The New Testament writers frequently rely on the transmission of tradition, both oral and written, as a source of theological truth. One striking example is the recurring reference to the law being “put into effect by angels.”
Consider the following passages:
- Acts 7:53: “You who have received the law that was given through angels but have not obeyed it.”
- Galatians 3:19: “The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator.”
- Hebrews 2:2-3: “For since the message spoken through angels was binding, and every violation and disobedience received its just punishment, how shall we escape if we ignore so great a salvation?”
Where does this idea of the law being mediated by angels originate? It is not found in Genesis or anywhere else in the Old Testament Scriptures. Yet Luke, Paul, and the author of Hebrews attest to its truthfulness. The author of Hebrews even uses this tradition to argue that the Mosaic law is inferior to the New Covenant, reasoning that while the former was delivered by angels, the latter was delivered directly by Christ Himself. This demonstrates how real traditions, even those outside the written Scriptures, were preserved and recognized as authoritative.
Paul provides further insight into this reliance on tradition. In 2 Timothy 3:8-9, he warns Timothy about deceivers in the Church, referencing two individuals:
“Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so also these teachers oppose the truth. They are men of depraved minds, who, as far as the faith is concerned, are rejected. But they will not get very far because, as in the case of those men, their folly will be clear to everyone.”
Who are Jannes and Jambres? They are not mentioned anywhere in the Scriptures. However, both Paul and Timothy seem to be familiar with them as part of a tradition passed down outside of the biblical text, which Paul treats as authoritative.
Similarly, Jude references two extra-biblical traditions:
- Jude 1:9: “But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, ‘The Lord rebuke you!’”
- Jude 1:14-15: “Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied about them: ‘See, the Lord is coming with thousands upon thousands of his holy ones to judge everyone, and to convict all of them of all the ungodly acts they have committed in their ungodliness, and of all the defiant words ungodly sinners have spoken against him.’”
The dispute over Moses’ body is found in The Assumption of Moses, while the prophecy of Enoch is drawn from The Book of Enoch, a text written roughly two centuries before Christ. Strikingly, Jude quotes The Book of Enoch directly, treating it as authoritative—even though Enoch’s life occurred before the time of Noah.
Another example of extra-biblical tradition appears in Hebrews:
- Hebrews 11:36-37: “Still others had trial of mockings and scourgings, yes, and of chains and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn in two, were tempted, were slain with the sword.”
While Scripture records instances of individuals being mocked, stoned, or slain by the sword, there is no mention of anyone being sawn in two. This detail comes from The Ascension of Isaiah (5:1-14), which describes Isaiah’s martyrdom.
What do these examples reveal? None of the texts referenced—The Assumption of Moses, The Book of Enoch, or The Ascension of Isaiah—are considered inspired Scripture by any Christian tradition. Yet the biblical writers draw from them to preserve traditions that they view as reliable and authoritative. This underscores the importance of tradition in conveying truth about God. As Paul reminds us, believers are called to receive divine teaching through both oral and written tradition (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:15).
In these instances, we see that even uninspired writings can serve as vessels for preserving real traditions, and the New Testament authors confidently incorporate these traditions into their theological framework. This highlights the dynamic relationship between Scripture and tradition in the life of the early Church.