The Traditions of Men and the Meaning of Scripture

Rabbinical Judaism holds that the Five Books of Moses, called the (Written) Torah or the Pentateuch, have always been transmitted in parallel with an oral tradition. They state that two guides to laws were given to Moses at Mount Sinai. The first, known as Torah she-bi-khtav, or the "Written Law" is composed of only the Five Books of Moses (Genesis through Deuteronomy). These five books are the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, the Tanakh or Old Testament.

They further state that the second law given to Moses at Sinai, known as Torah she-be'al-peh is the exposition or interpretation of the Written Law as relayed by the scholarly and other religious leaders of each generation. This Oral Law is, in some sense, the more authoritative of the two. The traditions of the Oral Law are considered as the basis for the interpretation, and often for the reading, of the Written Law. Today the traditions of the Oral Law have been written down as the Mishnah.

Note this: the Oral Law (or Mishnah) is the more authoritative of the two because the Oral Law is considered as the basis for interpreting and understanding the Written Law, or the Pentateuch.

Now when we progress to the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church we find a similar situation. The Bible, the Scriptures (both New and Old Testaments) are authoritative but they must be interpreted and understood. In both of these Christian bodies (RCC and EOC), it is the Church (i.e., the Patristics, the Papacy, Councils, and other church-recognized authorities) which interprets the Scriptures and tells the "every-day" Christian what the Scriptures means and what they should believe (e.g., the interpretations of the RCC is called the Sacred Tradition, said to have been "originally passed from the apostles in the form of oral tradition" and is seen as authoritative to the respective body's members). In a very similar manner to that of the Rabbis, these oral traditions of proper interpretation of the Christian Scriptures (such as the Sacred Tradition) are more authoritative of the two because it governs how the Scriptures are to be understood by the individual believer.

It was Martin Luther who is best known for challenging the supremacy of the Sacred Tradition over the Scriptures when it became obvious to him that too often the Sacred Tradition was contradicting the true meaning of the Scriptures. Given the choice Luther correctly chose to follow the Word of God (Sola scriptura) over the Traditions of Men (see Matt 15:3, 6; Mark 7:8f., 13; Col 2:8).

Of course, the RCC believed that they were interpreting the Scriptures correctly. They believed (and still believe) that God has given them the right to authoritatively interpret Scripture for other believers and that their interpretations of Scripture are correct and do not contradict the Scriptures and Word of God.

Nevertheless, some five centuries later, the average Baptist (who has soul competency, who is a part of the priesthood of all believers, who has freedom of religion because of the Baptist view of separation of church from state, whose church has local autonomy) is able to read the Scriptures for him or herself without being forced to cede its meaning to an ecclesiastical body against his or her better judgment. Thus the believer has free access to the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit speaks the Word of God thru that Scripture.

So we Baptists are very fortunate in that we have neither the Rabbinic oral traditions of the Mishnah nor the Sacred Traditions of the RCC to displace the authority of the Scriptures by governing how the Bible is to be understood by the individual believer. Indeed, given such a situation it would be more proper for the Scriptures to govern the interpretation of the tradition than for the tradition to govern the interpretation of the Scriptures. Correct?

Therefore, if the average, individual Southern Baptist believer (who has soul competency, who is a part of the priesthood of all believers, who has freedom of religion because of the Baptist view of separation of church from state, whose church has local autonomy) is confronted with any confession, creed, abstract of principles, statement, or document which purports to interpret the Scriptures, he or she should interpret such confessions, creeds, abstract of principles, statements, or documents in light of the Scriptures because the Scriptures are the more authoritative. We should consider the Scriptures as the basis for the interpretation of any confession or creed.

Remember: Sola scriptura

Remember: Jesus never had a good thing to say about traditions (see Matt 15:3, 6; Mark 7:8f., 13).

Therefore, the meaning of the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message should be interpreted by the Scriptures and should not be the interpreter of the Scriptures.