An Example of Disunity: Overcoming Meaningless Disputes Such as Origin of Oral Torah

It has come to my attention that within the context of the Messianic Jewish and Hebrew Roots communities, that there is a divisive issue regarding a particular teaching of the "Oral Torah." This debate has led to a great sadness on my part, and the part of many people who have become divided over this supposed issue. I call this a "supposed issue" because the debate that is going on really is not central to the life of a follower of Yeshua. Certainly, understanding what the debate is and what it means can cause confusion. However, at this time, this debate has gone far beyond what is acceptable amongst a community of believers and much healing and forgiveness is going to be required for us to continue to be a light of Yeshua and the way of Torah amongst both the Jewish and Christian communities:

First, what is the "Oral Torah?" I will simply refer to a fairly unbiased explanation that comes from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_oral_Torah

"According to Rabbinic tradition its [the oral Torah's] transmission came from Mount Sinai, where it is believed the prophet Moses had God revealed the Oral Torah along with the written. He then recited the information to the 70 elders and selected Levites. Many centuries later hundreds of scholars attempted a thorough reconstruction and wrote it down what was remembered of the oral law to record the debates over what it is and how it is to be interpreted.

Critics have rejected the idea Oral Torah as being "the word of God." As did tenth century Karaite author Salmon ben Yeruham who wrote his belief regarding recorded Oral Torah: "your deeds are but falsehood and rebellion against God…There is no true Law in them."

Historically speaking, the Pharisees composed the Orthodox rabbinic party and were its supporters.Whereas, the first century Jewish Historian
Flavius Josephus reports its opponents included: both the Sadducees party and the Essenes community.

Some of the first century common Jewish people were sometimes looked down at for not following or fully understanding the rabbinic oral code. The Samaritans
community still to this day, regret the authority of the Mishnah. In addition to the followers of John the Baptist, and the followers of Jesus of Nazareth (a first century Jew) later known as the "Christians," and the Karaites parties."

Historically, what can be said is that this was a contemporary debate, even amongst those in the first century. This is NOT a Christian debate, but a specific Jewish debate.

    As believers in Yeshua, we need to understand where we fit into this discussion on a broad scale. First, Yeshua was more closely associated with the Pharisaical sect than with the other sects. If he were a Sadducee, then he would have been part of the Levites who worked in the Temple. He would not have gone to a synagogue and he would never have spoken in favor of resurrection. Also, he would not have been an Essene because he did not withdraw from the impious, nor did he live exclusively in the wilderness. He often interacted with "the regular person" and was even accused of tolerating tax collectors and sinners. The Pharisee sect was very numerous, they interacted and had debate in synagogues, they were not in alignment with themselves, and used a teacher-disciple organizational structure. Obviously, Yeshua had disciples. By using these cultural markers, it is clear that Yeshua was most closely aligned with the Pharisees of his day.

    Now, when we use the term "Rabbinic" today, we are in fact using a term that refers to this sect of Pharisees. However, by 90 AD, Pharisaical Judaism began to be unified and codified. The Sadducees were eliminated in 70 AD, along with the Second Temple. The records of the Essenes also seems to die out by the end of the first century. After the Roman destruction of Jerusalem, the only remaining lines of Judaism were primarily the Pharisaical sect of those who did NOT follow Yeshua and those that did believe in Yeshua. By 90 AD, the rabbinic/Pharisaical sect had been dealing with a very specific strain of thought that had taken hold within Judaism—Jews who believe that Yeshua was the Messiah. All of the New Testament writings had been in circulation for 50-60 years by 90 AD, and so these Jews who did not believe in Yeshua as the Messiah had to develop a rationale for rejecting Yeshua. These leaders from Javneh, where Rabbinic Judaism originated, were second and third generation Jews living post-Yeshua. Furthermore, the Acts 15 Council of Jerusalem had been resolved for more than 40 years (roughly 50 AD.) So believing Judaism was a strong force in Jewish life following the Temple's destruction, both within Israel and within the Diaspora.

