The traditions of men produce lives lived in vain. According to scripture, the word conversation means much more than merely words being spoken from one person to another. The context shows that the word refers to the way in which a person lives his life (2 Corinthians 1:12; 1 Peter 3:1). As such, those who build their lives upon the traditions of men may work very hard and be even deemed faithful. Yet, this life is all for naught because their lives are built upon vanity. Sadly, some of the most faithful followers of religion are those who are promoting the traditions of men from which they will gain no eternal benefits. The only conversation that proves fruitful in eternity is the one built upon the commandments of God.
Sometimes a deep chasm exists between the doctrines, traditions, and commandments of men and those that are God-ordained. Perhaps no passage better identifies this contrast than Mark chapter 7. The religious leaders of Christ’s day held “the tradition of the elders” (Mark 7:3, 5), “the tradition of men” (Mark 7:8), and their own “tradition” (Mark 7:9, 13). In doing so, they rejected “the commandment of God” (Mark 7:9). This clearly displays the critical importance of identifying whose traditions one willingly receives and accepts. If traditions are truly of the Lord, they are to be accepted and implemented into the believer’s life (2 Thessalonians 2:15). Yet, those man-made, unscriptural traditions are to be rejected altogether.
It is difficult to find one who has a scriptural balance concerning tradition. Some see every so-called tradition as a direct violation of scripture, while others see traditions as equal to or superior to scripture. Scripturally speaking, both views are fundamentally flawed. In a basic sense, traditions are anything that men “have been taught” (2 Thessalonians 2:15). It involves a teaching that has been “delivered” (Mark 7:13) and “received” (2 Thessalonians 3:6; 1 Peter 1:18). At times, tradition is scripture or, in the least, scriptural (2 Thessalonians 2:15; 2 Thessalonians 3:6), while at other times, tradition is ungodly and makes “the word of God of none effect” (Mark 7:13).
Men frequently focus upon David’s extreme failures but fail to realize that he also exemplified a tremendous example of someone who understood loyalty. King Saul’s antics would have allowed most people to justify not affording Saul the loyalty his position warranted. Even many of David’s men held to this position. Yet, we read that David felt and acted otherwise. Although Saul repeatedly attempted to kill David, David did not take advantage of any of his opportunities to kill Saul. The Bible says that he refused to stretch forth his hand against the LORD’S anointed. Instead, David decided to send a message to Saul by cutting off the skirt of Saul’s robe. Because of David’s loyalty, even this act immediately smote his heart. His godly character trumped his personal frustrations toward the very man who sought to bring him grave, personal harm. Although David’s men were prepared and able to take the most aggressive actions, David advised against it.
As the people had honoured the Lord, they had honoured Moses. When Moses placed his honour upon Joshua, he did so in order to encourage the people’s obedience and loyalty toward Joshua. Moses wanted the same loyalty that had been directed toward him now directed toward Joshua. God’s people could have risen up against Joshua thinking that he had not accomplished enough to merit their loyalty. Yet, the people respected the fact that Moses had directly placed his own honour upon his minister Joshua. The people emphatically accepted Moses’ message as reflected by their answer to Joshua: “According as we hearkened unto Moses in all things, so will we hearken unto thee: only the LORD thy God be with thee, as he was with Moses” (Joshua 1:17).
