Scripture, Not Tradition, Is Our Sufficient Authority (Mark 6:53–7:13)
Scripture, Not Tradition, Is Our Sufficient Authority
Mark 6:53-7:13
Introduction
Part of being Protestant is having a robust view of the Bible. It might be argued that while all Christians view the Bible as necessary, not all Christians view the Bible as sufficient. This really is the true dividing line between those who, in Jesus’ terms, “make void the word of God” and those who obey his commandments.
While this may seem somewhat of a passe point to us—it is standard fare for us—it is actually one of the most important issues facing our time. I say this because of the massive wave of young people fleeing to the more ancient traditions of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Eastern Orthodoxy in particular is growing like a weed.
From 2022 to 2023, Eastern Orthodox conversion rates increased by 40-100%. 60% of those converts are under the age of 40. The reasons for this are numerous and complex, but one of the main driving factors is the desire for something old, and therefore relatively stable and clear during a time which is quite volatile.
Matched with the desire for something old is a perceived insufficiency in Scripture. Simply put, Protestants are beginning to abandon sola Scriptura—the great doctrine which the church has always held, and which the Reformers of the 1500-1600 adamantly affirmed against the Roman Church: Scripture alone is our infallible guide for faith and practice, not tradition. Scripture is sufficient for us to know how to please God. Anything which men might teach us which are not in Scripture are not to be believed, because Scripture, and Scripture alone, is sufficient.
If you read Eastern Orthodox primary sources, you will find a flat-out denial of this. In fact, the entire system of theology in Eastern Orthodoxy begins with the church. The church, they say, is what created the Scriptures, and the Scriptures, even though they are divine, exist side-by-side with the unwritten, oral tradition that was passed down in the church and is found particularly in the early church Fathers and the 7 ecumenical councils.
On the basis of this, the Eastern Church brazenly asserts doctrines that are simply not intended, taught, or implied in any way in the Scriptures, such as the veneration of icons, the eucharistic liturgy, praying to the saints, and the veneration of the Virgin Mary. While they do not go as far as the Roman Church in telling us that we must do these things in order to be saved, they will say that to divide on these issues is to reject sacred tradition, and consequently to place someone outside of communion with the true Church, and therefore beyond salvation.
All of it is very plausible. It comes with Scripture citations (though many are out of context) as well as copious citations from church Fathers that we would know which seemingly lend credence to their position. So, they cite these things and point to history with a venire of Scripture and say, “Look! These traditions were passed down to us from the Fathers, which the church has always believed. Who are we not to believe them? Are we to suggest that we are in a position to rise ourselves up against them in pride? Who are we to deny what has stood for thousands of years?” This can appear very convincing.
And what’s more, almost without exception, it takes the true and weighty matters of the law (love, mercy, justice) out of view and puts in their place “trifles.” Matters of such arbitrary and peripheral importance that they are not worth our time. But because of the distorting effect of man’s traditions, those in love with tradition elevate such minor and trivial things to the very sum and substance of pleasing God. Thus, ask an Eastern Orthodox leader what the most important dividing line between him and Roman Catholicism or Protestantism is, and he will almost always tell you, “Icons.”
In turn what this leads to is formalism—the belief that observing the correct forms of religion is pleasing to God, whether or not it flows from the heart. Worshipping God does not, according to Tradition, consist in the freedom of the conscience and a heart ablaze with love for Christ and others sitting eagerly under the word in order to do it. Instead, it consists in this form, that liturgy, this washing, that formula, this tradition, that vestment.
So, the question of the hour seems to be this: What is the sufficient rule for our obedience to God, the Scriptures or human traditions? And Jesus’ answer is very clear: “You leave the commandment of God and hold to the traditions of men.” You cannot hold to the traditions of men and cleave to the commandment of God. In that light, let us unfold this account in four parts as Jesus teaches us that true obedience is a matter of the heart, not of the forms of religion.
I. The Crowds (6:53–56)
The first point is brief but important: tradition deceives the people whom Jesus loves, and therefore Jesus rejects it. Jesus takes up the issue because he wants to defend his sheep. Jesus is not quarrelsome. But he does sometimes take up a fight—and it is always to defend his people.
