Kinzer's A BIBLICAL DEFENSE OF ORAL TORAH

[Open Heart]

You all may find this article very interesting. A lot of Messianics are against Oral Torah because they agree with the Protestant teaching of Bible only. But can you have Bible only and follow the Torah?

"Is the Written Torah sufficient for instructing the Jewish people in how we should live as individuals, families, and local communities? While it is certainly foundational and indispensable, it is not sufficient. The Torah requires a living tradition of interpretation and application if it is to be practiced in daily life. This is due in part to the lack of detail in its legislation. As Michael Fishbane notes, “frequent lacunae or ambiguities in their legal formulation tend to render [biblical]…laws exceedingly problematic – if not functionally inoperative – without interpretation.” Thus, the Torah forbids all work (melachah) on Shabbat, but it nowhere defines the meaning of melachah. Similarly, it commands that we “afflict ourselves” on Yom Kippur, but it does not tell us what this means in practice. When the Torah teaches about unclean birds, it does not provide any criteria for distinguishing the clean from unclean (as it does for mammals and for fish), but only lists examples. Is this a complete list? What about birds of prey that are not listed?
file:///C:/Users/Owners/Desktop/2003_Jewish_Tradition_Kinzer.pdf

 

[pat34lee]

You all may find this article very interesting. A lot of Messianics are against Oral Torah because they agree with the Protestant teaching of Bible only. But can you have Bible only and follow the Torah?

Yes

"Is the Written Torah sufficient for instructing the Jewish people in how we should live as individuals, families, and local communities? While it is certainly foundational and indispensable, it is not sufficient. The Torah requires a living tradition of interpretation and application if it is to be practiced in daily life. This is due in part to the lack of detail in its legislation. As Michael Fishbane notes, “frequent lacunae or ambiguities in their legal formulation tend to render [biblical]…laws exceedingly problematic – if not functionally inoperative – without interpretation.” Thus, the Torah forbids all work (melachah) on Shabbat, but it nowhere defines the meaning of melachah. Similarly, it commands that we “afflict ourselves” on Yom Kippur, but it does not tell us what this means in practice. When the Torah teaches about unclean birds, it does not provide any criteria for distinguishing the clean from unclean (as it does for mammals and for fish), but only lists examples. Is this a complete list? What about birds of prey that are not listed?
file:///C:/Users/Owners/Desktop/2003_Jewish_Tradition_Kinzer.pdf

Why bother with other birds which are probably unclean? There are enough that we know are edible.

Some details do not matter. How close can I walk to a cliff before it crumbles and I fall to my death? I think I'll just stay away from the edge.

 

[Open Heart]

Why bother with other birds which are probably unclean? There are enough that we know are edible.

But that is your approach. Another person may want the freedom to eat as many birds as possible. And it doesn't work if different people in the community are doing different things. How can you eat at one another's homes?

 

[Hank77]

My goodness, oral law tells you which shoe to put on first!! I'm sure the Lord is really concerned about which shoe one puts on first.
If I were ever to follow any Jewish guidelines it would not be the Talmud and other oral laws written by Pharisees. Where does it say in the Law to strap little boxes to ones head and left arm, it doesn't.

I would have to only follow what the Karaite Jews follow.

 

[pat34lee]

But that is your approach. Another person may want the freedom to eat as many birds as possible. And it doesn't work if different people in the community are doing different things. How can you eat at one another's homes?

By following the written law, not someone's interpretation that adds to it.

 

[Open Heart]

My goodness, oral law tells you which shoe to put on first!! I'm sure the Lord is really concerned about which shoe one puts on first.

Yes it does. There is a point at which it goes too far, which is why my observance is Conservative and not Orthodox.

 

[Open Heart]

Yes it does. There is a point at which it goes too far, which is why my observance is Conservative and not Orthodox. Conservative Jews have a healthy respect for Oral Torah, but they interpret it differently. You have to realize that the Talmud MUST be interpreted. There are lots in the Talmud that are examples of wrong rulings.

 

[Lulav]

My goodness, oral law tells you which shoe to put on first!! I'm sure the Lord is really concerned about which shoe one puts on first.
If I were ever to follow any Jewish guidelines it would not be the Talmud and other oral laws written by Pharisees. Where does it say in the Law to strap little boxes to ones head and left arm, it doesn't.

