Orthodox and Catholic apologists frequently cite certain Biblical verses to support their claims regarding tradition. One commonly referenced verse is:

2 Thessalonians 2:15:

“So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.”

However, there are several issues with using this verse to substantiate the traditions upheld by these groups. First, accepting the Orthodox or Catholic interpretation of this verse does not necessarily mean that their specific traditions are those referred to by the apostle. It is ironic that both groups, despite having differing traditions, claim apostolic authority for their respective practices. Who, then, should be believed? The Eastern Orthodox? The Oriental Orthodox? The Roman Catholics? Among Catholics alone, there are divisions such as liberals, conservatives, Thomists, Sedevacantists, and Franciscans. Similarly, which tradition within the Eastern Orthodox Church should be accepted?

Another issue is that these words were originally addressed to individuals who had direct verbal access to Paul the Apostle. Paul has long since passed away, so it is impossible for us to receive his teachings directly as the original recipients did. This context is crucial because it emphasizes firsthand oral teachings rather than second or third-hand interpretations. Orthodox and Catholic adherents often assert that their traditions trace back to the apostles, but this claim demands scrutiny.

Additionally, why should we assume that the traditions mentioned by Paul are not simply different forms of the same message? Paul’s statement in 2 Thessalonians arises from the need to address false ‘apostolic traditions’ that had emerged (2 Thess. 2:1-3, 3:17). This raises the question: how do we distinguish between true and false traditions? If the Church is responsible for this discernment, what criteria does it use?

Furthermore, Greg Bahnsen pointed out that 2 Thessalonians 2:15 is not necessarily discussing two different messages but rather two different means of communication—oral and written. This interpretation suggests that Paul is emphasizing the consistency of his teachings, regardless of the medium through which they were delivered.

Finally, many scholars believe that the traditions Paul refers to are related to the Gospel message. These can be categorized as:

• Kerygmatic tradition: the central gospel message (e.g., 1 Cor. 15:1–3).
• Church tradition: practices governing the Church (e.g., 1 Cor. 11:23–25).
• Ethical tradition: proper Christian behavior (e.g., 1 Cor. 7:10; 11:2; 1 Thess. 4:1).

In the broader context of 2 Thessalonians 2, Paul likely refers specifically to kerygmatic traditions associated with the parousia of Christ. The command to adhere to these traditions implies that the Thessalonians’ salvation depended on maintaining them. In 3:7, Paul refers to another type of tradition concerning proper Christian conduct, demonstrating that not all traditions are of the same nature.

As C. A. Wanamaker explains:

“If, as seems likely, we are to see v. 15 in terms of the broader context of chap. 2, then we probably have a reference specifically to the kerygmatic traditions associated with the parousia of Christ. The fact that the command to keep these traditions represents an inference drawn from the discussion of salvation in vv. 13f. implies that nothing less than the salvation of the Thessalonians depended on their holding to these traditions. (In 3:7 Paul refers to a different type of tradition which he had passed on to his readers and to which he expected them to adhere, namely, a tradition regarding proper Christian conduct.)” (Wanamaker, C. A. (1990). The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, pp. 268–269. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans)

Contextual Analysis of 2 Thessalonians 2:15

Immediately after Paul’s assertion of election and the Spirit’s calling of people to faith in 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14, he gives a command in 2:15 to remain anchored to the true faith. This command states positively what 2:3 commanded negatively and serves as the main point of the entire segment of 2:1-17, which has come full circle back to 2:3, the main point of 2:1-12 (see also Callow 1982: 52-53).

“On the basis that” (So then in NIV) the readers really are elect and saved and the Spirit has called them to believe, they will not be deceived by false teaching but will obey Paul’s command to stand firm and hold to the teachings passed on by him. The phrase “whether by word of mouth or by letter” clearly contrasts with 2:2, where Paul tells his readers not to be quickly shaken or disturbed by false teaching that comes to them through a “word” (NIV “report”) or “letter supposed to have come from us.” If the readers truly have faith “in the truth,” they will stand firm and hold to the truth that Paul has taught them by word of mouth when he was with them or by his first letter. As a result, they will not be misguided by any counterfeit teaching. This involves both continually recalling what they have been taught (see on 2:5-6) and consistently obeying it.

