2 Thessalonians 2:15

_ _ Therefore — God’s sovereign choice of believers, so far from being a ground for inaction on their part, is the strongest incentive to action and perseverance in it. Compare the argument, Philippians 2:12, Philippians 2:13, “Work out your own salvation, FOR it is God which worketh in you,” etc. We cannot fully explain this in theory; but to the sincere and humble, the practical acting on the principle is plain. “Privilege first, duty afterwards” [Edmunds].

_ _ stand fast — so as not to be “shaken or troubled” (2 Thessalonians 2:2).

_ _ hold — so as not to let go. Adding nothing, subtracting nothing [Bengel]. The Thessalonians had not held fast his oral instructions but had suffered themselves to be imposed upon by pretended spirit-revelations, and words and letters pretending to be from Paul (2 Thessalonians 2:2), to the effect that “the day of the Lord was instantly imminent.”

_ _ traditions — truths delivered and transmitted orally, or in writing (2 Thessalonians 3:6; 1 Corinthians 11:2; Greek, “traditions”). The Greek verb from which the noun comes, is used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:23; 1 Corinthians 15:3. From the three passages in which “tradition” is used in a good sense, Rome has argued for her accumulation of uninspired traditions, virtually overriding God’s Word, while put forward as of co-ordinate authority with it. She forgets the ten passages (Matthew 15:2, Matthew 15:3, Matthew 15:6; Mark 7:3, Mark 7:5, Mark 7:8, Mark 7:9, Mark 7:13; Galatians 1:14; Colossians 2:8) stigmatizing man’s uninspired traditions. Not even the apostles’ sayings were all inspired (for example, Peter’s dissimulation, Galatians 2:11-14), but only when they claimed to be so, as in their words afterwards embodied in their canonical writings. Oral inspiration was necessary in their case, until the canon of the written Word should be complete; they proved their possession of inspiration by miracles wrought in support of the new revelation, which revelation, moreover, accorded with the existing Old Testament revelation; an additional test needed besides miracles (compare Deuteronomy 13:1-6; Acts 17:11). When the canon was complete, the infallibility of the living men was transferred to the written Word, now the sole unerring guide, interpreted by the Holy Spirit. Little else has come down to us by the most ancient and universal tradition save this, the all-sufficiency of Scripture for salvation. Therefore, by tradition, we are constrained to cast off all tradition not contained in, or not provable by, Scripture. The Fathers are valuable witnesses to historical facts, which give force to the intimations of Scripture: such as the Christian Lord’s day, the baptism of infants, and the genuineness of the canon of Scripture. Tradition (in the sense of human testimony) cannot establish a doctrine, but can authenticate a fact, such as the facts just mentioned. Inspired tradition, in Paul’s sense, is not a supplementary oral tradition completing our written Word, but it is identical with the written Word now complete; then the latter not being complete, the tradition was necessarily in part oral, in part written, and continued so until, the latter being complete before the death of St. John, the last apostle, the former was no longer needed. Scripture is, according to Paul, the complete and sufficient rule in all that appertains to making “the man of God perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Timothy 3:17). It is by leaving Paul’s God-inspired tradition for human traditions that Rome has become the forerunner and parent of the Antichrist. It is striking that, from this very chapter denouncing Antichrist, she should draw an argument for her “traditions” by which she fosters anti-Christianity. Because the apostles’ oral word was as trustworthy as their written word, it by no means follows that the oral word of those not apostles is as trustworthy as the written word of those who were apostles or inspired evangelists. No tradition of the apostles except their written word can be proved genuine on satisfactory evidence. We are no more bound to accept implicitly the Fathers’ interpretations of Scripture, because we accept the Scripture canon on their testimony, than we are bound to accept the Jews’ interpretation of the Old Testament, because we accept the Old Testament canon on their testimony.

_ _ our epistle — as distinguished from a “letter AS from us,” 2 Thessalonians 2:2, namely, that purports to be from us, but is not. He refers to his first Epistle to the Thessalonians.