Recently, Jeff Durbin (a James White wannabe) gave a sermon in defence of Sola Scriptura. One of the main "proofs" he used was the denunciation of the tradition of the Korban rule by Jesus in Matt 15/Mark 7. The Markan account reads as follows:
The Pharisees and the scribes asked him, "Why do your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hearts?" And He said to them, "Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written: 'This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far away from me. But in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.' Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men." He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death'; but you say, 'If a man says to this father or his mother, whatever I have that would help you is Corban (that is to say, given to God),' you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or his mother; thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that." (Mark 7:5-13 NASB; cf. Matt 15:1-9)
Before we begin, let us answer the question: What is the Korban rule? As one scholar put it:
The word “Let it be Korban whereby I am profitable to thee” is a form of solemn prohibition found, word for word as in the Gospel, in the Talmud. The meaning is, not that such alienated goods or services were really dedicated as an “offering,” but that they were to be regarded as if they had been dedicated.
The passage has been illumined from the Jewish side by J. Levy, who cites the relevant parallels from the Babylonian Talmud, Nedar I.4, ii.2, and iii.2. In the last passage there is a close parallel to Mk. Vii.11:
If anyone sees several persons eating fits that belong to him and says, “They are Korban with regard to you” (i.e., they are forbidden you), but afterwards discovers that as well as strangers his father and brothers are among them, then, according to the School of Shammai, his relatives are not bound by the Korban, but may partake of the figs; the strangers are bound by it. According to the School of Hillel, on the other hand, the relatives also are bound, even though the Korban has been pronounced with regard to them in error. And if anyone expressly lays such a Korban on his relatives, then they are bound by it and cannot receive anything from him that is covered by the Korban. (Matthew Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts [2d ed.: Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1954], 101. Emphasis in original)
Does this event in the ministry of Christ prove the formal sufficiency of the Bible? The answer is a resounding “no.”
Firstly, it should be noted that Jesus, when he spoke these words to His opponents, was living at a time of divine revelation. Even according to Protestantism, for sola scriptura to be true and operative, there has to be tota scriptura. Notice the following from Catholic apologist Robert Sungenis:
Evangelical James White admits: “Protestants do not assert that Sola Scriptura is a valid concept during times of revelation. How could it be, since the rule of faith to which it points was at the very time coming into being?” (“A Review and Rebuttal of Steve Ray's Article Why the Bereans Rejected Sola Scriptura,” 1997, on web site of Alpha and Omega Ministries). By this admission, White has unwittingly proven that Scripture does not teach Sola Scriptura, for if it cannot be a “valid concept during times of revelation,” how can Scripture teach such a doctrine since Scripture was written precisely when divine oral revelation was being produced? Scripture cannot contradict itself. Since both the 1st century Christian and the 21st century Christian cannot extract differing interpretations from the same verse, thus, whatever was true about Scripture then also be true today. If the first Christians did not, and could not extract sola scriptura from Scripture because oral revelation was still existent, then obviously those verses could not, in principle, be teaching Sola Scriptura, and thus we cannot interpret them as teaching it either. (“Does Scripture teach Sola Scriptura?” in Robert A. Sungenis, ed. Not by Scripture Alone: A Catholic Critique of the Protestant Doctrine of Sola Scriptura [2d ed: Catholic Apologetics International: 2009], pp. 101-53, here p. 118 n. 24])
Further, as Sungenis (ibid., 152) notes that:
[T]he problem with the Pharisees was not traditions, per se, but their refusal to form a synthesis of Scripture and divine Tradition that preserved the teaching of Scripture but allowed tradition to serve its main purpose, that is, to expound and enhance Scripture. They made their tradition contradict Scripture instead of using tradition to support Scriptural teaching. This principle is seen more clearly in the passage Jesus quote from Isaiah. In Isaiah 29:11 the prophet speaks of the neglect of Scripture among the Jews:
For you this whole vision is nothing but words sealed in a scroll. and if you give the scroll to someone who can read, and say to him, "Read this, please," he will answer, "I can't, it is sealed." Or if you give the scroll to someone who cannot read, and say, "Read this, please," he will answer, "I don't know how to read."
Here we see Isaiah complaining that the people have rejected the words of God written in scrolls by giving child-like excuses, i.e., "it is sealed" and "I don't know how to read." This language reveals that the people had reached such a point in their apostasy that they refused even to read God's words. We also find that their blindness to God's revelation is a product of God's wish to blind them to his truth because of their unrepentance. Isaiah 29:10 records:
The Lord has brought over you a deep sleep: He has sealed your eyes (the prophets); he has covered your heads (the seers).
Here we see that God is not neutral when men reject him. He will increase and prolong their blindness to his truth. The result of the blindness is that they make excuses that scrolls are sealed and they are unable to read. In effect, their inability to consult and discern God's word is from the condition of blindness that God has given them. Not being able to consult God's word, they resort to a man-made religion of trivial, useless, and often immoral traditions.
Finally, it should be noted that the historical understanding of sola scriptura is not a wholesale denunciation of traditions, but a subordination of tradition (alongside creeds and other authorities) to the inscripturated revelation. A wholesale rejection of traditions and other sources outside the Bible is Sol*o* scriptura (or, to use Keith Mathison's terminology from his 2001 book, The Shape of Sola Scriptura, tradition type 0 as opposed to tradition type 1 [which is the historical Protestant view]). Using this event in the way many Protestant apologists do undermines, not supports, their epistemology. If Jesus contrasts tradition to Scripture, then there is no room for tradition in Israel's day unless, of course, one concedes that Jesus accepted at least some of the tradition of Israel. if such is the case, then Jesus cannot be condemning tradition, per se, in Mark 7/Matt 15. In reality, he is only condemning one type of tradition--the tradition which distorts the commands of God, which the Korban rule clearly did.
Apart from being based on eisegesis, the common Protestant abuse of this event in the life of Christ would necessitate, if they were consistent, reject all traditions and hold to, not sola, but sol*o* scriptura.
Durbin ended his defence referencing 1 Cor 4:6 where Paul tells the Corinthians not to go beyond what is written. He somehow views this as evidence of sola scriptura. Here are some pages dealing specifically with this passage which refutes Durbin's eisegesis of this passage:
The verse does not support Sola Scriptura (“the cry of sola scriptura!” to quote Durbin) unless one jettisons meaningful exegesis, which Durbin did throughout his sermon, and Protestant apologists must do to prop up biblical support for this man-made doctrine.
Durbin appealed to other passages, including Isa 8:20--for a discussion of other passages cited in favour of his man-made doctrine, click here. In terms of this sermon/defence of sola scriptura, I would have to agree with one commentator who said, "Not a single coherent argument for the nonsensical doctrine of Sola Scriptura, awful video.”
