Header Image: ntrf.org

Quite often in discussions which are about or involve some aspects of early church history or practices earlier Christians did, someone will inevitably throw out the "show stopper" that is "it's all just man made tradition" therefore not valid and the discussion is over. It’s as though saying it's "man made", without considering anything other than that they can't find an isolated chapter and verse in the bible which states something explicitly, means they've "won" the debate!


Nothing more to see here folks, someone told us it's man made so we can all go home now.

Either that, or the mere mention of the word “tradition” and suddenly you’re accused of being a Roman Catholic or that any Church tradition only has its basis in the Roman Catholic Church, and is therefore automatically wrong and invalid in a discussion, and/or in practice.

Except that's not exactly true nor a good way to discuss anything (and probably falls under the Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy).

Advertisement

Traditions and creeds go back much further than the Catholic Church – all the way back to a time of the Apostles.
Yes, Jesus had a go at all the Pharisees for making their traditions greater than Scripture (Matt 15:2-3; Mark 7:9) and in that case dismissing something as "man made" is valid.

But what about when it's something based on or inspired by Scripture, something that becomes almost 'living exegesis' rather than just head knowledge? I've been thinking of Lent lately, as that often is dismissed as "man made” or “Catholic tradition" without looking at the history or how the practice came to be.

Generally, no one has an issue with you saying that you're going to fast, but say you'll do it at a specific time of year or for a certain length of time, and suddenly it's wrong and “man made”?

What do the Scriptures say?

Colossians 2:8
See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.

Advertisement

 

This is often something quoted as a backup to arguing against traditions. Paul’s warnings here are quite valid, we should be careful what we believe and follow as Christians. This is a warning against "man made traditions" but what if I told you that Paul also tells the churches to FOLLOW traditions too?

1 Corinthians 11:2
I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions just as I handed them on to you.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:6
Now we command you, beloved, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, to keep away from believers who are living in idleness and not according to the tradition that they received from us.

Philippians 4:9
Keep on doing the things that you have learned and received and heard and seen in me, and the God of peace will be with you.

Advertisement


Did you catch the theme here? "Hold fast to the traditions" that the apostles taught the believers, either “by word”, action, or by letter!

There is a big difference between "man made tradition" and Apostolic tradition. The former meaning heathen or non-Christian beliefs, or those added as extra rules on top of God’s commands, and the latter being things which will help the Church grow together in Christ.

The key word here is “Apostolic”.

We only have a handful of the apostles letters still, which now forms our New Testament, so anything else they taught was done orally and in person to the people they discipled. These were the traditions they handed down to be observed.

How can we know what else they taught?

All's not lost though! Those who followed the apostles wrote down many things which they were taught, so that they could then in turn, teach the churches the "traditions" passed onto them. These early Christians well understood the difference between the “man made traditions” which Jesus warned against, and those of apostolic origin.

Bishop of Carthage, Cyprian, who was a prominent early leader and writer (c. 250 AD), sums up the view on human tradition rather well, when he says:

...what presumption, to prefer human tradition to divine ordinance, and not to observe that God is indignant and angry as often as human tradition relaxes and passes by the divine precepts … for custom without truth is the antiquity of error.

Cyprian, Epistle 73:3,9

In contrast, he also says this about “divine tradition”:

…you must diligently observe and keep the practice delivered from divine tradition and apostolic observance, which is also maintained among us, and almost throughout all the provinces

Cyprian, Epistle 67:5

Said no apostle ever meme
Said no apostle ever.
Advertisement

There is actually much said about apostolic traditions which were handed down to the bishops and churches by the Apostles themselves, and which were followed and contrasted with the Scriptures that those same apostles wrote. Tradition wasn’t blindly accepted in the early church, but only followed if it could be shown to have originated with apostolic teaching, either by word or by letter; and if it were by word, it was checked against Scripture to make sure it was all in harmony.

That doesn’t necessarily mean they looked for “chapter and verse” (since chapter and verses didn’t exist in Scripture fully until 1553), but to see if what was being taught was consistent with the principles behind what was written down by the Apostles.

Let's explore a few examples of how Apostolic tradition was understood:

If then, any one who had attended on the elders came, I asked minutely after their sayings—what Andrew or Peter said, or what was said by Philip, or by Thomas, or by James, or by John, or by Matthew, or by any other of the Lord's disciples: which things Aristion and the presbyter John, the disciples of the Lord, say. For I imagined that what was to be got from books was not so profitable to me as what came from the living and abiding voice.

