"traditions of men" is IDENTICAL with Sola Scriptura?

[Catholic_Dude]

I just came across an awesome apologetics piece (it is VERY long) a few days ago which brought up an amazing point.
Mark 7: 9And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! 10For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ 11But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift devoted to God), 12then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. 13Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”
Is this really a “traction of men”…OR…is it “what the Bible teaches”?
Numbers 30: 1 Moses said to the heads of the tribes of Israel: "This is what the LORD commands: 2 When a man makes a vow to the LORD or takes an oath to obligate himself by a pledge, he must not break his word but must do everything he said.

Deut 23: 21 If you make a vow to the LORD your God, do not be slow to pay it, for the LORD your God will certainly demand it of you and you will be guilty of sin. 22 But if you refrain from making a vow, you will not be guilty. 23 Whatever your lips utter you must be sure to do, because you made your vow freely to the LORD your God with your own mouth.So the Pharisees were “simply” going by what the Bible says! These men were pledging their money to God’s use and if they were to give it to their parents they would be breaking that pledge.

The obvious problem is that they were mis-applying Scriptures to fit their own doctrines, that is what Protestantism does when each person interprets the Bible as they see fit, Sola Scriptura, rather than being led by the Magesterium which is guided by the Holy Spirit and has the power of defining doctrine.

What do Protestants have to say about this?

 

[SyCarl]

I just came across an awesome apologetics piece (it is VERY long) a few days ago which brought up an amazing point.
Mark 7: 9And he said to them: “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions! 10For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and, ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ 11But you say that if a man says to his father or mother: ‘Whatever help you might otherwise have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift devoted to God), 12then you no longer let him do anything for his father or mother. 13Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”
Is this really a “traction of men”…OR…is it “what the Bible teaches”?
Numbers 30: 1 Moses said to the heads of the tribes of Israel: "This is what the LORD commands: 2 When a man makes a vow to the LORD or takes an oath to obligate himself by a pledge, he must not break his word but must do everything he said.

Deut 23: 21 If you make a vow to the LORD your God, do not be slow to pay it, for the LORD your God will certainly demand it of you and you will be guilty of sin. 22 But if you refrain from making a vow, you will not be guilty. 23 Whatever your lips utter you must be sure to do, because you made your vow freely to the LORD your God with your own mouth.So the Pharisees were “simply” going by what the Bible says! These men were pledging their money to God’s use and if they were to give it to their parents they would be breaking that pledge.

The obvious problem is that they were mis-applying Scriptures to fit their own doctrines, that is what Protestantism does when each person interprets the Bible as they see fit, Sola Scriptura, rather than being led by the Magesterium which is guided by the Holy Spirit and has the power of defining doctrine.

What do Protestants have to say about this?

Clearly what the Pharisees were doing was allowing more than what Scripture dictated as Jesus would obviously know the law of pledges. Apparently a person to tell his parents that something was to be treated as corban when it really was not. What we have is a person who didn’t want to support his parents. If his property actually was corban, he would not have been able to use it to benefit himself either so he would have no benefit from denying his parents. So apparently the Pharisees were allowing people to make a dedication to the temple but stil be able to use it for their own purposes. Something like a future bequest. Now if the person could use it for his own purposes the Law would say that part of that purpose was to support his parents. The tradition allowed them to avoid that obligation because of the future bequest.

A modern example would be me making a will saying that all my estate was going to go to the church. The Pharisees would then let me say that my obligation to my parents was avoided since it would be taking away what would be given to church.

It should further be noted that the obligation to honour parents was mandatory while making something corban by pledging it to God was a voluntary action. The Pharisees should not have allowed or accepted a pledge that would violate the obligation to parents. Sola scriptura does not prevent someone from twisiting Scripture to their own purposes.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Clearly what the Pharisees were doing was allowing more than what Scripture dictated as Jesus would obviously know the law of pledges.

That is begging the question because they were going by the “plain teaching of Scripture”. In short, you know what they did was “wrong” because you have the advantage of having Jesus expose it 2000 years ago.

Apparently a person to tell his parents that something was to be treated as corban when it really was not. What we have is a person who didn’t want to support his parents. If his property actually was corban, he would not have been able to use it to benefit himself either so he would have no benefit from denying his parents. So apparently the Pharisees were allowing people to make a dedication to the temple but stil be able to use it for their own purposes. Something like a future bequest. Now if the person could use it for his own purposes the Law would say that part of that purpose was to support his parents. The tradition allowed them to avoid that obligation because of the future bequest.

