Apostolic Tradition: Obsolete?

by Steve Atkerson

Apostolic tradition, also called apostolic custom, apostolic patterns, New Testament patterns, or New Testament practice, means imitating the practices of the apostles. When scripture does not specifically command us to imitate a certain practice of the apostles, should we still follow it?

This issue has been faced by believers for the past two thousand years. How, exactly, should the church view New Testament apostolic patterns for church practice? Is the practice of the early church merely optional, or is it imperative for us? Are the traditions of the apostles just interesting history or should they constitute some kind of normative church practice?

The church’s problem is compounded because the New Testament has almost nothing to say by way of direct command concerning church matters. Consequently, has been common for believers to dismiss New Testament patterns for church practice as optional. Fee and Stuart, in their book, How To Read The Bible For All Its Worth, state: “Our assumption, along with many others, is that unless Scripture explicitly tells us we must do something, what is merely narrated or described can never function in a normative way” (p. 97, first edition). No one, for instance, would advocate following Jephthah’s tragic example in Judges 11:29ff. The question for us is whether or not Scripture explicitly tells us that we must copy the patterns for church practice described in the New Testament.

. . . How, exactly, should the church view New Testament apostolic patterns for church practice? Is the practice of the early church merely optional, or is it imperative for us? Are the traditions of the apostles just interesting history or should they constitute some kind of normative church practice?

The church’s problem is compounded because the New Testament has almost nothing to say by way of direct command concerning church matters. Consequently, has been common for believers to dismiss New Testament patterns for church practice as optional. Fee and Stuart, in their book, How To Read The Bible For All Its Worth, state: “Our assumption, along with many others, is that unless Scripture explicitly tells us we must do something, what is merely narrated or described can never function in a normative way” (p. 97, first edition). No one, for instance, would advocate following Jephthah’s tragic example in Judges 11:29ff. The question for us is whether or not Scripture explicitly tells us that we must copy the patterns for church practice described in the New Testament.

Holding to Apostolic Tradition is Logical
In 1 Corinthians 4:14-17, we read that Paul planned to send Timothy to Corinth . Paul wanted Timothy to remind the Corinthians of his way of life so that they could imitate him. The immediate context concerns Paul’s faithfulness in service and his humility as an apostle. Paul wrote, “I urge you to imitate me. For this reason I am sending to you Timothy, my son whom I love, who is faithful in the Lord. He will remind you of my way of life in Christ Jesus, which agrees with what I teach everywhere in every church.”

Notice the obvious uniformity of practice that is reflected by Paul’s words. His way of life in Christ was consistent with what he taught everywhere, in every church. There was integrity. There was a uniformity of practice that grew out of Paul’s teachings. His belief determined his behavior. His doctrine naturally determined his duty. In similar fashion, the apostles’ beliefs about the function of the church would surely have affected the way they organized churches (form follows function). Though the direct import of 1 Corinthians 4 is far afield from church practice, to also imitate the apostles’ ways regarding church life would be a wise choice for any fellowship.

If anyone truly understood the purpose of the church, surely the original apostles did. They were hand picked and hand trained by Jesus over a three year period. Then, our Lord appeared to them over a forty day period after His resurrection (Ac 1:3). Jesus also sent the Holy Spirit to teach them things He had not taught them before (Jn 14-16). Thus, whatever Jesus taught His apostles about the church was naturally reflected in the way they subsequently set up and organized churches.

In Titus 1:5, a passage that does deal directly with church practice, Paul wrote, “The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished.” Titus 1 concerns the appointment of qualified elders in every city. It is evident from this Scriptural passage that the apostles did indeed have a definite way they wanted certain things done regarding church. It was not left up to each individual assembly to find its own way of doing things. There was obviously some kind of order, pattern, or tradition that was followed in organizing the churches. Similarly, in 1 Corinthians 11:34 (a passage about the practice of the Lord’s Supper, another church life topic), Paul wrote, “The rest I will set in order when I come” (KJV, italics mine).
Southern Baptist theologian J. L. Dagg astutely wrote in 1858 that the apostles “have taught us by example how to organize and govern churches. We have no right to reject their instruction and captiously insist that nothing but positive command shall bind us. Instead of choosing to walk in a way of our own devising, we should take pleasure to walk in the footsteps of those holy men from whom we have received the word of life . . . respect for the Spirit by which they were led should induce us to prefer their modes of organization and government to such as our inferior wisdom might suggest” (Manual of Church Order, p. 84-86).

