Lemmons On Tradition
The Firm Foundation editor has recently written a piece on "Traditionalism" which was copied in Go, a paper published by a "Campus Evangelism" group. Much of what he said about traditionalism is good. Denominations have made their traditions into law. Brethren and the church sometimes do the same thing. But, whether he intended it or not, his article implies that all traditional practices are to be questioned and changed where possible, thus lending encouragement to the prevailing philosophy that change for the sake of changing is the acceptable and better way of life. A hasty perusal of his article could easily lead one to think that he is teaching that we need a new gospel for a new age; that circumstances have so changed since the church began that the New Testament is outmoded. If, however, you read carefully into his paragraphs you will observe that this is not his aim.
The most serious blunder of the article is to reflect doubt as to the significance of passages of Scripture. Without saying at all what he thinks the passages teach, he asserts that "mature Bible students" now know that they do not teach what brethren in the past have understood them to teach. Here is his exact statement:
"We have many traditional interpretations of Scripture. Some good examples are Col. 2:14; 1 Cor. 13:10 and 1 Cor. 7:39. We traditionally give to such verses the meaning ascribed to them by old-time debaters and teachers and accept their interpretations as law, when mature Bible students recognize that the meanings traditionally given them could not possibly be the meaning of the passage."
What is the interpretation of Col. 2:14 which is traditional and which must be discarded? Many brethren teach, and about all the commentaries which this writer has examined say that it refers to the abrogation of the law of Moses at the cross of Christ. Some brethren are saying that it does not refer to the cross of Christ, but that it is the application to the law of a practice that was in existence at that time; that when a contract was cancelled the writing was crossed out or signed as fulfilled and nailed up for the public to see. Some do not say that it is the law of Moses which is referred to, but that it is the record of the man's sins which is against him. These last do not consider it to refer to the cross of Christ, but to the above stated figure.
Brother Lemmons does not say what he thinks is right, nor what is traditional. The question as to which is traditional is not yet answered. Those who hold to one of the last two ideas named above may be thinking that the traditional interpretation is that the Law of Moses was abrogated at the cross of Christ. On the other hand, the commentators, such as Clarke, McKnight, Robertson, Vincent and Schaff, though maintaining that it is the law taken away at the cross of Christ, speak of the practice of crossing out the bond or debt, saying that some affirm that it refers to the nailing up of such papers for public notice. So, what is traditional? All brother Lemmons has done is cast reflection upon debaters and teachers, without giving us the benefit of his "mature" studies, and throw a sop to those who like the Athenians spend "their time in nothing else, but either to tell or to hear some new thing."
The important thing is to know the truth that is expressed in Colossians 2:14, whether it be traditional or new. The context shows that the verse is referring to the law of Moses. Verse 16 refers to the preceding statement using the term, therefore; and then specifies items of the Law of Moses in which we are not to be judged, and which were a shadow of that which is Christ's. This is corroborated by such passages as Ephesians 2:15, 16; "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances. . . and might reconcile them both in one body unto God through the cross, having slain the enmity thereby."
No violence is done [to] the passage, and it may be entirely correct, to say that reference of the passage is to the figure of the crossing out of a written bond of indebtedness or contract and placing it in public view; but to say that it does not specifically designate the law and does not speak of the cross of Christ is doing violence to the teaching of the entire context and teaching elsewhere in the Bible. It is not unlike the violence done by saying that, since in baptism we are in the likeness of his death, baptism is only a figure of that which actually takes place.
Is the interpretation of a passage traditional merely because it has always been given? Not if it is right. Whether intentional or not, the effect of this article by brother Lemmons is that all interpretations of passages which have been held for a long time are traditional and should be seriously questioned or discarded. We would like to know what he thinks is traditional and wrong in what has been taught about Col. 1:14, what he thinks is right.
1816 Yale Drive Louisville, Ky. 40205