But why would Paul’s readers be motivated to obey his instruction to be active in standing firm and obeying if their eternal salvation has already been definitively determined? Could they not now think to themselves that God has done and will do everything necessary for their salvation, that they need merely to sit back and do nothing since they are going to be saved no matter what? Why does Paul not tell them to sit back and do nothing? Paul explains in 2:16-17 what leads him to command the readers actively to obey.

(Beale, G. K. 1-2 Thessalonians (The IVP New Testament Commentary Series) (p. 231). Intervarsity Press – A. Kindle Edition.)

Detailed Analysis of Tradition in Paul’s Writings

In analyzing the use of the term “tradition” in Paul’s writings, it is crucial to understand the different contexts and meanings it can convey. Anthony Thiselton provides a comprehensive examination of the term:

“Barrett helpfully proposes hold fast to the traditions and handed … on for κατέχετε in conjunction with παρέδωκα … τὰς παραδόσεις. παράδοσις may mean either betrayal (in the active sense of the verb παραδίδωμι) or tradition (in the passive sense of the verb), that which is handed on, including teachings, creeds, narratives, catechesis (cf. 2 Thess 2:15; 3:6, with παραλαμβάνω, also 1 Clement 7:2; Diognetus 11:6). In the same way the verb παραδίδωμι may mean to hand over or to hand on (cf. 1 Cor 11:23a; 15:3, which are fundamental). In early Christian literature the words soon come to denote an authoritative tradition of Christian teaching (Polycarp, Epistles, 7:2; Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:4; Clement, Stromata, 1:12; Origen, Contra Celsum, 4:32). In his study of tradition and tradition terminology Wegenast argues that this epistle provides the first setting within which the notion of a received and transmitted doctrine and practice arose (esp. in relation to 11:23 and 15:3–5). This is plausible in the light of the Corinthian tendency to regard their own thought and practice as a unilateral affair (cf. 1:3; 14:36; and elsewhere). Schrage hesitates to regard 11:2–16 as relating to “tradition” in the foundation sense of 11:23 and 15:3–5, since it does not constitute a cross-centered article of faith and life. Nevertheless, the respect or concern for “the other” in 11:2–16 does reflect a cruciform pattern. Many commentators believe that the tradition for which Paul commends the readers is the eschatological inclusion of men and women as active participants in prayer and prophetic speech, in contrast to the issue of clothing, which Paul believes must still generate signals of gender distinctiveness on the basis of the order of creation, which still holds sway even in the gospel era.”

Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 810–811.

Here in Thiselton, we see that an infallible perpetual means of tradition isn’t in view. Paul commends the Corinthians for holding to traditions, but these are contextually specific, such as those regarding head coverings.

Further Examination of Tradition in 1 Corinthians

“Paul begins by praising the Corinthians for remembering him and for retaining the traditions which he passed on to them. The introduction represents captatio benevolentiae, which was a typical way of gaining the goodwill of hearers or readers in the Graeco-Roman world. Thus, the word everything is clearly hyperbolic, particularly because Paul specifically says he cannot praise them when it comes to their behavior at the Lord’s Supper (11:17, 22). The traditions represent the doctrine and behavior taught to believers when Paul visited them (cf. 1 Cor. 4:17; 15:1–4; 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6). What is the function of the verse in the present context? Paul could be saying that he is generally pleased with them, but then turns to their defection regarding the adornment of women. This solution is not convincing, since in the next paragraph Paul specifically says that he is not pleased with the Corinthians regarding the Lord’s Supper (11:17, 22), while here he says the opposite. It seems, then, that the Corinthians as a whole followed Paul’s instructions on head-coverings. Probably there was a minority which contested what Paul said, and their dissent raised questions for everyone. Therefore, Paul had to make his case afresh to shore up dissent.”

Schreiner, Thomas R.. 1 Corinthians (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries) . InterVarsity Press. Kindle Edition.

