![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2022\/05\/Moses3-scaled.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nThis is a condensed and re-edited, mildly revised version of my thoughts on this topic, drawn from writings dated December 2003 and May 2005.<\/p>\n
*****<\/p>\n
Matthew 23:1-3<\/strong>\u00a0(RSV) Then said Jesus to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 \u201cThe scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses\u2019 seat; 3 so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Some Protestants argue that the notion is not found in the Old Testament but maintain that it cannot be traced back to Moses. That probably is correct, yet the Catholic argument here does not rest on whether it literally can be traced historically to Moses, but on the fact that it is not found in the Old Testament.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
Protestant Bible scholar Robert Gundry contends that Jesus was binding Christians to the Pharisaical law, but not \u201ctheir interpretative traditions.\u201d This passage concerned only \u201cthe law itself\u201d with the \u201cantinomians\u201d in mind. How Gundry arrives at such a conclusion remains to be seen.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
It should be noted that nowhere in the actual text is the notion that the Pharisees are only\u00a0<\/i>reading the Old Testament Scripture when sitting on Moses\u2019 seat. It\u2019s an assumption gratuitously smuggled in from a presupposed position of\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>.<\/p>\n
The assumption of many Protestants that Jesus is referring literally to Pharisees sitting on a seat in the synagogue and reading (the Old Testament only) \u2013 and that alone \u2013 is more forced and woodenly literalistic than the far more plausible interpretation that this was simply a term denoting received authority.<\/p>\n
It reminds one of the old silly Protestant tale that the popes speak infallibly and\u00a0ex cathedra\u00a0<\/i>(cathedra<\/i>\u00a0is the Greek word for\u00a0seat<\/em>\u00a0in Matthew 23:2) only when sitting in a certain chair in the Vatican (because the phrase means literally, \u201cfrom the bishop\u2019s chair\u201d; whereas it was a\u00a0figurative<\/i>\u00a0and idiomatic usage).<\/p>\n
Jesus says that they sat \u201con Moses\u2019 seat;\u00a0so<\/i>\u00a0practice and observe whatever they tell you.\u201d In other words: because they had the authority (based on the position of occupying Moses\u2019 seat), therefore they were to be obeyed. It is like referring to a \u201cchairman\u201d of a company or committee. He occupies the \u201cchair,\u201d therefore he has authority. No one thinks he has the authority only when he sits in a certain chair reading the corporation charter or the Constitution or some other official document.<\/p>\n
The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary<\/i>, in its article, \u201cSeat\u201d, allows such a reading as a secondary interpretation, but seems to regard the primary meaning of this term in the manner I have described:<\/p>\n
References to seating in the Bible are almost all to such as a representation of honor and authority . . . According to Jesus, the scribes and Pharisees occupy \u201cMoses\u2019 seat\u201d (Matt. 23:2), having the authority and ability to interpret the law of Moses correctly; here \u201cseat\u201d is both a metaphor for judicial authority and also a reference to a literal stone seat in the front of many synagogues that would be occupied by an authoritative teacher of the law.\u00a0(Allen C. Myers, editor,\u00a0The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary<\/i>, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1987; English revision of\u00a0Bijbelse Encyclopedie<\/i>, edited by W. H. Gispen, Kampen, Netherlands: J. H. Kok, revised edition, 1975; translated by Raymond C. Togtman and Ralph W. Vunderink; 919-920)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The [Protestant]\u00a0 International Standard Bible Encyclopedia<\/i>\u00a0(article, \u201cSeat\u201d) takes the same position, commenting specifically on our verse:<\/p>\n
It is used also of the exalted position occupied by men of marked rank or influence, either in good or evil (Mt 23:2; Ps 1:1).(James Orr, editor,\u00a0The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia<\/i>, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., five volumes, 1956; IV, 2710)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Because they had the authority and no indication is given that Jesus thought they had it only when simply reading Scripture, it would follow that Christians were, therefore, bound to elements of Pharisaical teaching that were not only non-scriptural, but based on oral tradition, for this is what Pharisees believed. They fully accepted the binding authority of oral tradition (the Sadducees<\/i>\u00a0were the ones who were the Jewish\u00a0sola scripturists\u00a0<\/i>and liberals of the time).\u00a0The New Bible Dictionary<\/i>\u00a0describes their beliefs in this respect, in its article, \u201cPharisees\u201d:<\/p>\n
. . . the Torah was not merely \u2018law\u2019 but also \u2018instruction\u2019, i.e., it consisted not merely of fixed commandments but was adaptable to changing conditions . . . This adaptation or inference was the task of those who had made a special study of the Torah, and a majority decision was binding on all . . .The commandments were further applied by analogy to situations not directly covered by the Torah. All these developments together with thirty-one customs of \u2018immemorial usage\u2019 formed the \u2018oral law\u2019 . . . the full development of which is later than the New Testament. Being convinced that they had the right interpretation of the Torah, they claimed that these \u2018traditions of the elders\u2019 (Mk 7:3) came from Moses on Sinai.\u00a0(J. D. Douglas, editor, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962; 981-982)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Likewise,\u00a0The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church<\/i>\u00a0notes in its article on the Pharisees:<\/p>\n