In this case, it was for the sake of the crowd. We established last week that he is the King and Shepherd, and that is in contrast to the false “King,” Herod. It is in this context, surrounded by massive crowds of people, that Jesus asserts his own authority over his sheep and defends them. He is their true king.
But, if Ezekiel says that Yahweh will “judge between sheep and sheep,” and Jesus is Yahweh himself come to shepherd his people, then he needs to do some judging. He needs not only to care for the weak, wounded, sick, and sore of his flock. He also needs to reign in the fat sheep that trample on everyone else’s grass and muddy up everyone else’s water.
They cross over the sea, intending to land in Bethsaida, but end up landing in Gennesaret. This is a significant difference that Mark doesn’t explain. It could be that they changed course midway, or that a headwind came back and pushed them off course. Whatever they case, they land in a densely populated area along the coast of the sea of Galilee in Jewish territory again. Not desolate. He is now with the crowds.
And his fame is increasing. They immediately recognize him and run to all the cities and announce that Jesus the Miracle Worker is here. His coming preceded him, so they would in each town take all their sick and lay them in the central square of the town so that Jesus could simply come and heal them all. And they only wanted to touch the fringe of his garments—apparently the story of the woman with the flow of blood had gotten out.
Yet what is notably absent from this last of the miracle summaries in Mark is the absence of any teaching ministry. In fact, it is interesting to see the progression of these summaries.
· 1:4-8 — the people gather to John in expectation of the Messiah
· 1:32-39 — the Messiah bursts onto the scene and goes around Galilee
· 3:7-11 — he withdraws to the sea and has drawn a great crowd, which has proven largely unbelieving
· 6:1-6 — He reaches Nazareth and is unable to do many mighty works, yet still preaches to them.
· Here — the frenzy seems to have reached a height as he goes around healing, but apparently no preaching is reported.
This progression gives the impression that Jesus’ public ministry though outwardly a wild success ended with unbelief. He began with enthusiastic and widespread acceptance, and he preached freely. Yet as his fame came short of faith among the people, he slowly withdraws from preaching publicly until he only heals and does not preach—which is a judgment more than a mercy.
Contextually speaking, Mark is setting the stage for his conversation with the Pharisees. The crowd is here in (6:53-56). Then he talks to the Pharisees (7:1-13), only to call the people to himself again (7:14). In other words, Jesus is among his sheep, and is now going to defend his sheep from the traditions of men in order to bring his people to obedience to God. Jesus intends to lead his people into true obedience. But the Pharisees had a vice-grip on the minds of Israel, and they all looked up to the Pharisees. So when the Pharisees gather to him in this context, he takes his opportunity.
II. The Inquiry (Mark 7:1-5)
The second point is this: those in the grip of human tradition cannot grasp the freedom of true religion. The point is the question in v5: “Why don’t they wash their hands!?” They see Jesus’ disciples, and criticize them for not keeping their rules, and therefore assume that because they do not keep the traditions they must not be pleasing to God.
The question is not genuine. The Pharisees are seeking to discredit Jesus because his disciples do not adhere to their authority. Pharisees already have animus toward Jesus. 3:6 – Partnered with the Herodians to destroy him. 3:22 – accusing him of being Satan’s agent. So when they “gather to Jesus,” it isn’t for tea and crumpets. They are there to observe, accuse, test, and generally discredit him. Their position is being threatened. People are frenzied to see him. They’re going to be ousted.
They notice that his disciples do not wash their hands before they ate. This isn’t like what we do. Literally, they didn’t “wash their hands with a fist.” This was a ceremonial cleansing.
Pharisees were clean-freaks—everything had to be ceremonially unclean. And they had so expanded what the law said made you unclean that you virtually couldn’t go outside without defiling yourself. You could have accidentally walked over a grave or touched someone unclean or ate from a dish that wasn’t properly cleansed. So, they taught, just to be sure, you had to ceremonially cleanse your hands before any meal. If you didn’t, you might be defiling yourself, and unknowingly breaking the laws of Leviticus and displeasing God.
