God’s Commandments and human traditions
When human tradition contradicts Sacred Tradition, it must be rejected.
At first glance, the teaching of Christ always seems good in everything and for everyone. But in reality, it is very inconvenient and unprofitable and often contradicts commonly accepted concepts and norms. In such cases, there arises a great temptation to adjust this teaching, not to openly contradict it but to make up loopholes, exceptions, and various ways to circumvent God's commandment when we really don't want to fulfill it.
This temptation arises all the more if to fulfil the commandment we have to sacrifice something: property, social status, authority and so on. If fulfilling the commandment means giving up state or national interest, the public good, then the correction of God's commandment becomes simply necessary. And human traditions successfully cope with this task.
History offers countless examples of this. One of the latest is the much-discussed debate between Patriarch Kirill and Priest Alexei Shliapin at a meeting of the clergy of the Moscow Metropolis. The priest spoke to the Patriarch about God's commandment to preach the Kingdom of God while the Patriarch responded with patriotism, referring to Dmitry Donskoy and Alexander Nevsky. The fact that God's commandments cannot be nullified by any examples of saints seems obvious. But state interests are at stake, especially when the state is waging war for them.
Indeed, we have a vast array of hagiographic literature, sermons, and teachings from various church figures that call for the defense of state and societal interests. All these arguments and examples seem correct and logical from a human point of view. Homeland defense, fatherland salvation, the glory of our country, public and private well-being, and so on. All of this appeals to our hearts; this is precisely what we want to hear and be guided by. And we so much want to reassure ourselves and say: “Well, see, the saints themselves say and do this.” But the Gospel is inconvenient precisely because it sometimes does not fit into our human concepts, even if they are voiced by saints and inspired by their examples.
One of the most common misconceptions in our church consciousness is that by canonizing a particular hierarch, ascetic, or martyr, we mentally canonize all of their actions, deeds, opinions, and even character traits.
If the lives of saints mention their sins, it usually follows the pattern of "before" and "after." Yes, they sinned, but then they repented and became saints. It is not customary for us to speak about the fact that even while living a holy life, a person can make mistakes, act wrongly or even sinfully. Meanwhile, the approach of Sacred Scripture to this is entirely different. Holiness, deification, and acquiring the Holy Spirit do not take away anything human from a person: traits of character, national, intellectual, and other features, ways of thinking, human weaknesses, and the right to make mistakes.
Who could be holier and more righteous than the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord entrusted the keys of the Kingdom, commanded him to shepherd His sheep, and filled him with the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost? Peter, whose very shadow could heal the hopelessly sick? And yet, when Peter fell into hypocrisy, he was rebuked by the Apostle Paul:
“But when Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself, fearing those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy so that by their hypocrisy, even Barnabas was led astray. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, ‘If you, being a Jew, live like the Gentiles and not like the Jews, how is it that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?’” (Galatians 2:11–14).
In justifying wars and urging participation in them, people often cite the examples of holy warriors like George the Victorious, Theodore Stratelates, Alexander Nevsky, and so on. But did the Church canonize them for their military exploits? Did they become saints because they killed their fellow human beings in war? Clearly not.
Their fidelity to the Lord Jesus Christ, their active fulfilment of the commandment to love God and neighbor, their repentance, and their ascetic life – this is what led to their canonization. But the current political climate forces us to push all of this to the background, highlighting instead the historical facts that such-and-such a saint fought against certain enemies, defeated them, and drove them from his land.
But isn't this precisely the human tradition by which we nullify God's commandment? Isn’t this what Jesus Christ spoke about when He rebuked the Pharisees: “For you set aside the commandment of God and hold on to human tradition, the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do” (Mark 7:8).
Some people are very eager to wage war and impose their vision of the world by force of arms. This clearly contradicts God’s commandment, “Thou shalt not kill”, which unequivocally applies to aggressive war. So, something has to be devised that looks appealing and noble in the eyes of the people and disguises this contradiction with the Gospel teaching. And this is where the example of the holy warriors comes to the rescue. It all seems logical and correct. The same thing happened in the time of Christ. Some people were reluctant to spend their material resources on their elderly parents, but in the Law of Moses, there was a commandment to "honor father and mother". Human tradition came to the rescue, namely, the so-called “corban”, where instead of supporting their parents, a person would declare their resources “an offering to God”. And it was not even necessary to give them away; they could continue to use them themselves.
“And He said to them, ‘Is it right for you to set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your own tradition? For Moses said: ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or mother, let him be put to death.’ But you say, ‘If a man says to his father or mother, ‘Corban’ (that is, “an offering to God”), whatever benefit you might have received from me is now dedicated to God,’ then you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or mother, nullifying the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.” (Mark 7:9–13).
How then can we distinguish human tradition from Sacred Tradition? After all, they can coexist in the example of the same saint, be present in the works of the same hierarch.
The first sign by which we must recognise a tradition as human rather than sacred is if it directly contradicts Sacred Scripture. And not just a single quote taken out of context, but the very spirit of Scripture. For example, the current aggressive war is often justified by claiming that it is necessary to defend “the last stronghold of faith” from “the Satanic West” with weapons in hand.