Papias, fragments of. 

Just in this short quote from Papias (a bishop of Hierapolis, c. 70-163 AD), it displays that there was a value in seeking after those who had had direct contact with the source, and that was the preferred method over reading what was in books, to make sure that what they learned was as accurate as possible.

But, again, when we refer them (the Gnostics/heretics) to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles

Irenaeus, Against Heresies III, 2:2

Advertisement

If something was handed down and received from the Apostles, it was held in high regard and used as a means to defeat heresies which often tried to creep into the Church and corrupt the faith. This is also the purpose of the creeds (see 1 Cor 15:3-7 for the earliest type of New Testament creed; or the Apostle’s Creed and Nicene Creed for later adaptations).

Irenaeus talks a lot about the traditions handed down in his Against Heresies, and as a bishop himself, took this responsibility very seriously to keep that which he had received “by … succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles … which has been preserved in the church from the apostles until now” (Against Heresies III, 3:3).

Basically, whatever the Apostles taught and did, that was Apostolic Tradition!

The early Christians who were close to the time of the Apostles, relied on this tradition for their learning in not only the faith, but in how to go about “doing church” and as a means to settle any disputes that arose over certain things which weren’t written down. They still had available to them churches which were founded or led by apostles, and so could enquire of them, or those who succeeded the apostolic bishop.

The Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies III, 3:3

Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?

Irenaeus, Against Heresies III, 4:1

The expectation was that anyone could consult the ancient, apostle founded churches, and learn from them the things which had been taught – especially in cases where it concerned something that hadn’t been written down, and learn the truth. But not only learn it, but be able to fully trust it because of its long preserved, historical ties back to the apostles themselves.

Advertisement

In cases where there were people that had been directly taught by the apostles still around, or who had left writings on what they were taught, this was also preferential to learning the traditions of the apostles.

In this line of thinking, Irenaeus, again, speaks highly of Polycarp as one who could be relied on to learn about the apostles and their teachings, as he had faithfully handed these things on to those who succeeded him.

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna … having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down … to these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies III, 3:4

Advertisement

But in the case where someone couldn’t directly speak with a bishop from one of these churches, letters which were still in existence were favoured:

There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth.

Irenaeus, Against Heresies III, 3:4

And the amazing thing is, we still have Polycarp’s letter today! It has survived and been preserved by the Church for over 2000 years, so we can still learn from him today as one who “would speak of the conversations he had held with John and with others who had seen the Lord” (a description by Irenaeus, who knew Polycarp).

Traditions and creeds
Know your history, know your heresy

What about the Bible?

Advertisement

Scripture was canonised to preserve and teach the basics of the Gospel and the way of salvation. Not everything that was written was canonised but certain other texts were held as important for teaching within the early church

The dependence on other people in the church body for learning and interpretation possibly came from taking those with the teaching gift seriously as Spirit led individuals, which Scripture expects (James 3:1; 1 Tim 3:2), and also from an understanding of Peter’s epistle warning against just making up your own interpretations:

2 Peter 1:20
First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation

Just as Jesus didn't write anything down, but taught his disciples personally, they also taught people in the same way, mainly orally and in person, and wrote few things down when the occasion presented itself. Their followers then wrote down the things which they learned from the Apostles instead, probably more so as the Church grew and as time went on, to better preserve all they had learnt.

Advertisement

If we look at Hebrews, we can see what the basic teaching is considered to be:

Hebrews 6:1-2
Therefore let us go on toward perfection, leaving behind the basic teaching about Christ, and not laying again the foundation: repentance from dead works and faith toward God, instruction about baptisms, laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.

These things listed here were considered to be the “basic teaching about Christ” (and are basically a summary of much of the New Testament doctrine) which implies that there is more to learn apart from these things listed!

If we are serious about our faith and learning all we can in order to fully walk in the way of Christ and his Apostles, then we must consult our forefathers in the faith and learn from them, just as they learned from those who preceded them, and those before them all the way back to the Apostles and Christ himself.

Advertisement

The New Testament letters and Gospels serve as a basis for our faith and doctrine, and as an introduction to the traditions of the Apostles as we can see the things they did and said, and what they taught the churches. But Christianity didn’t (and doesn’t) stop with the New Testament. Jesus himself promised the Holy Spirit to us as a means to be taught more (Jn 14:26) so that we wouldn’t be left alone or have everything he taught, lost to the sands of time.