What infallible ruling on head coverings exists in these traditions? While tradition is often negatively viewed in Protestant circles, it isn’t only used negatively. Protestants regularly recognize valuable traditions that align with Scripture.

Positive and Negative Uses of Tradition in the New Testament

“In the New Testament, “traditions” are frequently criticized or spoken of in critical ways (as “the traditions of the elders” or “the traditions of men”; cf. Matt. 15:2, 3, 6; Mark 7:3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 13; Gal. 1:14; Col. 2:8). Thanks in part to the influence of those passages, traditions are frequently looked down upon in many evangelical circles. Three out of the five times that Paul refers to traditions, however, he does so with very positive connotations (here and in 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6). Traditions, when they do not undermine the teaching of God’s word but preserve valid interpretations and/or applications of it, are of great value to the church. In 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 3:6 Paul refers to the standards for Christian teaching and living as the “traditions” he passed on. In this chapter he seems to have the standards for Christian worship particularly in mind. Although it has been suggested that in the following verses Paul will provide arguments that are intended to get the Corinthians to change worship patterns they have followed since Paul was with them, it seems more likely that he is merely providing them with arguments to support the worship practices he passed on to them, practices that some of them had begun to question (perhaps in light of some of Paul’s other teachings). By pointing out that he is clarifying traditions that he passed on to the Corinthians, Paul reminds them that these are not simply his personal preferences. He wants to help the Corinthians understand the implications of Christian teachings which predated Paul’s ministry among them and which are accepted by the churches in general (cf. 11:16). In this verse Paul brings both the Corinthians’ respect for him and their respect for the traditions of the church to bear, and he hopes that he can leverage both in his attempt to move the Corinthians toward more healthy kinds of behavior—behaviors which glorify God.”

Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010), 505–506.

Modern Practices and Views on Head Coverings

Different Christian traditions have varying practices and views regarding head coverings today:

• Eastern Orthodox Church: Encourages head coverings, emphasizing modesty and respect for tradition.
• Roman Catholic Church: Post-Vatican II, head coverings are no longer mandatory but remain a personal choice.
• Oriental Orthodox Churches: Maintain the tradition of head coverings as a sign of modesty and reverence.
• Assyrian Church of the East: Encourages head coverings in worship, emphasizing continuity with early Christian practices.

Historical Perspectives on Head Coverings

Apostolic Fathers’ Interpretations

1. Clement of Rome (1st Century): Clement did not explicitly address head coverings in his extant writings. His primary focus was on maintaining order and unity within the church, often citing the importance of adhering to apostolic teachings without delving into specific practices like head coverings.
2. Ignatius of Antioch (1st-2nd Century): Ignatius also did not provide detailed instructions on head coverings. His letters emphasize church hierarchy, unity, and combating heresies, but specific cultural practices such as head coverings are not addressed.
3. The Didache (Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, 1st-2nd Century): The Didache provides instructions on Christian ethics, rituals, and church organization but does not mention head coverings.

Early Church Fathers’ Interpretations

1. Tertullian (160-225 AD): Tertullian is one of the earliest church fathers to explicitly discuss head coverings. In his work “On the Veiling of Virgins,” he argues that all women, regardless of marital status, should cover their heads. He bases his argument on both scriptural and cultural grounds, emphasizing modesty and the distinction between genders.”So, too, did the Corinthians themselves understand him. In fact, at this day the Corinthians do veil their virgins. What the apostles taught, their disciples approve.” (On the Veiling of Virgins, Chapter 8).
2. Origen (184-253 AD): Origen interpreted head coverings as a sign of authority and modesty. He saw the practice as a symbol of a woman’s submission to her husband and to God. Origen’s interpretation aligns with Paul’s teachings in 1 Corinthians 11:3-16 but emphasizes the spiritual significance over cultural practice.”For this reason, the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.” (Commentary on 1 Corinthians, Fragment 74).
3. John Chrysostom (347-407 AD): Chrysostom offered a comprehensive commentary on 1 Corinthians. He interpreted head coverings as a practice of modesty and submission, but also noted the importance of maintaining customs to avoid scandal within the church.”For if one ought not to be covered, neither ought the other; if it is befitting to the man to pray covered, then it is so to the woman also. But if the woman be covered and the man not, then it is not so.” (Homilies on 1 Corinthians, Homily 26).