Unlike the Sadducees, who tried to apply Mosaic Law precisely as it was given, the Pharisees allowed some interpretation of it to make it more applicable to different situations, and they regarded these oral interpretations as of the same level of importance as the Law itself. (F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingstone, editors, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2nd edition, 1983; 1077)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It was precisely the extrabiblical (especially apocalyptic) elements of Pharisaical Judaism that New Testament Christianity adopted and developed for its own: doctrines such as: resurrection, the soul, the afterlife, eternal reward or damnation, and angelology and demonology (all of which the Sadducees rejected). The Old Testament had relatively little to say about these things, and what it did assert was in a primitive, kernel form. But the postbiblical literature of the Jews (led by the mainstream Pharisaical tradition) had plenty to say about them. Therefore, this was another instance of Christianity utilizing non-biblical literature and traditions in its own doctrinal development.<\/p>\n
Moreover, Paul shows the high priest, Ananias, respect, even when the latter had him struck on the mouth, and was not dealing with matters strictly of the Old Testament and the Law, but with the question of whether Paul was teaching wrongly and should be stopped (Acts 23:1-5). A few verses later Paul states, \u201cI am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees\u201d (23:6) and it is noted that the Pharisees and Sadducees in the assembly were divided and that the Sadducees \u201csay that there is no resurrection, nor angel, nor spirit; but the Pharisees acknowledge them all\u201d (23:7-8). Some Pharisees defended Paul (23:9).<\/p>\n
Protestants note that Ezra read the Law to the Israelites (Nehemiah, chapter 8), and they listened intently and cried \u201cAmen! Amen!\u201d\u00a0 But it\u2019s also too often not mentioned that Ezra\u2019s Levite assistants, as recorded in the next two verses after the evangelical-sounding \u201cAmens,\u201d \u201chelped the people to understand<\/i>\u00a0the law\u201d (8:7) and \u201cgave the sense, so that the people\u00a0understood\u00a0<\/i>the reading\u201d (8:8).<\/p>\n
So this does not support the position of Dr. Gundry and others that the authority of the Pharisees applied only insofar as they sat and read the Old Testament to the people (functioning as a sort of ancient collective Alexander Scourby, reading the Bible onto a cassette tape for mass consumption), not when they also interpreted<\/i>\u00a0(which was part and parcel of the Pharisaical outlook and approach).<\/p>\n
One doesn\u2019t find in the Old Testament individual Hebrews questioning teaching authority.\u00a0Sola Scriptura<\/i> simply is not there. No matter how hard Protestants try to read it into the Old Testament, it cannot be done. Nor can it be read into the New Testament, once all the facts are in.<\/p>\n
King Josiah\u2019s re-discovery of the Book of the Covenant, as recorded in 2 Chronicles 34, is also used as an example supposedly in support of sola Scriptura<\/em>.\u00a0Indeed, this was a momentous occasion (many Protestants seem to think it is similar in substance and import to the myth and legend of Martin Luther supposedly \u201crescuing\u201d or \u201cinitiating\u201d the Bible in the vernacular, when in fact there had been fourteen German editions of the Bible in the 70 years preceding his own).<\/p>\n
But if the implication is that the Law was self-evident simply upon being\u00a0read<\/i>, per\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>, this is untrue to the Old Testament, for, again, we are informed in the same book that priests and Levites \u201ctaught in Judah, having the book of the law of the LORD with them; they went about through all the cities of Judah and taught among the people\u201d (2 Chron 17:9), and that the Levites \u201ctaught all Israel\u201d (2 Chron 35:3). They didn\u2019t just\u00a0read<\/i>, they\u00a0taught<\/i>, and that involved\u00a0interpretation<\/i>. And the people had no right of\u00a0private judgment<\/i>, to dissent from what was taught.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
How ancient the practice of \u201cMoses\u2019 seat\u201d was, is irrelevant to the general and supremely important question (for this debate on authority and tradition and\u00a0 sola Scriptura<\/i>) of whether Jesus granted legitimacy to traditions not recorded in Scripture. If Jesus accepted those in acknowledging the teaching authority of the Pharisees, then this dispute is pretty much over.<\/p>\n
If the Pharisees possessed any doctrinal authority at all, by the sanction of our Lord Jesus Himself, then sola Scriptura<\/i> is in dire straits indeed. Furthermore, Moses certainly gave and authoritatively interpreted\u00a0doctrine<\/i>, as did the priesthood in Israel (see, e.g., Nehemiah 8:7-8, above). It is a bit strange to argue that those occupying a position described as \u201cMoses\u2019 seat\u201d would\u00a0not\u00a0<\/i>have this teaching authority.<\/p>\n
What the passage clearly demonstrates, I think, is that there is authoritative tradition outside of the Bible, and even outside of the apostles, who were alive at the time this encounter took place, and soon to appear on the scene with great zeal, after Jesus\u2019 Resurrection. Jesus could easily have said that the Pharisees\u2019 authority was to shortly be superseded by the apostles but He did not, and even Paul called himself a Pharisee and recognized the authority of the high priest. The salient point is whether this was a binding authority not based on solely the letter of the Old Testament. If so, sola Scriptura<\/i>\u00a0is in deep trouble.<\/p>\n
Jesus accepted\u00a0this\u00a0<\/i>particular \u201cnon-biblical tradition and practice\u201d. Jesus was certainly a \u201cradical\u201d and a nonconformist through and through. Do Protestant defenders of sola Scriptura<\/em> really think that He would have refrained from dissenting against any<\/i> state of affairs or set of beliefs that He didn\u2019t agree with? I see little reason to believe that He would do so, from the record we have.\u00a0But some would have us believe that our Lord Jesus let a few of these \u201cnon-biblical tradition[s] and practice[s]\u201d slip through the cracks, so to speak (even with regard to a class of people whom He vigorously condemns for hypocrisy on several occasions). This makes no sense at all, and it is special pleading.<\/p>\n
St. Paul said far worse of the Galatians than Jesus said of the Pharisees in Matthew 15 and elsewhere, yet he continued to regard them as brothers in Christ and as a \u201cchurch\u201d. Why is it so unthinkable for Jesus to do the same with the Pharisees? In John 11:49-52, the Apostle John tells us that Caiaphas, the high priest \u201cprophesied\u201d and spoke truth (an act which can only be inspired by the Holy Spirit). Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea were righteous Pharisees. Jesus was even buried in the latter\u2019s tomb.<\/p>\n
