παράδοσις

The Greek word paradosis has the distinction of appearing in the New Testament with two opposite valences. In some passages, it names something the church is to reject — the “tradition of men” that nullifies the commandment of God. In other passages, it names something the church is to hold fast — the “traditions” that Paul delivered to the churches, by which they were to stand firm.

Same Greek word. Different evaluations.

The passages where paradosis is rejected are some of the most pointed in the Gospels. In Mark 7, the Pharisees challenge Jesus about His disciples not washing their hands before eating, “according to the tradition of the elders.” Jesus’s response is one of the most cutting in the Synoptic record:

“And he said to them, ‘You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God in order to establish your tradition! For Moses said, “Honor your father and your mother”… but you say, “If a man tells his father or his mother, Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban” (that is, given to God) — then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother, thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down.’” (Mark 7:9-13)

Three times in the passage Jesus uses paradosis. He attacks the tradition of the elders. He says they have rejected the commandment of God to establish their tradition. He concludes by accusing them of making void the word of God by their tradition that they have handed down. The implication is clear: this kind of paradosis — human tradition that displaces or contradicts God’s word — is not just neutral or mistaken but actively destructive of true religion.

The passages where paradosis is affirmed are equally striking. In 1 Corinthians 11:2, Paul commends the Corinthians “because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.” A few verses later he introduces his teaching on the Lord’s Supper with the formula: “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you” (1 Corinthians 11:23) — using the paradosis vocabulary in its verb form. In 1 Corinthians 15:3-5 he uses the same vocabulary to introduce his summary of the resurrection gospel — “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received.” And in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 he writes: “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.”

Same Greek word paradosis. Different content. Different evaluation.

This chapter is about that word — and about the distinction between the paradosis the church is to reject and the paradosis the church is to hold fast.

The Word

The Greek word is παράδοσις (paradosis), pronounced in the Erasmian convention as pa-RA-do-sis, with the accent on the second syllable. The word is a third-declension feminine noun and appears thirteen times in the New Testament.

The etymology is a compound. Para- is the Greek preposition meaning “alongside,” “beside,” “to” — it carries the sense of bringing something across or beside someone. Dosis is from the verb didōmi (to give), meaning “giving” or “the thing given.” The compound paradosis literally names “a giving alongside” — the act of placing something into another’s hands, the transmission of something from one party to another. The translation tradition (from Latin traditio, which is the literal Latin equivalent of paradosis) captures this exactly: a traditio is what has been handed down (Latin tradere — to deliver, to hand over).

The word family is theologically substantial:

Paradidōmi (παραδίδωμι) — to hand over, to deliver, to entrust. The verb form of the same compound. Used hundreds of times in the New Testament. Three usage clusters deserve attention.

First, the most loaded use: paradidōmi is the standard New Testament verb for the betrayal of Jesus. Mark 14:10, 18, 21, 41 — Judas paradidōmi (hands over, betrays) Jesus to the chief priests. The verb’s range — to hand over — accommodates both delivery and betrayal, both faithful transmission and treacherous surrender. The same word that can name the church’s faithful delivery of the gospel can name Judas’s betrayal of the Lord.

Second, the resurrection-gospel use: paradidōmi names the transmission of authoritative teaching from teacher to disciple. 1 Corinthians 11:23 — “what I also delivered to you.” 1 Corinthians 15:3 — “what I also delivered.” Romans 6:17 — “the standard of teaching to which you were committed” (the verb in passive form). Jude 3 — “the faith that was once for all delivered (paradoteisē) to the saints.”

Third, the providential use: paradidōmi is used for God’s act of handing over Christ for the world’s salvation. Romans 4:25 — Jesus “was delivered up (paredothē) for our trespasses.” Romans 8:32 — “He who did not spare his own Son but delivered him up (paredōken) for us all.” The same verb that named Judas’s betrayal of Christ also names the Father’s purposeful handing-over of Christ for the world’s salvation.

Paradosis (παράδοσις) — tradition, what is handed down. The chapter’s main word.

Paralambanō (παραλαμβάνω) — to receive, to take alongside. The counterpart verb. Used at 1 Corinthians 11:23 — “what I received from the Lord, I also delivered to you.” 1 Corinthians 15:3 — “what I also received, I also delivered.” The pair paralambanō + paradidōmi — receive and deliver — names the pattern of faithful transmission across generations. Each generation receives what the previous generation delivered; each generation delivers to the next what they have received.

The relationship between these words is structurally important for the New Testament’s doctrine of tradition. The faithful teacher receives (paralambanō) what has been given to him; the faithful teacher delivers (paradidōmi) what he has received; the body of teaching transmitted in this pattern is the paradosis.

