Jesus and the Oral Law

[Shaul]

I would like to get comments from Christians especially on a tautology showing Jesus observed the Oral Law. Here it is:

1) The celebration of the Festival of Dedication (which is Hannukah) is found in the Oral Law, not the Written Law.
2) Jesus of Nazareth visited the Temple during the Festival of Dedication as recorded in John chapter 10.
3) Therefore Jesus accepted the Oral Law.

Comments?

 

[Estro Felino]

In the Gospels there are surely all references to the most important events that a Rabbi like Jesus was supposed to attend.

 

[pearl]

2) Jesus of Nazareth visited the Temple during the Festival of Dedication as recorded in John chapter 10.

John 7 would be a better reference.

10But when his brothers had gone up to the feast, he himself also went up, not openly but [as it were] in secret.
14When the feast was already half over, Jesus went up into the temple area and began to teach.

3) Therefore Jesus accepted the Oral Law.

Mt 23:2-3
"The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses.
Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.

 

[Lain]

I would like to get comments from Christians especially on a tautology showing Jesus observed the Oral Law. Here it is:

1) The celebration of the Festival of Dedication (which is Hannukah) is found in the Oral Law, not the Written Law.
2) Jesus of Nazareth visited the Temple during the Festival of Dedication as recorded in John chapter 10.
3) Therefore Jesus accepted the Oral Law.

Comments?

I do not think #3 is justified, it depends on the contents of said law, observing an act of it does not mean accepting all of it. The Lord paid the Temple tax but did not see it as necessary but as a condescension. Moreover, does the account of Him attending this feast indicate that He saw it as a Law or is it just saying He attended?

 

[Shaul]

John 7 would be a better reference.

10But when his brothers had gone up to the feast, he himself also went up, not openly but [as it were] in secret.
14When the feast was already half over, Jesus went up into the temple area and began to teach.



Mt 23:2-3
"The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses.
Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.

John 7 would not apply. It references the Festival of the Tabernacles which is Sukhot, not Hannukah.

The salient point is that Jesus did not object to celebrating Hannukah. Yet some Christians today claim that the Oral Law is not relevant.

 

[Shaul]

I do not think #3 is justified, it depends on the contents of said law, observing an act of it does not mean accepting all of it. The Lord paid the Temple tax but did not see it as necessary but as a condescension. Moreover, does the account of Him attending this feast indicate that He saw it as a Law or is it just saying He attended?

Observing a Law, or mere attending if you prefer, does give at least the imprimatur of approval. It certainly precludes opposition. Also, since it is included in the account it lends credence to his approval. If he, and the nascent church, did not approve then they could have simply left the detail out and avoided the prospect all together. Since they didn’t that evinces they had no objection to Hannukah and therefore by extension the Oral Law which is its basis.

 

[Lain]

Observing a Law, or mere attending if you prefer, does give at least the imprimatur of approval. It certainly precludes opposition. Also, since it is included in the account it lends credence to his approval. If he, and the nascent church, did not approve then they could have simply left the detail out and avoided the prospect all together. Since they didn’t that evinces they had no objection to Hannukah and therefore by extension the Oral Law which is its basis.

Not being opposed to an act does not mean that there is approval of an obligation is what I am saying. Many continued until the Lord destroyed the Temple to continue various observances, there is no reason to leave such a detail out it is all over various works. But not being opposed to the Oral Law (inasmuch as it is that) is something I agree with He had, as in my opinion He made it, which is why I follow it. Moreover, I think that none should ignore it for inasmuch as it is Law it is to be followed, as all things the Lord did. All my opinion of course.

 

[Psalm23]

I would like to get comments from Christians especially on a tautology showing Jesus observed the Oral Law. Here it is:

1) The celebration of the Festival of Dedication (which is Hannukah) is found in the Oral Law, not the Written Law.
2) Jesus of Nazareth visited the Temple during the Festival of Dedication as recorded in John chapter 10.
3) Therefore Jesus accepted the Oral Law.

Comments?

What is Oral Law and what does Oral Law include?

 

[Shaul]

What is Oral Law and what does Oral Law include?

The Oral Law is a revelation that was given to Moses at Sinai. He was instructed to transmit it orally.
ORAL LAW - JewishEncyclopedia.com

 

[Sedim Haba]

There would not BE anything called Oral Law in Yeshua's day.

There was a Sanhedrin seated back then, so there would just be Laws given by the court.

'Oral' law came much later after the Sanhedrin was abolished and ceased to be.
Then the notes and decisions and debates from the court were written down into the Mishnah,
(Talmud) mostly from the memories of the court ex-members. Hence 'Oral'.

That all being said, Yeshua absolutely accepted the Laws of the court, said they 'Sit in Moshe's seat'.

 

[Stonetree]

There would not BE anything called Oral Law in Yeshua's day.

There was a Sanhedrin seated back then, so there would just be Laws given by the court.