As for the traditions needing to be harmonious with Scripture;\u00a0of course<\/i>, no one denies that. But the question at hand is whether there can be a legitimate tradition not found (i.e., not described or written about) in Scripture itself. Something can be absent in Scripture but nevertheless in perfect harmony with it.<\/p>\n
Protestants often assume what they are trying to prove in this debate: Jesus had to be upholding sola Scriptura<\/i>; therefore, the Pharisees possession of the office of \u201cMoses\u2019 Seat\u201d means only that they sat and read the Scripture from this seat in the synagogue. This is preposterous and can only be asserted (with the hope that people will accept it without questioning its nonexistent basis). The priests and the later rabbis\u00a0interpreted\u00a0<\/i>the Law and the Scripture. The Pharisees also believed in an oral tradition received by Moses on Mt. Sinai when he received the Ten Commandments and the Law. Pharisees were the \u201cmainstream Jewish tradition\u201d at that time. The Sadducees were the \u201cliberals\u201d who rejected the resurrection and other things that all Christians believe. And they were the ones who accepted\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>, since they rejected the oral tradition.<\/p>\n
Some defenders of sola Scriptura<\/em> contend that because there were two schools of interpretation in later Judaism, therefore, the very notion of oral tradition itself is somehow suspect and must be discarded. Why, then, are they not similarly troubled and perplexed about the state of affairs in Protestantism? Protestants firmly believe that there is one Christian truth, and that it is so clear in Scripture, yet they are unable to find<\/i>\u00a0it. And if one group\u00a0has<\/i>\u00a0found it, how does the man on the street\u00a0determine\u00a0<\/i>which group has done so?<\/p>\n
Does this sad state of affairs of rampant Protestant denominationalism make Protestants skeptical of the inspired revelation of Scripture? Of course not. They believe it despite the multitude of competing interpretations and schools of thought. So why is it so inconceivable that there could also be such a thing as a true tradition<\/i>, even though all do not hold it or acknowledge it? This is one of the many double standards inherent in much of contra-Catholic and anti-Catholic polemics. The same standard is not applied to Protestant beliefs that is applied to Catholics.<\/p>\n
I think Scripture is pretty clear (I\u2019ve always found it to be so in my many biblical studies), but I also know from simple observation and knowledge of Church history that it isn\u2019t clear\u00a0enough<\/i> to bring men to agreement. Protestants often claim that is because of sin and stupidity. Certainly those things are always potential factors. But I say the rampant disagreement is primarily because of a false rule of faith: sola Scriptura<\/i>, which excludes the binding authority of tradition and the Church: entities that produce the doctrinal unity that sola Scriptura<\/i>\u00a0has\u00a0<\/i>never, and\u00a0can\u00a0<\/i>never produce. What Catholics teach is that central authority and tradition is necessary for doctrinal unity; whether Scripture is \u201cclear\u201d or unclear. And we think Scripture itself teaches this (which is precisely why we believe it).<\/p>\n
Protestants typically think in dichotomous terms (a characteristic and widespread Protestant shortcoming), and in this mindset, to accept binding Church authority is to somehow \u201cabandon the God-given standard of Scripture,\u201d as if it were a zero-sum game where Scripture is the air in a glass and the Church is the water added to the glass: the more water (\u201cChurch\u201d) is added, the less Scripture there can be, so that a full glass of \u201cthe Church\u201d leaves no room for the Bible at all as the \u201cstandard.\u201d Of course, none of this is Catholic teaching, nor does it logically follow from the notion of Church authority. It\u2019s a false dilemma and false dichotomy. But a certain Protestant mentality cannot grasp this.<\/p>\n
And what about the many false traditions in Protestantism<\/i>? We\u00a0know<\/i>\u00a0for a fact that many many such false traditions exist because there are competing views which\u00a0contradict\u00a0<\/i>each other. That entails (as a matter of logical necessity) that someone is wrong, and dead-wrong. They can\u2019t all be right. There can\u2019t be five true doctrines of baptism simultaneously. Therefore, false \u201ctraditions of men\u201d exist in Protestantism, and would be condemned by Jesus just as vigorously as supposed \u201cfalse traditions\u201d of Catholicism. But where is the Protestant protest against all of that<\/em>?<\/p>\n
Instead, Protestants accept the view that a lot of Christian doctrine is up for grabs and is \u201csecondary.\u201d They wink at, minimize, and ignore the diversity. But the Catholic Church has at least preserved doctrinal unity (whether one agrees with the content\u00a0<\/i>of that unified doctrine or not), in its official teachings.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
It\u2019s very difficult to argue that Jesus did not refer to the Pharisees\u2019 teaching, seeing that He said, \u201cpractice and observe whatever they tell you.\u201d One has to believe that this \u201cwhatever\u201d included no doctrine. To make such an arbitrary distinction between \u201cauthority\u201d and \u201cteaching\u201d is ludicrous (especially the more one knows about Jewish teaching methods and the history of Hebrew religion). If Jesus had said, rather: \u201cpractice and observe whatever I\u00a0<\/i>tell you,\u201d or, \u201cpractice and observe whatever the\u00a0apostles<\/i> tell you,\u201d Protestants wouldn\u2019t have the slightest doubt about what was meant.<\/p>\n
1. Jesus said of the Pharisees, \u201cpractice and observe whatever they tell you.\u201d
\n2. But Pharisees believed in an authoritative oral tradition, which included some content not included in the Bible (but not necessarily\u00a0contrary<\/i> to biblical teaching). It doesn\u2019t have to be \u201coral revelation\u201d; only authoritative oral teaching that goes beyond the letter of Scripture. That is enough to be blatantly contrary to\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>.
