by Harry Osborne
The teaching of Jesus continually directs our attention to a single question by which we evaluate any teaching: Is the doctrine of divine origin or human invention? To the leaders of the Jews who had rejected the baptism of John, Jesus asked, "The baptism of John, whence was it -- from heaven or from men?" (Matthew 21:25). Baptism following repentance had been taught by John as a commandment, not a suggestion. When a teaching is lawfully advanced as a matter of mandatory faith and practice, it must be of divine origin. If we teach human tradition or even personal conscience as mandatory or impose such as tests of fellowship, we incur the condemnation of God (1 Timothy 4:1-3).
Nowhere is the binding of human tradition condemned in clearer terms than by Jesus' rebuke of the Pharisees for doing that very thing. Notice the situation as recorded in Mark's account (Mark 7:1-13, ASV):
And there are gathered together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, who had come from Jerusalem, and had seen that some of his disciples ate their bread with defiled, that is, unwashen, hands. (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands diligently, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market-place, except they bathe themselves, they eat not; and many other things there are, which they have received to hold, washings of cups, and pots, and brasen vessels.) And the Pharisees and the scribes ask him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with defiled hands? And he said unto them, Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, 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. Ye leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men. And he said unto them, Full well do ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your tradition. For Moses said, Honor thy father and thy mother; and, He that speaketh evil of father or mother, let him die the death: but ye say, If a man shall say to his father or his mother, That wherewith thou mightest have been profited by me is Corban, that is to say, Given to God; ye no longer suffer him to do aught for his father or his mother; making void the word of God by your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things ye do.
Jesus condemned both addition to and subtraction from God's commandments in the same rebuke. We must do the same thing. It is never "safe" to change the word of God. It is no more tolerable to add a command than to disregard one. The Pharisees had done both. The washing they mandated was not required by the law of God though the Pharisees required it of all whom they would accept. In this way, they added to the commandments of God. The justification for one not to provide needed assistance to his father and mother by accounting the funds for such as "Corban" was an effort to release one from an obligation mandated by God. In this way, the Pharisees loosed that which God bound in the commandments of the law. Either way, the divine commandments were rejected or made void by human tradition. Jesus showed no preference for one disregard of divine authority over the other. Both were absolutely condemned!
But what would be the result of allowing changes in the original message? It is of that very possibility the apostle Paul warned in these words: "Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ" (Colossians 2:8).
Rather than partaking of the riches provided in Christ, Christians who submit to human tradition become the spoil of those who change the gospel. Those who so alter God's word may promise great blessings or make pretense of great piety. They may even claim their teaching is the logical end of a sequence of reasoned principles. But the question to be asked is this: Is the teaching that received in the word of God without addition or subtraction? Teaching arising from any other source was condemned as "not after Christ."
PHILOSOPHY (philosophia). Though this word was used by the Greeks to describe the greatest achievement of the intellect, this is the only time it is used in the New Testament and it stands in contrast to true knowledge, wisdom and hope which come only by Christ through the gospel. Josephus, the Jewish historian, used this word to describe the system of thought behind the main sects of first century Palestine. He said, "There are three forms of philosophy among the Jews. The followers of the first school are called Pharisees, of the second Sadducees, and of the third Essenes" (Jewish War, II.viii.2). Like men of our time, all needed to forsake schools of thought originated and fostered by human innovation. They needed to abide in the doctrine of Christ (2 John 9-11).
DECEIT (apate). Vine says that the word refers to "that which gives a false impression, whether by appearance, statement or influence" (Expository Dict. Of N.T. Words, V. 1, p. 279). When we do not focus on what the text says, without addition or subtraction, we may get a false impression rather than truth. How do we avoid such? By searching the Scriptures daily to see if the teaching done is so (Acts 17:11).
TRADITION (paradosis) OF MEN. The Greek word for "tradition" refers literally to that which is handed down. When the handing down is done by God or one inspired of God, the resulting tradition is binding (1 Corinthians 11:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6 cf. 1 Thessalonians 2:13). When the handing down is of human origin, the tradition is but a vain path opposed to God's will (Mark 7:1-13; Matthew 15:1-9). Beliefs of past or present uninspired, reputed brethren do not establish truth.
That appeals to philosophy, deceit and the traditions of men are condemned by the apostle is beyond dispute. But what examples of such does he give? When we read the list cited in Colossians 2:16-23, the same pattern noted by Jesus is seen. In some cases, men sought to bind a practice which God did not bind (judging over meat, drink, etc.). In other cases, men sought to justify doing what God specifically condemned (worship of angels, etc.). Either way, it came of the same mindset willing to replace God's law with human tradition.