The Septuagint background of paradosis is moderate. The Greek term appears in the LXX, often for the act of giving over or handing over. The Hebrew vocabulary for tradition or transmission includes terms like masorah (handing down, the basis of the later Masoretic textual tradition) and qabbalah (receiving, the basis of the later Kabbalistic mystical tradition). The Hebrew religious vocabulary developed an extensive tradition of “the tradition of the elders” — the rabbinic interpretations, applications, and elaborations of the written Torah that were transmitted orally from teacher to disciple. This is the body of paradosis that Jesus confronts in Mark 7.

Two Old Testament passages bear on the New Testament development.

Deuteronomy 4:2 — “You shall not add to the word that I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you.” The foundational statement against adding to or subtracting from God’s word. The rabbinic tradition that elaborated the law would, in Jesus’s critique, end up doing precisely what Deuteronomy 4:2 forbids.

Proverbs 30:5-6 — “Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a liar.” The wisdom tradition’s affirmation of the same principle.

The Old Testament’s pattern is consistent. God’s word is to be received, preserved, taught, and transmitted unchanged. Adding to it or subtracting from it is not faithful preservation but corruption. The legitimate transmission of God’s word — the paradosis in its positive sense — is faithful delivery, not human elaboration.

Range of Meaning

Paradosis in the New Testament covers two principal ranges:

Human tradition that supplements or contradicts God’s word (negative use). Mark 7:3, 5, 8, 9, 13 (five uses in one passage). Matthew 15:2, 3, 6. Colossians 2:8. Galatians 1:14. The pattern: human traditions are added to God’s word, develop their own authority, and end up displacing or contradicting what God has said. Jesus’s critique of the Pharisaical paradosis is the most extensive treatment.

Apostolic tradition that the church is to receive and preserve (positive use). 1 Corinthians 11:2, 23. 1 Corinthians 15:3. 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 3:6. The pattern: the apostles received the gospel from Christ; the apostles delivered it to the churches; the churches are to receive it, hold fast to it, and deliver it to the next generation faithfully. The apostolic paradosis is what the New Testament writings themselves contain — the gospel summary, the Lord’s Supper teaching, the resurrection witness, the doctrinal pattern.

The distinction between the two ranges is theologically important. The same Greek word covers both. Discernment is required to identify which is which. The standard for the distinction is God’s word itself: paradosis that accords with God’s word is the apostolic tradition the church must preserve; paradosis that contradicts or displaces God’s word is the human tradition the church must reject.

Where You’ll Meet It

Mark 7:1-13 (and parallel Matthew 15:1-9). Jesus’s confrontation with the Pharisees and scribes over the tradition of the elders. The Greek phrase: tēn paradosin tōn presbyterōn — “the tradition of the elders.”

The passage develops the most extensive New Testament treatment of paradosis in its negative sense. Several features matter.

First, the specific issue is hand washing. The Pharisees and scribes have noticed that Jesus’s disciples eat without first performing the ceremonial hand washing the rabbinic tradition required. This is not the kind of hand washing meant for hygiene; this is the elaborate ritual washing that the rabbinic tradition had developed over centuries as the supposed application of the Mosaic purity laws to ordinary life.

Second, Jesus’s response goes immediately to the principle. He quotes Isaiah 29:13: “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me; in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.” The Pharisaical tradition has reached the status of doctrine (didaskalia, the previous chapter’s word) while remaining merely human commandment. The tradition has been promoted to a status it does not deserve.

Third, Jesus’s example of how the tradition displaces God’s word is the Corban practice. The fifth commandment requires the honoring of father and mother, which includes material support of aged parents. The rabbinic tradition had developed the practice of Corban — declaring one’s resources “given to God” — which exempted the declarer from supporting his parents. The technical legal status of Corban was treated as overriding the commandment to honor father and mother. Jesus identifies this as the heart of the problem: the human tradition makes void the word of God.

Fourth, the broader pastoral concern. The Pharisaical traditions were not, in their original intent, evil. They were the rabbinic tradition’s attempt to apply God’s law to particular life situations. The problem developed gradually: tradition added to law, then equal with law, then in practice replacing law where the two diverged. By Jesus’s time the tradition had reached the status where it could overrule the explicit commandments of God on specific matters.

The Lutheran tradition has read this passage as the perennial warning against any tradition that develops its own authority alongside or above Scripture. The Pharisaical pattern is not unique to first-century Judaism; it recurs in every religious community. The medieval Roman Catholic development of tradition as co-authoritative with Scripture is, in Lutheran reading, the same pattern repeated in Christian form. The Reformation’s sola Scriptura was, at one level, the application of Jesus’s critique of the Pharisaical paradosis to the medieval church.