\n3. Therefore, Jesus was giving sanction to the teaching authority of oral \u201cextra-biblical\u201d tradition.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n***<\/p>\n
The Bible is sufficient for salvation and teaching, but it does not follow from those truths, that the Church and Tradition are not binding and authoritative.\u00a0Sola Scriptura<\/i>\u00a0is not so much false in what it\u00a0asserts\u00a0<\/i>but in what it\u00a0fails<\/i>\u00a0to\u00a0<\/i>assert, and what it positively\u00a0excludes<\/i>, contrary to Scripture.<\/p>\n
One must also call attention to the fact that being separate from Scripture does not automatically mean \u201cdifferent from the\u00a0teaching<\/i> of Scripture.\u201d There need not be any conflict. Catholics believe that Scripture and Tradition are \u201ctwin fonts of the one divine wellspring.\u201d Sacred Tradition is not so much \u201cdifferent\u201d from Scripture as it is \u201cmore.\u201d Oral tradition can supplement the Bible and offer authoritative interpretation of it.<\/p>\n
The Bible (all agree) doesn\u2019t contain all knowledge, or even all religious<\/i> knowledge (Jn 21:25). There are many other such verses (e.g., Lk 24:15-16,25-27, Jn 20:30, Acts 1:2-3). Jesus appeared for forty days after His Resurrection, in addition to all the days and nights He spent with the disciples teaching them. In one night He very well could have spoken more words than are in the entire New Testament. And He was with them for three years. St. Paul spent many years with Christians, and is described frequently as \u201carguing\u201d or \u201cdisputing\u201d with Gentiles and Jews. It is ludicrous and ridiculous to think that either Jesus or Paul were \u201cScripture machines\u201d and that absolutely everything they taught (i.e., the ideas and doctrines) was later recorded in Scripture, and had to be, lest it be forgotten, and that nothing they taught was not\u00a0<\/i>in Scripture.<\/p>\n
Consider, for example, just one passage: the account of Jesus\u2019 post-Resurrection appearance to the two disciples on the road to Emmaus (Lk 24:13-32). They talked for probably several hours, and the Bible informs us of one wonderfully tantalizing Scripture interpretation session from our Lord Himself (that every Bible student would give his right arm to have heard):<\/p>\n
And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. (Luke 24:27)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It is absurd to think that nothing in any of these gatherings was spoken which was not later recorded in Scripture: no idea, no doctrine or explanation of a doctrine or interpretation of various Scriptures (that the disciples and early Christians would have surely asked Jesus and Paul about). It is equally absurd to hold that no one could\u00a0remember\u00a0<\/i>any of this, and that it could not become a Christian Tradition supplementary to and alongside Holy Scripture, and in perfect harmony with it. This would require a notion that all of this teaching was quickly forgotten and lost to posterity, and that only the Bible contained the truths which Christians need. Nothing else carried a similar authority. This scenario is implausible in the extreme; even laughably so.<\/p>\n
Part of the Protestant rationale for sola Scriptura is as follows:<\/p>\n
1. When Paul refers to tradition he is referring to nothing more than what is in the Bible.<\/p>\n
2. Therefore, there is no tradition to speak of, since it simply collapses or reduces as a category to \u201cthat which is in Scripture.\u201d<\/p>\n
3. Therefore, the Catholic rule of faith (which includes so-called \u201cunbiblical tradition\u201d) is unbiblical.<\/p>\n
4. Whatever is unbiblical must be false.<\/p>\n
5. Whatever is false must be rejected.<\/p>\n
6. Therefore, the Protestant rule of faith,\u00a0sola Scriptura,<\/i>\u00a0is true over against the Catholic \u201cthree-legged stool\u201d of authority: tradition + Church + Bible.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The whole chain starts with a radically unproven premise. It proceeds to add error upon error and to build a house of cards, on sand. All indications from the Bible and from common sense; all plausibility, suggests that #1 is false to begin with. The arguments in defense of sola Scriptura<\/i> are filled with fallacies and insufficiently supported contentions, begged questions and circular arguments. They collapse in a heap under even mild scrutiny, like a snowman on the equator.<\/p>\n
If one sees the word \u201ctradition\u201d in the Bible, one must realize that it is merely a synonym for \u201cBible.\u201d When Jesus upholds the authority of the Pharisees, it means only that they can read the Bible in the synagogue, and cannot mean anything contrary to the preconceived axiom of\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>. When the New Testament writers cite \u201cprophecies\u201d that can\u2019t be found in the Old Testament, we will find them one day, and no one must rashly conclude that they are \u201cextra-biblical.\u201d Etc., etc.<\/p>\n
The old proverb never was more apt of a description than it is with regard to the\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>\u00a0position, as defended even by its most vigorous proponents: \u201cyou can\u2019t make a silk purse out of a sow\u2019s ear.\u201d<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
Jesus\u2019 condemnations of the Pharisees were of a general nature (there were many corrupt Pharisees), not necessarily of the entire system of Pharisaism itself, considered apart from the behavioral and attitudinal corruptions of the time. Indeed, many aspects of early Christianity were adopted more-or-less wholesale from Pharisaical tradition (rather than from the Sadducees). But too many Christians take a very dim view of the Pharisees altogether, and don\u2019t acknowledge these historical and theological nuances. This is where the influx of Jewish scholarship into New Testament studies and exegesis in recent decades has been very helpful.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