I would have to only follow what the Karaite Jews follow.

Deut. 5

7 You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up. 8"You shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontals on your forehead. 9"You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.…

 

[Lulav]

You all may find this article very interesting. A lot of Messianics are against Oral Torah because they agree with the Protestant teaching of Bible only. But can you have Bible only and follow the Torah?

"Is the Written Torah sufficient for instructing the Jewish people in how we should live as individuals, families, and local communities? While it is certainly foundational and indispensable, it is not sufficient. The Torah requires a living tradition of interpretation and application if it is to be practiced in daily life. This is due in part to the lack of detail in its legislation. As Michael Fishbane notes, “frequent lacunae or ambiguities in their legal formulation tend to render [biblical]…laws exceedingly problematic – if not functionally inoperative – without interpretation.” Thus, the Torah forbids all work (melachah) on Shabbat, but it nowhere defines the meaning of melachah. Similarly, it commands that we “afflict ourselves” on Yom Kippur, but it does not tell us what this means in practice. When the Torah teaches about unclean birds, it does not provide any criteria for distinguishing the clean from unclean (as it does for mammals and for fish), but only lists examples. Is this a complete list? What about birds of prey that are not listed?
file:///C:/Users/Owners/Desktop/2003_Jewish_Tradition_Kinzer.pdf

Yes, it is good to find practical observance but I think what some of the Gentiles are leary of is because of what Yeshua said.

Mark 7:1 Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. 2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault. 3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. 4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables. 5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me,

teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. 10For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: 11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. 12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; 13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

 

[Open Heart]

By following the written law, not someone's interpretation that adds to it.

But you are NOT just following the written law. You are also interpreting it.

 

[Open Heart]

Yes, it is good to find practical observance but I think what some of the Gentiles are leary of is because of what Yeshua said.

Mark 7:1 Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. 2 And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say, with unwashen, hands, they found fault. 3 For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. 4 And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables. 5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?

6 He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.

7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me,

teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

9 And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition. 10For Moses said, Honour thy father and thy mother; and, Whoso curseth father or mother, let him die the death: 11 But ye say, If a man shall say to his father or mother, It is Corban, that is to say, a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; he shall be free. 12 And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; 13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

Jesus chided the Pharisees for two things:
1 Their hypocrisy: they didn't practice what they preached
2 They didn't have their priorities straight, they would keep the oral torah and screw up on the Torah

But Jesus backed up following the oral Toral. He quoted it all the time. And in Matthew 23, he backed it up pretty thoroughly. In verses 2-3 he says the pharisees sit in Moses seat and to do and observe EVERYTHING they teach. Then later in the chapter he deals with the spice tax, an oral law. He tells them to get their priorities straight, to pursue justice etc first, BUT THEN TO PAY THE SPICE TAX. IOW the oral law was still in effect.

 

[Steve Petersen]

Most 'Bible onlyists' think that the sages just made things up. Occasionally this may be true, but most of the time their opinions are based on the Torah using certain hermeneutic principles. If we took the time to learn those principles, I think that it is easier to understand how they came to that opinion.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0009_0_08805.html

 

[Open Heart]

Most 'Bible onlyists' think that the sages just made things up. Occasionally this may be true, but most of the time their opinions are based on the Torah using certain hermeneutic principles. If we took the time to learn those principles, I think that it is easier to understand how they came to that opinion.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0009_0_08805.html

Fantastic website.

 

[Josephus]

Yes it does. There is a point at which it goes too far, which is why my observance is Conservative and not Orthodox.

If I told you that Jesus put on his shoes in the same order, for a divinely inspired purpose that is deeply connected to Torah, would that change your mind about dismissing it so easily?

 

[Josephus]

G-d gave Moses three things:

Exodus 24:12
“And the LORD said unto Moses: ‘Come up to Me into the mount and be there; and I will give thee the tables of stone, and the Torah and the commandment, which I have written, that thou mayest teach them.'”

The Tablets, the Torah, and the mitzvah for their instruction. One proceeds from the other. From the Tablets, the Torah is extracted, from the Torah, the miztvah. What is the mitzvah? That which was instructed.