    Where is there evidence that there was a Pharisaical backlash against followers of Yeshua the Messiah? Consider some of these verses: In Acts 21-25, the text says "the Jews" wanted to bring Paul to trial in the Temple. However, Paul understood, as did the Romans to whom he continuously appealed for years, that "the Jews" were going to kill him. Obviously, "these Jews" did not follow Torah very closely because they violated Torah commandments, as Paul mentioned frequently in his defense. What were they primarily accusing him of? First, they were offended that he suggested that Yeshua was the Messiah; but this debate had been left unresolved in Jerusalem for the time, because there were enough believers that offset those who did not believe. A type of status quo had been reached, where believing Jews were able to remain part of the Jewish communities. However, what Paul told them next was a further offense to the Jews of his day: that non-Jews, or Gentiles, were able to become part of the family as well. Acts 22:21-22 " And he said to me, 'Go, for I will send you far away to the Gentiles.'" Up to this word they listened to him. Then they raised their voices and said, "Away with such a fellow from the earth! For he should not be allowed to live." Later on, Acts 24:10-21 ¶ And when the governor had nodded to him to speak, Paul replied: "Knowing that for many years you have been a judge over this nation, I cheerfully make my defense. ¹¹ You can verify that it is not more than twelve days since I went up to worship in Jerusalem, ¹² and they did not find me disputing with anyone or stirring up a crowd, either in the temple or in the synagogues or in the city. ¹³ Neither can they prove to you what they now bring up against me. ¹⁴ But this I confess to you, that according to the Way, which they call a sect, I worship the God of our fathers, believing everything laid down by the Law and written in the Prophets, ¹⁵ having a hope in God, which these men themselves accept, that there will be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust. ¹⁶ So I always take pains to have a clear conscience toward both God and man. ¹⁷ Now after several years I came to bring alms to my nation and to present offerings. ¹⁸ While I was doing this, they found me purified in the temple, without any crowd or tumult. But some Jews from Asia-- ¹⁹ they ought to be here before you and to make an accusation, should they have anything against me. ²⁰ Or else let these men themselves say what wrongdoing they found when I stood before the council, ²¹ other than this one thing that I cried out while standing among them: 'It is with respect to the resurrection of the dead that I am on trial before you this day.'"

    So, Paul was on trial for being a follower of Yeshua (called "the Way,"). The Way believed in resurrection, as did the Pharisees, but the Way believed in a particular resurrection, which Paul was defending. He also proclaimed that his ministry was with Gentiles. Since Felix was a Gentile married to a Jew, this was of particular interest to him. This is evidenced by the fact the Felix kept Paul in prison for over two years, never allowing him to be sent to the Sanhedrin for trial. So, we can see that there were believing Jews, and these Jews were part of the mainstream of belief during that day. We also see that there were persecutions by some Jewish leaders against the believers.

    We also read about another situation, prior to the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). In Galatians, there were some non-believing Jews who were stirring up the non-Jewish believers. Jews were trying to convince the non-Jews that becoming Jewish (being circumcised) was necessary for salvation. In other words, non-Jews could not be saved apart from becoming Jewish. Paul defends against this idea, as we read in Galatians 5:1-9,
"For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery. ² ¶ Look: I, Paul, say to you that if you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you. ³ I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole law. ⁴ You are severed from Christ, you who would be justified by the law; you have fallen away from grace. ⁵ For through the Spirit, by faith, we ourselves eagerly wait for the hope of righteousness. ⁶ For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love. ⁷ You were running well. Who hindered you from obeying the truth? ⁸ This persuasion is not from him who calls you. ⁹ A little leaven leavens the whole lump." To be clear, "the law" is not exactly connoting "the Torah" in the way that we think of this, but rather some other sets of laws accepted in that time. This is where the issue of "the Oral Torah" comes into the picture. To be clear, Paul says that a person does not need to become a Jew to be saved. (Now, as Christians and some Messianic Jews might say, he doesn't prohibit it either, but this was never the issue in Galatia.) The issue was that there was pressure by non-believing Jews on believing non-Jews to become Jews in order to be saved. And in Galatia, that meant a denial of Yeshua as the Messiah. Already, before 50 AD, there is a movement amongst Jews to prevent people from believing in Yeshua as Messiah. But Paul rightly explains that Messiah was for all, not just Jews alone.