Most importantly, they did this because they “held to the tradition of the elders.” What was this? It was oral tradition. Tradition literally means “handed over”—passed down hand to hand from one generation to the next. Some of them even believed that these traditions and applications of the law originated from Moses himself.
Jesus didn’t require this. So his disciples didn’t do it. Which is what causes the controversy. They were free in their obedience to Christ—they did not have to cleanse themselves like the Pharisees did not only because the Pharisees had over-defined the law, but also because they were not disciples of the Pharisees, but of Christ.
But here is the point: the Pharisees were so entrenched in their traditions that they had equated keeping manmade traditions with keeping the commandments of God. They could not understand how someone could be a true disciple of God without also washing their hands with a fist—something which Scripture nowhere commands. Their eyes were so encrusted with forms and traditions that they could not recognize true obedience when they saw it.
Let us be warned that this is not just a Pharisee problem. This is a human problem. We are obsessed with what is old more than what is true. If we are not careful, we will also begin to do the same—we will begin to equate thorough obedience to God with adherence to our way of doing things.
That is not to say that we don’t have a tradition! Things like an order of service, a doctrinal statement, and a philosophy of ministry are all “traditions” in the sense that they are time-tested human applications of God’s law to the life of our church. But there is a world of difference between wisdom in the application of the law and traditions which men have commanded but God has not.
So, do you have traditions of men to which you are still adhering? One way you can tell is whether or not you allow for the freedom of others in obedience to God. I.e., can you recognize genuine obedience to God in others, even if it is imperfect or not what you yourself would have done? If not, you are holding to the traditions of men.
III. The Problem (Mark 7:6-8)
The third point is this: there is a mutually exclusive relationship between following God’s commandments and following human traditions. This is Jesus’ response to the question. Which, characteristic of Jesus, is not really an answer to the question but an answer to the problem. In other words, Jesus masterfully gets to the heart of the issue. The real problem was not the washing of hands. It was the lack of heart.
He points to Isaiah 29:13, which indicts Israel for their formalism—their lip service lacking heart, leading to empty worship which was only taught by men.
“Honoring with lips” means external honor—honor in form, in religion, in word. But a heart being far from God means that the outward forms of honor were not matched by the inward reality of the heart.
In other words, the true problem with traditions is the fact that they don’t touch the heart. They do not flow from the heart. All the while, there is lip honor.
John Owen once made the point that where true religion is lacking you will often find more and more ostentatious displays of outward religion. This is why Roman Catholicism so emphasizes the liturgy, the forms, the incense, the vestments, and the prayers. And why Eastern Orthodoxy so emphasizes the icons and the glittering gold and the liturgy and the prayers. It is a matter of compensation—making up on the outside for what is lacking on the inside.
Paul also knew this. A former Pharisee himself, he wrote this: “Human precepts and teachings…have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh” (Col 2:23). It is precisely the connection Jesus is making. Holding to human traditions appears wise and gives the outward impression that we are honoring God, but because they are man-made, they do not carry the power of God and therefore are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.
That is why Pharisees were “hypocrites”—they possessed the outward forms without the inward reality. They were all lip and no heart. They were a cup cleansed on the outside but filthy on the inside. They were whitewashed tombs. And therefore, they were the blind leading the blind.
What is so scary about this is that the Pharisees did not see it like that. They saw themselves as devoted to God, keeping his law in every area of life, living out all the implications of the law. They saw all their washings as pleasing to God! Doing his commandments! Yet Jesus says that they are not.
“What?” they would have asked. “Are you saying that everything I’ve done is worthless? Years of laboring in vain? Decades of education and self-denial and self-control and religion did nothing?” One hears Nicodemus in this: Jesus tells him that he must be born again to enter the kingdom of God and he goes, “How is that possible? Should I again enter into my mothers womb and be born a second time?” Is all of it worthless? Is it even possible?
Just because we believe an outward form of obedience is pleasing to God does not mean that it is. You could believe that you are obeying him when all you are doing is following human traditions. What makes the difference? Whether or not it is commanded in Scripture.