An inspired biblical book might cite any number of non-inspired books as true, insofar as the\u00a0portion cited<\/i>\u00a0is concerned. That\u2019s exactly what happened in Jude 14-15, where 1 Enoch 1:9 is directly quoted (as the footnote for this verse in my Oxford Annotated RSV Bible states), and is described by the apostle as that which Enoch \u201cprophesied.\u201d Whether that counts as \u201cinspired\u201d or not, on that basis, I don\u2019t know, and I\u2019ll leave that technical question for the appropriate scholars to decide.<\/p>\n
But it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that what is cited is\u00a0true<\/i>, and an instance of true prophecy not different in kind from a prophecy of Jeremiah or Isaiah: whose prophecies are recorded in inspired Old Testament Scripture. And that\u2019s just the\u00a0point<\/i>, isn\u2019t it? If Jeremiah\u2019s prophecy is regarded as inspired because it is in the Bible (OT), then Enoch\u2019s must\u00a0likewise<\/i>\u00a0be, because it is in the Bible (NT). Therefore an \u201cextrabiblical tradition\u201d was \u201cacknowledged by the New Testament writers,\u201d and my contention is unassailable.<\/p>\n
The topic at hand is whether there is an authoritative extrabiblical tradition, acknowledged by Jesus and the apostles. If\u00a0some<\/i>\u00a0parts of those traditions can be cited as true in the NT, then it stands to reason that\u00a0other<\/i>\u00a0parts can be true (and hence, authoritative)\u00a0without<\/i> being cited in the NT. Protestants usually assume<\/i>\u00a0without argument that anything which is fully authoritative\u00a0must<\/i>\u00a0be in the Bible. But since that is the issue in dispute, assuming it does no good. It has to be\u00a0rationally demonstrated<\/i>, with\u00a0biblical support<\/i>.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
\u201cSola ecclesia\u201d<\/i>\u00a0is a false description of the Catholic system of authority. This is not a Catholic term (whereas\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i> is the Protestant\u2019s own terminology for\u00a0his<\/i> principle). We don\u2019t believe in \u201cChurch alone.\u201d We believe in the \u201cthree-legged stool\u201d of Bible, Church, and Tradition, which is quite a different concept indeed. The implicit reasoning here seems to be: \u201cif you don\u2019t accept Bible Alone, you must believe in Church alone,\u201d as if there are not other<\/i>\u00a0possible positions besides this stark contrast: one extreme to another.<\/p>\n
To prove that Jesus opposed one<\/i>\u00a0tradition doesn\u2019t say anything at all about whether He opposed\u00a0all\u00a0<\/i>such traditions. He Himself made this distinction clear in Mark 7:3-9. St. Paul also makes it abundantly clear that there is a legitimate tradition and a false tradition of men.<\/p>\n
[T]he specific example of the Corban rule (Matthew 15:5) is actually simply another proof that Jesus did not\u00a0<\/i>reject\u00a0all\u00a0<\/i>tradition (which is the issue at hand), and this is quite simple to demonstrate. He was rebuking this\u00a0particular<\/i>\u00a0Pharisaical tradition as a\u00a0corruption<\/i>\u00a0of the\u00a0larger tradition<\/i>\u00a0of proper sacrifice, which He did not abrogate at all; quite the contrary: He continued to participate in the old sacrificial system. Thus,\u00a0The<\/i>\u00a0New Bible Dictionary<\/i>\u00a0(edited by J. D. Douglass, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1962) states:<\/p>\n
The Old Testament sacrifices . . . were still being offered during practically the whole period of the composition of the New . . . Important maxims are t be found in Mt. 5:23-24, 12:3-5 and parallels 17:24-27, 23:16-20; 1 Cor. 9:13-14. it is noteworthy that our Lord has sacrifice offered for Him or offers it Himself at His presentation in the Temple, at His last Passover, and presumably on those other occasions when He went up to Jerusalem for the feasts. The practice of the apostles in Acts removes all ground from the opinion that after the sacrifice of Christ the worship of the Jewish Temple is to be regarded as an abomination to God. We find them frequenting the Temple, and Paul himself goes up to Jerusalem for Pentecost, and on that occasion offers the sacrifices (which included sin-offerings) for the interruption of vows (Acts 21; cf. Nu. 6:10-12).\u00a0(p. 1122 in article, \u201cSacrifice and Offering\u201d)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
I thought readers might appreciate a little balance being gained as to whether Jesus opposed all tradition. Protestants so often want to mention only the times where Jesus rejected one particular tradition. It\u2019s important to get the whole New Testament picture<\/i>\u00a0and not just one small part of it, ignoring the rest.<\/p>\n
Matthew 23 is not necessarily about \u201crestricting the authority of the Pharisees\u201d at all. It is about Pharisaical\u00a0hypocrisy<\/i>, as anyone who knows the passage at all, is well aware, and also about their legalistic corruptions of the legitimate Mosaic Law (which is what Jesus found hypocritical). But condemning hypocrisy and corruption is not the same as condemning the thing that they are being hypocritical about and distorting. The fact remains (and it is obvious in the New Testament) that much of the Pharisaical tradition was retained by Christianity (as sanctioned by our Lord Jesus and St. Paul).<\/p>\n
The Sadducees were much more \u201cheretical.\u201d They rejected the future resurrection and the soul, the afterlife, rewards and retribution, demons and angels, and predestinarianism. Christian Pharisees are referred to in Acts 15:5 and Philippians 3:5, but never Christian Sadducees. The Sadducees\u2019 following was found mainly in the upper classes, and was almost non-existent among the common people.<\/p>\n
