What about the Oral Law?

Most Christians claim Rabbi Joshua ben Joseph (a.k.a. Jesus Christ) taught against the Oral Torah (Oral Law). They teach that the Oral Torah is merely the "traditions of men" -- but is this true?  Or do we need to reject the teachings of Christians as the "traditions of men?"

The Oral Torah is cited four times in the New Testament as being essential for spiritual understanding and maturity. 

"But didn't Jesus call it 'the traditions of men'?" 

No he did not! 

The phrase, "traditions of men," is found in only two places in the New Testament and in both places it refers to a first century custom (that left one's parents destitute) which was never part of the "tradition of the elders" or "Oral Torah" as preserved in the Talmud.  In these same two passages the disciples of Rabbi Joshua ben Joseph are accused of violating the "tradition of the elders" by not washing their hands before they ate.  At that time there was an ongoing debate about the washing of hands. Some said that it was necessary to wash your hands anytime you were going eat; while others said it was only necessary to wash hands before eating bread; still others said that it was only necessary to wash your hands before eating bread on Shabbat.  Today this is a bit of a moot point, since nearly all civilized people wash their hands before eating.

How Many Torahs Are There

Once a gentile asked one of the sages: "How many Torahs do you have?" Whereupon the sage answered, "Two; one Oral and one Written, as it says, 'These are the Statutes and Judgments, and Laws [Hebrew: "Torot" i.e. the plural of "Torah"], which HaShem made between Him and the Children of Israel at Mount Sinai by the hand of Moses." [Leviticus 26:46]

Let's look at some of the places in the New Testament where Oral Torah is specifically mentioned:  The first one is found in Acts 7:37-38 where Stephen says:

This is that Moses, who said to the children of Israel, Adonai your God shall raise up a prophet from your brethren, like me; him you will hear.  This is he [Moses], which was in the assembly in the wilderness with the angel that spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and to our fathers who received the inspired Oral Torah given unto us.

 [Note: the Greek "logian" refers to that which is transmitted orally rather than in writing.]

The second place we find mention of the Oral Torah is in Romans 3:1-2 where Paul writes:

What advantage does the Jew have? or what benefit is circumcision? MUCH IN EVERY WAY, chiefly because it was to them that the Oral Torah of God was committed.

The third place is in Hebrews 5:12-14:

For though you should, by this time, be teachers, you need someone to teach you all over again the very first principles of the Oral Torah of God; and have become like someone needing milk instead of solid food; because everyone who eats only milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness because he is just a baby; but solid food belongs to those who are adults -- those who are sharp witted enough to discern both good and evil.

 The fourth place is in 1Peter 4:11:

If any man teaches the Oral Torah of God, let him serve with the full ability that God has given: through Joshua [ben Joseph] the Messiah, that God, to whom be praise and dominion forever and ever, may be glorified in all things, Amen.

These, however, are not the only places where the Oral Torah is mentioned.  In Acts 28:17 Paul implies that he was a strict observer of the Oral Torah when he says that he did not do anything against the "customs of our fathers."

And so it happened, that after three days, Paul called all the prominent Jews together. When they were gathered together he said to them, "Men, brothers! Even though I have not committed anything against the people or against the customs of our fathers, I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans.

In 2Thessalonians 2:15 Paul mentions the "traditions," which was another way of referring to the Oral Torah:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether verbally or in writing.

The entire New Testament was originally [before the revisions of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th & 5th centuries] built upon two pillars: the Written Torah and the Oral Torah.  There is so much of the Oral Torah woven through the NT that one would think that parts of it were copied directly from the Mishna.

Why is the Oral Torah so important anyway?

The whole concept of Messiah is from the Oral Torah. Messiah is nowhere overtly mentioned in the text of the Tanakh (except for the mention of Messiah ben Joseph in the book of Daniel). The idea of a resurrection of the dead is from the Oral Torah.  This is why the Sadducees did not believe in a resurrection of the dead.  The idea of a final judgment in which each human being will have to answer for their actions is from the Oral Torah.  The idea that mercy and preservation of life are overriding principles of Torah are from the Oral Torah.  All of these are things that are specifically taught in the New Testament. q

Comments & Responses:

Shalom friends,

It has been suggested by one reader that I have "stretched" or "manipulated" some ideas to make them fit.  I must admit that I have stepped outside of convention here by interpreting the Greek "logian" as "oral law."  Anyone can look this word up in "Strong's" or "Thayer's" and find that the word means (according to these sources) "utterances" or, more specifically, "brief utterances."  I know it is not usually wise to refer to the KJV, but it is curious that the translators chose to render "logian" as "oracles" in every instance.  Would it not have been clearer to render it as "brief utterances" or as "words" (as some suggest).

According to the aforementioned reader, "The Rabbis have been doing this type of thing for about 2,200 years. They always manipulate Scriptural contexts to make something work...So, I suppose based on this principle, you are being nicely groomed to become a Rabbi.  If you keep doing what they are doing, you'll fit right in J."

Caveat Lector (Reader Beware!)  My articles are admittedly opinion pieces based on the teachings of Jewish Rabbis who (according to some) ALWAYS manipulate Scriptural contexts to make something work.

Could it be that Paul was wrong in Romans 3:2 and there really is no "advantage" or "benefit"? <grin>

Kol tov,
Shomeir

Hi Shomeir, thank you for your mail. I appreciate your opinions as well as your wisdom. It is good to hear different ideas and interpretations. Even those I may not agree with (at least at this point in time). I am especially wary of those who say 'I was wrong in the past, but I've GOT it now!"  This is a long path and to declare each bend or twist of the path as the ultimate truth isn't wise, we didn't build the path and we don't know what is ahead. We all learn from each other and aren't THERE yet. Be encouraged.
Shalom, Sal

Hang in there, Shomeir ... Chazak, chazak v'nit chazek .... you are doing the right thing.  Being a forerunner has a price tag.

Hadassah

 

Help this ministry with a tax deductible donation.
Click on the button below

  

[Home Page]