This doesnt get around the fact they dedicated it and according to the Law they could not revoke that pledge.

A modern example would be me making a will saying that all my estate was going to go to the church. The Pharisees would then let me say that my obligation to my parents was avoided since it would be taking away what would be given to church.

That is true, but the rules are the rules. If it is dedicated to God then what right does the person have taking it back for other use?

It should further be noted that the obligation to honour parents was mandatory while making something corban by pledging it to God was a voluntary action. The Pharisees should not have allowed or accepted a pledge that would violate the obligation to parents. Sola scriptura does not prevent someone from twisiting Scripture to their own purposes.

There is nothing saying when this pledge doesnt have to be fulfilled. The problem here is that “twisting Scripture” is relative to who you are, the Pharisees were going by the clear teachings which say a pledge must be kept.

 

[VARC]

Our Lord answers your question when he says its a tradition of men. I think you can equate the pharisees with the protestants by saying that both are misinterpreting scripture but that is a different argument.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Our Lord answers your question when he says its a tradition of men. I think you can equate the pharisees with the protestants by saying that both are misinterpreting scripture but that is a different argument.

I fully agree, we know this specific case was wrong because Jesus explicitly said so. As you already understand the principle behind the pharisees reasoning of Num 30:2 is the same principle of SS.

 

[VARC]

I doubt the pharisees would have viewed thier practices in a Bible-only context. In another passage, they appealed to the authority of “the traditions of the elders”.

 

[SyCarl]

This doesnt get around the fact they dedicated it and according to the Law they could not revoke that pledge.

That is true, but the rules are the rules. If it is dedicated to God then what right does the person have taking it back for other use?

There is nothing saying when this pledge doesnt have to be fulfilled. The problem here is that “twisting Scripture” is relative to who you are, the Pharisees were going by the clear teachings which say a pledge must be kept.

The point is that the people making the pledge were not giving the money immediately. They were retaining it for their own use while denying that they could use it for their parents. The tradition was that they could still use the money but avoid helping their parents.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

The point is that the people making the pledge were not giving the money immediately. They were retaining it for their own use while denying that they could use it for their parents. The tradition was that they could still use the money but avoid helping their parents.

I dont see where it indicates “immediately” or why that matters. If they pledged the money and used it before they arrived at the temple that would be breaking the pledge. The ones who were really benefiting from this gift to the temple was the pharisees.

We know it is only corrupt because of hindsight of what Jesus said. The point is that people can take what the Bible says and twist it, and with sola scriptura the individual is left determining what is true for himself and cant be stopped.

 

[Hastrman]

I doubt the pharisees would have viewed thier practices in a Bible-only context. In another passage, they appealed to the authority of “the traditions of the elders”.

The Sadducees were the fundamentalists; they only accepted the first five books of the law, not the later ones. That’s why they denied the afterlife.

On the other hand the Pharisee sect did–and does, since they became modern Rabbinical Judaism–rely on the authority of “the elders”. It’s a bit like American and British law: it goes by precedent.

As in, “Rabbi So-and-so thought that X practice was licit if one did abc, but Rabbi Such-and-Such thought c was not legitimate, and Rabbi Third Guy interpreted Rambam as thinking X could never be permitted. This interpretation is disputed by the Ba’al Shem Tov among others, however.”

I hope this perhaps slightly flippant made-up example doesn’t offend; I don’t mean any disrespect (and I guarantee you, it’s not easy to find rabbinical opinions that don’t mention Rambam, the Ba’al Shem Tov, or both, at least among Ashkenazis–sort of like Catholic documents not mentioning Aquinas or Augustine, or both).

 

[SyCarl]

I dont see where it indicates “immediately” or why that matters. If they pledged the money and used it before they arrived at the temple that would be breaking the pledge. The ones who were really benefiting from this gift to the temple was the pharisees.

We know it is only corrupt because of hindsight of what Jesus said. The point is that people can take what the Bible says and twist it, and with sola scriptura the individual is left determining what is true for himself and cant be stopped.

And the people who were twisiting it were the scribes and Pharisees, those with the apparent authority of sitting in the “seat of Moses”. It does not speak well of so-called authoritative interpretation or tradition.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

And the people who were twisiting it were the scribes and Pharisees, those with the apparent authority of sitting in the “seat of Moses”. It does not speak well of so-called authoritative interpretation or tradition.

They were corrupt, that is no disagreement. They were in positions of authority though as priests.

The difference the Church has is that it is guided by the Holy Spirit with the promise of indefectability.