The truth of the Gospel and how believers should act and live, and how to conduct ourselves in Church gatherings, was tied closely to what the Apostles taught and those traditions of theirs which were handed down to the succession of Bishops in all the churches. These Bishops and church leaders wrote many things which we can learn from, and better understand our faith in light of apostolic tradition, many of whose letters still survive.

But why should we trust them?

Ever skeptical, we should check our sources as there were many forgeries and heretical sects rising up and also writing letters trying to push their agendas. Firstly, historical resources will tell us who is a legitimate author if the date of the letter actually matches the lifespan of the claimed author. Not only that, other historical sources will validate certain people – such as Irenaeus validating Polycarp (and many others) when he makes a list of Bishops in the churches, all whom link back to the apostles. Then we have the vast resources of early Christian writers who took it on themselves to preserve and verify older texts to show which ones were truly written by an Apostle or by “apostolic men” as Tertullian calls them (Prescription against Heretics, ch. 32), meaning the companions of the apostles, like Luke and Mark or Clement (Phil 4:3).

Other than Polycarp’s letter, some of these other texts were so highly regarded and read in the early church, that some were included in early lists of canonical books, possibly due to their close ties with apostles, such as: the Epistle of Barnabas and 1 Clement. Later on, other books such as the Letter to Diognetus; the Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache were also included or widely read and used for teaching.

Advertisement

Better still, all of these texts still survive today and can be read and consulted as a modern way to seek to learn from apostolic tradition, since we can no longer just pop to the Ephesus church and enquire after the things John taught, or go to Corinth and ask after the things Paul which weren’t written down. You can view each of these letters by clicking the corresponding links above.

The references to apostolic traditions and the writings of those who followed and succeeded the apostles in the churches they founded are many. These texts make up a much larger collection than the New Testament, which just goes to show in itself that there was much more to be said and expounded on about the faith which many of us are unaware of.

Many questions that arise from reading the Scriptures have been dealt with quite thoroughly by the early Christians and church leaders and we’d do well to invest time in learning from them too.

So, as John Wesley puts it, “can anyone … be excused if they do not add to that learning the reading of the Fathers? The Fathers are the most authentic commentators on Scripture, for they were nearest the fountain and were eminently endued with that Spirit by whom all Scripture was given.”.

Advertisement

Happy reading!


Further Reading

Contribute on Patreon

Enjoying this? Consider contributing regular gifts for this content on Patreon.
* Patreon is a way to join your favorite creator's community and pay them for making the stuff you love. You can simply pay a few pounds per month or per post that a creator makes, and in return receive some perks!

Subscribe to Updates
Order my new book today from Amazon or fortydays.co.uk

Subscribe to:

Have something to say? Leave a comment below.

Leave a comment   Like   Back to Top   Seen 2.3K times   Liked 0 times

Subscribe to Updates

If you enjoyed this, why not subscribe to free email updates ?

Order my new book today from Amazon or fortydays.co.uk

Subscribe to Blog updates

Enter your email address to be notified of new posts:

Subscribe to:

Alternatively, you can subscribe via RSS

‹ Return to Blog

We never share or sell your email address to anyone.

I've already subscribed / don't show me this again

Recent Posts

Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?

| 01st April 2018 | Easter

Today we celebrate the resurrection of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ! What a wonderful day to remember and praise, but not just because Jesus was raised to new life, but because in that moment it sealed the promise of our own hope in God. Through Jesus' death and resurrection, we can now be partakers in that new, eternal life! 1 Corinthians 15:54-55 When this perishable body puts on imperishability, and this mortal body puts on immortality, then the saying that is written will be fulfilled: “Death has been swallowed up in victory.”“Where, O death, is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?” "Where, O death, is your sting?" Paul writes, showing the fulfillment of this prophecy in Christ. This should now be our battle cry as we go forward in Christian life; death has no hold over us who are sealed by the Holy Spirit through baptism, raised to new life in Christ. I won't go into this topic too much now, as I've written on it plenty before here and here. I just wanted to focus our minds on the victory we have because of Jesus and what he did for us this day, centuries ago. I'll close with this worship song which celebrates the resurrection, which I really like. Focus on the words of the song and praise God for Jesus! Happy Easter, everyone. ...

