Tradition In Mark 7: An Argument For Sola Scriptura

2 Timothy 3:16's phrase that "all Scripture is God-breathed" does not explicitly prove sola scriptura. Protestant must be careful to recognize that it does not explicitly rule out other infallible authorities, but rather attributes this quality to Scripture itself. However, given the language is unique and never applied to tradition, it certainly could put the ball back in the court of the non-Protestant to provide another authority which is infallible.

Certainly if it were the case that there was an infallible tradition, we might expect to be informed of such a thing. If indeed the church has the capacity to make supreme and infallible judgments concerning doctrine, it would stand as one of the most important teachings for the church, and therefore we should anticipate such language in the New Testament. Despite the language of infallibility applied to Scripture, there is no similar statement regarding tradition or a supreme office of the church. It must be noted that the Protestant principle of sola scriptura does not deny tradition outright, but denies its infallibility. It's this distinction that will be essential for the rest of this article.

While 2 Timothy 3:16 offers a strong foundation for the conversation, what I find to be the strongest scriptural argument for sola scriptura is present within Jesus' dialogue with the Pharisees and scribes in Mark 7. Here, Jesus teaches that Scripture functions as the final court of appeal when tradition conflicts or even distracts from God's commandments in Scripture. The Pharisees challenge Jesus' asking "...why do Your disciples not walk in accordance with the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with unholy hands?" (v. 5). "Unholy hands" is explained as unwashed hands (v. 2-4). Jesus responds:

"But He said to them, 'Rightly did Isaiah prophesy about you hypocrites, as it is written: "This people honors Me with their lips, But their heart is far away from Me. And in vain do they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men." Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men.'" (Mark 7:6-8 NASB)

Remember, the Pharisees did have authority. By the time of Jesus, the governance of Israel had evolved into a central governing body identified as the Sanhedrin. Jesus himself explained that since the Pharisees sit in the "chair of Moses," "whatever they tell you, do and comply with it all..." (Mat 23:2-3). Despite affirming their authority, Jesus recognized that they were in error in lifting up tradition over the word of God. Throughout the passage, Jesus states that the Pharisees "neglected" "set aside" and "invalidated" the "word of God," in upholding their human tradition. How should this inform our view of Scripture and tradition today?

Is Jesus condemning "traditions of men," and not divine traditions?

Protestants argue that this passage relates to how we should engage with tradition in the modern day, even in reference to the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox claims of authority. While we should not dismiss tradition, we should ultimately settle ultimately disputes concerning doctrine with Scripture, lest we "invalidate" the word of God.

The common non-Protestant counterargument is that Jesus' condemnation of "tradition of man," is not the condemnation of divine tradition. However, this response misses the central argument. How can we determine what are divine traditions rather than the traditions of men? Think about it, what did Jesus' audience have to determine whether their traditions were right? The answer is certainly not "more tradition," for the original question can then be asked about those traditions. If no infallible magisterium existed and the prophets were absent, what other than Scripture could be used to determine disputes about tradition? Protestant scholar David T. King explains: "in indicating the Pharisees are invalidating Scripture with their traditions, it is clear that our Lord viewed Scripture as the ultimate judge in evaluating true and false tradition."[1]

In the second section of the passage, verses 9-13, it does seem that Scripture was invalidated because the tradition in question was quite literally incompatible with the Scripture that Christ quotes:

"For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'The one who speaks evil of father or mother, is certainly to be put to death'; but you say, 'If a person says to his father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is, given to God),' you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother" (Mark 7:10-12 NASB)

Under the tradition of the elders, food set aside for the temple was not to be used for helping aging parents, thereby making some unable to fulfill the commandment to honor their parents. In this case, a true inconsistency between tradition and Scripture motivates Jesus' concern. However, in the first section, verses 1-8, the tradition of ceremonial hand washing is merely an addition, not a strict contradiction. This is important: Jesus condemns tradition not only when it contradicts Scripture, but when it distracts from Scripture.

Roman Catholic Interaction

In their debate on the subject of sola scriptura, Protestant Gavin Ortlund and Roman Catholic Trent Horn exchanged comments on this particular passage and its implications for their positions on authority. This section will explore ideas which represents a possible Roman Catholic way of framing the disagreement with sola scriptura, and will not entirely represent non-Protestant alternatives as a whole. Nevertheless, I think this debate is a helpful look into how this passage would be engaged with among well-informed scholars from both the Protestant and Catholic viewpoints.

Trent argued that the phrase "the phrase 'word of God' is never used in the Bible to describe a Biblical text" and therefore, he believes that Jesus is placing the commandments given to Moses on Mount Sinai over the tradition of men.[2] Ortlund notes that "Mark 7 does use the phrase word of God for what is only contained in Scripture. That's what Jesus explicitly quotes." Jesus is indeed quoting Scripture: specifically Exodus 20:12 and 21:17. Jesus uses both the terms "commandment of God" and "word of God," and many scholars recognize that these terms do not necessarily reference Scripture as a whole. Even those who don't believe it references the Old Testament as a whole may state that it references God's commandments in Scripture generally, Robert Stein says:

"... here it may be best not to think of a specific commandment but rather of the principle of God's actual commandments in Scripture being ignored and even rejected because of human tradition."[4]

This fits with Ortlund's observation that Jesus quotes what is only contained in Scripture in his argument that the Corban invalidates the word of God. Regardless, this dispute over the precise meaning of "word of God" does not address the central question which Gavin is able to ask in his cross-examination: "how could the people of Israel have known what traditions to follow from the Pharisees and what not to, other than by testing them according to Scripture?"

Horn first offered the point that they could have tested it either against Scripture or through a mediator of the Covenant like Moses. However, Gavin pointed out that the Israelites Jesus is talking about do not have figures like Moses, being in the first century A.D.[5]

Horn finally explained that this was simply a problem with the Old Covenant. Christians today, who have the new covenant, do not have the problem that the Jews of Jesus' day had. They did not have an infallible magisterium.[6] Trent's answer within this debate might imply that Jews of the Old Covenant operated similarly to how Protestant argue we should engage with scripture and tradition. While there were structures of authority and tradition, there was no infallible interpretive authority alongside Scripture. If the Jews in Jesus' day categorically subjected their tradition to Scripture, should we not also?

Of course, Jesus is not directly talking about the Roman Catholic magisterium. Is it a possibility that Jesus would teach a principle of sola scriptura for the first century Jews, only to then institute church office with the capacity for infallibility? Maybe. I find it unlikely. I believe that this argument from Mark 7 puts much more pressure and burden on the non-Protestant to prove that a rule outside of Scripture is infallible. It also may act as a challenge to the claim that the Roman Catholic magisterium is a continuation of the Sanhedrin in some form. David T. King states: "though Roman apologists frequently use the paradigm of Pharisaical tradition as a model for the Church of Rome, the Lord Jesus repudiated it..."[7]

Overall, I believe a strong argument can be made from Mark 7 that without Old Testament prophets available, Jesus taught the first century Jews a view of the relationship between Scripture and tradition more commensurate with the Protestant position of sola scriptura. This is not a wholesale rejection of tradition or authority, but rather the view that it is not infallible and must be tested by Scripture.