Holding to Apostolic Tradition is Praiseworthy

In 1 Corinthians 10:31-11:1, Paul again urged the Corinthians, “Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ.” The immediate context concerned seeking the good of others so as to glorify God and bring them to salvation ( 10:31 - 11:1). The word “follow” (1Co 11:1) is from mimatai, the basis for “mimic.” Paul wanted the Corinthian believers imitate him in that regard. Apparently they were already doing well in imitating him in other matters, since Paul stated in the very next verse, “I praise you because you remember me in everything, and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you” (11:2, NASV).
What is a tradition? The regular Greek word for “teaching” is didaskalia (the basis for “didactic”), but significantly that is not the word used here. Instead, paradosis (tradition) is used. In his commentary on 1 Corinthians, Gordon Fee pointed out that although the Greek word for tradition, paradosis, was a technical term in Judaism for oral transmission of religious instruction, in this context in almost certainly does not refer to teaching, but rather to religious traditions regarding worship (New International Commentary on the New Testament, p. 499). A tradition is usually thought of as a custom or a certain way of doing things. It is an inherited pattern of thought or action. A popular definition might be, “things people do on a regular basis.” This same Greek word (in verb from) is used in 1 Corinthians 11:23 in regard to the practice of the Lord’s Supper (that it was passed on) . The point of a tradition is that it is something (usually a practice, such as the Lord’s Supper) that is passed on. Here in 1 Corinthians we see an apostle praising a church for holding to his traditions.

Consider the word “everything” as Paul used it in 1 Corinthians 11:2. It means “all that exists,” or at least, “all that pertains to the subject.” When Paul wrote “everything” (1Co 11:2), what subjects did he have in mind? His use of the word “everything” certainly suggests that Paul’s intended application was larger than just the exhortation found in 1 Corinthians 10:31-11:1 (evangelism). Might “everything” also include church order? Indeed it did. Paul’s praise in 11:2 signals the beginning of a new topic:: head coverings (11:3-16). This new subject is clearly in the realm of church order (propriety in worship).

What do the words “just as” (11:2) indicate about the extent of Corinthian compliance with Paul’s traditions? They obviously adhered to every iota; it was sort of a photocopy effect! They were not willy-nilly about it. Paul praised them for holding to his traditions “just as” he passed them on to them. The apostles evidently designed for the churches to precisely mimic at least some of the traditions they established (here, head coverings). Yet since the word “traditions” (11:2) occurs in the plural, Paul apparently had in mind more than the one tradition of head coverings (Fee, p. 500). Should we shut up our observance to this one tradition only, or should we follow all the patterns for church organization that can be observed exclusively on the pages of the New Testament?


Holding to Apostolic Tradition is to be Universal

Paul quieted those inclined to be contentious about head coverings by making an appeal to the universal practice of all the other churches: “If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice — nor do the churches of God” (1Co 11:16 ).This final statement was designed to win over the contentious people and settle any argument. Head coverings are beyond the scope of this chapter. The point is that Paul expected all the churches to be doing the same thing. Just to realize that one was different was argument enough to silence opposition. Obviously, prior emphasis had been given to certain practices that were supposed to be done the same way, everywhere. Thus, 1 Corinthians 11:16 indicates a uniformity of practice in all New Testament churches.

In 1 Corinthians 14:33b-34, Paul mentioned something else that was to be true universally:“As in all the congregations of the saints, women should remain silent in the churches.”Regardless of the correct application of this verse, notice how Paul again appealed to a universal pattern that existed in all the churches as a basis for obedience.

Finally, note how Paul chided the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 14:36, “Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?” The obvious answer to both questions is no. This further indicates a uniformity of practice among New Testament churches. In some respect the Corinthians were doing something differently from what all the other churches were doing. Evidently all the churches were expected to follow the same patterns in their church meetings. These two questions were designed to pull the Corinthians back into line. Holding to apostolic tradition (New Testament church patterns) was to be universal in the first century and, we argue, today as well.

Jim Elliot, missionary martyr, wrote, “The pivot point hangs on whether or not God has revealed a universal pattern for the church in the New Testament. If He has not, then anything will do so long as it works. But I am convinced that nothing so dear to the heart of Christ as His Bride should be left without explicit instructions as to her corporate conduct. I am further convinced that the 20th century has in no way simulated this pattern in its method of ‘churching’ a community . . . it is incumbent upon me, if God has a pattern for the church, to find and establish that pattern, at all costs” (Shadow of The Almighty: Life and Testimony of Jim Elliot).