How was Jesus a sacrifice?

| 25th March 2018 | Lent

So often we hear this phrase said about Jesus, that he was “the lamb of God” and that he “takes away the sins of the world” — but what do those things mean and how did he take away sin? John 1:29The next day [John] saw Jesus coming toward him and declared, “Here is the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! (cf. Jn 1:36) The New Testament writers repeatedly refer to Jesus as a lamb; but not only that — as a ransom too. Jesus even introduces himself that way at one point: Mark 10:45 For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many. (cf. Matthew 20:28) To better understand the terminology and analogy we need to go back to the Torah, the Old Testament, and look at this from a Jewish perspective and what the sacrificial lamb initially meant. The main comparison that is drawn between Jesus and the old sacrifices, is that of the Passover lamb. The link between the two is really quite amazing and to be honest, I didn't realise just how much of this Jesus fulfilled in himself until I was writing this. First we need to go back to the very first Passover to see what it meant for Israel. The whole story can be found in Exodus 12, but the relevant parts to the lamb are about how it should look and be prepared, and the reason for the blood covering: Exodus 12:5-7, 13 Your lamb shall be without blemish, a year-old male; you may take it from the sheep or from the goats. You shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month; then the whole assembled congregation of Israel shall slaughter it at twilight. They shall take some of the blood and put it on the two doorposts and the lintel of the houses in which they eat it. […] The blood shall be a sign for you on the houses where you live: when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and no plague shall destroy you when I strike the land of Egypt. The instructions about the Passover meal also go on to say that no bones of the lamb may be broken (v. 46) and that nothing must be left overnight (v. 10). Already I’m sure you can see some of the parallels with Jesus and other prophecies and Scripture concerning him in these ways, primarily in the Psalms, and specifically John 19:33; Numbers 9:12 and Psalm 34:20 concerning his bones not being broken. But it doesn’t end there — even the day that Jesus was crucified aligned with the Passover sacrifice of the 14th of Nisan (by our calendar, April), and later died that evening. The Jews asked Pilate to let them take the bodies down that same day (which was unusual, but done because of the Sabbath), so that meant that Jesus wasn’t left overnight, thus fulfilling the obligations of the Passover ritual! The apostles obviously recognised these parallels, as they refer to them in their epistles — see 1 Peter 1:18-20, 1 Corinthians 5:7 and basically all of Revelation. But how does this help us in our sins? The Passover wasn’t a sin offering, yet somehow the death of Jesus in this way saves us from our sins. To better understand this, and to grasp why in various places Jesus is called our “ransom”, we need to go back to the reason for the original Passover, not the ritual. Passover was what God did when he delivered his people from the slavery of the Egyptians. The blood of the lamb was the symbol that they belonged to God, and so escaped death. Originally the paschal lamb was about Israel’s deliverance from Egypt and slavery, now Jesus is the greater lamb who rescues us from slavery and bondage to sin by his blood. The blood on the doorposts covered the Israelites from the angel of death, and now by Christ's blood that covers us, we are saved from eternal death (Hebrews 9:11- 14)! Paul covers this topic of sin as our master which we are slaves to quite often (Romans 6:16-18), and how through Jesus we have been set free by being baptised into his death, so that we are dead to sin and alive in Christ (Romans 6:4-6). Romans 6:11 So you also mus...

What did Jesus actually sacrifice?