The Sadducees also rejected all \u2018oral Torah,\u2019 \u2014 the traditional interpretation of the written that was of central importance in rabbinic Judaism. So we can summarize as follows:<\/p>\n
a) The Sadducees were obviously the elitist \u201cliberals\u201d and \u201cheterodox\u201d amongst the Jews of their time.<\/p>\n
b) But the Sadducees were also the\u00a0sola Scripturists<\/i>\u00a0of their time.<\/p>\n
c) Christianity adopted wholesale the very \u201cpostbiblical\u201d doctrines which the Sadducees rejected and which the Pharisees accepted: resurrection, belief in angels and spirits, the soul, the afterlife, eternal reward or damnation, and the belief in angels and demons.<\/p>\n
*
\nd) But these doctrines were notable for their marked development after the biblical Old Testament canon was complete, especially in Jewish apocalyptic literature, part of Jewish codified oral tradition.<\/p>\ne) We\u2019ve seen how \u2014 if a choice is to be made \u2014 both Jesus and Paul were squarely in the \u201cPharisaical camp,\u201d over against the Sadducees.<\/p>\n
f) We also saw earlier how Jesus and the New Testament writers cite approvingly many tenets of Jewish oral (later talmudic and rabbinic) tradition, according to the Pharisaic outlook.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Ergo) The above facts constitute one more \u201cnail in the coffin\u201d of the theory that either the Old Testament Jews or the early Church were guided by the principle of\u00a0sola Scriptura<\/i>. The only party which believed thusly were the Sadducees, who were heterodox according to traditional Judaism, despised by the common people, and restricted to the privileged classes only.<\/p>\n
The Pharisees (despite their corruptions and excesses) were the mainstream, and the early Church adopted their outlook with regard to eschatology, anthropology, and angelology, and the necessity and benefit of binding oral tradition and ongoing ecclesiastical authority for the purpose (especially) of interpreting Holy Scripture.<\/p>\n
Jesus Himself followed the Pharisaical tradition, as argued by Asher Finkel in his book\u00a0The Pharisees and the Teacher of Nazareth<\/i> (Cologne: E. J. Brill, 1964). He adopted the Pharisaical stand on controversial issues (Matthew 5:18-19, Luke 16:17), accepted the oral tradition of the academies, observed the proper mealtime procedures (Mark 6:56, Matthew 14:36) and the Sabbath, and priestly regulations (Matthew 8:4, Mark 1:44, Luke 5:4). This author argues that Jesus\u2019 condemnations were directed towards the Pharisees of the school of Shammai, whereas Jesus was closer to the school of Hillel.<\/p>\n
The\u00a0Encyclopedia Judaica<\/i>\u00a0(Jerusalem: 1971) backs up this contention, in its entry \u201cJesus\u201d (v. 10, 10):<\/p>\n
In general, Jesus\u2019 polemical sayings against the Pharisees were far meeker than the Essene attacks and not sharper than similar utterances in the talmudic sources.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
This source contends that Jesus\u2019 beliefs and way of life were closer to the Pharisees than to the Essenes, though He was similar to them in many respects also (poverty, humility, purity of heart, simplicity, etc.).<\/p>\n
The big fallacy is that Protestant defenders of sola Scriptura<\/em> see Jesus rebuking them for hypocrisy and corruption, and incorrectly, illogically conclude that He therefore must deny that they have any authority at all<\/i>. This has been the usual historic Protestant response (especially among those, who \u2014 like Baptists and even Lutherans \u2014 want to drive a big, unbiblical wedge between Law and Grace, as if they are literally antithetical). The\u00a0Moses\u2019 seat<\/i>\u00a0issue (as well as continued Christian observance of sacrifices and matters of the Law in one form or another) precisely shows that they still\u00a0do<\/i> have authority. This can be fully harmonized with Matthew 23 and the scathing denunciations, rightly understood. No problem there . . .<\/p>\n
There were plenty<\/i> of Pharisaical traditions that the early Christians adopted wholesale. It\u2019s impossible to make a blanket condemnation of all their traditions.\u00a0Jesus<\/i> didn\u2019t do that, so neither should Protestants.<\/p>\n
Matthew 15:1-8 was about one particular corruption of a tradition, that was unbiblical, or contrary to the Bible. That doesn\u2019t prove that no<\/i>\u00a0legitimate tradition\u00a0whatever<\/i> exists: one that is not technically included in the letter of the Bible, yet in harmony with it. The\u00a0text itself<\/i> cannot at all hold all the weight which Protestant defenders of sola Scriptura<\/em> attach to it.<\/p>\n
As to the general nature of Pharisaic authority, character, and Jesus\u2019 relationship to them, the Internet article,\u00a0\u201cWho Were the Pharisees and the Sadducees?\u201d<\/a>, by Bryan T. Huie, is a storehouse of useful, fascinating information. Pharisaical teaching in synagogues included the oral law:<\/p>\n
They followed ancient traditions inspired by an obscure text in Deuteronomy, \u201cput it in their mouths\u201d, that God had given Moses, in addition to the written Law, an Oral Law, by which learned elders could interpret and supplement the sacred commands. The practice of the Oral Law made it possible for the Mosaic code to be adapted to changing conditions and administered in a realistic manner.<\/p>\n
By contrast, the Temple priests, dominated by the Sadducees . . . insisted that the law must be written and unchanged. . . . they would not admit that oral teaching could subject the Law to a process of creative development. (Paul Johnson,\u00a0A History Of The Jews<\/i>, New York: Harper & Row, 1987, 106)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Dr. Brad Young, a professor at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, writes of the oral law:<\/p>\n