But what could be more righteous and pious than defending Christ Himself? However, the Gospel tells us something entirely different. When Judas came with soldiers to the Garden of Gethsemane to arrest Jesus, the Apostle Peter drew his sword and courageously stood up to defend Christ: “Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. The servant’s name was Malchus” (John 18:10). But the Lord did not approve of this: “Then Jesus said to him, ‘Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword...’” (Matthew 26:52). Let’s think about that! The Lord says that even those who take up the sword to defend the Son of God will perish by the sword!
Here’s another situation: “And he sent messengers on ahead, who went into a Samaritan village to get things ready for him; 53 but the people there did not welcome him, because he was heading for Jerusalem. 54 When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, “Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them[a]?” 55 But Jesus turned and rebuked them, and said, ‘You do not know what manner of spirit you are of’” (Luke 9:52–55). This example has it all: the “righteous” anger of the apostles, the desire to stand up for Christ, and the reference to the example of the holy prophet Elijah. From a human point of view, everything seems correct and logical, but the Lord forbids them and says, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of.”
And then there are the most inconvenient words for war propagandists, spoken by Christ: “But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you...” (Matthew 5:44).
Perhaps the examples provided are sufficient to draw a clear conclusion: aggressive war directly contradicts the teaching of Christ, regardless of the motives or goals for which it is waged. Similarly, the difference between the teaching of the Gospel and human traditions can be traced in other matters: financial, social, personal, etc.
Another feature of “human tradition” is that it concerns earthly matters rather than the salvation of human souls. The Comprehensive Christian Catechism of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church provides this definition of Sacred Tradition: “Sacred Tradition is understood to be that which true believers and God-fearing people pass on to one another by word and example, and which ancestors hand down to their descendants: the teaching of faith, the law of God, the Sacraments, and sacred rites.”
In other words, anything that goes beyond these matters cannot be considered Sacred Tradition by definition.
Certainly, human tradition also has a right to exist, and saints can express their opinions on various issues: political, social, scientific, and so on. But when human tradition contradicts Sacred Tradition, it must be rejected.
The Lord reacted very sharply when the Apostle Peter placed human values above Divine ones: “From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day. Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, ‘Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!’ But He turned and said to Peter, ‘Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offence to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.’” (Matthew 16:21–23).
To think of the things of men to the detriment of the things of God is, according to Christ, true satanism. And in other Gospel episodes, Christ carefully avoided dealing with earthly, mundane, or political issues.
“Then those men, when they had seen the sign that Jesus did, said, ‘This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.’ Therefore when Jesus perceived that they were about to come and take Him by force to make Him king, He departed again to the mountain by Himself alone.” (John 6:14–15).
“Then one from the crowd said to Him, ‘Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.’ But He said to him, ‘Man, who made Me a judge or an arbitrator over you?’” (Luke 12:13–14).
When Christ was provoked into making political statements regarding Roman rule, He changed the very nature of the question:
“Then the Pharisees went and plotted how they might entangle Him in His talk. And they sent to Him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, ‘Teacher, we know that You are true, and teach the way of God in truth; nor do You care about anyone, for You do not regard the person of men. Tell us, therefore, what do You think? Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?’ But Jesus perceived their wickedness and said, ‘Why do you test Me, hypocrites? Show Me the tax money.’ So they brought Him a denarius. And He said to them, ‘Whose image and inscription is this?’ They said to Him, ‘Caesar’s.’ And He said to them, ‘Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.’” (Matthew 22:15–21).
In the First Epistle to Timothy, the Apostle Paul gives various instructions concerning a godly life and concludes:
“If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree to the sound instruction of our Lord Jesus Christ and godly teaching, they are conceited and understand nothing. They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between people of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain. From such withdraw yourself.” (1 Timothy 6:3–5).
In commentaries on this passage of Scripture, there are various understandings of what “otherwise” means. Some interpreters say that “otherwise” can be understood as “opposite” or “in disagreement”. For example, Christ teaches about loving one’s enemies, while someone else teaches hatred towards them. But “otherwise” can also be understood as “something different”, meaning a different subject of teaching. For instance, Christ speaks of mercy, while someone promotes social or political doctrines, from which indeed “envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions” often arise.
We must also pay attention to another sign given to us by the Apostle Paul. It is that people of “corrupt minds” believe that “godliness is a means to financial gain”. This gain can be understood as personal profit or benefit for the state, society, or some organization. The Apostle condemns when godliness, which should serve to bring a person closer to God, is used as a means to achieve earthly goals. And he gives us advice on what to do when we encounter people doing such things: “From such withdraw yourself.”
Today, within the Church, there is a visible struggle between those who want to preserve a medieval (so to speak) form of religiosity, saturated and oversaturated with human traditions, and those who want to live guided by the Gospel and the teachings of the Apostles of Christ. This struggle can be seen in Ukraine, Russia, Greece, and other countries, within Local Orthodox Churches, and in the relationships between these Churches (for example, the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the UOC).
In this situation, it is essential for every person to understand that not every tradition proclaimed as Sacred or ecclesiastical truly is so. And even more necessary is to learn to distinguish the commandments of God from human traditions.