    So, in this section, we understand that some Jews made some "laws" that they expected others to follow. Yeshua Himself says that these "laws" were not from God, but were man-made and cannot be considered equal to the Torah laws given by God. Consider the whole discussion of what Yeshua says in Matthew 23. Here is just one sample, Matthew 23:23-24
²³ "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness. These you ought to have done, without neglecting the others. ²⁴ You blind guides, straining out a gnat and swallowing a camel!" There was the Torah, which describes the important issues of justice, mercy, and faithfulness. These are the aspects of Torah that Yeshua emphasizes. But he criticizes the Pharisees (those closest to him he says harsher words) for their legalisms regarding how they tithe. In other words, the man-made laws added to the Torah was not the point of the Torah.

    Here is the point. As believers, we understand that Yeshua and Paul and the authors of Scriptures had issues with those from the other Jewish sects that called certain man-made laws or traditions, "Torah." These man-made laws were not part of Torah, nor accepted as Torah. In today's terms, many of these "man-made" laws are part of the Rabbinic tradition, even today. And today, there may be even more man-made traditions from Torah than there were in the days of Yeshua. First, man-made traditions are not "Torah." By Torah, I mean "written Torah." These man-made traditions are often found in Jewish writings such as the Talmud. Because Yeshua and Paul are very clear about specific man-made traditions found in Judaism, this does not mean that Yeshua and Paul were abolishing all man-made traditions. This simply is not the case.

    Having established this background, we can now discuss what the Oral Torah is:

First, we do not have any idea what the Oral Torah is conclusively. There is not agreement amongst Jews if Oral Torah is from God through Moses or if they are traditions established by the ancient Sages. Second, the Talmud is not equal to Oral Torah. The Oral Torah ceased being Oral when it was written down. Also, the ones that wrote it down were biased against the believing Jewish point of view. Third, if Oral Torah did come from God, it is impossible to discern for sure which parts of Talmud and other writings are part of the Oral Torah and which are not. Fourth, Oral Torah is different from Written Torah. Written Torah is the WHAT to do aspect of Torah. The Oral Torah could simply be considered "HOW to do it." Today we have all sorts of interpretations that explain HOW we keep Torah. At the very least, an Oral Torah perspective could be considered "an interpretation." If not contradicted by Written Torah, it may or may not be helpful for understanding certain aspects of Written Torah. As believers, we have the Holy Spirit Who can help us discern Truth. Finally, in regards to understanding the context of Scripture, there are very few academics who do not find some aspects of Talmud at the very least explanatory to the understanding of Written Torah.

Having concluded that there is no agreement about what is Oral Torah, one must consider what we ought to do with this information:

First, as believers, we are bound by the whole of Scripture, which includes the Torah, the Prophets, the Writings (TeNaKh), and the New Testament (B'rit Chadashah.) We agree that the Torah tells us about the Messiah Yeshua and we believe the account from the apostles of who Yeshua is. He is the Messiah. And we also affirm that the Torah explained that Adonai, HaShem would become man, and this man would be Messiah, and this man was Yeshua. Messiah is not less that Adonai, Messiah is Adonai.

Second, as Jews, we have a rich tradition of literature. As Christians, too, we have an additional tradition of literature. (This sounds as if we could have a double identity, which in our contexts is exactly the point.) As either Jews or Christians, no one accepts ALL forms of literature, or all books within a corpus of literature to be equal, correct, or even valid. They are just man-made attempts to understand the One who does not require us to understand Him. This would include Talmud. A believer is not bound by the authority of the Talmud, nor the authority of Orthodox rabbis nor the rabbinic tradition. See Matthew 16:18-20. Yeshua Messiah gave "the keys" (a euphemism for halachic authority) to His disciples. In other words, believers are bound by the authority of the New Testament, not man-made interpretations of Scriptures.