The Oral Torah clarified obscure points in the written Torah, thus enabling the people to satisfy its requirements. If the Scriptures prohibit work on the Sabbath, one must interpret and define the meaning of work in order to fulfill the divine will. Why is there a need for an oral law? The answer is quite simple: Because we have a written one. The written record of the Bible should be interpreted properly by the Oral Torah in order to give it fresh life and meaning in daily practice. . . . Moreover, it should be remembered that the Oral Torah was not a rigid legalistic code dominated by one single interpretation. The oral tradition allowed a certain amount of latitude and flexibility. In fact, the open forum of the Oral Torah invited vigorous debate and even encouraged diversity of thought and imaginative creativity. Clearly, some legal authorities were more strict than others, but all recognized that the Sabbath had to be observed. (Jesus the Jewish Theologian<\/i>, 105)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
And he states, concerning Jesus\u2019 view of the Pharisees:<\/p>\n
Many scholars and Bible students fail to understand the essence of Jesus\u2019 controversial ministry. Jesus\u2019 conflict with his contemporaries was not so much over the doctrines of the Pharisees, with which he was for the most part in agreement, but primarily over the understanding of his mission. He did sharply criticize hypocrites . . .<\/p>\n
A Pharisee in the mind of the people of the period was far different from popular conceptions of a Pharisee in modern times . . . The image of the Pharisee in early Jewish thought was not primarily one of self-righteous hypocrisy . . . The Pharisee represents piety and holiness. . . . The very mention of a Pharisee evoked an image of righteousness . . .<\/p>\n
While Jesus disdained the hypocrisy of some Pharisees, he never attacked the religious and spiritual teachings of Pharisaism. In fact, the sharpest criticisms of the Pharisees in Matthew are introduced by an unmistakable affirmation, \u201cThe scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses\u2019 seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice\u201d (Matt. 23:2-3). The issue at hand is one of practice. The content of the teachings of the scribes and Pharisees was not a problem . . . The rabbis offered nearly identical criticisms against those who teach but do not practice . . . Unfortunately, the image of the Pharisee in modern usage is seldom if ever positive. Such a negative characterization of Pharisaism distorts our view of Judaism and the beginnings of Christianity . . . The theology of Jesus is Jewish and is built firmly upon the foundations of Pharisaic thought . . . (Ibid<\/i>., 100, 184, 187, 188)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
John D. Keyser writes:<\/p>\n
As a result of the harsh portrayal in the New Testament of these teachers of Jewish law, the very name Pharisee has become synonymous with hypocrisy and self-righteousness.\u201d He goes on to say that many modern scholars \u201chave failed to realize that the Pharisaic religion was divided into\u00a0two separate schools<\/em>\u00a0\u2014 the School of Shammai and the School of Hillel. The group that Christ continually took to task in the New Testament was apparently the School of Shammai \u2014 a faction that was very rigid and unforgiving in their outlook.\u201d (\u201cDead Sea Scrolls Prove Pharisees Controlled Temple Ritual!\u201d, p. 1)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Huie adds:<\/p>\n
Although Pharisees were frequently the adversaries of Christ, it should also be noted that not all their interactions were hostile. Pharisees asked him to dine with them on occasion (Luke 7:36; 11:37; 14:1), and he was warned of danger by some Pharisees (Luke 13:31). Additionally, it appears that some of the Pharisees (including Nicodemus) believed in him, although they did so secretly because of the animosity of their leaders toward Christ . . . the New Testament records that there were Pharisaic Christians in the early Church. Acts 15:5 shows some of the Pharisees who had accepted Christ as the Messiah voicing their opinion on the circumcision question. Some commentators believe that the zealous Jews mentioned in Acts 21:20 were actually Christian Pharisees. And Pharisaic scribes on the Sanhedrin council stood up for the apostle Paul when he was brought before them in 58 A.D. (Acts 23:9) . . . In Acts 23:6, Paul publicly declared, \u201cI am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee\u201d (Acts 23:6). It is very telling that more than twenty years after his miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus, Paul still claims to be a Pharisee. This alone should be proof that, on a basic level, Pharisaism and Christianity did not conflict . . . In Philippians 3:5, Paul states that he was \u201cconcerning the law, a Pharisee.\u201d In verse 6, he goes on to say that he was \u201cconcerning the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
In presenting St. Paul\u2019s speech before the Sanhedrin, Luke depicts:<\/p>\n
. . . Christianity and Pharisaism as natural allies, hence the direct continuity between the Pharisaic branch of Judaism and Christianity. The link is expressed directly in Paul\u2019s own testimony: he is (now) a Pharisee, with a Pharisaic heritage (23:6). His Pharisaic loyalty is a present commitment, not a recently jettisoned stage of his religious past (cf. Phil 3:5-9). His Christian proclamation of a risen Lord, and by implication, of a risen humanity (Acts 23:6), represents a particular, but defensible, form of Pharisaic theology.\u201d (Harper\u2019s Bible Commentary<\/i>, 1111)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The\u00a0Dictionary of Paul and His Letters<\/i>\u00a0adds more fascinating information about Paul, Pharisaism, and the oral law:<\/p>\n