1 Corinthians 11:2. “Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you.” The Greek: kathōs paredōka hymin tas paradoseis katechete.

The verse uses paradosis in its positive sense. Paul commends the Corinthians for holding fast to the traditions he delivered to them. The verb katechō (to hold fast, to retain firmly) names the right disposition toward the apostolic paradosis: not just remembering but holding firmly, not just hearing but preserving.

The context of the verse is significant. Paul is introducing his teaching on church order (the head coverings discussion that follows in 11:3-16, and the Lord’s Supper teaching in 11:17-34). His commendation precedes his correction. He acknowledges what the Corinthians are doing rightly — holding the apostolic traditions — before he addresses where their practice has gone wrong.

The implication is direct. There is an apostolic paradosis the church is to hold. Some of it concerns doctrine; some concerns worship practice; some concerns ethics. The whole pattern of teaching the apostles delivered is the church’s paradosis, and the church’s faithfulness includes holding all of it.

1 Corinthians 11:23-26. “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, ‘This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way also he took the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” The Greek of verse 23: egō gar parelabon apo tou kyriou, ho kai paredōka hymin.

The verse uses the paired verbs paralambanō (received) and paradidōmi (delivered) — the receive-and-deliver pattern that names the faithful transmission of paradosis. Paul received from the Lord what he delivered to the Corinthians. The transmission is faithful; what Paul received is what he delivered; what the Corinthians received from Paul is what Paul received from the Lord.

The content delivered is the Lord’s Supper teaching. The institution narrative — bread, cup, body, blood, new covenant, remembrance, proclamation of the Lord’s death — is paradosis in its purest form. Paul did not invent the teaching; he received it and delivered it. The Corinthian church receives it and is to deliver it. The Lord’s Supper has been celebrated in the church for two thousand years in fundamentally the same words because the paradosis has been preserved.

This is one of the most important New Testament texts for the doctrine of the sacraments as paradosis. The Lord’s Supper, with its specific words and its specific theological substance, is what Christ Himself delivered to the apostles, what the apostles delivered to the churches, what the churches have delivered to subsequent generations. The Lutheran practice of celebrating the Lord’s Supper according to Christ’s own institution rests on this paradosis.

1 Corinthians 15:3-5. “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.” The Greek of verse 3: paredōka gar hymin en prōtois ho kai parelabon.

The verse uses the same paired vocabulary as 11:23 — paradidōmi and paralambanō. Paul delivered what he received. And the content delivered is the gospel itself in its core summary: Christ died for our sins, was buried, was raised, appeared. The earliest Christian creedal statement — most scholars date this gospel summary to within a few years of the resurrection itself — is paradosis in its purest form.

The implication is theologically substantial. The gospel itself is paradosis. The early church did not develop or invent the message; the apostles received it from Christ and delivered it to the churches. The New Testament writings themselves are the inscripturation of this paradosis — what the apostles received and delivered, now preserved in writing for the church across generations.

For the Lutheran tradition, this grounds the relationship between Scripture and tradition. Scripture is the inscripturated paradosis — the apostolic teaching put into writing. The tradition of the church across the centuries is the continued preservation and transmission of this same paradosis, normed by Scripture, articulated in the church’s confessions and creeds, lived out in the church’s worship and life. There is no Scripture-versus-tradition opposition in the New Testament; there is Scripture as the written form of the apostolic paradosis, and the church’s task is to receive, preserve, and deliver what Scripture contains.

2 Thessalonians 2:15. “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter.” The Greek: stēkete kai krateite tas paradoseis has edidachthēte, eite dia logou eite di’ epistolēs hēmōn.

The verse names both forms of the apostolic paradosis: the spoken word and the written letter. The Thessalonian believers have received Paul’s teaching both ways — in his preaching when he was with them, and in his letters when he was apart from them. Both forms are part of the paradosis they are to hold.

Two implications matter. First, the apostolic paradosis is not only the written New Testament. The apostles taught orally as well as in writing; the early churches received both forms; the early church preserved both. The question becomes how the post-apostolic church preserved what was originally oral as well as what was originally written. The Lutheran answer is that the substance of the oral apostolic teaching is preserved in the written New Testament — the church does not have access to apostolic teaching independent of the written form, but the written form contains what the apostles taught. There is no separate “secret oral tradition” alongside Scripture.

Second, the believer’s task is to “stand firm and hold.” The verb stēkō (to stand firm) and krateō (to hold fast, to grip firmly) name the believer’s active preservation of the paradosis. The transmission is not automatic; it requires active holding by each generation that receives it.