| 18th March 2018 | Lent

Sometimes the question, or accusation/criticism maybe, is posed by atheists and critics of Christianity that Jesus didn’t really sacrifice anything because he is God and also because he got his life back three days later. So where’s the sacrifice if you know that what you give up will be given back, and given back even better than you previously had it? It’s an interesting question, and one that should cause us to stop and think about what we, as Christians, say to non-believers in case the question is ever given to us. Most people will say Jesus  gave up his life for us – but is that such a big deal if he knew he’d have it back in three days; and then to be taken up to heaven and resume his Godly-divine status he had before the incarnation? Well, yes. Obviously all the pain and suffering that Jesus had to endure before his death was a big deal, and it showed, as we can see from the Gospels when Jesus says to his disciples that he is “deeply grieved, even to death” (Matt 26:38). Luke 22:42-44‘Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me; yet, not my will but yours be done.’ Then an angel from heaven appeared to him and gave him strength. In his anguish he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down on the ground. We can see from the quote above that Jesus really wasn’t looking forward to this, despite knowing its purpose. He even needed an angel to come to physically come to him to give him the strength to go on with this plan! Suggesting that this was a walk in the park for Jesus and making light of what he was about to go through is just ignorance of the reality of the situation. There’s also a significant detail in the Luke passage above which gives us a medical insight into what Jesus was going through in these moments: the sweat of blood. This is actually a rare condition known as Hematidrosis, and in certain conditions of extreme physical or emotional stress and/or mental anxiety, the blood vessels that feed the sweat glands break and result in actual blood seeping through. This in itself shows just how much stress Jesus was under in the lead up to his execution to cause such a thing to happen. Modern day research also shows that this condition still manifests in people awaiting execution today. So even if you knew that you would be resurrected in a few days time, I am sure that you wouldn’t really want to go through a Roman flogging and crucifixion –  some of the most brutal ways to be tortured and executed in human history! There’s lots of atheist memes on the internet making digs at this idea of what it means that Jesus sacrificed himself. “Jesus came back to life, so he basically sacrificed his weekend for you”, or similar types of jabs, totally missing the point. Typical atheist meme So what did Jesus sacrifice if he only lost his life temporarily? Everything about his pre-incarnate self. Where once a spirit, now a glorified body. Where once only divine, now fully God and fully man. The incarnation had eternal consequences for the Godhead. Jesus’ sacrifice wasn’t just about dying, it was about taking on our humanity eternally. The eternal God now united forever with humanity. Jesus wasn’t only the “visible image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15) whilst on earth, no; he is forever that now. Like John says in his opening chapter about the coming of the Word into our world: he became flesh (John 1:14) and has stayed that way. This is the “mystery of godliness” (as some translations have it) that Paul talks about in 1 Tim 3:16, where he states that Jesus was “revealed” or “manifested in flesh” and later taken up in glory. Look at when Jesus was taken up into heaven in Acts 1:11, the angels say to the disciples watching that they will see Jesus “come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven” – ie., bodily. But we know from the accounts in the Gospels that Jesus’ body was no lon...

The Temptations of Jesus: Complacency

| 11th March 2018 | Lent

So now we are at the end of the temptations that Jesus endured in the desert, and I wanted to look at what happens at the end. So often I think this aspect is overlooked when we read of this time in Scripture. Let’s take a look at the text: Matthew 4:11Then the devil left him, and suddenly angels came and waited on him. Luke 4:13When the devil had finished every test, he departed from him until an opportune time. The two Gospel accounts both give us a varying perspective with different details. Afterwards, the devil leaves and angels “suddenly” come. This is almost a temptation in itself; one to think we are all good and safe now we've won the battles. But look: the devil left him “until an opportune time”. We are never beyond being tempted, or far from that tempter who ‘prowls around like a roaring lion’ (1 Peter 5:8). Christ withstood his temptations, and as a model for us, so can we. But it's a constant battle. 1 Corinthians 10:12So if you think you are standing, watch out that you do not fall. As Paul writes in the quote above, we must watch ourselves and not get too confident that we think we're strong enough not to get tripped up. Temptation can strike at any time, and if we're not prepared it could lead us into sin (James 1:14-15). James 1:12A man who endures trials is blessed, because when he passes the test he will receive the crown of life that God has promised to those who love Him. This is why we mustn't get complacent in our situations just when it seems, or feels, like we have it all together. We must always “put on the whole armor of God, so that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil” (Ephesians 6:11) and make as little “opportune” times as possible for the enemy to strike at us. Remember, Jesus lived as a human to know what it was like to be a human; he went through these temptations, and others no doubt, as he lived out his life. That is why the writer of Hebrews says that he is able to “sympathize with our weaknesses” and has “in every respect has been tested as we are” — yet Jesus didn't sin (Heb 4:15). When we do get get tempted, or if we do fall into sin, we can always turn to Jesus in our moments of weakness knowing that he understands what it's like. 1 Corinthians 10:13No testing has overtaken you that is not common to everyone. God is faithful, and he will not let you be tested beyond your strength, but with the testing he will also provide the way out so that you may be able to endure it. Everything we experience as humans, Jesus knows also. Although we don’t angels physically coming and waiting on us after we go through hard times, we have the Holy Spirit in us – the comforter! God’s very own Spirit is here with us through it all, helping us and convicting us to lead us back out of our complacency to the narrow path, focusing our minds back on Christ and his example. And while the devil may come and go, and wait on those “opportune times” to get at us, we shouldn’t fret or worry because God has said he will never leave nor abandon us – no matter what, God loves us and is daily conforming us into the image and mind of Christ (Rom 8:29; 12:2; Deut 31:6; Heb 13:5). Keep running the race, working out your salvation with fear and trembling and go with the love of God. Amen....