As a further cause for boasting in Philippians, Paul claims to be a Pharisee. Here the term was defined with precision. The expression \u2018as to the Law a Pharisee\u2019 refers to the oral Law. . . . Paul thereby understood himself as a member of the scholarly class who taught the twofold Law. By saying that the Pharisees sit on Moses\u2019 seat (Mt 23:2), Jesus was indicating they were authoritative teachers of the Law. . . . In summary, Paul was saying that he was a Hebrew-speaking interpreter and teacher of the oral and written Law. (\u201cJew, Paul the\u201d, 504)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Historian Paul Johnson concludes similarly concerning Jesus\u2019 closeness in doctrine to the Pharisees:<\/p>\n
He was closer to the Pharisees than to any other group . . . Jesus openly criticized the Pharisees, especially for \u2018hypocrisy\u2019. But on close examination, Jesus\u2019 condemnation is by no means so severe or so inclusive as the Gospel narrative in which it is enclosed implies; and in essence it is similar to criticisms leveled at the Pharisees by the Essenes, and by the later rabbinical sages, who drew a sharp distinction between the Hakamim, whom they saw as their forerunners, and the \u2018false Pharisees\u2019, whom they regarded as enemies of true Judaism.(Ibid<\/i>., 126)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Jewish historian Abba Eban states largely the same thing, from his religious perspective:<\/p>\n
Jesus was a Pharisaic Jew . . . He meticulously kept Jewish laws, made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem on Passover, ate unleavened bread, and uttered a blessing when he drank wine. He was a Jew in word and deed.<\/p>\n
. . . He himself declared in the Sermon on the Mount that he \u201chad not come to destroy the Law but to fulfill it.\u201d Nourished by the ideas of Pharisaic Judaism, he stressed the Messianic hope . . .<\/p>\n
Early Christianity is closer to Judaism than the adherents of either religion have usually wished to admit. Both Christian theologians and Orthodox Jews have underestimated the original Judeo-Christian affinity. It was only gradually that Christianity severed its connection to the Jewish community and became transformed into a gentile religion. (My People: The Story of the Jews<\/i>, New York: Behrman House, Inc. \/ Random House, 1968, 104-106)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
My position is that\u00a0some<\/i>\u00a0Pharisaical traditions were\u00a0corrupt<\/i> (therefore, Jesus condemned them), but when they taught traditions which were perfectly consistent with the Bible, then folks were bound to those. Christians were not bound to teachings or commands which were against God or the Bible. But most of Pharisaical teaching was good, since Jesus and Paul followed it themselves, for the most part. As a fundamentalist might say: \u201cif it\u2019s good enough for\u00a0Paul<\/i>, it\u2019s good enough for me!\u201d \u201cGimme that old time tradition, gimme that old time tradition . . . \u201d<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
I should reiterate that \u201cextra-biblical\u201d is not the same thing as \u201cnon-biblical\u201d or \u201cunbiblical\u201d or \u201ccontrary to the Bible\u201d or \u201ca contradiction against the Bible.\u201d It simply means \u201ctraditions which are not included in the letter of the Bible, but which are in perfect\u00a0harmony<\/i> with the Bible.\u201d But a certain kind of Protestant hears \u201cextra-biblical\u201d and they immediately equate that with \u201cfallible [rather than infallible] traditions of\u00a0men<\/i>\u00a0[rather than of God] which are obviously\u00a0contrary<\/i>\u00a0to Scripture and not\u00a0allowed<\/i>\u00a0by Scripture.\u201d Ironically,\u00a0this<\/i> is contrary to Scripture, not the notion of tradition per se.<\/p>\n
It was Protestantism and its sola Scriptura<\/em> rule of faith that produced (in terms of cultural milieu) what we know and love as modern liberal theology (and many of the larger modern cults and heresies, such as Mormonism<\/a>, Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses, and Christian Science). The ancient Arians, for example (who thought Jesus was created, and were similar to Jehovah\u2019s Witnesses) believed in Scripture Alone, whereas the orthodox trinitarian Church believed in apostolic succession, tradition, and Church authority. It has always been those who accept a larger tradition<\/i>, beyond, but in harmony with Holy Scripture, who preserve\u00a0orthodoxy<\/i>. Thus, Pharisees, preserved the ancient Jewish theological tradition which was developed into Christianity. Sadducees and their Bible-Only position, were rapidly rejecting several tenets which Christianity accepted, as noted previously.<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n
Practical Matters<\/em><\/strong>: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive \u201cone-stop\u201d Catholic apologetics site) or\u00a0fifty books<\/a>\u00a0have helped you (by God\u2019s grace) to decide to\u00a0become Catholic<\/a>\u00a0or to\u00a0return to the Church<\/a>,\u00a0or better understand some doctrines and\u00a0why<\/em>\u00a0we believe them<\/a>.<\/p>\n
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I\u2019m always in need of more funds: especially\u00a0monthly<\/em>\u00a0support. \u201cThe laborer is worthy of his wages\u201d (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a\u00a0full-time Catholic apologist<\/a>,\u00a0and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.<\/p>\n
PayPal donations<\/a>\u00a0are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You\u2019ll see the term \u201cCatholic Used Book Service\u201d, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page:\u00a0About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong \/ Donation Information<\/a>.\u00a0Thanks a million<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0from the bottom of my heart!<\/p>\n
***<\/p>\n