Finally, in regards to the Oral Torah, since it is not written down in Scripture, and since it may or may not be contained in Jewish literature, it simply is a mystery as to what it is and where it is. This difficulty also carries along with it cultural baggage that must be explained: The Eastern European Jewish mindset has always been that the Oral Torah was equal to Talmud. This is how the American and European Jewish/Christian scholarship explains Oral Torah. However, prior to the writing down of all Scripture, all Scripture was at some point oral. In Africa, all traditions have been handed down orally. Even to this day, when African children learn in school, their teacher is very likely not to use books, but rather oral recitation, rhythmic songs or chants that recite information, or oral storytelling. Missionaries in Africa often use oral storytelling when they encounter a people group without a native orthography. African Americans tell story using rap music or other forms of music and poetry. An Oral retelling of Scripture (i.e. the Bible), when done accurately, is equal to a Written retelling of Scripture. For that matter, a translation of Scripture into English is a written "retelling" of the Hebrew or Greek original language. Furthermore, it is clear that the New Testament was retold orally for some number of generations before it was compiled into cannon. So, one must understand if they are referring to Oral Torah in a European sense—the Talmud—or are they referring to the Oral Torah in an African sense—an oral retelling. These two connotations are not the same. If one understands Oral Torah in a European sense, then they would believe that everything in Talmud (Oral Torah) did not come from God, but was created by the rabbinic tradition. This is true because Yeshua Himself declared judgments by the Pharisees to be invalid. However, if Oral Torah is viewed in an African way, then the Oral Torah refers only to what God gave at Mt. Sinai. It is a theoretical construct which may or may not be true. It is reasonable to believe that when God said to make a mixture of oils for the Menorah that He gave what the mixture was to Moses and how much of each ingredient. We don't have this explanation in Scripture. This would be an example of Oral Torah, or an oral tradition. As to whether or not that has equal weight as Scripture is irrelevant because we have neither the Menorah, nor the Tabernacle, nor the oil. However, when there is a Tabernacle or a new Temple and a Menorah, someone will probably make the required oils. And they probably will glean this information from Jewish literature, primarily Talmud. Again, Oral Torah is the HOW to do something, while Written Torah is WHAT to do. An African view of Oral Torah is simply a different way of looking at this issue. It does not mean Talmud equals Torah.

In conclusion, this great sadness has descended upon our community because one set of leaders has accused another set of leaders of mishandling Scripture. This sort of behavior must come to an end. This sadness is causing an unnecessary division in fellowship. There are situations where friends are set against other friends simply because they must choose which leader that they desire to follow. The reality is that any Jewish community has a multiplicity of leaders, a "beit din" for those who understand that concept. (Beit din is an accurate concept which in Greek is rendered ekklesia, or in English "church.") There are no dictatorships, no theological monarchies in the kingdom of God. In Numbers, we read that each tribe was set up in its own tribe, and that each tribe had leaders of tens, hundreds, and thousands. The Sanhedrin described in Deuteronomy 16 was made up of judges and officers. There is great danger when ascribing one's loyalty to one leader only. Even Moses established other leaders to do varying ministries. When he died, Israel was grieved, but there was a plurality of leaders in place—Joshua, Eleazar, the heads of tribes, the heads of the Levites, prophets and judges. No one was just loyal to one person. When we get tied down by interpersonal disputes, we waste a great amount of time. When one person calls another person a heretic, it serves no purpose. We are kept from doing the great work that Messiah commissioned us to do, to go out into all the world (not just Israel and Jewish communities), to make disciples of ALL nations, preaching about the kingdom of God, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, teaching them all of the commandments (i.e. the Torah). When our community can lift itself out of this great sadness, then we can pool our resources together to proclaim a true Good News from the Torah, we will have unity in the community, people from the nations will desire to know God and be baptized, become disciples, and learn God's Word. We are His servants, and we need to behave as His servants. God loves all of us as we are, and we need to learn to love Him as He is. Only then can we love our neighbors as ourselves. When will this happen? When we repent!