. God maintain it. For who can think about those symbols and what they represent without his heart being provoked to worship? But as you will observe, there is no command that says that when you keep the Lord's Supper, you must engage in a period of worship, and you mustn't sing any gospel hymns. I do remember once gathering with some believers. They'd not long seen the truth of keeping the Lord's Supper, and they were doing it about the first or fourth time they had ever done it in all their lives. It was a marvelous discovery for them. They discovered that they were to meet together and break bread and drink wine to remember the Lord, and the only hymn book they had sank- was Sankis, and the hymns we sang that morning, well, cool, I dare not on my life have given them out in Dundonald. Glorious gospel hymns they were that morning we sang. It didn't contradict any, any scripture I knew of. What am I saying? I'm saying this, that there are traditions that grow up. They have no authority, and not necessarily bad to that. They may be, uh, the product of much experience and much spiritual wisdom. And therefore, those of us who are younger, we would be stupid just to charge in and say, you've no scripture for that, scrap it. On the other hand, those of us who are older should remember to distinguish between what is absolutely basic and biblical and what is merely a tradition, which, however helpful, may not always be helpful in every circumstance, and if need require, can be changed. And so the Lord bless his word. Fill our hearts with a great sense of history, that we shall maintain that great link of tradition that goes back to Christ. What a lovely thing it is to sit at his supper and realize that not two hundred thousand Sundays have gone since he himself first handed that cup to his followers. And thus it has been done unbrokenly down the course of history. God make us faithful to his holy tradition. God give us grace to test all else by his word. What contradicts his word, let us reject it. What is neither bad nor good, but simply convenient, let us use it as it is helpful. Let us change it where it needs to be changed. The Lord bless us for his name's sake.