It is a sign of exile ignorance to say that what is Oral Torah is not found in the Written Torah. The point is, many have forgotten where, and thus assume it is not found in the Written Torah. But I can assure you that one can logically extract the full and complete details of Tefillin, as well as the full and complete details of what is and is not kosher, as well as any other matter of halacha that is a mitzvah which is instructed, aka taught through from one teacher to another student orally. Whatever is halacha, aka what many call the Oral Torah, is in fact fully extractable from the Written Torah itself. The increasing ignorance of such an understanding in every generation though adds to the confusion and false belief that it is not found such.

It is interesting to note that in Judaism, the belief is that Messiah will reveal where everything in the Oral Torah is expanded from the Written Torah, just as the entirety of the Written Torah is expanded from the 10 Words which were engraved by the finger of G-d on stone tablets.

 

[pat34lee]

Most 'Bible onlyists' think that the sages just made things up. Occasionally this may be true, but most of the time their opinions are based on the Torah using certain hermeneutic principles. If we took the time to learn those principles, I think that it is easier to understand how they came to that opinion.

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0009_0_08805.html

Actually, if you look at how they made many of their decisions, you will see there is no system. They create decisions from whole cloth. They took
Exodus 23:2 "Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment:"
And use it to justify majority rules, which means that a majority of Rabbis can overrule Yahweh. They also claim that they are always right, even when they are proven to be wrong.

 

[pat34lee]

G-d gave Moses three things:

Everything that Yah gave Moses was written down. Everything that Moses passed down to Joshua was written down. When they entered the promised land, Joshua read everything that Moses wrote to the people. There was nothing else. The law was lost twice in Old Testament times. Any oral law would have been lost also. Twice. Good thing for them it was only invented after the Babylonian exile.

 

[pat34lee]

If I told you that Jesus put on his shoes in the same order, for a divinely inspired purpose that is deeply connected to Torah, would that change your mind about dismissing it so easily?

Not a chance. He was messiah, not Forrest Gump.

 

[Hank77]

Deut. 5

7 You shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up. 8"You shall bind them as a sign on your hand and they shall be as frontals on your forehead. 9"You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.…

"The laws governing the wearing of phylacteries were derived by the Rabbis from four Biblical passages (Deut. vi. 8, xi. 18; Ex. xiii. 9, 16). While these passages were interpreted literally by most commentators (comp., however, Ibn Ezra and RaShbaM on Ex. xiii. 9), the Rabbis held that the general law only was expressed in the Bible, the application and elaboration of it being entirely matters of tradition and inference (Sanh. 88b)...."
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/12125-phylacteries

You can take that literally but let me ask you this. When the Lord describes the clothing of the high priest He is very descriptive but not so in these verses. He gives no description of how to make them, what they look like, and there isn't anyway one could literally keep all Torah bound to the head and hand, so did He mean to literally tie something to the head and hand, or was He saying, keep it in your heart and soul, and bind them to your actions and thoughts?

Deu 11:18 `And ye have placed these my words on your heart, and on your soul, and have bound them for a sign on your hand, and they have been for frontlets between your eyes;
Deu 11:19 and ye have taught them to your sons, by speaking of them in thy sitting in thy house, and in thy going in the way, and in thy lying down, and in thy rising up,
Deu 11:20 and hast written them on the side-posts of thy house, and on thy gates,
H7194=bound, bind
קשׁר
qâshar
kaw-shar'
A primitive root; to tie, physically (gird, confine, compact) or mentally (in love, league): - bind (up), (make a) conspire (-acy, -ator), join together, knit, stronger, work [treason].

The hand here is the 'yod' the open hand, doing them willingly, between the eyes or before you always seeing them.

Oral Torah

Oral Law was written by men who were attempting to interrupt scripture. They didn't always agree between themselves. Even Rambam and Rashi didn't always agree. The Talmud, etc. are commentaries just like the commentaries written by Christian men.
There is so much that is traditions that has nothing to do with anything written in scripture, such as the four cups of wine with the Passover feast or the Kippah.

 

[Open Heart]

If I told you that Jesus put on his shoes in the same order, for a divinely inspired purpose that is deeply connected to Torah, would that change your mind about dismissing it so easily?

Of course.