Medieval and Reformation Interpretations

1. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274 AD): Aquinas reiterated the importance of head coverings in his “Summa Theologica,” emphasizing their role in signifying the natural order and the relationship between men and women.”A woman is commanded to cover her head… as a sign of power, i.e., of man’s power over her.” (Summa Theologica, II-II, Q. 169, Art. 2).
2. John Calvin (1509-1564): During the Reformation, Calvin interpreted head coverings as a cultural practice appropriate for Paul’s time. He argued that while the principle of modesty and submission remains, the specific practice may adapt to cultural contexts.”Custom, however, ought not to be esteemed so highly as to injure the Church by a contrary practice.” (Commentary on 1 Corinthians, 11:16).

Additional Verses Often Cited for Tradition

Orthodox and Catholic apologists also reference other verses to support their claims regarding tradition, including Galatians 1:8, 2 Thessalonians 3:14, Romans 16:17, Jude 1:18-22, and John 21:25. Let’s examine these verses to understand why they do not necessarily support the notion of extrabiblical traditions.

Galatians 1:8

“But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse!”

Analysis:

• This verse emphasizes the consistency and immutability of the Gospel message as preached by the apostles. Paul warns against any deviation from this original message, stressing the importance of adhering to the true Gospel.
• Not Evidence for Tradition: This verse does not specifically address traditions but rather reinforces the idea that the Gospel should remain unchanged. It speaks against new teachings or interpretations that deviate from what was originally preached, without directly endorsing the concept of ongoing oral traditions.

2 Thessalonians 3:14

“Take special note of anyone who does not obey our instruction in this letter. Do not associate with them, in order that they may feel ashamed.”

Analysis:

• Paul instructs the Thessalonians to take note of those who disobey the teachings outlined in his letter, suggesting a form of discipline within the community.
• Not Evidence for Tradition: The focus here is on the authority of Paul’s written instructions and the importance of adhering to them. This does not imply that additional oral traditions are necessary or authoritative but rather that the written teachings should be followed.

Romans 16:17

“I urge you, brothers and sisters, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them.”

Analysis:

• Paul warns the Roman Christians to be wary of individuals who create divisions by promoting teachings contrary to what they have learned.
• Not Evidence for Tradition: This verse highlights the need to stay true to the established teachings but does not specify that these teachings include extra-biblical traditions. It emphasizes unity and adherence to the apostolic teaching, which is understood to be rooted in the Gospel and the letters of the apostles.

Jude 1:18-22

“They said to you, ‘In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.’ These are the people who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit. But you, dear friends, by building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, keep yourselves in God’s love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life. Be merciful to those who doubt; save others by snatching them from the fire; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.”

Analysis:

• Jude warns about scoffers who follow their own desires and cause division. He encourages the faithful to build themselves up in faith, pray in the Holy Spirit, and remain in God’s love.
• Not Evidence for Tradition: This passage focuses on maintaining personal faith and spiritual integrity in the face of false teachings. It does not advocate for the preservation or adherence to specific oral traditions outside of the established Christian faith and teachings.

John 21:25

“Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.”

Analysis:

• This verse acknowledges that not all of Jesus’ deeds and teachings are recorded in the written Gospels, suggesting that there is more to His life and ministry than what is documented.
• Not Evidence for Tradition: While this verse indicates that not everything Jesus did is written, it does not necessarily endorse or validate the existence of authoritative oral traditions. It simply states a fact about the extensive nature of Jesus’ works. The verse does not imply that these unwritten deeds form a body of tradition that carries the same authority as Scripture.

1 Corinthians 15:3-8

“For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.”

Analysis: Paul recounts the core Gospel message that he received and delivered, emphasizing the resurrection appearances as crucial elements of the faith.

Not Evidence for Tradition: This passage focuses on the transmission of the core Gospel message, which is scriptural. It does not address or endorse the existence of extrabiblical traditions.