'Oral' law came much later after the Sanhedrin was abolished and ceased to be.
Then the notes and decisions and debates from the court were written down into the Mishnah,
(Talmud) mostly from the memories of the court ex-members. Hence 'Oral'.

That all being said, Yeshua absolutely accepted the Laws of the court, said they 'Sit in Moshe's seat'.

Is the carpenter's son's practice of Judaism in question?

 

[metis]

There would not BE anything called Oral Law in Yeshua's day.

There was a Sanhedrin seated back then, so there would just be Laws given by the court.

'Oral' law came much later after the Sanhedrin was abolished and ceased to be.
Then the notes and decisions and debates from the court were written down into the Mishnah,
(Talmud) mostly from the memories of the court ex-members. Hence 'Oral'.

That all being said, Yeshua absolutely accepted the Laws of the court, said they 'Sit in Moshe's seat'.

But the oral law exited prior to Jesus' time as there were writings and commentaries after Moshe and his boys were long gone. Matter of fact, we can view the non-prophetic books as being a large part of that commentary system even though they got penned and are found in the Tanakh.

 

[pearl]

The salient point is that Jesus did not object to celebrating Hannukah. Yet some Christians today claim that the Oral Law is not relevant.

I don't think there is question that Jesus observed the Oral Law, but in the theology of John these (Tabernacles, Sukkoth, Tents, Booths), with its symbols of booths (originally built to shelter harvesters), rain (water from Siloam poured on the temple altar, and lights (illumination of the four torches in the Court of the Women), continue the theme of the replacement of feasts,
(Passover, Hanukkah, Pentecost), accomplished by Jesus as the Living Water.

 

[Sedim Haba]

But the oral law exited prior to Jesus' time as there were writings and commentaries after Moshe and his boys were long gone. Matter of fact, we can view the non-prophetic books as being a large part of that commentary system even though they got penned and are found in the Tanakh.

Yes, it existed but mostly for scholars and Rabbis. Common people (such as a carpenter)
just knew the practical laws, the legal rulings. Isn't the same true today? Citizens basically
know the laws without needing to be Lawyers.

BTW those days there were many books floating around, nothing was canonized but Torah.
(There was no Tanakh yet)

 

[Shaul]

There would not BE anything called Oral Law in Yeshua's day.

There was a Sanhedrin seated back then, so there would just be Laws given by the court.

'Oral' law came much later after the Sanhedrin was abolished and ceased to be.
Then the notes and decisions and debates from the court were written down into the Mishnah,
(Talmud) mostly from the memories of the court ex-members. Hence 'Oral'.

That all being said, Yeshua absolutely accepted the Laws of the court, said they 'Sit in Moshe's seat'.

Wrong. The Sanhedrin ruled applying both the Written and Oral Laws. Your description of the Talmud is also quite inaccurate and erroneous.

The fact that the Gospels record the celebration of Hannukah during Jesus’ time is evidence that the Oral Law was already established by his time. That is because the celebration of Hannukah is only recorded and proscribed in the Oral Law and is not covered or even mentioned in the Written Law.

 

[Sedim Haba]

Wrong. The Sanhedrin ruled applying both the Written and Oral Laws. Your description of the Talmud is also quite inaccurate and erroneous.

But of course you disagree with my viewpoint, you are a Talmudic Jew and I am a Karaite Jew.

To me the Sanhedrin, established by Torah, also had to abide by Torah namely Deuteronomy 4:2
'Do not add or subtract'. Therefore the court could only make decisions based on a written Law.
Not create NEW laws. But that's just our differences which really can't be debated here in a DIR
as this isn't a debate forum. So we will have to agree to disagree.

Certainly Hannukah was celebrated but was it a decision of the court to command it's observance,
... or just common custom? Do we have court records from that time? (IDK actually)

Now, I'd like to comment on this whole thread. You specifically ask Christians (non-Jews) to
give opinions on Oral law. Which means they will most likely study such law to answer.
You DO realize that it's forbidden for them to study Talmud, right? Today they can do that online
easy enough. SO you are leading them to commit a serious offense . (Sanhedrin 59a) (Chagigah 13a)

I myself recently lost a debate with a Christian because of this, that I could not quote
source material and was forced to rely on outside proofs, which of course he rejected.

 

[metis]

Yes, it existed but mostly for scholars and Rabbis. Common people (such as a carpenter)
just knew the practical laws, the legal rulings. Isn't the same true today? Citizens basically know the laws without needing to be Lawyers.

Plus, the vast majority of people back then did not have personal access to Torah, which is why the Temple and synagogues were so very important to attend.

BTW those days there were many books floating around, nothing was canonized but Torah.
(There was no Tanakh yet)

Correct.

As a side-bar, it was the development and use of the commentary system within Judaism that was partially replicated so as to have Christian sermons/homilies. Also, the Writings of the Patriarchs in the early Church also was basically considered to be the on-going Christian-commentary system over centuries and is still used today in some denominations.

 

[Rival]

***THREAD MOVED TO RELIGIOUS DEBATES***​