This is the chief point of this sermon: Scripture is sufficient for true obedience to God. How do I know that singing to God in the church is an acceptable, God-pleasing outward form of obedience? Because Scripture commands it: “addressing one another in songs, hymns, and spiritual songs, singing and making melody to the Lord with your heart” (Eph 5:19). How do I know that praying before icons is not acceptable to God? Because the Bible does not teach it.
That’s exactly what Jesus says: “You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.” You cannot have both. You cannot obey God and obey human traditions also.
IV. The Example (Mark 7:9-13)
The fourth and last point is this: human traditions inevitably, if unintentionally, interfere with true obedience to God. In order to give more clarity to the point, Jesus points to a specific example, and in so doing exposes just how deceptive these things can be. “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your traditions.” “Fine” has the sense of “elegant.” Jesus is biting here. This is a rebuke with a serrated edge.
He points to the clear example of the fifth commandment—one of the most important. Exodus 20:12 and then Exodus 21:17, both of which teach that we are always under obligation to honor our father and mother. One of the ways that used to look was supporting them in their old age. There were no 401(k) and IRAs, nor were there community homes and skilled nursing facilities. Your kids were your retirement plan. And one important way of honoring your parents was to support them in their old age when they could no longer work. They would live with you, and you would feed them and take care of them.
But the Pharisees had developed a system which defeated this. They read Leviticus and saw that sacrifices were devoted to God—meaning they were dedicated to him and therefore could not be dedicated to anything else. They were a sacrifice to him, placed upon the altar, and completely burned up. From that they inferred that anything could be given to God as a thank offering, and that since a thank offering was to be given to God—devoted to him, Hebrew “Corban”—that it could not be used for anything else. In so far as it goes, this was true.
However, in an ostentatious display of outward obedience, Pharisees would declare that all they had was “Corban”—given to God. And, by natural consequence, it could not be used for anything else. To do so was to defile the holiness of the sacrifice and rob God of what was rightfully his. And the system had so developed that this could be done at any point in life, effected upon the death of the man, and while he was still living he could sustain himself on that same money.
The problem was that this then disallowed a person from caring for their mother and father in their old age. The money that they would have used to feed, clothe, and house them had been “given to God,” and therefore to give it to parents when they needed it was not only impossible but actually a sin against God. Thus, as Jesus says, “making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down.”
Do you see how deceptive that is? In the name of obeying God, they had developed a system in which it was possible to break an explicitly stated commandment and then proclaim that you had actually kept the law. They believed that dedicating everything to God was pleasing to him, even to the point of denying parents their needed care. And I’m sure they felt very holy in doing so.
Such a way of proceeding with godliness prevents obedience. Because it was never the law of God they were following. It was the traditions of men. And even unintentionally, they had begun to follow their own ways.
From which learn this lesson: Scripture is sufficient for our obedience. The plain statement of Scripture does more to inform how we should live than a thousand books working out the implications. I have seen entire worldviews fall at the ax of a single verse. Jesus slays entire methods of obedience by a single, plainly stated commandment. Don’t overcomplicate things.
Also learn this: the most tell-tale sign of a human tradition is where we don’t account for all of Scripture. The stop sign for the Corban rule should have been that it wasn’t consistent with the 5th commandment. We are always holding various things together in Scripture that are sometimes difficult to fit together. As soon as we explain one away to the negation of another we have created a human tradition. (The Bible says that God is one and is three persons—but that doesn’t make sense, so when the Bible says that God is three, it must actually mean something else. The Bible says that Scripture is written by God and man, but this is not possible because it is obviously human and therefore has errors in it.)
Conclusion
Applications
1. Have compassion on those who are bound under a human system of outward obedience, and have been taught that it is pleasing to God.
2. Let our consciences not be bound by those who ostentatiously claim that if we do not follow their traditions that we are not pleasing to God.
3. Beware of fostering a religion of lip and not of heart in yourselves.
4. Let us be careful in our application of Scripture to our lives that we do not go beyond what is written.