Jude 1:17

“But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Analysis: Jude urges the readers to recall the warnings given by the apostles about future scoffers and false teachers.

Not Evidence for Tradition: This verse emphasizes recalling apostolic warnings, which are already documented in the New Testament writings. It does not support the notion of authoritative oral traditions.

2 Timothy 1:13

“Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus.”

Analysis: Paul advises Timothy to adhere to the teachings he received from Paul, emphasizing the importance of maintaining sound doctrine.

Not Evidence for Tradition: This verse stresses the importance of adhering to apostolic teachings, which are documented in Paul’s letters. It does not imply the need for additional oral traditions.

Acts 8:29-35

“And the Spirit said to Philip, ‘Go over and join this chariot.’ So Philip ran to him and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and asked, ‘Do you understand what you are reading?’ And he said, ‘How can I, unless someone guides me?’ And he invited Philip to come up and sit with him. Now the passage of the Scripture that he was reading was this: ‘Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter and like a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he opens not his mouth. In his humiliation justice was denied him. Who can describe his generation? For his life is taken away from the earth.’ And the eunuch said to Philip, ‘About whom, I ask you, does the prophet say this, about himself or about someone else?’ Then Philip opened his mouth, and beginning with this Scripture he told him the good news about Jesus.”

Analysis: Philip explains the Scripture to the Ethiopian eunuch, demonstrating the necessity of guidance in understanding the Scriptures.

Not Evidence for Tradition: This passage illustrates the role of teaching and interpretation in understanding the Scriptures, not the endorsement of extrabiblical traditions. Philip’s teaching is directly based on Scripture.

Jude 1:3

“Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people.”

Analysis: Jude urges believers to “contend for the faith” that was “once for all entrusted to God’s holy people.” This phrase highlights the finality and completeness of the Christian faith as delivered by the apostles.

Not Evidence for Tradition: This verse emphasizes the completeness and sufficiency of the faith delivered once for all. It does not imply the necessity of ongoing, evolving traditions outside of what was originally delivered. The faith Jude speaks of is the core apostolic teaching, which is preserved in the New Testament. This underscores the sufficiency of the Scriptural witness rather than endorsing additional oral or extrabiblical traditions.

Conclusion

None of the cited verses explicitly support the idea that Catholic or Orthodox traditions, particularly those not found in Scripture, should be upheld as authoritative. Each verse, when analyzed in its context, emphasizes the importance of adhering to the Gospel and the written teachings of the apostles rather than endorsing additional, unwritten traditions. The overall message is one of fidelity to the core teachings of Christianity as documented in the New Testament, without suggesting that extrabiblical traditions carry the same weight. Tradition in the apostolic time is different than every John, Dick, and Harry hundreds of years later claiming to have traditions. Furthermore, if tradition was supposed to be the mechanism to settle disputes, be the major teaching office, or any other claims Rome and the Orthodox maintain, then the absence of any apostle saying so in their own written documents should raise an eyebrow of doubt.

References:

Greg Bahnsen, Is Sola Scriptura a Protestant Concoction? A Biblical Defense of Sola Scriptura

Wanamaker, C. A. (1990). The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (pp. 268–269). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.

Schreiner, Thomas R. 1 Corinthians (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries) . InterVarsity Press. Kindle Edition.

Anthony C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2000), 810–811.

Roy E. Ciampa and Brian S. Rosner, The First Letter to the Corinthians, The Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2010), 505–506.

Beale, G. K. 1-2 Thessalonians (The IVP New Testament Commentary Series) (p. 231). Intervarsity Press – A. Kindle Edition.

Tertullian, On the Veiling of Virgins

Origen, Commentary on 1 Corinthians

John Chrysostom, Homilies on 1 Corinthians

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

John Calvin, Commentary on 1 Corinthians

GeneMBridges, Hold Fast the Traditions

Dr. James White, Sola Scriptura in Light of 2 Thessalonians 2:15 and 2 Timothy 3:16-17

Steve Hays, Inaudible oral tradition